[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14227-14232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three 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 three 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 Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea robusta), Georgia bully
(Sideroxylon thornei), and Rio Grande cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi).
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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
[[Page 14228]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanco blind salamander.......... FWS-R2-ES-2021-0128
Georgia bully.................... FWS-R4-ES-2021-0129
Rio Grande cooter................ FWS-R2-ES-2021-0132
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate
person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanco blind salamander and Rio Grande Adam Zerrenner, Field
cooter. Supervisor, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office,
adam_zerrenner@fws.gov, 512-
490-0057 x248.
Georgia bully.......................... Peter Maholland, Deputy Field
Supervisor, Georgia Ecological
Services Field Office,
peter_maholland@fws.gov, 706-
208-7512.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 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 by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of
these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (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 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 Act's 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
[[Page 14229]]
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 Georgia bully and Rio
Grande cooter meet the Act's 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. In conducting our evaluation
of the Blanco blind salamander, we determined that it either: (1) Does
not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a
result, we conclude that it is not a listable entity; or (2) is
extinct. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files,
and other available published and unpublished information for all of
these species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
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 these species do 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 Georgia bully and Rio
Grande cooter is presented in each species' species status assessment
(SSA) report. The species assessment form and the review report for the
Blanco blind salamander contain more detailed taxonomic information, a
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that
the Blanco blind salamander either does not meet the Act's definition
of a ``species'' or is extinct. This supporting information can be
found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). The following are
informational summaries for the findings in this document.
Georgia Bully
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including Georgia bully (Sideroxylon thornei), as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a partial 90-day
finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 374
of the species, including Georgia bully. The finding stated that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
Georgia bully may be warranted due to disease or predation. This
document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list Georgia bully under the Act.
Summary of Finding
A member of the Sapotaceae family, Georgia bully is a shrub or
small tree that grows up to 6 meters (20 feet) in height, and is
sometimes multi-stemmed but not extensively clonal. Georgia bully is
known to occur in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The species has been
found in at least 29 counties and five watersheds (Altamaha,
Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee-Escambia, Mobile Bay-Tombigbee, and
Ogeechee) in 3 southeastern States: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The
stronghold of the distribution is in the Apalachicola watershed in
Georgia.
Georgia bully is restricted to riparian forests and forested
wetlands (i.e., swamps, bottomland forests, and depressional wetlands),
where the species occurs most often in habitats developed over
limestone (i.e., calcareous substrates), particularly in Georgia.
Georgia bully requires shaded to partly shaded habitat conditions
within a mostly intact forest overstory. The species requires wet soils
and periodic inundation from flooding to provide a competitive
advantage to Georgia bully since many other plant species do not
tolerate flooding disturbance (e.g., decrease in oxygen, carbon
dioxide, and light). Georgia bully reproduces sexually through
pollination and fruit set, and asexually through vegetative means
(e.g., shoots, fragments, or clones).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Georgia bully, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these stressors. The primary threats affecting
Georgia bully's biological status include habitat destruction and
modification (including urbanization and land use change), and impacts
to hydrology from climate change. We examined a number of other
factors, including inherent factors (small population size), nonnative
and invasive species, disease (insect damage), and predation (deer
herbivory), and found that these factors may exacerbate the effects of
the primary factors, but do not rise to such a level that affected the
species as a whole.
Causes of habitat destruction and modification are urbanization and
conversion to agricultural and silvicultural uses, including forest
structure alteration due to timber harvest. Georgia bully is expected
to be influenced by changes to the hydrologic regime, including periods
of drought and flooding. Extended periods of drought may allow other
species that outcompete Georgia bully to become established. Increased
flooding events may reduce the ability for Georgia bully seedlings to
become established if habitat is saturated during the germination
period.
Despite impacts from the primary stressors, the species has
maintained the majority of its historical occurrences throughout its
range. Georgia bully currently has 16 moderately or highly resilient
populations across its range in 45 populations in 3 States. Each of the
five watersheds where Georgia bully occurs contains at least two
moderate or highly resilient populations. Moderate and highly resilient
Georgia bully populations are able to recover from stochastic events
and are characterized by larger populations with recruitment and/or
reproduction in habitats with intact mature overstory, wide riparian
vegetated buffers, and minimal hydrological alteration. Existing
protections for the species are in place with approximately 46 percent
of populations on protected lands, including the two largest
populations. Threats continue to impact Georgia bully and its habitat,
and effects from these impacts may result in a decrease in habitat
quality and quantity across the species' range; however, ongoing
conservation actions offer some protection to the species.
Our future scenarios assessment included four elements of change
(e.g., urbanization, land use, climate-
[[Page 14230]]
influenced hydrology, and site-specific habitat factors) to assess the
viability of Georgia bully at 30- and 60-year time steps. Upon
examining the current trends and future forecast scenarios, we expect
that the primary threats (habitat destruction and modification due to
urbanization and land use change, and hydrology impacts associated with
climate change) will continue to impact Georgia bully. Impacts to
Georgia bully's population resiliency generally increase over time and
with increased threats, including the threat of climate change effects.
The species' representation has not declined between historical and
most recent surveys, and the species' representation is expected to
decline slightly under each future scenario. As moderate or highly
resilient populations will persist across all watersheds, a broad level
of representation is likely to be maintained over time. However, the
adaptive capacity of the species will be reduced in the future as the
projected population extirpations reduce the number of viable
populations on the landscape, thus reducing the species potential
ability to adjust to changing conditions. Georgia bully has retained
redundancy based on multiple moderate and highly resilient populations
being spread across its historical range in five watersheds; however,
into the future, we expect the species' redundancy to decline as
population resiliency is reduced, thereby impairing the species'
ability to withstand and recover from catastrophic events such as
storms and droughts. Although we predict some continued impacts from
stressors in the future, we anticipate the species will be represented
by moderate and highly resilient populations into the foreseeable
future throughout its range, supported by the occurrence of 21 of the
45 known populations on protected lands and the species' ability to
reproduce vegetatively (e.g., shoots, fragments, or clonal) and through
pollination and fruit set giving populations additional opportunities
to maintain and expand. Given projections for quality and quantity of
habitat and the number of healthy (moderate to high resiliency)
populations, we conclude that the species is likely to maintain the
ability to withstand stochasticity, catastrophic events, and novel
changes in its environment for the foreseeable future. Based on these
conditions, Georgia bully's current risk of extinction is very low.
Furthermore, we did not find any evidence of a concentration of threats
at any biologically meaningful scale in any portion of the species'
range.
Therefore, we find that listing Georgia bully 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
Georgia bully species assessment and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Rio Grande Cooter
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received a petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles, including the
Rio Grande cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), as endangered or threatened
under the Act and to designate critical habitat. On July 1, 2015, we
published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for 21 species, including the Rio Grande cooter (80 FR
37568). The finding stated that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the Rio Grande cooter may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; and regulatory
mechanisms inadequate to address these threats. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list
the Rio Grande cooter under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rio Grande cooter is a medium-to-large freshwater turtle (100-
370 millimeters (3.9-14.6 inches)) that lives in the spring pools,
streams, and rivers found within portions of the Rio Grande/R[iacute]o
Bravo watershed of the United States and Mexico. The species' range
includes the Pecos River basin of New Mexico and Texas; the Devils
River basin of Texas; the Rio Grande basin of Texas (below the Big Bend
region) and Coahuila, Nuevo Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas, Mexico; the
R[iacute]o Salado basin of Coahuila, Nuevo Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas,
Mexico; and the R[iacute]o San Juan basin of Coahuila, Nuevo
Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas, Mexico. Within these five major river
basins, Rio Grande cooter habitat includes the freshwater systems and
the riparian habitat adjacent to them. The current distribution of the
species is similar to its historical distribution.
As a mostly aquatic species, adequate water quality and water
quantity are central to the Rio Grande cooter's ability to forage,
survive, and reproduce. Water must be of adequate depth to provide
protection from predation and within temperature ranges that allow for
thermoregulation. Further, contaminants and other harmful constituents
in water must be absent or below thresholds that would cause acute or
chronic toxicity to Rio Grande cooter or the resources upon which they
rely for survival, growth and reproduction. The Rio Grande cooter also
requires water flows that allow for individual movements for breeding,
nesting, and retreating from areas of unsuitable habitat. Additionally,
the Rio Grande cooter requires upland nesting habitat with loose soils
near water where eggs will be adequately thermoregulated and safe from
inundation, predation, and other disturbances during incubation.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rio Grande cooter, 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 Rio Grande cooter's biological status include
hydrological alteration, pollution, climate change (increasing demands
on the surface and ground water resources that provide or support
habitat for the species due to effects on climate and weather
associated with rising temperatures), and direct mortality. Rio Grande
cooter has limited abundance information available across its range,
with a few exceptions. Therefore, we assessed species viability based
on presence-only data and the condition of the species' habitat.
Despite existing within an altered system in the Rio Grande
watershed and the associated impacts from the primary stressors, the
Rio Grande cooter currently has multiple resilient population analysis
units (10 of 16 units characterized as Low or Moderate Risk)
distributed throughout its known historical range. Because Rio Grande
cooter has maintained multiple resilient population analysis units
across a diversity of habitat types and within all five river basins in
which it historically occurred--except for the Devils River basin,
which contains a single unit categorized as low risk--the species has
retained redundancy and representation at the species level. Based on
these conditions, the current risk of extinction for the Rio Grande
cooter is low. Although we project some continued impacts from the
identified stressors into the foreseeable future under two future
scenarios, our analysis indicates that the Rio Grande cooter will
maintain multiple, resilient population analysis units distributed
throughout its
[[Page 14231]]
historical range within each of the five major river basins. Overall,
the Rio Grande cooter is projected to either maintain current levels of
resiliency, representation, and redundancy or have a slight decrease in
resiliency (nine of 16 population analysis units being categorized as
Low or Moderate Risk) while maintaining current levels of redundancy
and representation into the foreseeable future. Thus, the best
available information does not indicate that the magnitude and scope of
individual stressors would cause the species to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we did not find any
evidence of a concentration of threats at any biologically meaningful
scale in any portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Rio Grande cooter 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 Rio Grande cooter's species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Blanco Blind Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list
475 species in the Southwest Region as endangered or threatened under
the Act with critical habitat. The Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea
robusta) was included among the list of petitioned species. On December
16, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial
90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67
of the species, including the Blanco blind salamander. The finding
stated that the petition presented substantial information indicating
that listing the Blanco blind salamander may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range resulting from water pollutants and water withdrawal.
This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 25, 2007,
petition to list the Blanco blind salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the Blanco blind salamander and
evaluated the petition's claims that the species warrants listing under
the Act. We determined the type specimen on which the species'
description was based either represents a historical occurrence of the
federally endangered Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathbuni) or
it represents a unique species that is no longer extant.
To be considered an endangered or threatened species under the Act,
a species' taxonomy must be valid. In our evaluation of the species'
status, we found evidence that the Blanco blind salamander does not
exist as a current taxonomic entity. Several morphological characters
of the Blanco blind salamander overlap or are identical to the Texas
blind salamander; the Blanco blind salamander specimen's size may have
been influenced by chemical fixation and preservation, and may not
reflect the original size of the living individual; and hydrogeological
connectivity would likely facilitate movement between the Blanco River
site and locations the Texas blind salamander inhabits. Given this, we
find that the Blanco blind salamander type specimen is likely a Texas
blind salamander individual. If it is a Texas blind salamander, then
the Blanco blind salamander is not a valid taxonomic entity and,
therefore, is not a listable entity under the Act.
While the best available science does indicate that the specimen
collected in 1951 is a Texas blind salamander, due to the inability to
conduct conclusive genetic testing, we considered the status of the
Blanco blind salamander out of an abundance of caution.
Based on the best available information, if the Blanco blind
salamander was in fact a valid entity, we conclude that it is now
extinct. When evaluating the possibility of extinction, we attempted to
minimize the possibility of either (1) prematurely determining that the
species is extinct where individuals exist but remain undetected, or
(2) assuming the species is extant when extinction has already
occurred. Our determinations of whether the best available information
indicates that a species is extinct include an analysis of the
following criteria: Detectability of the species, adequacy of survey
efforts, and time since last detection. All three criteria require
taking into account applicable aspects of a species' life history.
Other lines of evidence may also support the determination and be
included in our analysis. In conducting our analysis of whether the
Blanco blind salamander is extinct, we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available. We
reviewed the information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information. These evaluations include
information from recognized experts, Federal and State governments,
academic institutions, and private entities.
The Edwards Aquifer, in the area of southeastern Hays County,
Texas, has been and continues to be intensively sampled for its diverse
and unique groundwater fauna. Beginning in the late 19th century,
caves, springs, and wells in the area have yielded many new species,
including the Texas blind salamander and a contingent of endemic
groundwater invertebrates.
Like species with similar characteristics, the Blanco blind
salamander is likely to have a low detectability. However, despite
being mostly subterranean, stygobitic (i.e., living exclusively in
groundwater, such as aquifers or caves) Eurycea salamanders are often
surveyed at springs and caves. Surveys were conducted in 2006 to re-
detect the Blanco blind salamander at the Blanco River site and several
groundwater wells north of that site in Hays and Travis Counties,
Texas. Additionally, researchers excavated three surface fissures in
the dry bed of the Blanco River, but none of the excavations extended
to subterranean voids, and no salamanders were observed. Groundwater
wells were surveyed north of the Blanco River 8 to 25 kilometers (5 to
15 miles) away from the locality of the Blanco specimen and did not
yield stygobitic Eurycea salamanders, although they did extend into
subterranean habitats. Recent survey efforts of wells and springs in
Hays County in 2020 and 2021 have also not resulted in discovery of
Blanco blind salamanders or other stygobitic Eurycea salamanders to
date. Conversely, Texas blind salamanders are regularly observed and
collected during surveys of caves, spring openings, and groundwater
wells by permitted researchers from several localities in the City of
San Marcos, Texas.
Since 1951, no stygobitic Eurycea salamanders have been collected
from the Blanco River or areas to the north of the river in Hays
County. Despite its low detectability, given the combination of surveys
at the original locality and repeated surveys from surface and
subterranean habitats nearby, we conclude that these efforts were
adequate to detect the Blanco blind salamander should individuals
exist. If the Blanco blind salamander was a valid taxon, we have no
evidence that the species has remained extant for the past 70 years;
thus, we conclude it is extinct.
In conclusion, based on the best available information, we have
determined that the Blanco blind
[[Page 14232]]
salamander is not a valid taxonomic entity and, accordingly, does not
meet the statutory definition of a listable entity under the Act.
Additionally, even if our conclusion is incorrect and the Blanco blind
salamander was a valid taxonomic entity, it has not been collected in
over 70 years despite survey efforts; thus, we have no evidence it has
remained extant. Because the Blanco blind salamander either does not
meet the definition of a listable entity or is extinct, it does not
warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Blanco blind salamander 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 Blanco
blind salamander, Georgia bully, or Rio Grande cooter 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 in the relevant species assessment form, which is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the appropriate
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
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,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05331 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P