Proposed Rule2022-18048
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Four Species
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 23, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- day findings on two petitions to add species to and one petition to remove a species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce a 90-day finding on one petition to revise critical habitat for a listed species. Based on our review, we find that the petitions to list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor ssp. 4) and delist the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) 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 the Pryor Mountain mustang population (Equus caballus) and to revise the critical habitat designation for Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) do not present substantial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status review of the Pryor Mountain mustang population or proceeding with a revision of critical habitat for the Sonora chub.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51635-51639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18048]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for Four 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 two petitions to add species to and one petition to
remove a species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We also announce a 90-day finding on one petition to revise critical
habitat for a listed species. Based on our review, we find that the
petitions to list the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor
ssp. 4) and delist the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis)
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 the
Pryor Mountain mustang population (Equus caballus) and to revise the
critical habitat designation for Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) do not
present substantial information indicating the petitioned actions may
be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status review of the
Pryor Mountain mustang population or proceeding with a revision of
critical habitat for the Sonora chub.
DATES: These findings were made on August 23, 2022. As we commence our
status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of,
or threats to, the Fish Lake Valley tui chub or southern sea otter, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 Fish
Lake Valley tui chub or southern sea otter, or their habitats, please
provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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
[[Page 51636]]
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species common name Contact person
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Lake Valley tui chub............................ Marc Jackson, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife
Office, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee3effcedd1e4efede5fde1e0cee8f9fda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d5d9cadbe7d2d9dbd3cbd7d6f8decfcb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>, 775-861-6337.
Pryor Mountain mustang............................... Ben Conard, Acting Project Leader, Montana Ecological
Services Field Office, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0361666d5c606c6d627167436574702d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f496919aab979b9a958690b4928387da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>, 406-758-6882.
Sonora chub.......................................... Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd7dadecbd7dacde0c8d7d6cbd3dec8ffd9c8cc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee868b8f9a868b9cb19986879a828f99ae88999dc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>, 602-242-
0210.
Southern sea otter................................... Steve Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4d7d0c1d2c1fbccc1cad6dde4c2d3d78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6211160714073d0a070c101b220415114c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>, 805-644-1766.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Information Submitted for a Status Review
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the status
of, or threats to, the Fish Lake Valley tui chub or southern sea otter,
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing these findings, will be available
for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., ``list'' a
species), remove a species from the List (i.e., ``delist'' a species),
or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)). A 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.
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
[[Page 51637]]
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the
species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to
have positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is
only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the
actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the
species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine
whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act. If we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires that we promptly
commence a review of the status of the species, and we will
subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our
prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27,
2016).
We note that designating critical habitat is not a petitionable
action under the Act. Petitions to designate critical habitat (for
species without existing critical habitat) are reviewed under the
Administrative Procedure Act and are not addressed 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.
For petitions to revise critical habitat, our regulations establish
that substantial scientific information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding refers to ``credible scientific information in support
of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would conclude that the revision proposed
in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i)). In
determining whether a revision of critical habitat may be warranted, we
may consider the following:
(1) Areas that the current designation does not include that should
be included, or includes that should no longer be included, and any
benefits of designating or not designating these specific areas as
critical habitat;
(2) The physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species and whether they may require special
management considerations or protection;
(3) For any areas petitioned to be added to critical habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was
listed, information indicating that the specific areas contain one or
more of the physical or biological features (including characteristics
that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions) that are
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection;
(4) For any areas petitioned for removal from currently designated
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it was listed, information indicating that the specific
areas do not contain the physical or biological features (including
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions)
that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that these
features do not require special management considerations or
protection; and
(5) For areas petitioned to be added to or removed from critical
habitat that were outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it was listed, information indicating why the petitioned
areas are or are not essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to revise a critical habitat designation presents
substantial scientific 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.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the
appropriate docket number.
Table 1--Status Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Lake Valley tui chub.................... FWS-R8-ES-2022-0010 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2022-0010">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2022-0010</a>.
Southern sea otter........................... FWS-R8-ES-2022-0013 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2022-0013">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2022-0013</a>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Not-Substantial Petition Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pryor Mountain mustang population............ FWS-R6-ES-2022-0011 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2022-0011">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2022-0011</a>.
Sonora chub.................................. FWS-R2-ES-2022-0012 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R2-ES-2022-0012">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R2-ES-2022-0012</a>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub
Species and Range
Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor ssp. 4); Nevada.
Petition History
On March 10, 2021, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity requesting that the Fish Lake Valley tui chub be
listed as an endangered species or a threatened species and critical
habitat be designated for the 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.
Evaluation of Information Summary
The petitioner provided credible information indicating potential
threats
[[Page 51638]]
to the Fish Lake Valley tui chub due to Factor A (effects of
agriculture, encroachment of aquatic plants, geothermal energy, lithium
mining) and Factor E (climate change and stochastic events).
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information. Based on our review of the petition and
readily available information regarding Factors A and E, we find that
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles
bicolor ssp. 4) as an endangered or threatened species may be
warranted. The Service will fully evaluate all potential threats during
our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review
the best available scientific information when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0010 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Pryor Mountain Mustang Population
Species and Range
Pryor Mountain mustang population (Equus caballus); Montana,
Wyoming.
Petition History
On June 19, 2017, we received a petition dated June 12, 2017, from
Friends of Animals requesting that the Pryor Mountain mustang
population be listed as an endangered species or a threatened species
under the Act. However, the Service notified the petitioner that the
submission did not qualify as a petition because it did not include
copies of required notification letters or electronic communications to
State agencies in affected areas as required by 50 CFR 424.14(c).
The petitioner filed a complaint challenging the Service's denial
of the petition, and following litigation and appeal, on July 19, 2021,
the petition was remanded to the Service. This finding addresses the
petition.
Evaluation of Information Summary
We evaluated information provided in the petition to determine if
the petition identified an entity that may be eligible for listing as a
distinct population segment (DPS) under the Service's Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The
petition presents substantial information that the Pryor Mountain
mustang population may be discrete due to its physical separation from
other feral horse herds, but it does not present substantial
information that the population may be significant to the taxon as a
whole. The petition makes no assertion that it occurs in an unusual or
unique ecological setting or that it represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range. The petition does
not present substantial information that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon (Equus caballus), or that the discrete population segment
differs markedly from other populations of the taxon in its genetic
characteristics. Nor does the petition present any other information in
support of the significance of the Pryor Mountain population.
Furthermore, the weight of scientific evidence based on readily
available information shows that feral horses are nonnative and may
impede the conservation of ecosystems upon which endangered and
threatened species depend. Therefore, we did not further evaluate
whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition,
and other readily available information, we find that the petition does
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned entity may be a listable entity under the Act. The
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned entity may meet the
significance criteria of our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) and,
therefore, that it is a listable entity under the Act.
Because the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that the Pryor Mountain mustang population may be a listable
entity under the Act, we are not initiating a status review of this
population in response to this petition. However, we ask that the
public submit to us any new information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to, this population or its habitat
or new information that qualifies this population as listable entity
under the Act at any time (see appropriate contact under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0011 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Sonora Chub
Species and Range
Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia); Arizona, Mexico.
Petition History
On August 6, 2021, we received a petition dated July 30, 2021, from
Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that critical habitat be
revised for the Sonora chub, a threatened 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.
Evaluation of Information Summary
We evaluated information provided in the petition to determine if a
revision to the existing critical habitat designation to include the
California Gulch may be warranted. The petition does not present
substantial scientific information that demonstrates that California
Gulch is essential to the conservation of Sonora chub--only that the
species occurs there, that it may be affected by livestock grazing, and
that there is an alleged state of noncompliance with an existing
biological opinion. The petition's summary statement that the stream
designation of all occupied and historically occupied habitat is
prudent and necessary to ensure the survival and recovery of Sonora
chub is therefore unsupported. We conclude that the petition does not
present substantial scientific information that the revision to the
existing critical habitat is warranted.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific information indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted for the Sonora chub. Because the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that revising critical habitat for
the Sonora chub may be warranted, we are not initiating a review of the
designated critical habitat for this species in response to this
petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new
information that becomes available
[[Page 51639]]
concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at
any time (see appropriate contact under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2022-0012 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Southern Sea Otter
Species and Range
Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis); marine environments
from San Mateo County to Ventura County, California.
Previous Federal Actions and Petition History
On January 14, 1977, we published a final rule (42 FR 2965) to list
the southern sea otter as a threatened species. In that rule, we
identified the curtailment of range as an important factor in the
designation of southern sea otters as threatened, citing the fact that
the then-current range encompassed only about 10 percent of the
southern sea otter's historical range. We also noted that the
``remaining habitat and population [were] potentially jeopardized by
oil spills, and possibly by pollution and competition'' with human
beings. Since that time, additional threats have emerged (Service
2015). On March 10, 2021, we received a November 2020 petition from the
Pacific Legal Foundation, counsel for California Sea Urchin Commission
and Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, requesting that the southern
sea otter be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (``delisted'') because the species does not meet the Act's
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. 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.
Evaluation of Information Summary
The petition notes that the southern sea otter's occupied range has
nearly doubled since the species' listing in 1977 and that the
population has increased since systematic counts began in the early
1980s. The citations provided in the petition (Service 2015 and
Hatfield et al. 2019) substantiate that the linear extent of the range
has increased from about 293 km to 500 km and that the southern sea
otter population has increased. These citations support the claim of a
reduction in the threat of curtailment of habitat since the time of
listing. The petition notes that offshore crude oil loading and
unloading facilities at Moss Landing, Estero Bay, and Morro Bay have
closed. The closure of these facilities, which eliminates the
possibility of a spill from them, supports the claim of a reduction in
the threat of an oil spill since the time of listing. The citations
provided in the petition (California's Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil
Spill Prevention and Response Act (1990) and the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)) support the claim that regulatory
changes and new technologies to improve oil tanker safety have
occurred, which may reduce the oil spill threat to the southern sea
otter since the time of listing. The citations provided in the petition
offer support for the claim that regulations have improved vessel
traffic control in the range of the southern sea otter, which may
reduce the oil spill threat to the southern sea otter since the time of
listing. The citations provided in the petition offer support for the
claim that regulations, technology, and industry practices for offshore
oil rigs have improved, which may reduce the oil spill threat to the
southern sea otter since the time of listing.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information. We considered the factors under section
4(a)(1) of the Act and assessed the effect that the threats identified
within the factors--as may be ameliorated or may be exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts--may have on the
species now and in the foreseeable future. Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information regarding reduction of the threats of habitat curtailment
(Factor A) and oil spills (Factor E), we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that delisting the southern sea otter may be warranted. The petitioners
also presented information suggesting reduction of additional threats
to the southern sea otter within Factors A (present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat) and C (disease or
predation). We will fully evaluate these factors 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 as an appendix at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0013 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that
the petitions summarized above for the Fish Lake Valley tui chub and
southern sea otter present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We
are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these species to determine
whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of
the status reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not
warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals
to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a
threatened species. In addition, we have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the Pryor Mountain mustang population and Sonora
chub do not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petition actions may be warranted. We are,
therefore, not initiating a status review for the Pryor Mountain
mustang population or proceeding with a revision of critical habitat
for the Sonora chub in response to the petitions.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18048 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 23, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.