Proposed Rule2026-20315
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened 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
October 5, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that four species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act). After a thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Blueridge springfly (Remenus kirchneri), lobed roachfly (Tallaperla lobata), Mojave poppy bee (Perdita meconis), and streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 191 (Monday, October 5, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63250-63258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20315]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR-267-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that four species are not warranted for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA or Act). After a thorough review of the best scientific
and commercial data available, we find that it is not warranted at this
time to list the Blueridge springfly (Remenus kirchneri), lobed
roachfly (Tallaperla lobata), Mojave poppy bee (Perdita meconis), and
streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri). However, we ask the public
to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status
of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.
DATES: The findings in this document were made on October 5, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blueridge springfly & lobed roachfly... FWS-R5-ES-2026-2809.
Mojave poppy bee....................... FWS-R8-ES-2026-2812.
Streamside salamander.................. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2813.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blueridge springfly & lobed Troy Andersen, Field Office
roachfly. Supervisor, Virginia Ecological
Services Field Office, 804-728-
0695, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a1e180513350b040e0f18190f042a0c1d19440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbafa9b4a284bab5bfbea9a8beb59bbdaca8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.
Mojave poppy bee.................. Brian Croft, Field Supervisor, Palm
Springs and Southern Nevada Field
Office, 702-953-5494,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfbdadb6beb180bcadb0b9ab9fb9a8acf1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3c1d1cac2cdfcc0d1ccc5d7e3c5d4d08dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.
Streamside salamander............. Susan Cooper, Field Supervisor,
Indiana Ecological Services Field
Office, 812-902-1792,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddaea8aebcb382b882beb2b2adb8af9dbbaaaef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52212721333c0d370d313d3d223720123425217c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)), we
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month
finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded by other
listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 12-month
findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and our regulations at part
424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR; 50 CFR part
424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from,
or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as including
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines an ``endangered
species'' as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence.
[[Page 63251]]
In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may
have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the
species' expected response and the effects of the threats--in light of
those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an
individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and
its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect
of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and
conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating
the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further
described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from
the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021,
January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Service
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the
species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not
identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time.
We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using
the best scientific and commercial data available and taking into
account considerations such as the species' life-history
characteristics, threat projection timeframes, and environmental
variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of
time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain;'' it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the
conservation purposes of the Act.
Both definitions of endangered species and threatened species
include not only the phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase
``or a significant portion of its range.'' Beginning in 2001, a number
of judicial opinions addressed our interpretation of the phrase ``or a
significant portion of its range'' (the SPR phrase) in the statutory
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' In
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)
regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard, the court held that the
interpretation of the SPR phrase that we had applied in analyzing the
status of the flat-tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it
would allow for a species to warrant listing throughout a significant
portion of a species' range only when the species ``is in danger of
extinction everywhere'' (id. at 1141). The court held that the SPR
phrase must be given independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in the statute superfluous.
In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into
question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Services
published a ``Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase `Significant
Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's Definition of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter ``2014 SPR
Policy;'' 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The notice of the draft policy
provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the phrase
(76 FR 76987, December 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR Policy included four
elements:
(1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
(2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant'';
(3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the
species; and
(4) DPS--that, if a [vertebrate] species is endangered or
threatened in an SPR, and the population in that SPR is a DPS, the
Service will list just the DPS.
Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (``CBD v.
Jewell'') and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (``Desert Survivors'')). The
courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous,
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase. In 2020, another court (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (``Everson'')) also vacated
the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under which, ``if the
Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its
range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered
in a significant portion of its range'' (id. at 98). This was an
extension of the definition of ``significant,'' which required a
stepwise process in which we only considered whether a species may be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range
when the species was not endangered or threatened throughout all of its
range. In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and
Desert Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of
the 2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because
it ``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range'
basis for listing superfluous,'' but was also ``inconsistent with ESA
principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.''
Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range,
even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
(threatened) throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements
of the 2014 SPR Policy remain intact.
For each species below, we address why they are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. For some
species, we discuss throughout all of the range first (endangered then
threatened classification) and then discuss significant portion of the
range. For other species we explain why not in
[[Page 63252]]
danger of extinction (throughout all or a significant portion of its
range) and then why not likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions
because we must determine whether there is any portion of the species'
range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant'' and (2) the
species is in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout that portion. We
may address either question first. Regardless of which question we
address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first
question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question
for that portion of the species' range.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Blueridge
springfly, lobed roachfly, Mojave poppy bee, and streamside salamander
meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present,
and future threats. We reviewed the petitions, information available in
our files, and other available published and unpublished information
for these species. Our evaluation may include information from
recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic
institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members
of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the
four species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the
analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full
analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are
based, in the decisional files for the Blueridge springfly, lobed
roachfly, Mojave poppy bee, and streamside salamander. Below, we
describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the Blueridge springfly, lobed
roachfly, Mojave poppy bee, and streamside salamander each contain more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our
status review, we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for
the Blueridge springfly, lobed roachfly, Mojave poppy bee, and
streamside salamander. The SSA reports contain a thorough review of the
taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and projected future
status for these species. This supporting information can be found on
the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the appropriate
docket number (see ADDRESSES, above).
Blueridge Springfly & Lobed Roachfly
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including the Blueridge springfly and lobed roachfly, as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding
that the petition provided substantial information indicating 374 of
those species may warrant listing, including these 2 species.
The Blueridge springfly appears to be restricted to small streams
(first through third order streams) and spring seeps straddling the
Blue Ridge Parkway and surrounding areas. Streams are shallow, often
only a few centimeters deep, with minimal surface flows and substrates
composed of pea-sized gravel, silt, small cobbles, woody snags, and
leaf packs. Riparian vegetation varies but is often dominated by a
variety of grasses and deciduous trees. The Blueridge springfly has
been recorded within the Blue Ridge physiographic province in southwest
Virginia, western North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee.
The lobed roachfly has been detected within first through third
order streams, and is most often found in small, mid-elevation
headwater streams. This species typically inhabits streams with
substrates including pea-sized gravel, silt, small cobbles, bedrock,
woody snags, and leaf packs, as well as riparian vegetation generally
composed of a variety of grasses and deciduous trees. The lobed
roachfly appears to only inhabit spring-fed brooks at or near the
spring source, confined to the North Fork Holston River sub-basin in
Virginia.
Stoneflies, including the Blueridge springfly and lobed roachfly,
can be distinguished from other insects by the combined presence of
long antennae with multiple segments, stout legs each ending in two
claws, and long paired appendages projecting from the ends of their
abdomens in both nymphs and adults. The adults have two pairs of
membranous thoracic wings, and nymphs of these species are entirely
aquatic. Habitat preferences and life history needs differ somewhat
between the two stonefly species but consist generally of clean, clear,
cold, oxygenated, flowing water with suitable substrate and riparian
vegetation. Stoneflies are known to be sensitive to a number of water
quality parameters including temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus), pH, sedimentation/turbidity, conductivity,
and other contaminants. Stoneflies generally require habitats with low
turbidity and low levels of fine sediment because of their requirements
for specific substrates in the nymphal stages. These two species rely
on pea-sized gravel substrate and are more sensitive to turbidity
changes due to fine sediment affecting the availability of interstitial
spaces. In addition to the water quality parameters described above,
stonefly nymphs require an adequate food supply for growth and
survival. Specifically, streams must contain organic detritus on which
the herbivorous stoneflies can feed and which provide food for the prey
of predatory stoneflies. The lobed roachfly specifically requires
detritus from annual leaf fall in the autumn to provide food for nymphs
year-round. The primary threats affecting the biological status of the
Blueridge springfly and lobed roachfly include changes in water quality
and loss of riparian vegetation associated with human development,
agriculture, forestry, wildfire, and changes in temperature and
precipitation.
We delineated analysis units using the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
12-digit watersheds in which the known detections of each species
occur. The Blueridge springfly has been detected since 2000 in 20 HUC-
12 watersheds (i.e., analysis units) within Virginia, North Carolina,
and Tennessee in the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The lobed
roachfly has been delineated into four analysis units within the Valley
and Ridge physiographic province in Virginia. Of the metrics that we
can measure rangewide, forest cover within each analysis unit is the
most indicative of potential suitable habitat for stoneflies. Forest
cover within a drainage is generally associated with healthy benthic
macroinvertebrate communities as forests help decrease erosion, provide
food and cover, and
[[Page 63253]]
help to maintain naturally occurring cold stream temperatures.
Decreased percentages of forest cover indicate other land cover types
are present (development, agriculture, etc.), which can result in
increased runoff carrying sediments and contaminants. Less forest cover
can also lead to less leaf detritus that forms the base of the benthic
food chain and provides cover for stonefly larvae and other benthic
organisms, and less shading of streams which can affect stream
temperatures. As such, we rely on forest cover as a proxy for
resiliency to indicate the percentage of each watershed that is more
likely to have habitat conditions that are suitable for these species.
Blueridge Springfly
For the Blueridge springfly, 16 out of 20 analysis units (80
percent) have been assessed as having either high or very high
resiliency, in terms of percentage of forested cover. Two of the
analysis units with very high habitat resiliency also have the two
largest percentages of protected area within the watersheds. All
watersheds have lost less than 5 percent of their total area to forest
conversion since 1985. Given the species' narrow geographic range,
redundancy has likely always been limited. Additionally, given the lack
of unique habitat characteristics that may confer some adaptive
capacity and the species' occurrence within a single physiographic
province, representation is likely to be low, as is typical of somewhat
narrow-ranging endemics. We assessed changes in water quality and loss
of riparian vegetation associated with human development, agriculture,
forestry, wildfire, and changes in temperature and precipitation as the
primary potential threats to the species. We also examined risk of
catastrophic events like heat waves, droughts, or large wildfires. We
found the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that
these potential stressors are not currently negatively affecting the
Blueridge springfly.
The springfly has adequate resiliency to withstand stochastic
events, as a vast majority of analysis units (80 percent) are in high
or very high condition, meaning there are sufficient resources to
sustain populations now and in the near term. In addition, near-term
future projections do not indicate any significant decreases in
forested land cover. The distribution of these moderate and high
resiliency units throughout the range provides sufficient redundancy
for the species to withstand catastrophic events (e.g., droughts,
wildfires). While there is the possibility for catastrophic events to
impact these species, reducing both representation and redundancy,
these risks remain low. Redundancy and representation are naturally
limited due to its narrow range; however, this may be similar to
historical conditions for this species. Thus, after assessing the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that Blueridge
springfly is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
To assess future conditions, we analyzed future land cover forecast
data and projected changes in temperature and precipitation to develop
habitat condition (resiliency) metrics across two climate scenarios
(i.e., moderate and high) for two future timesteps (i.e., 2042 and
2072). Looking into the foreseeable future, under a moderate climate
scenario, little change in forest cover is expected within the range of
the Blueridge springfly. Based on our analysis of projected changes in
forest cover within the 20 analysis units, in a high climate scenario
out to 2072, 9 out of the 20 units (45 percent) remain classified as
either high or very high resiliency and 8 units (40 percent) retain
moderate resiliency. Redundancy is expected to remain at the current
level, and catastrophic events are unlikely to affect all known
populations simultaneously. These high and moderate resiliency units
are expected to be able to withstand stochastic events such as annual
fluctuations in rainfall and temperature. While representation is
expected to remain low due to the species' narrow range, we also
conclude that representation has historically always been low. After
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that the Blueridge springfly is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We found that these threats are not disproportionately affecting
the Blueridge springfly in any portion of its range. All populations
have high/moderate resiliency in the near term and are distributed such
that the species is at low risk from catastrophic events. In summary,
we find that the Blueridge springfly is not in danger of extinction in
any areas across its range (i.e., in no analysis unit). Therefore, no
portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the
species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of
its range.
Three of the 20 analysis units (Headwaters Stewarts Creek, Stone
Mountain Creek-Big Reed Island Creek, and Beaverdam Creek-Little River)
are projected to have low habitat condition under a high climate
scenario, looking out to 2072. Therefore, for this portion of the range
where the Blueridge springfly may become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future, we assessed whether or not that portion is a
``significant portion of the range'' of the Blueridge springfly. This
portion makes up a small proportion of the range and contains only 17
percent (87,462 acres (ac)) of the current range (520,598 acs). This
portion also does not include important or unique habitat features for
species conservation. All analysis units provide similar types of
medium- to large-sized upland streams with appropriate flow, velocity,
and water quality conditions to support breeding, feeding, sheltering,
and dispersal. Therefore, this portion is not a significant portion of
the range of the Blueridge springfly. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in
reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR
Policy, including the definition of ``significant,'' that those court
decisions held to be invalid. Thus, after assessing the best scientific
and commercial data available, we conclude that the Blueridge springfly
is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range.
Lobed Roachfly
All four lobed roachfly analysis units have been assessed as having
either high or very high resiliency. Three analysis units have very
high habitat resiliency, with over 80 percent of the land in the
watershed currently forested, and one analysis unit is considered to
have high habitat resiliency with almost 77 percent of the area
forested. These analysis units have had limited change in terms of
forest cover over the past few decades. Since 1985, none of the units
have lost more than 1 percent of their area to forest conversion; since
2001, all units have seen increased forest cover, from 3.1 to 7.4
percent of the watershed area converting to forests.
It is unclear how current redundancy relates to historical levels.
However, given the narrow physiographic range where this species is
located, redundancy has likely always been limited. Given the lack of
information on unique habitat characteristics that may confer some
adaptive capacity, and the species' occurrence within a single
physiographic province, representation for lobed roachfly is likely
low, as is typical of somewhat narrow-ranging endemics. We assessed
changes in water quality and loss of riparian vegetation associated
with human development,
[[Page 63254]]
agriculture, forestry, wildfire, and changes in temperature and
precipitation as the primary potential threats to the species. We also
examined risk of catastrophic events like heat waves, droughts, or
large wildfires. We found the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that these potential stressors are not currently
negatively affecting lobed roachfly.
The species has adequate resiliency to withstand stochastic events,
as the entire species is in high or very high condition, meaning there
are sufficient resources to sustain populations now and in the near
term. In addition, near-term future projections do not indicate any
significant decreases in forested land cover. The distribution of these
high resiliency analysis units throughout the range provides sufficient
redundancy for the species to withstand catastrophic events (e.g.,
droughts, wildfires). While there is the possibility for catastrophic
events to impact this species, reducing both representation and
redundancy, these risks remain low. Redundancy and representation are
naturally limited due to the narrow range; however, this may be similar
to historical conditions for this species. Thus, after assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that lobed
roachfly is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Under both climate scenarios, little change in forest cover is
expected within the range of the lobed roachfly. Resiliency categories
for all four analysis units remain high to very high even in the high
2072 climate scenario, so redundancy is expected to remain at the
current level. While catastrophic events such as contaminant spills
have the potential to impact the species due to its narrow range, the
risk of this impact is assumed to be reduced due to the very low
percentage of land cover that is developed or in agricultural use.
While representation is expected to remain low due to the narrow range
of the species, we also conclude that representation has historically
always been low. After assessing the best scientific and commercial
data available, we conclude that the lobed roachfly is not likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
We evaluated the range of the lobed roachfly to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of
its range by looking at the near-term future scenarios out to 2042. We
found that threats are not disproportionately affecting the lobed
roachfly in any portion of its range, as all populations have high to
very high resiliency in the near term and are distributed such that the
species is at low risk from catastrophic events. In addition, near-term
future projections do not indicate any significant decreases in
forested land cover in any analysis unit. Therefore, no portion of the
species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
Looking out to the foreseeable future, we found that threats are not
disproportionately affecting the lobed roachfly in any portion of its
range within the foreseeable future. Under both climate scenarios,
little change in forest cover is expected within the range of the
species; resiliency categories for all four analysis units remain high
to very high even in the high 2072 climate scenario. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the
species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This
does not conflict with the decision in Everson because we have
determined that there is no portion of the range where the species may
be in danger of extinction (i.e., the species cannot be in danger of
extinction throughout a significant portion of its range). Thus, after
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that the lobed roachfly is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout a
significant portion of its range. After evaluating threats to the
species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the
section 4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that neither the Blueridge
springfly nor the lobed roachfly meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Blueridge
springfly or the lobed roachfly is not warranted at this time. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
Blueridge springfly and lobed roachfly species assessment form and
other supporting documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket
No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2809 (see ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we
solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained
in the SSA report. The SSA report included a third stonefly species,
the Virginia stone (Acroneuria kosztarabi), whose petition was
withdrawn in 2026 and therefore is not part of this 12-month finding.
We sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received
two responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be
found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-
2809. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate,
into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.
Mojave Poppy Bee
Previous Federal Actions
On October 17, 2018, we received a petition from the CBD requesting
that the Mojave poppy bee be listed as an endangered species and that
critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. On
September 6, 2019, we published a 90-day finding (84 FR 46927) that the
petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may
be warranted for the species. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the October 17, 2018, petition to list the Mojave poppy bee
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Mojave poppy bee is a small (in length) solitary bee species,
about 4.5 to 7 millimeters (mm) (0.2-0.3 inches (in)) in length, found
in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California, Mohave
County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada. It was also historically
found in Washington County, Utah. However, the Mojave poppy bee is
considered extirpated from Utah. Mojave poppy bees are considered
floral specialists, collecting pollen from plant species of the
Papaveraceae family (poppies). Known host plants of the Mojave poppy
bee are Las Vegas bear-poppy (Arctomecon californica), dwarf bear-poppy
(Arctomecon humilis), Mojave prickly poppy (Argemone corymbosa), and
flatbud prickly poppy (Argemone munita).
The life span of an individual adult Mojave poppy bee, like that of
other solitary bees, is likely brief and from a few days up to a
maximum of 30 days. Like other bees in the Andrenidae family, it is
likely a ground nester. Population numbers of adult Mojave poppy bee
can fluctuate dramatically, such that they may be abundant in some
years and absent in others. Fluctuations of solitary bee species'
population
[[Page 63255]]
abundance seem synchronized with precipitation and host plant
flowering. The Mojave poppy bee requires suitable nesting conditions
near abundant host plants, reliable winter precipitation to support
floral resources, connectivity among populations, and sufficient
genetic diversity to maintain resilient, well-distributed populations
capable of adapting to environmental changes.
In undertaking our analysis of the status of the Mojave poppy bee,
we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding
threats to the species, its responses to those threats, and any
associated conservation measures. We then assessed the cumulative
effects of those threats and conservation measures under the Act's
section 4(a)(1) factors. For both the current and future condition, we
examined the following threats: habitat disturbance and modification
(urbanization, mining, trampling, fragmentation, nonnative plants, and
wildfire); herbivory and competition; predation, parasites, and
disease; collection, and altered patterns of winter precipitation and
spring temperatures, including cumulative effects, as well as existing
regulatory mechanisms. The primary threats affecting the Mojave poppy
bee's biological status include habitat modification and altered
patterns of winter precipitation and spring temperatures.
In undertaking this analysis of whether the Mojave poppy bee is in
danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its
range, we evaluated whether the species has a similar near-term risk of
extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction
risk within each representation unit (RU). We looked at RUs because at
that scale, we can assess whether there are multiple resilient
populations in a geographic distribution that can help guard against
losses from catastrophic events. Our review indicated that the Mojave
poppy bee's near-term extinction risk is similar in all three RUs
across its range.
With the species widely distributed across its current range and
within each RU, we consider that its redundancy is high in comparison
to historical condition, meaning that it maintains its ability to
withstand catastrophes. In addition, we are not aware of any plausible
catastrophic events that could affect the species in the current
condition. Representation has decreased from historical condition with
the extirpation of the genetically and floristically unique population
at Beehive Dome in Utah. However, the Mojave poppy bee still maintains
multiple resilient populations within each RU, including other
genetically distinct populations. Overall, because the species
maintains resiliency, representation, and redundancy, we conclude that
it has a low risk of near-term extinction.
In summary, we find that the Mojave poppy bee is not in danger of
extinction in any areas across its range (i.e., in no RU). Thus, there
is no portion of the range where the Mojave poppy bee is in danger of
extinction. Because there is no portion of the range in which the
Mojave poppy bee is endangered, it is necessarily not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Mojave
poppy bee is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
decision in Everson because we have determined that there is no portion
of the range where the species may be in danger of extinction (i.e.,
the species cannot be in danger of extinction throughout a significant
portion of its range). Therefore, we proceed with determining whether
Mojave poppy bee is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. We evaluated whether the
Mojave poppy bee has a similar risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future in all areas across its range by assessing its
extinction risk within each RU. Our review indicated that the Mojave
poppy bee's extinction risk is similar in all areas across its range.
In undertaking these analyses, we again reviewed the best scientific
and commercial data available regarding threats to the species, its
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures.
We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and
conservation measures within the foreseeable future under the Act's
section 4(a)(1) factors.
We assessed the foreseeable future for the species as approximately
50 years, because this timeframe is biologically meaningful to the
species and short enough for us to realistically predict changes to the
3Rs from influences on viability. We analyzed two future scenarios that
captured the plausible range of future conditions for the Mojave poppy
bee.
One of the primary threats in the foreseeable future in all RUs is
habitat disturbance and modification (primarily urbanization, mining,
and trampling). Under the upper plausible limit scenario, the Las Vegas
Valley population group (RU 1) may be extirpated in the foreseeable
future due to potential development of Nellis Air Force Base Area III,
and the White Basin population group (RU 1) may be extirpated due to
mining activities. Trampling associated with offroad vehicle use could
increase in the foreseeable future under this scenario for the Sunrise
Valley population group (RU 1) and the Mojave River Wash population
group (RU 2), and urbanization could also affect the Gale Hills
population group (RU 1); however, the increase in impacts associated
with these threats would be moderate rather than severe. Overall, most
of the 17 extant population groups are projected to have only minimal
changes compared to current viability.
In addition, patterns of winter precipitation and spring
temperatures could be altered in each RU under both future scenarios.
However, host plants (particularly the Las Vegas bear-poppy) appear
resilient to changes in climate. In addition, with the likely ability
to undergo multiple year diapause, the life history of the Mojave poppy
bee allows it to persist through years of unfavorable precipitation
conditions for host plants. Therefore, though there may be a slight
increase in threats under all future scenarios for at least five
population groups, we conclude that the Mojave poppy bee and its host
plants are likely able to withstand projected shifts in precipitation
and temperature.
Under both future scenarios, all RUs are forecast to either
maintain multiple population groups with only a small increase in
threats from the current condition (six in RU 1 and five in RU 2), or
in the case of RU 3, a single population represented by multiple
occurrence areas. Despite increases in threats under Future Scenario 2,
each RU is expected to experience slight decreases in redundancy and no
change in representation.
Those extant populations are projected to maintain resiliency, with
similar levels or slight increases in threats throughout the range.
Overall, though the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events
could decrease slightly in the future, the species would still maintain
redundancy. In addition, there are no plausible catastrophic events
that could affect the species. Neither of the population groups
[[Page 63256]]
projected to be lost under the upper limit scenario are genetically or
environmentally unique, so we do not expect that the representation
would decrease compared to current condition. Therefore, we conclude
that the future extinction risk is similar across the range.
In summary, we find that the Mojave poppy bee is not likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in any
areas across its range (i.e., in no RUs). Thus, there is no portion of
the range where the Mojave poppy bee is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future. Because there is no portion
of the range in which the Mojave poppy bee is threatened, then based on
the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that
the Mojave poppy bee is not likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Mojave poppy bee does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Mojave
poppy bee is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the Mojave poppy bee species
assessment form and other supporting documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2026-2812 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we
solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained
in the Mojave poppy bee SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four
independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of
this structured peer review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2026-2812. We
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this finding.
Streamside Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the CBD, Alabama
Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration
Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands
Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species,
including the streamside salamander, as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day
finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial
information indicating listing may be warranted for the species. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the streamside salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The streamside salamander is a medium-sized (146-168 mm (5.7-6.6
in) total length) stream-breeding ambystomid salamander (i.e., a member
of the mole salamander family whose juvenile and adult life stages are
primarily terrestrial and spends significant time underground) and has
short limbs and a short and fat tail, as well as a relatively small
head and stout body. The streamside salamander's known range extends
from southern Ohio and southeastern Indiana south through central
Kentucky and the far western edge of West Virginia. Populations are
also present in Tennessee in and around the Nashville area.
The streamside salamander uses different habitat throughout the
year. The species moves from upland, non-breeding habitat to stream
habitat from late fall until spring to breed and deposit eggs. These
areas include seasonal/intermittent headwater streams or other water
bodies lacking predatory fish. Breeding streams with surrounding
forests have been shown in some areas to have the highest larval
abundances; however, in other areas of the range, the species is found
in agricultural and developed/urban watersheds. When seasonal lotic
(i.e., actively moving fresh water such as rivers and streams) systems
are unavailable, the streamside salamander rapidly transitions to
fishless lentic (i.e., still, standing, or slow-moving fresh water such
as lakes and ponds) habitats if available. Habitat connectivity is
important for either type of breeding habitat. After metamorphosis,
juveniles and adults move to uplands or areas adjacent to streams for
summer and fall aestivation (i.e., dormancy). Non-breeding habitats
appear highly varied and may be influenced by human habitation and
landscape modifications. Forest may be an important part of some non-
breeding habitat, although in other areas of the species' range the
non-breeding habitat has been documented as a mosaic of pasture,
deciduous, and mixed forest. The species is sensitive to desiccation
(i.e., drying out) and thus often occupies areas with water
availability and high canopy cover. Juvenile and adult streamside
salamanders require available burrows and canopy cover to decrease
desiccation.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
streamside salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
affecting the streamside salamander's biological status include habitat
alteration and degradation due to development, flooding and high
precipitation events, drought, and increasing temperatures. We also
examined other factors including predation, disease, road mortality,
and collection; however, the best scientific and commercial data
available information does not indicate that these factors rise to such
a level that they affected the species as a whole.
The vast majority of historical and recently reported occurrences
of streamside salamanders are either adults in breeding condition
during the breeding season, egg masses, or larvae. This indicates that
breeding and reproduction are still occurring at most recently
documented sites during most years, and thus likely recruitment of
larvae and juveniles into the adult life stages is occurring at some
level at many sites, further signifying sustained resiliency of
populations, and indicating their ability to withstand environmental or
demographic stochastic events. For consistency across the range, we
converted all occurrences to 430 HUC-12s (the coarsest level at which
we received occurrence data). These HUC-12s were used as analysis units
(AUs) (and further grouped into four RUs, reflecting geographic
variation and known genetic differences for the species: Kentucky-
North, Kentucky-South, Ohio River, and Tennessee). There are documented
recent occurrences (since 2008) in 278 of these AUs (64.6 percent),
with these recent observations spread throughout the four RUs (ranging
from 49.6 to 92.3 percent recent occurrences in each of the RUs).
Further, occurrences within each of these RUs are geographically
[[Page 63257]]
widespread. The wide distribution of these AUs across and within four
RUs indicates that the species has sufficient redundancy to withstand
catastrophic events and has sufficient representation to adapt to near-
term changing conditions.
Habitat alteration and degradation through development is the
primary factor influencing the species rangewide, with developed
habitat at 10.9 percent in the Kentucky-North RU, 13.1 percent in the
Kentucky-South RU, 18.4 percent in the Ohio River RU, and 20.7 percent
in the Tennessee RU. While a few localized extirpations of sites and
reduced resiliency have been attributed to development, all RUs have
multiple resilient AUs and approximately 80 percent or more of each RU
has either low levels of development or is undeveloped. The core of the
range in Kentucky has been described as continuing to have excellent
population stability. Similarly, the species is relatively common in
south-central and southeastern Indiana and has continued to show
recruitment and use of both breeding and non-breeding habitat over time
in protected areas and some heavily modified metropolitan habitats.
Furthermore, the streamside salamander's relatively long lifespan,
coupled with its genetic and behavioral adaptative capacity, allows
populations to rebound from occasional poor breeding seasons due to
environmental changes, including flooding and high precipitation
events, drought, and increasing temperatures.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
conclude that the streamside salamander maintains multiple resilient
populations across its range. Though the species is being impacted by
threats including development and environmental impacts, these threats
are not currently meaningfully reducing the resiliency, representation,
and redundancy of the species. Streamside salamander populations have
been recently observed in the majority of the areas from which they
were historically known, and populations show continued reproduction
and recruitment throughout the range and in each of the RUs, indicating
that the species is able to withstand stochastic events. Additionally,
the species remains extant across its range and has sufficient
redundancy to withstand catastrophic events. The species also maintains
its environmental and genetic representation from its historical
condition; thus, it retains its ability to adapt to near-term changing
conditions.
In summary, we find that the streamside salamander is not in danger
of extinction in any areas across its range (i.e., in no RU). Thus,
there is no portion of the range where the streamside salamander is in
danger of extinction. Because there is no portion of the range in which
the streamside salamander is endangered, it is necessarily not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the
streamside salamander is not in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we proceed with
determining whether streamside salamander is likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Into the future, we project that habitat alteration and degradation
through development, as well as environmental change through flooding
and high precipitation events, drought, and increasing temperatures,
will continue to affect the streamside salamander throughout each of
these RUs. We project that these threats will increase throughout the
range of the species through the year 2099. However, while these
environmental changes may have negative impacts, there are also
positive effects that mitigate these negative impacts on the species
(e.g., high flows and flooding may displace larvae to areas where
predatory fish are present, but mortality of larvae is mitigated by
reduced competition for food). Streamside salamander juveniles and
adults have low energetic demands, use burrows, emerge primarily at
night to feed, and can behaviorally thermoregulate, mitigating the
effects of higher temperatures and desiccation. The core of the species
range (in Kentucky) has higher effective population sizes, which
provides additional adaptive capacity that allows the species to better
adapt to changing environmental conditions, and the temperature
increases are not projected to be as high in the three more northern
RUs.
Development is also increasing, although there are relatively low
levels of development projected into the foreseeable future throughout
the range of the streamside salamander, even under the lower scenario.
Each RU has 70 percent or more of its AUs remaining in low development
condition in 2100 (Tennessee RU: 74.6 percent low developed, Ohio River
RU: 81.9 percent low developed, Kentucky-South RU: 86.4 percent low
developed, Kentucky-North: 89.6 percent low developed). While the
Tennessee RU has both the highest increase in development and the
highest overall percentage of development, the remaining three RUs
(Ohio River, Kentucky-South, and Kentucky-North) have enough non-
developed suitable habitat for the species such that we anticipate
there will continue to be sufficient resilient populations distributed
across the RUs to provide sufficient redundancy and representation for
the species. The increased threats in these three RUs are similar and
not of a magnitude to increase the risk of extinction to the point
where the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future in any of them.
The Tennessee RU, however, is more vulnerable to habitat alteration
and degradation due to higher levels of development pressure,
particularly around the greater Nashville area. Both overall rates of
development and increases in development under future scenarios are
higher than the rest of the species' range. Additionally, the
streamside salamander in this unit is more susceptible to negative
impacts from environmental change due to larger projected temperature
increases at southern latitudes, which potentially exceed the species'
tolerance.
For this portion of the range where the species may become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, we first addressed
whether it is ``significant.'' For the purposes of this analysis when
considering whether a portion is ``significant,'' we considered its
conservation value for the species. Collectively, the Tennessee RU does
not represent a large geographic proportion of the streamside
salamander's range, as it makes up only 15.5 percent of the entire
range based on area of AUs (589,772 out of 3,804,929 hectares total
[1,457,358 out of 9,402,184 ac total]) or 12.1 percent of the range
based on number of AUs (52 out of 430 AUs total). This portion of the
range also does not contain high-quality or high-value habitat relative
to the remainder of the range. This unit also does not contain any
unique or unusual habitat for the taxon. The Tennessee RU does not
provide a different ecological setting than the rest of the range and
has similar habitat types (streams and wetlands for breeding, and
nearby upland areas for non-breeding, including forest, agriculture,
and developed areas) as found in other areas of the range. Thus, the
Tennessee RU does not exist in a unique ecological setting that could
provide important opportunities for adaptive capacity and
representation. Therefore, this portion is not a significant portion of
the range.
[[Page 63258]]
As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the streamside
salamander is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the
species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. Thus,
after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that the streamside salamander is not in danger of extinction
throughout a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. This does not conflict with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in reaching
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy,
including the definition of ``significant,'' that those court decisions
held to be invalid. Because the streamside salamander is not in danger
of extinction even in the part of the range with the greatest threats
(Tennessee RU), the species also logically cannot be in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the streamside salamander does not meet the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the
streamside salamander is not warranted at this time. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the streamside
salamander species assessment form and other supporting documents on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2813 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we
solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained
in the streamside salamander SSA report. We sent the SSA report to 4
independent peer reviewers and received 2 responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2813. We
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this finding.
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to
Blueridge springfly, lobed roachfly, Mojave poppy bee, or streamside
salamander to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about
their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.s 12866 and 14192)
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules as defined
by section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. OIRA has determined that this
notification of findings is significant under E.O. 12866. This
notification of findings is not considered an E.O. 14192 regulatory or
deregulatory action because it is not regulatory.
References
A complete list of the references used in these petition findings
is available in the relevant species assessment form, which is
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in the
appropriate docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the
appropriate person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Signing Authority
Brian Nesvik, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on September 11, 2026, for publication. On
September 30, 2026, Brian Nesvik authorized the undersigned to sign the
document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-20315 Filed 10-2-26; 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 October 5, 2026.
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.