[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 162 (Monday, August 25, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41359-41365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for Nine Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings and initiation of status
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day findings on eight petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and one petition to
revise critical habitat for a listed species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find
that the petitions to list the cinnamon juga (Juga canella), Great
Basin ramshorn (Helisoma newberryi), montane peaclam (Pisidium
ultramontanum), painted woolly bat (Kerivoula picta), Southern Cascades
population of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), and
Sulawesi forest turtle (Leucocephalon yuwonoi) 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 also find that the petition to revise critical habitat for the
leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) presents substantial
scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Therefore, we announce that we plan to determine how we will
proceed with the request to revise a critical habitat designation for
the species. We further find that the petitions to list the Alaskan
glacier buttercup (Ranunculus glacialis subsp. alaskensis) and eastern
population of the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a
status review of the Alaskan glacier buttercup or the eastern
population of golden eagle.
DATES: These findings were made on August 25, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition
findings contained in this document are available on https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see tables
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting
information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews and critical habitat review: If you have new
scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the cinnamon juga, Great Basin ramshorn,
montane peaclam, painted woolly bat, Southern Cascades population of
the Sierra Nevada red fox, or Sulawesi forest turtle, or their
habitats, or if you have information concerning the critical habitat of
the leatherback sea turtle, please provide those data or information by
one of the following methods listed below.
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket
number (see table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on
the ``Search'' button. After finding the correct document, you may
submit information by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table 1 under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send information only by the methods described
above. We will post all information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Information Submitted for a
Status Review and a Critical Habitat Review, below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species common name Contact person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaskan glacier buttercup......... Neesha Stellrecht, Field Supervisor,
Northern Alaska Fish and Wildlife
Field Office, 907-347-8906,
[email protected].
cinnamon juga..................... Ryan Fogerty, Project Leader, Yreka
Fish and Wildlife Office, 530-340-
7900, [email protected].
eastern population of golden eagle Matthew Hinderliter, Regional
Listing Coordinator, Northeast
Region Headquarters, 601-720-6531,
[email protected].
Great Basin ramshorn and montane Jennie Land, Project Leader, Klamath
peaclam. Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 541-
885-8481, [email protected].
leatherback sea turtle............ Lourdes Mena, Field Supervisor,
Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, 352-749-2462,
[email protected].
painted woolly bat and Sulawesi Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
forest turtle. Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Headquarters,
703-358-2491,
[email protected].
Southern Cascades population of Jennifer Siani, Classification
Sierra Nevada red fox. Coordinator, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 503-231-6179,
[email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41360]]
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Submitted for Status Reviews and a Critical Habitat Review
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 identify the Service's
schedule for conducting status reviews on the National Listing Workplan
(domestic species), the National Workplan to Address Downlisting and
Delisting Recommendations (domestic species), or the Foreign Species
Workplan (foreign species), which are available at https://www.fws.gov/project/national-listing-workplan, https://www.fws.gov/media/national-workplan-address-downlisting-and-delisting-recommendations, and https://www.fws.gov/project/foreign-species-listing-workplan, respectively.
The cinnamon juga, Great Basin ramshorn, montane peaclam, painted
woolly bat, Southern Cascades population of the Sierra Nevada red fox,
and Sulawesi forest turtle will be assigned a bin number (in
coordination with States and others with relevant information)
according to our prioritization methodology and will be added to a
future version of the applicable workplan. The workplans provide
transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service
anticipates completing specific findings and actions while allowing for
flexibility to update the workplans when new information changes the
priorities.
You may submit information concerning the status of, or threats to,
the cinnamon juga, Great Basin ramshorn, montane peaclam, painted
woolly bat, Southern Cascades population of the Sierra Nevada red fox,
or Sulawesi forest turtle, or their habitats, to be considered during
our status review of the species. Additionally, you may also submit any
new information concerning the critical habitat of the leatherback sea
turtle to be considered as we determine how we will proceed with the
request to revise the critical habitat designation. We request that you
send this information only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please include any supplemental data with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. If you
submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the website.
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.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range 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. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any 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 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 the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those
[[Page 41361]]
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. We note that designating critical habitat is not a
petitionable action under the Act. Petitions to designate critical
habitat (for species without existing critical habitat) are reviewed
under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and
applicable Departmental regulations, 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, or that these features do
not 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 https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number.
Table 1--Substantial Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinnamon juga................................ FWS-R8-ES-2024-0167 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0167.
Great Basin ramshorn......................... FWS-R8-ES-2024-0166 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0166.
Leatherback sea turtle....................... FWS-R4-ES-2024-0169 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R4-ES-2024-0169.
Montane peaclam.............................. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0168 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0168.
Painted woolly bat........................... FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0182 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0182.
Southern Cascades population of Sierra Nevada FWS-R1-ES-2024-0165 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
red fox. FWS-R1-ES-2024-0165.
Sulawesi forest turtle....................... FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0045 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0045.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Not-Substantial Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaskan glacier buttercup.................... FWS-R7-ES-2024-0102 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R7-ES-2024-0102.
Eastern population of golden eagle........... FWS-R5-ES-2025-0012 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R5-ES-2025-0012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Alaskan Glacier Buttercup
Species and Range
Alaskan glacier buttercup (Ranunculus glacialis subsp. alaskensis);
Kigluaik Mountains, Seward Peninsula, Alaska.
Petition History
On February 1, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Alaskan glacier buttercup be
listed as an endangered or a threatened species and critical habitat be
designated for this subspecies under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This
finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the individual and cumulative effects of
threats that fall within factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as
potentially ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
[[Page 41362]]
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information, we find that the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
Alaskan glacier buttercup as an endangered species or a threatened
species may be warranted.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0102 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cinnamon Juga
Species and Range
Cinnamon juga (Juga canella); Siskiyou and Shasta Counties,
California; Jackson County, Oregon.
Petition History
On March 21, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the cinnamon juga be listed as an
endangered species or a threatened species and critical habitat be
designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This
finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding decreased water quality (Factor A), we find that
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the cinnamon juga as an endangered species or a
threatened species may be warranted. The petitioners also presented
information suggesting water diversions, low dispersal ability, low
number of sites, climate change, and wildfire may be threats to the
cinnamon juga. We will fully evaluate these potential threats during
our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review
the best scientific and commercial data 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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0167 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Eastern Population of Golden Eagle
Species and Range
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); the contiguous United States,
Alaska, Canada, and Mexico.
The eastern population of the golden eagle breeds in Canada and
winters in and/or migrates through Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Petition History
On November 15, 2023, we received a petition from the American Bird
Conservancy, requesting that the eastern population of the golden eagle
be listed as an endangered or a threatened distinct population segment
(DPS). Alternatively, the petitioner requested the golden eagle
(species as a whole) be listed as an endangered species or a threatened
species. The petitioner also asked that critical habitat be designated.
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50
CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding the individual and cumulative effects of
threats that fall within factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as
potentially ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information, we find that the petition does not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
eastern population of the golden eagle as an endangered or threatened
DPS, or the golden eagle (species as a whole) as an endangered or
threatened species, may be warranted. Although the petition provided
credible information that individual golden eagles have been killed by
wind turbines, recreational shooting, collision with vehicles,
electrocution, incidental trapping, and lead poisoning (Factors B and
E), the petitioner did not demonstrate population-level impacts to
either the eastern population of the golden eagle or the species as a
whole. The best available information indicates that golden eagle
populations are stable rangewide and within the eastern portion of its
range.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2025-0012 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Great Basin Ramshorn
Species and Range
Great Basin ramshorn (Helisoma newberryi); California, Oregon, and
Wyoming.
Petition History
On March 21, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Great Basin ramshorn be
listed as an endangered species or a threatened species and critical
habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding decreased water quality (Factor A), we find that
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Great Basin ramshorn as an endangered
[[Page 41363]]
species or a threatened species may be warranted. The petitioners also
presented information suggesting drought, water diversions,
incompatible land use, recreation, climate change, small population
size, stochastic events, and invasive species may be threats to the
Great Basin ramshorn. We will fully evaluate these potential threats
during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to
review the best scientific and commercial data 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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0166 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Leatherback
Sea Turtle
Species and Range
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); Atlantic, Pacific,
and Indian Oceans; U.S. waters in the Northwest Atlantic, West Pacific,
and East Pacific; nesting in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Petition History
On February 15, 2024, we received a petition from Amigos de las
Tortugas Marinas (ATMAR, Inc.), Vida Marina, Yo Amo el Tinglar, and the
Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that critical habitat be
revised for the leatherback sea turtle, a species listed as endangered
under the Act. The petition requests that the Service revise critical
habitat for the leatherback sea turtle to include three units in Puerto
Rico: California Beach, in the municipality of Maunabo (southeast coast
of Puerto Rico); Tres Hermanos Beach, in the municipality of
A[ntilde]asco (west coast of Puerto Rico); and Grande Beach, in the
municipality of Arecibo (north coast of Puerto Rico); totaling 121.4
acres (49.1 hectares). The petition further requests that the Service
consider designating additional beaches in Puerto Rico as critical
habitat. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information to determine if the petition may be
warranted. Under our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(3), for areas
petitioned to be added to designated critical habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, we
assessed whether the petitioner presented substantial 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 may require special management
considerations or protection. The information presented in the petition
meets the definition of substantial scientific information as that term
is defined at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i). Based on our review of the
petition, sources cited in the petition, and other readily available
information, we find the petition does provide substantial scientific
information indicating that revising critical habitat for the
leatherback sea turtle may be warranted.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0169 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Montane Peaclam
Species and Range
Montane peaclam (Pisidium ultramontanum); south-central Oregon and
northeastern California.
Petition History
On March 21, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the montane peaclam be listed as
an endangered species or 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.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information, regarding lake eutrophication (Factor A), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the montane peaclam as an endangered species or
a threatened species may be warranted. The petitioners also presented
information suggesting modification of hydroelectric impoundments,
water diversions, incompatible land use practices, recreation,
inappropriate grazing, pollution, invasive species, climate change, and
small population size may be threats to the montane peaclam. We will
fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status
review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial data 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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2024-0168 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Painted Woolly Bat
Species and Range
Painted woolly bat (Kerivoula picta); Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia,
China, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Petition History
On June 3, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity and Monitor Conservation Research Society,
requesting that the painted woolly bat be listed as an endangered
species or 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.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding over-exploitation for the ornamental taxidermy
trade (Factor B), and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
reduce this threat
[[Page 41364]]
(Factor D), we find that the petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that listing the painted woolly
bat as an endangered species or a threatened species may be warranted.
The petitioners also presented information suggesting loss of suitable
habitat (Factor A) may be a threat to the painted woolly bat. We will
fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status
review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial data 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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0182 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Southern Cascades Population of
Sierra Nevada Red Fox
Species and Range
Southern Cascades population of the Sierra Nevada red fox
(population of Vulpes vulpes necatori); Crest of the Oregon Cascades
between Mount Hood and Crater Lake National Park, Lassen Volcanic
National Park, and Lassen National Forest.
Petition History
On February 8, 2024, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity requesting that the Southern Cascades population
of the Sierra Nevada red fox be listed as an endangered or a threatened
DPS and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information regarding recreation (Factor A) and inherent vulnerability
of small populations (Factor E), we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the Southern Cascades population of the Sierra Nevada red fox
as an endangered or threatened DPS may be warranted. The petitioners
also presented information suggesting disease, predation, rodenticides,
wildfire, hybridization, and climate change may be threats to the
Southern Cascades population of the Sierra Nevada red fox. We will
fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status
review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial data 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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2024-0165 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Sulawesi Forest Turtle
Species and Range
Sulawesi forest turtle (Leucocephalon yuwonoi); Minahasa Peninsula,
on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Petition History
On February 27, 2025, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity and Monitor Conservation Research Society,
requesting that the Sulawesi forest turtle be emergency-listed as an
endangered species or 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). Listing a species on an emergency basis is not a
petitionable action under the Act, and the question of when to list on
an emergency basis is left to the discretion of the Service. If the
Service determines that the standard for emergency listing in section
4(b)(7) of the Act is met, the Service may exercise that discretion to
take an emergency listing action at any time. Therefore, we are
considering the February 27, 2025, petition as a petition to list the
Sulawesi forest turtle. This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information (within the constraints of the Act and 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)). We considered the credible information that the
petition provided regarding effects of the threats that fall within
factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) as potentially ameliorated or
exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts. Based on our review of the petition and readily available
information concerning overcollection to supply international demand
for meat and pets (Factor B) and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to reduce this threat (Factor D), we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the Sulawesi forest turtle as an endangered species or a
threatened species may be warranted. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the
Act's requirement to review the best scientific and commercial data
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
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0045 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that
the petitions summarized above for the cinnamon juga, Great Basin
ramshorn, montane peaclam, painted woolly bat, Southern Cascades
population of the Sierra Nevada red fox, and Sulawesi forest turtle
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.
We also find that the petition to revise critical habitat for the
leatherback sea turtle presents substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we
are also announcing that we are planning to determine how we will
proceed with the request to revise a critical habitat designation for
the species. In addition, we have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the Alaskan glacier buttercup and eastern
population of the golden eagle do not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be
warranted.
[[Page 41365]]
We are, therefore, not initiating status reviews for these species in
response to the petitions.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Brian R. Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-16227 Filed 8-22-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P