Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 8 Species, 81388-81394 [2024-22914]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
81388
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(e) * * *
TABLE 5—STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASIREGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
State submittal date
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanations
*
Section 5—Control Strategies for Attainment and Nonattainment Areas
*
*
Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation.
Plan Revision for the Second
Planning Period (2018–2028).
*
*
Statewide ..........
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–22603 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 8
Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings
and initiation of status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90day findings on eight petitions to add
species to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that the petitions to list the Crater
Lake newt (Taricha granulosa
mazamae), Florida intertidal firefly
(Micronaspis floridana), Iowa skipper
(Atrytone arogos iowa), San Francisco
Estuary population of white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus), and Tecopa
bird’s beak (Chloropyron tecopense)
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this document, we
announce that we are initiating status
reviews of these species to determine
whether the petitioned actions are
warranted. To ensure that the status
reviews are comprehensive, we request
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
*
*
*
4/29/2022 and 11/22/2023 ............ 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE
OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].
Jkt 265001
*
*
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding the species
and factors that may affect their status.
Based on the status reviews, we will
issue 12-month petition findings, which
will address whether or not the
petitioned actions are warranted in
accordance with the Act. We further
find that the petitions to list Betta
miniopinna, long-tailed macaque
(Macaca fascicularis), and southern pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) do
not present substantial information
indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted. Therefore, we are not
initiating status reviews of Betta
miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, or
southern pig-tailed macaque.
DATES: These findings were made on
October 8, 2024. As we commence our
status reviews, we seek any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida
intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San
Francisco Estuary population of white
sturgeon, and Tecopa bird’s beak, or
their habitats. Any information we
receive during the course of our status
reviews will be considered.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: Summaries of
the basis for the petition findings
contained in this document are
available on https://www.regulations.
gov under the appropriate docket
number (see tables under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In
addition, this supporting information is
available by contacting the appropriate
person, as specified in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews: If you have new
scientific or commercial data or other
information concerning the status of, or
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida
intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San
Francisco Estuary population of white
sturgeon, or Tecopa bird’s beak, or their
habitats, please provide those data or
information by one of the following
methods listed below.
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the appropriate docket number
(see table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION). Then, click on the
‘‘Search’’ button. After finding the
correct document, you may submit
information by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’
If your information will fit in the
provided comment box, please use this
feature of https://www.regulations.gov,
as it is most compatible with our
information review procedures. If you
attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is
Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple
comments (such as form letters), our
preferred format is a spreadsheet in
Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
[Insert appropriate docket number; see
table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send information
only by the methods described above.
We will post all information we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see Information Submitted for a Status
Review, below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Species common name
Contact person
Betta miniopinna ...................................
Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters,
703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov.
Jennie Land, Field Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 541–885–8481, jennie_land@
fws.gov.
Lourdes Mena, Classification and Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Office, 904–
731–3134, lourdes_mena@fws.gov.
Jason Luginbill, Project Leader, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office, 785–313–0772, jason_
luginbill@fws.gov.
Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters,
703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov.
Donald Ratcliff, Field Supervisor, San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, 916–930–5632,
donald_ratcliff@fws.gov.
Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters,
703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov.
Scott Sobiech, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760–431–9440, scott_sobiech@
fws.gov.
Crater Lake newt ..................................
Florida intertidal firefly ..........................
Iowa skipper .........................................
Long-tailed macaque ............................
San Francisco Estuary population of
white sturgeon.
Southern pig-tailed macaque ...............
Tecopa bird’s beak ...............................
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-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Submitted for a Status
Review
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81389
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida
intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San
Francisco Estuary population of white
sturgeon, or Tecopa bird’s beak, or their
habitats, by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES. Please include
sufficient information with your
submission (such as scientific journal
articles or other publications) to allow
us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing these findings, will be
available for public inspection on
https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for adding species to,
removing species from, or reclassifying
species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part
17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to add a species to the List (i.e.,
‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from
the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or
change a listed species’ status from
endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered (i.e.,
‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our regulations establish that
substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in
support of the petition’s claims such
that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would
conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)). A positive 90-day
petition finding does not indicate that
the petitioned action is warranted; the
finding indicates only that the
petitioned action may be warranted and
that a full review should occur.
A species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The
five factors are:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to, or are reasonably likely to,
affect individuals of a species
negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition, or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not
be sufficient to compel a finding that the
information in the petition is substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
information presented in the petition
must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that these threats may be
affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
81390
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
If we find that a petition presents
such information, our subsequent status
review will evaluate all identified
threats by considering the individual-,
population-, and species-level effects
and the expected response by the
species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of the threats on the species as a
whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that are expected
to have positive effects on the species—
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that
may ameliorate threats. It is only after
conducting this cumulative analysis of
threats and the actions that may
ameliorate them, and the expected effect
on the species now and in the
foreseeable future, that we can
determine whether the species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the
Act requires that we promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species, and we will subsequently
complete a status review in accordance
with our prioritization methodology for
12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July
27, 2016).
We note that designating critical
habitat is not a petitionable action under
the Act. Petitions to designate critical
habitat (for species without existing
critical habitat) are reviewed under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et. seq.) and are not addressed in
this finding (see 50 CFR 424.14(j)). To
the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, any proposed critical
habitat will be addressed concurrently
with a proposed rule to list a species, if
applicable.
Summaries of Petition Findings
The petition findings contained in
this document are listed in the tables
below, and the basis for each finding,
along with supporting information, is
available on https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number.
TABLE 1—INTERNET SEARCH INFORMATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS FOR FIVE SPECIES
Common name
Docket No.
URL to docket on https://www.regulations.gov
Crater Lake newt ............................................................
Florida intertidal firefly ....................................................
Iowa skipper ....................................................................
San Francisco Estuary population of white sturgeon .....
Tecopa bird’s beak .........................................................
FWS–R8–ES–2024–0025
FWS–R4–ES–2024–0026
FWS–R6–ES–2023–0226
FWS–R8–ES–2024–0049
FWS–R8–ES–2023–0256
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0025
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R4-ES-2024-0026
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2023-0226
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0049
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2023-0256
TABLE 2—INTERNET SEARCH INFORMATION FOR NOT-SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS FOR THREE SPECIES
Common name
Docket No.
Betta miniopinna .............................................................
FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0229
Long-tailed macaque ......................................................
FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0228
Southern pig-tailed macaque ..........................................
FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0227
Evaluation of a Petition To List Betta
miniopinna
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Species and Range
Betta miniopinna; Bintan Island of the
Riau Archipelago, Indonesia.
Petition History
On July 6, 2023, we received a
petition dated July 5, 2023, from the
Center for Biological Diversity and the
Monitor Conservation Research Society,
requesting that Betta miniopinna be
emergency listed as a threatened species
or an endangered species under the Act.
The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
Listing a species on an emergency basis
is not a petitionable action under the
Act, and the question of when to list on
an emergency basis is left to the
discretion of the Service. If the Service
determines that the standard for
emergency listing in section 4(b)(7) of
the Act is met, the Service may exercise
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
URL to docket on https://www.regulations.gov
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-20230229
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-20230228
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-20230227
that discretion to take an emergency
listing action at any time. Therefore, we
are considering the July 5, 2023, petition
as a petition to list the B. miniopinna.
This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding the individual and
cumulative effects of threats that fall
within factors under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts.
Based on our review of the petition,
sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information, we find
that the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the B.
miniopinna as a threatened species or
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
an endangered species may be
warranted.
The petitioner provided credible
information indicating potential threats
to individuals of the species due to
habitat loss and degradation and
collection and trade. The petitioner also
provided credible information that the
existing regulatory mechanisms may be
inadequate to address those potential
threats. Although the petition did
provide credible information regarding
deforestation at less than one percent
per year countrywide, the reference
investigated deforestation across the
entire country and did not mention
either peat swamp forest, the specific
habitat type for the species, or Bintan
Island, the only island the species is
known to exist. Furthermore, the
references provided in the petition that
discussed peat swamp forests did not
include Bintan Island, the island where
B. miniopinna currently exists. The
petition did not link this general
deforestation to effects on the species.
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, the petition does not present
credible information to support the
claim that habitat loss and degradation
is having a negative impact on the
population(s) of the species.
Additionally, regarding trade, the
petitioners only presented information
from a brief Google search on the trade
of the species. While this brief search
presents evidence of some illegal trade
in wild specimens of the species,
without more thorough information on
the amount of trade of wild-caught B.
miniopinna and abundance estimates,
the petition does not present credible
information to support the claim that
trade is having a negative impact on the
population(s) of the species. Credible
sources cited in the petition do not
provide substantial information
indicating that threats identified by the
petitions may have synergistic or
cumulative effects on the population
such that the petitioned action may be
warranted for B. miniopinna.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0229
under the Supporting Documents
section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Crater
Lake Newt
Species and Range
Crater Lake newt (Taricha granulosa
mazamae); Crater Lake, Klamath
County, Oregon.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Petition History
On November 28, 2023, we received
a petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, requesting that the Crater
Lake newt (Taricha granulosa
mazamae) be emergency listed as an
endangered species and critical habitat
be designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
The petitioners additionally requested
that the Service immediately protect
Crater Lake newts with its emergency
listing authority under 16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(7). Because the Act does not
provide for petitions to emergency list,
we are considering it as a petition to list
the Crater Lake newt. Listing a species
on an emergency basis is not a
petitionable action under the Act, and
the question of when to list on an
emergency basis is left to the discretion
of the Service. If the Service determines
that the standard for emergency listing
in section 4(b)(7) of the Act is met, the
Service may exercise that discretion to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
81391
take an emergency listing action at any
time. This finding addresses the
petition.
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding the effects of threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding wetland
destruction or loss and modified
hydrology (Factor A), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing the Florida intertidal firefly
may be warranted. The petition also
presented information on the following
potential threats to Florida intertidal
firefly: sea level rise, habitat
fragmentation, modification of marsh
and mangrove habitats for mosquito
control, coastal eutrophication, harmful
algal blooms, hypoxia, overutilization,
nematode infection, predators, light
pollution, pesticides, invasive species,
small populations, ocean acidification
impacts on prey, and increased
temperature and extreme temperature
events, and increased intensity and
proportion of severe storms. We will
fully evaluate these potential threats
during our 12-month status review,
pursuant to the Act’s requirement to
review the best scientific and
commercial information available when
making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0026
under the Supporting Documents
section.
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding
predation by introduced species
(particularly by signal crayfish
(Pacifastacus leniusculus)) (Factor C),
we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
Crater Lake newt may be warranted. The
petitioners also presented information
suggesting habitat and food web
alteration by signal crayfish, climate
change, reduced effective population
size, and range restriction may be
threats to the Crater Lake newt. We will
fully evaluate these potential threats
during our 12-month status review,
pursuant to the Act’s requirement to
review the best scientific and
commercial information available when
making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0025
under the Supporting Documents
section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Florida
Intertidal Firefly
Species and Range
Florida intertidal firefly (Micronaspis
floridana): Florida (Brevard, Broward,
Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dixie,
Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River,
Levy, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe,
Pasco, Pinellas, Saint Lucie, Sarasota,
and Volusia Counties) and the Bahamas.
Petition History
On March 28, 2023, we received a
petition from the Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation, requesting
that the Florida intertidal firefly
(Micronaspis floridana) be listed as an
endangered species and critical habitat
be designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Finding
Evaluation of a Petition To List Iowa
Skipper
Species and Range
Iowa skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa);
mid-continent prairie in Arkansas,
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
Petition History
On March 28, 2023, we received a
petition from the Center for Food Safety,
requesting that the Iowa Skipper
(Atrytone arogos iowa) be listed as a
threatened species or an endangered
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
81392
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding
addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding habitat
loss and fragmentation (Factor A) and
prairie management (Factor A), we find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Iowa skipper
may be warranted. The petitioners also
presented information suggesting
pesticides, invasive species, climate
change, and small, isolated populations
may be threats to the Iowa skipper. We
will fully evaluate these potential
threats during our 12-month status
review, pursuant to the Act’s
requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial information available
when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0226
under the Supporting Documents
section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List LongTailed Macaque
Species and Range
Long-tailed macaque (Macaca
fascicularis); Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Hong Kong of China, Nicobar
Islands of India, Indonesia, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
Mauritius, Myanmar, Palau, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Petition History
On April 12, 2023, we received a
petition requesting that long-tailed
macaque (Macaca fascicularis) be listed
as a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Act from
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel, Birutė Mary
Galdikas, Jane Goodall, Action for
Primates, Born Free USA, Sarah Kite,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
Nedim C. Buyukmihci, Angela Grimes,
Liz Tyson-Griffin, The Macaque
Coalition, Ecoflix, Ian Redmond,
International Primate Protection League,
Wildlife Alliance, Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine,
Michael Schillaci, One Voice, Abolición
Vivisección, Sam Shanee, Gemunu de
Silva, Northwest Animal Rights
Network, Pam Mendosa, Phoenix Zones
Initiative, Hope Ferdowsian, ACP,
Nikhil Kulkarni, Neotropical Primate
Conservation, EMS Foundation, Tim
Ajax, Rise for Animals, Wildlife Friends
Foundation Thailand, Douc Langur
Foundation, Fundacion Entropika,
Angela Maldonado, Animal Defenders
International, World Animal Protection,
Paula Pebsworth, and Japan AntiVivisection Association. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding
addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding the individual and
cumulative effects of the threats that fall
within factors under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts.
Based on our review of the petition and
readily available information regarding
the effects of habitat loss and
degradation (Factor A), collection and
hunting (Factor B), disease (Factor C),
and culling and sterilization (Factor E),
we find that the petition does not
provide substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the long-tailed macaque as a
threatened or an endangered species
may be warranted. While we found that
the petition provided documentation of
negative impacts to individual
macaques from these potential threats,
the petition did not present credible
information to support impacts to
populations or the species as a whole
due to these potential threats, either
separately or cumulatively, such that
the species may warrant listing.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0228
under the Supporting Documents
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Evaluation of a Petition To List San
Francisco Estuary Population of White
Sturgeon
Species and Range
White sturgeon [petitioned ‘‘San
Francisco Estuary Distinct Population
Segment’’] (Acipenser transmontanus)
(= San Francisco Estuary white
sturgeon); Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers in California.
Petition History
On December 6, 2023, we received a
petition from San Francisco Baykeeper,
The Bay Institute, Restore the Delta, and
California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, requesting that the San
Francisco Estuary white sturgeon
population (Acipenser transmontanus)
be listed as a threatened distinct
population segment (DPS) and critical
habitat be designated for this species
under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information
for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the
petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding harmful
algal blooms (Factor E), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing the San Francisco Estuary
population of white sturgeon as a DPS
may be warranted. The petitioners also
presented information suggesting dams,
water diversions, entrainment mortality,
recreational harvest, poaching,
pollution, climate change, proposed
hatchery supplementation, ship strikes,
and dredging may be threats to the San
Francisco Estuary white sturgeon. We
will fully evaluate these potential
threats during our 12-month status
review, pursuant to the Act’s
requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial information available
when making our 12-month finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0049
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
under the Supporting Documents
section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List
Southern Pig-Tailed Macaque
Species and Range
Southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca
nemestrina); Brunei Darussalam,
Indonesia (Kalimantan, Sumatra),
Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah,
Sarawak), and Thailand.
Petition History
On April 12, 2023, we received a
petition requesting that southern pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) be
listed as a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Act from
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel (Ph.D.),
Birute Mary Galdikas (Ph.D.), Jane
Goodall (Ph.D.), Action for Primates,
Born Free USA, Sarah Kite, Nedim
Buyukmihci (Ph.D.), Angela Grimes, Liz
Tyler-Griffin (Ph.D.), The Macaque
Coalition, Ecoflix, Ian Redmond (Ph.D.),
International Primate Protection League,
Wildlife Alliance, the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine,
Michael Schillaci (Ph.D.), One Voice,
Abolicion Vivseccion, Sam Shanee
(Ph.D.), Gemunu de Silva, Northwest
Animal Rights Network, Pam Mendosa,
Phoenix Zones Initiative, Hope
Ferdowsian (Ph.D.), Nikhil Kulkarni
(Ph.D.), Neotropical Primate
Conservation, The EMS Foundation,
Tim Ajax, Rise for Animals, Wildlife
Friends Foundation Thailand, Douc
Langur Foundation, Fundacion
Entropika, Angela Maldonado (Ph.D.),
Animal Defenders International, World
Animal Protection, Paula Pebsworth,
and The Japan Anti-Vivisection
Association. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information
for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the
petition.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding the individual and
cumulative effects of threats that fall
within factors under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts.
Based on our review of the petition,
sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information, we find
that the petition does not provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
81393
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
southern pig-tailed macaque as a
threatened species or an endangered
species may be warranted. While we
found that the petition provided
documentation of negative impacts to
individual macaques from these
potential threats, the petition did not
present credible information to support
impacts to populations or the species
and the petition did not present credible
information to support impacts to
populations or the species as a whole
due to these potential threats, either
separately or cumulatively, such that
the species may warrant listing.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0227
under the Supporting Documents
section.
beak may be warranted. The petitioners
also presented information suggesting
off-road vehicles, non-native ungulate
grazing, herbivory, climate change, and
invasive species, as well as other
potential effects from geothermal power
production and mineral exploration and
development, may be threats to the
Tecopa bird’s beak. We will fully
evaluate these potential threats during
our 12-month status review, pursuant to
the Act’s requirement to review the best
scientific and commercial information
available when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0256
under the Supporting Documents
section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Tecopa
Bird’s Beak
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented in the petitions
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the Crater Lake
newt, Florida intertidal firefly, Iowa
skipper, San Francisco Estuary
population of white sturgeon, and
Tecopa bird’s beak present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned actions
may be warranted. We are, therefore,
initiating status reviews of these species
to determine whether the actions are
warranted under the Act. At the
conclusion of the status reviews, we
will issue findings, in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to
whether the petitioned actions are not
warranted, warranted, or warranted but
precluded by pending proposals to
determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species. In addition, we have
determined that the petitions
summarized above for Betta
miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, and
southern pig-tailed macaque do not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. We are, therefore, not
initiating status reviews for these
species in response to the petitions.
Species and Range
Tecopa bird’s beak (Chrloropyron
tecopense); Esmeralda and Nye Counties
in Nevada and Inyo County in
California.
Petition History
On September 26, 2023, we received
a petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, requesting that Tecopa bird’s
beak (Chrloropyron tecopense) be listed
as a threatened species or an
endangered species and critical habitat
be designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding
hydrological alteration and groundwater
extraction related to agriculture and
exurban sprawl (Factor A), we find that
the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Tecopa bird’s
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Conclusion
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Ecological
Services Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
81394
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Authority
The authority for these actions is 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. 2024–22914 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 24034–0068; RTID 0648–XE347]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Atka
Mackerel in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation.
AGENCY:
NMFS is reallocating the
projected unused amount of the 2024
SUMMARY:
Atka mackerel incidental catch
allowance (ICA) for the Bering Sea
subarea and Eastern Aleutian district
(BS/EAI) to the Amendment 80
cooperative allocation for the BS/EAI in
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is
necessary to allow the 2024 total
allowable catch of Atka mackerel in the
BSAI to be fully harvested.
DATES: Effective October 7, 2024
through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
BSAI according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (FMP) prepared by
the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council under authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations
governing fishing by U.S. vessels in
accordance with the FMP appear at
subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The 2024 Atka mackerel ICA for the
BS/EAI is 800 metric tons (mt) and the
2024 Atka mackerel total allowable
catch allocated to the Amendment 80
cooperative for the BS/EAI is 25,081 mt
as established by the final 2024 and
2025 harvest specifications for
groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287,
March 11, 2024).
The Administrator, Alaska Region,
NMFS, has determined that 700 mt of
the Atka mackerel ICA for the BS/EAI
will not be harvested. Therefore, in
accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS
reallocates 700 mt of Atka mackerel
from the BS/EAI ICA to the BS/EAI
Amendment 80 cooperative allocation
in the BSAI. In accordance with
§ 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue the
cooperative quota permit for the
reallocated Atka mackerel following the
procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3).
The harvest specifications for Atka
mackerel included in the harvest
specifications for groundfish in the
BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) are
revised as follows: 100 mt of Atka
mackerel for the BS/EAI ICA and 25,781
mt of Atka mackerel for the Amendment
80 cooperative allocation for the BS/
EAI. Table 7 is revised and republished
in its entirety as follows:
TABLE 7—FINAL 2024 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL ALLOWANCES, GEAR SHARES, CDQ RESERVE, INCIDENTAL CATCH
ALLOWANCE, AND AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE BSAI ATKA MACKEREL TAC
[Amounts are in metric tons]
2024 Allocation by area
Sector 1
Season 2 3 4
TAC .....................................................
CDQ reserve .......................................
n/a .......................................................
Total ....................................................
A .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
B .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
n/a .......................................................
Total ....................................................
Total ....................................................
Total ....................................................
A .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
B .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
Total ....................................................
A .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
B .........................................................
Critical Habitat ....................................
Non-CDQ TAC ....................................
ICA ......................................................
Jig 6 .....................................................
BSAI trawl limited access ...................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Amendment 80 sector ........................
Eastern Aleutian
District/Bering Sea
32,260
3,452
1,726
n/a
1,726
n/a
28,808
100
140
2,787
1,393
n/a
1,393
n/a
25,781
12,891
n/a
12,891
n/a
Central Aleutian
District 5
Western Aleutian
District
16,754
1,793
896
538
896
538
14,961
75
................................
1,489
744
447
744
447
13,398
6,699
4,019
6,699
4,019
23,973
2,565
1,283
770
1,283
770
21,408
20
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
21,388
10,694
6,416
10,694
6,416
Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
1 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel total allowable catches (TACs), after subtracting the community development quota
(CDQ) reserves, ICAs, and jig gear allocation, to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the Initial total allowable catch (ITAC) for Atka mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in table 33 to 50 CFR part
679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C)).
2 Sections 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) and 679.22(a) establish temporal and spatial limitations for the Atka mackerel fishery.
3 The seasonal allowances of Atka mackerel for the CDQ reserve, BSAI trawl limited access sector, and Amendment 80 sector are 50 percent
in the A season and 50 percent in the B season.
4 Section 679.23(e)(3) authorizes directed fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl gear during the A season from January 20 to June 10 and the B
season from June 10 to December 31.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81388-81394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22914]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for 8 Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings and initiation of status
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day findings on eight petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find
that the petitions to list the Crater Lake newt (Taricha granulosa
mazamae), Florida intertidal firefly (Micronaspis floridana), Iowa
skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa), San Francisco Estuary population of
white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), and Tecopa bird's beak
(Chloropyron tecopense) present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we
are initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the
petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are
comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial data and other
information regarding the species and factors that may affect their
status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month petition
findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are
warranted in accordance with the Act. We further find that the
petitions to list Betta miniopinna, long-tailed macaque (Macaca
fascicularis), and southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) do
not present substantial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews of
Betta miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, or southern pig-tailed macaque.
DATES: These findings were made on October 8, 2024. As we commence our
status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of,
or threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida intertidal firefly, Iowa
skipper, San Francisco Estuary population of white sturgeon, and Tecopa
bird's beak, or their habitats. Any information we receive during the
course of our status reviews will be considered.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition
findings contained in this document are available on https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see tables
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting
information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or
other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the Crater
Lake newt, Florida intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San Francisco
Estuary population of white sturgeon, or Tecopa bird's beak, or their
habitats, please provide those data or information by one of the
following methods listed below.
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket
number (see table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on
the ``Search'' button. After finding the correct document, you may
submit information by clicking on ``Comment.'' If your information will
fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information
review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach
multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table 1 under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send information only by the methods described
above. We will post all information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Information Submitted for a
Status Review, below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[[Page 81389]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species common name Contact person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betta miniopinna............. Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Headquarters, 703-
358-2491, [email protected].
Crater Lake newt............. Jennie Land, Field Supervisor, Klamath
Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 541-885-
8481, [email protected].
Florida intertidal firefly... Lourdes Mena, Classification and Recovery
Division Manager, Florida Ecological
Services Office, 904-731-3134,
[email protected].
Iowa skipper................. Jason Luginbill, Project Leader, Kansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 785-
313-0772, [email protected].
Long-tailed macaque.......... Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Headquarters, 703-
358-2491, [email protected].
San Francisco Estuary Donald Ratcliff, Field Supervisor, San
population of white sturgeon. Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife
Office, 916-930-5632,
[email protected].
Southern pig-tailed macaque.. Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Headquarters, 703-
358-2491, [email protected].
Tecopa bird's beak........... Scott Sobiech, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 760-431-9440,
[email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Information Submitted for a Status Review
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the status
of, or threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida intertidal firefly,
Iowa skipper, San Francisco Estuary population of white sturgeon, or
Tecopa bird's beak, or their habitats, by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES. Please include sufficient information with your
submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications)
to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you
include.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing these findings, will be available
for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., ``list'' a
species), remove a species from the List (i.e., ``delist'' a species),
or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)). A positive 90-day petition finding
does not indicate that the petitioned action is warranted; the finding
indicates only that the petitioned action may be warranted and that a
full review should occur.
A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D);
and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E).
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect
individuals of a species negatively. The term ``threat'' includes
actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information
presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest
that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
[[Page 81390]]
If we find that a petition presents such information, our
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by
considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and
the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also
consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this
cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate
them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable
future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the
status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status
review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month
findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
We note that designating critical habitat is not a petitionable
action under the Act. Petitions to designate critical habitat (for
species without existing critical habitat) are reviewed under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et. seq.) and are not
addressed in this finding (see 50 CFR 424.14(j)). To the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, any proposed critical habitat will be
addressed concurrently with a proposed rule to list a species, if
applicable.
Summaries of Petition Findings
The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the
tables below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting
information, is available on https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number.
Table 1--Internet Search Information for Substantial Findings for Five Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crater Lake newt............................... FWS-R8-ES-2024-0025 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0025
Florida intertidal firefly..................... FWS-R4-ES-2024-0026 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R4-ES-2024-0026
Iowa skipper................................... FWS-R6-ES-2023-0226 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2023-0226
San Francisco Estuary population of white FWS-R8-ES-2024-0049 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
sturgeon. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0049
Tecopa bird's beak............................. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0256 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2023-0256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Internet Search Information for Not-Substantial Findings for Three Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betta miniopinna............................... FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0229 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0229
Long-tailed macaque............................ FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0228 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0228
Southern pig-tailed macaque.................... FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0227 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of a Petition To List Betta miniopinna
Species and Range
Betta miniopinna; Bintan Island of the Riau Archipelago, Indonesia.
Petition History
On July 6, 2023, we received a petition dated July 5, 2023, from
the Center for Biological Diversity and the Monitor Conservation
Research Society, requesting that Betta miniopinna be emergency listed
as a threatened species or an endangered species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). Listing a species on an emergency basis is not a
petitionable action under the Act, and the question of when to list on
an emergency basis is left to the discretion of the Service. If the
Service determines that the standard for emergency listing in section
4(b)(7) of the Act is met, the Service may exercise that discretion to
take an emergency listing action at any time. Therefore, we are
considering the July 5, 2023, petition as a petition to list the B.
miniopinna. This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the individual and cumulative effects of
threats that fall within factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as
potentially ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information, we find that the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the B.
miniopinna as a threatened species or an endangered species may be
warranted.
The petitioner provided credible information indicating potential
threats to individuals of the species due to habitat loss and
degradation and collection and trade. The petitioner also provided
credible information that the existing regulatory mechanisms may be
inadequate to address those potential threats. Although the petition
did provide credible information regarding deforestation at less than
one percent per year countrywide, the reference investigated
deforestation across the entire country and did not mention either peat
swamp forest, the specific habitat type for the species, or Bintan
Island, the only island the species is known to exist. Furthermore, the
references provided in the petition that discussed peat swamp forests
did not include Bintan Island, the island where B. miniopinna currently
exists. The petition did not link this general deforestation to effects
on the species.
[[Page 81391]]
Therefore, the petition does not present credible information to
support the claim that habitat loss and degradation is having a
negative impact on the population(s) of the species.
Additionally, regarding trade, the petitioners only presented
information from a brief Google search on the trade of the species.
While this brief search presents evidence of some illegal trade in wild
specimens of the species, without more thorough information on the
amount of trade of wild-caught B. miniopinna and abundance estimates,
the petition does not present credible information to support the claim
that trade is having a negative impact on the population(s) of the
species. Credible sources cited in the petition do not provide
substantial information indicating that threats identified by the
petitions may have synergistic or cumulative effects on the population
such that the petitioned action may be warranted for B. miniopinna.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0229 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Crater Lake Newt
Species and Range
Crater Lake newt (Taricha granulosa mazamae); Crater Lake, Klamath
County, Oregon.
Petition History
On November 28, 2023, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Crater Lake newt (Taricha
granulosa mazamae) be emergency listed as an endangered species and
critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). The petitioners additionally requested that the Service
immediately protect Crater Lake newts with its emergency listing
authority under 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7). Because the Act does not provide
for petitions to emergency list, we are considering it as a petition to
list the Crater Lake newt. Listing a species on an emergency basis is
not a petitionable action under the Act, and the question of when to
list on an emergency basis is left to the discretion of the Service. If
the Service determines that the standard for emergency listing in
section 4(b)(7) of the Act is met, the Service may exercise that
discretion to take an emergency listing action at any time. This
finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding predation by introduced species (particularly by
signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus)) (Factor C), we find that
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Crater Lake newt may be warranted. The
petitioners also presented information suggesting habitat and food web
alteration by signal crayfish, climate change, reduced effective
population size, and range restriction may be threats to the Crater
Lake newt. We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our
12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the
best scientific and commercial information available when making that
finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0025 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Florida Intertidal Firefly
Species and Range
Florida intertidal firefly (Micronaspis floridana): Florida
(Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dixie, Hernando,
Hillsborough, Indian River, Levy, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Pasco,
Pinellas, Saint Lucie, Sarasota, and Volusia Counties) and the Bahamas.
Petition History
On March 28, 2023, we received a petition from the Xerces Society
for Invertebrate Conservation, requesting that the Florida intertidal
firefly (Micronaspis floridana) be listed as an endangered species and
critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the effects of threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding wetland destruction or loss and modified
hydrology (Factor A), we find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
Florida intertidal firefly may be warranted. The petition also
presented information on the following potential threats to Florida
intertidal firefly: sea level rise, habitat fragmentation, modification
of marsh and mangrove habitats for mosquito control, coastal
eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, overutilization,
nematode infection, predators, light pollution, pesticides, invasive
species, small populations, ocean acidification impacts on prey, and
increased temperature and extreme temperature events, and increased
intensity and proportion of severe storms. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the
Act's requirement to review the best scientific and commercial
information available when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0026 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Iowa Skipper
Species and Range
Iowa skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa); mid-continent prairie in
Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wyoming.
Petition History
On March 28, 2023, we received a petition from the Center for Food
Safety, requesting that the Iowa Skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa) be
listed as a threatened species or an endangered
[[Page 81392]]
species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the
petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A) and
prairie management (Factor A), we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the Iowa skipper may be warranted. The petitioners also
presented information suggesting pesticides, invasive species, climate
change, and small, isolated populations may be threats to the Iowa
skipper. We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-
month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the
best scientific and commercial information available when making that
finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0226 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Long-Tailed Macaque
Species and Range
Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis); Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Hong Kong of China, Nicobar Islands of India, Indonesia, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, Palau,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and
Vietnam.
Petition History
On April 12, 2023, we received a petition requesting that long-
tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) be listed as a threatened species
or an endangered species under the Act from People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel, Birut[edot] Mary Galdikas, Jane
Goodall, Action for Primates, Born Free USA, Sarah Kite, Nedim C.
Buyukmihci, Angela Grimes, Liz Tyson-Griffin, The Macaque Coalition,
Ecoflix, Ian Redmond, International Primate Protection League, Wildlife
Alliance, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Michael
Schillaci, One Voice, Abolici[oacute]n Vivisecci[oacute]n, Sam Shanee,
Gemunu de Silva, Northwest Animal Rights Network, Pam Mendosa, Phoenix
Zones Initiative, Hope Ferdowsian, ACP, Nikhil Kulkarni, Neotropical
Primate Conservation, EMS Foundation, Tim Ajax, Rise for Animals,
Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand, Douc Langur Foundation, Fundacion
Entropika, Angela Maldonado, Animal Defenders International, World
Animal Protection, Paula Pebsworth, and Japan Anti-Vivisection
Association. The petition clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioner,
required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the individual and cumulative effects of
the threats that fall within factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as
potentially ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Based on our review of the petition
and readily available information regarding the effects of habitat loss
and degradation (Factor A), collection and hunting (Factor B), disease
(Factor C), and culling and sterilization (Factor E), we find that the
petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the long-tailed macaque as a
threatened or an endangered species may be warranted. While we found
that the petition provided documentation of negative impacts to
individual macaques from these potential threats, the petition did not
present credible information to support impacts to populations or the
species as a whole due to these potential threats, either separately or
cumulatively, such that the species may warrant listing.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0228 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List San Francisco Estuary Population of
White Sturgeon
Species and Range
White sturgeon [petitioned ``San Francisco Estuary Distinct
Population Segment''] (Acipenser transmontanus) (= San Francisco
Estuary white sturgeon); Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in
California.
Petition History
On December 6, 2023, we received a petition from San Francisco
Baykeeper, The Bay Institute, Restore the Delta, and California
Sportfishing Protection Alliance, requesting that the San Francisco
Estuary white sturgeon population (Acipenser transmontanus) be listed
as a threatened distinct population segment (DPS) and critical habitat
be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This
finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding harmful algal blooms (Factor E), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the San Francisco Estuary population of white
sturgeon as a DPS may be warranted. The petitioners also presented
information suggesting dams, water diversions, entrainment mortality,
recreational harvest, poaching, pollution, climate change, proposed
hatchery supplementation, ship strikes, and dredging may be threats to
the San Francisco Estuary white sturgeon. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the
Act's requirement to review the best scientific and commercial
information available when making our 12-month finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0049
[[Page 81393]]
under the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Southern Pig-Tailed Macaque
Species and Range
Southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina); Brunei Darussalam,
Indonesia (Kalimantan, Sumatra), Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah,
Sarawak), and Thailand.
Petition History
On April 12, 2023, we received a petition requesting that southern
pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) be listed as a threatened
species or an endangered species under the Act from People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel (Ph.D.), Birute Mary
Galdikas (Ph.D.), Jane Goodall (Ph.D.), Action for Primates, Born Free
USA, Sarah Kite, Nedim Buyukmihci (Ph.D.), Angela Grimes, Liz Tyler-
Griffin (Ph.D.), The Macaque Coalition, Ecoflix, Ian Redmond (Ph.D.),
International Primate Protection League, Wildlife Alliance, the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Michael Schillaci
(Ph.D.), One Voice, Abolicion Vivseccion, Sam Shanee (Ph.D.), Gemunu de
Silva, Northwest Animal Rights Network, Pam Mendosa, Phoenix Zones
Initiative, Hope Ferdowsian (Ph.D.), Nikhil Kulkarni (Ph.D.),
Neotropical Primate Conservation, The EMS Foundation, Tim Ajax, Rise
for Animals, Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand, Douc Langur
Foundation, Fundacion Entropika, Angela Maldonado (Ph.D.), Animal
Defenders International, World Animal Protection, Paula Pebsworth, and
The Japan Anti-Vivisection Association. The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite identification information
for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding
addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the individual and cumulative effects of
threats that fall within factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as
potentially ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information, we find that the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
southern pig-tailed macaque as a threatened species or an endangered
species may be warranted. While we found that the petition provided
documentation of negative impacts to individual macaques from these
potential threats, the petition did not present credible information to
support impacts to populations or the species and the petition did not
present credible information to support impacts to populations or the
species as a whole due to these potential threats, either separately or
cumulatively, such that the species may warrant listing.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0227 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Tecopa Bird's Beak
Species and Range
Tecopa bird's beak (Chrloropyron tecopense); Esmeralda and Nye
Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in California.
Petition History
On September 26, 2023, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that Tecopa bird's beak (Chrloropyron
tecopense) be listed as a threatened species or an endangered species
and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding hydrological alteration and groundwater
extraction related to agriculture and exurban sprawl (Factor A), we
find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the Tecopa bird's beak may be
warranted. The petitioners also presented information suggesting off-
road vehicles, non-native ungulate grazing, herbivory, climate change,
and invasive species, as well as other potential effects from
geothermal power production and mineral exploration and development,
may be threats to the Tecopa bird's beak. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the
Act's requirement to review the best scientific and commercial
information available when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0256 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that
the petitions summarized above for the Crater Lake newt, Florida
intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San Francisco Estuary population of
white sturgeon, and Tecopa bird's beak present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be
warranted. We are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these
species to determine whether the actions are warranted under the Act.
At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue findings, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the
petitioned actions are not warranted, warranted, or warranted but
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we have
determined that the petitions summarized above for Betta miniopinna,
long-tailed macaque, and southern pig-tailed macaque do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, not initiating
status reviews for these species in response to the petitions.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[[Page 81394]]
Authority
The authority for these actions is 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. 2024-22914 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
