46548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R7–ES–2009–0051; 9221050083] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Pacific Walrus as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens) as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. Following a 

review of the petition, we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing this subspecies may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a status review to determine if 

listing the Pacific walrus is warranted. 

To ensure that the status review is 

comprehensive, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding this 

subspecies. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document on September 10, 

2009. To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that you 

send us information on or before 

November 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS–R7–ES–2009–0051 and then 

follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R7– 

ES–2009–0051; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa 

Meehan, Alaska Regional Office, Marine 

Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503; by telephone 

(800–362–5148); or by facsimile (907– 

786–3816). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. To 

ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information concerning the status of the 

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens). We request information from 

other concerned governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning the status 

of the Pacific walrus. We are seeking 

information regarding: 

(1) Information relevant to the factors 

that are the basis for making a listing 

determination for a species under 

section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ 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. 

(2) The historical and current status of 

the population, including distribution, 

abundance, trends in abundance, 

population dynamics, taxonomy, and 

stock structure. 

(3) Habitat selection and use, 

including both sea-ice and terrestrial 

haulouts; disturbance at haulouts; food 

habits; and effects of disease, 

competition, and predation on Pacific 

walruses. 

(4) The effects of climate and 

environmental changes, sea-ice changes, 

and ocean acidification on the 

distribution, abundance, and life history 

of Pacific walruses and their principal 

prey over the short and long term. 

(5) Information on the effects of other 

potential threat factors, including, but 

not limited to, oil and gas exploration 

and development, commercial fishing 

and shipping, contaminants, and 

hunting. 

(6) Information on the effects of 

ongoing conservation measures for the 

species and its habitat on the 

distribution and abundance of Pacific 

walruses and their principal prey over 

the short and long term. 

If we determine that listing the Pacific 

walrus is warranted, it is our intent to 

propose critical habitat to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable at the 

time we propose to list the species. 

Therefore, with regard to areas within 

the geographical range currently 

occupied by the Pacific walrus, we also 

request data and information on what 

may constitute physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, where these features are 

currently found, and whether any of 

these features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In addition, we request data 

and information regarding whether 

there are areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Please provide specific 

comments and information as to what, 

if any, critical habitat you think we 

should propose for designation if the 

species is proposed for listing, and why 

such habitat meets the requirements of 

the Act. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be informative 

to us in making a determination, as 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ Based on 

the status review, we will issue a 12- 

month finding on the petition, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this finding, will be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46549 

available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment during normal business 

hours at the Alaska Regional Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly commence 

a status review of the species. 

On February 8, 2008, we received a 

petition dated February 7, 2008, from 

the Center for Biological Diversity 

requesting that we list the Pacific walrus 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Act and that we designate critical 

habitat. The petition clearly identified 

itself as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(a). We evaluated the immediacy 

of possible threats to the Pacific walrus 

and determined that emergency listing 

was not warranted. In a letter to the 

petitioner dated April 9, 2008, we 

informed the petitioner that all 

remaining available funds in the listing 

program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 had 

already been allocated to the Service’s 

highest priority listing actions and that 

no listing funds were available to 

further evaluate the walrus petition in 

FY 2008. In the case of Center for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, et al. (3:08–cv–00265– 

JWS), the plaintiff filed a complaint for 

declaratory judgment and injunctive 

relief challenging the failure of the 

Service to make a 90-day finding on its 

petition to list the Pacific walrus, under 

section 4(b)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)) and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 706(1)). The 

complaint was filed in U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska on 

December 3, 2008. On May 18, 2009, a 

settlement agreement between the 

Center for Biological Diversity and the 

Service was approved by the court. This 

agreement requires us to submit our 90- 

day finding on the petition to the 

Federal Register by September 10, 2009. 

If we find that the petition presents 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted, we must submit our 12- 

month finding to the Federal Register 

by September 10, 2010. 

Species Information 

The family Odobenidae is represented 

by a single modern species, Odobenus 

rosmarus, of which two subspecies are 

generally recognized: The Atlantic 

walrus (O. r. rosmarus) and the Pacific 

walrus (O. r. divergens). The two 

subspecific pinnipeds occur in 

geographically isolated populations. 

The Pacific walrus is a large, heavybodied pinniped that has thick, rough, 

creased skin; a wide head and muzzle; 

small, protruding eyes; hundreds of 

forward-facing, short, stiff, vibrissae, 

and upper canine teeth that develop 

into long tusks (Jefferson et al. 2008, pp. 

376–377). 

Pacific walrus use floating sea ice as 

a substrate for birthing and nursing 

calves, for resting, for isolation from 

predators, and for passive transport to 

new feeding areas (Fay 1974, pp. 393– 

394). Pacific walrus is thus identified as 

an ice-associated species. They range 

throughout the continental shelf waters 

of the Bering and Chukchi Seas and can 

be found in low numbers in the East 

Siberian Sea and the Beaufort Sea. In 

winter and early spring, walruses 

concentrate in the Bering Sea pack ice 

where open leads, polynyas, or thin ice 

allow access to water (Fedoseev 1982, 

p. 2 of translation; Fay 1982, p. 21). 

During spring, most of the population, 

including females and calves, migrates 

from the Bering Sea into the Chukchi 

Sea, where they form mixed groups 

along the southern edge of the pack ice. 

As summer sea ice recedes, walruses 

may haul out on shore on Wrangel and 

other islands and along the Chukchi Sea 

coast. The number of walruses using 

coastal haulouts in Chukotka are highly 

variable among years and seasons (see 

Fay et al. 1984 for summary up through 

the 1970s, pp. 270–271). Many adult 

males remain in the Bering Sea for the 

summer, using coastal haulout sites in 

the Gulf of Anadyr, Bering Strait region, 

and in Bristol Bay (Fay 1982, p. 14). In 

the fall, walruses that summered in the 

Chukchi Sea follow the formation of sea 

ice as they migrate south through the 

Bering Strait and back into the Bering 

Sea. 

Walruses feed on a broad array of 

benthic invertebrate prey, including sea 

anemones, worms, sea cucumbers, 

tunicates, snails, and clams (Sheffield et 

al. 2001, p. 311). Occasionally, walruses 

consume large nonbenthic organisms 

such as fish, birds, or seals (summarized 

in Sheffield et al. 2001, p. 311). 

Although capable of diving to deeper 

depths, walruses usually feed in 

shallow waters of 100 meters (328 feet) 

or less (Fay 1982, p. 163; Fay and Burns 

1988, p. 240). 

The current size and trend of the 

Pacific walrus population is unknown. 

Between 1975 and 1990, cooperative, 

contemporaneous, visual aerial surveys 

were carried out by the United States 

and the former Soviet Union at 5-year 

intervals, producing population 

estimates ranging from about 170,000 to 

250,000 individuals (see Gilbert 1999 

for review, pp. 76–79). Observers 

counted or estimated numbers of 

walruses hauled out on pack ice and 

land, but could not accurately detect or 

quantify walruses that were swimming 

in the water. Surveyed areas included 

all known terrestrial haulout sites, but 

were limited to an unknown but very 

small percentage of available ice 

habitats. Efforts to survey the Pacific 

walrus population were suspended by 

both countries after 1990, due to 

unresolved problems with survey 

methods that produced population 

estimates with unknown bias and large 

or unknown, but presumably large, 

variances that severely limited their 

utility (Gilbert et al. 1992, p. 1; Gilbert 

1999, p. 82). The population estimates 

generated from these surveys are 

considered minimum values that cannot 

be used for detecting trends in 

population size (Hills and Gilbert 1994, 

p. 205). 

During 2002–2005, the Service and 

Russian partners developed a survey 

method that uses thermal imaging 

systems to reliably detect walrus groups 

hauled out on sea ice (Burn et al. 2006, 

p. 54; Udevitz et al. 2008, pp. 63–64). 

At the same time, the U.S. Geological 

Survey developed satellite transmitters 

that record information on the haulout 

status of individual walruses (Jay et al. 

2006, p. 231), which can be used to 

estimate the proportion of the walrus 

population in the water. These 

technological advances led to a joint 

United States-Russia aerial survey in 

March and April of 2006, to estimate the 

size of the Pacific walrus population 

(USFWS and USGS 2006, p. 7). Analysis 

of data collected during the 2006 walrus 

survey is ongoing. Final results are 

expected in late 2009. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46550 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Threats Evaluation 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR Part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (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. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the Pacific walrus, 

as presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files, is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

The petition asserts that the Pacific 

walrus’ sea-ice habitats in the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas are disappearing and 

being degraded by global climate change 

(Petition, pp. 26–63). It states that the 

Arctic is warming faster than other 

regions of the globe (p. 31; Anisimov et 

al. 2007, p. 656), and that Arctic 

summer sea ice, including the ice of the 

Chukchi Sea, is predicted to disappear 

or nearly disappear between 2012 and 

2030 (p. 27; Amos 2007, p. 1; Stroeve et 

al. 2008, p. 14). By 2050, the Bering Sea 

is predicted to lose about 40 percent of 

its winter sea ice unless emissions 

scenarios change (Overland and Wang 

2007, p. 1). 

The petition states that global 

warming will impact the Pacific walrus 

by degrading and eliminating critical 

sea-ice habitat, decreasing prey 

availability, altering interactions with 

predators and disease, and increasing 

human disturbance throughout the 

range (Petition, p. 58). It claims that, 

without sea ice, the Pacific walrus will 

be forced into a shore-based existence 

for which it is not adapted (Petition, 

p. 27). 

After reviewing the supporting 

references cited in the petition, we find 

that the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information in 

our files, presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to effects on walruses 

resulting from changes in climate and 

sea-ice habitats. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition does not claim that 

overutilization of Pacific walruses for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is taking place or 

will take place, and does not provide 

any evidence that this factor is 

impacting or will impact Pacific 

walruses (Petition, pp. 63–64). We do 

not have substantial information in our 

files to suggest that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes may threaten the 

Pacific walrus. However, all factors, 

including threats from utilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes, will be evaluated 

when we conduct our status review. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petition asserts that global 

warming is likely to markedly increase 

depredation and disease occurrence in 

the Pacific walrus population (Petition, 

p. 64), but does not support this 

statement with any evidence that this 

factor is impacting or will impact 

Pacific walruses. We do not have 

substantial information in our files to 

suggest that disease or predation may 

threaten the Pacific walrus. However, all 

factors, including threats from disease 

and predation, will be evaluated when 

we conduct our status review. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition presents information 

regarding existing and planned 

regulatory mechanisms, stating that the 

primary international regulatory 

mechanisms addressing greenhouse gas 

emissions and global warming, the 

United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and the Kyoto 

Protocol, are ineffective in mitigating 

many of the climate-based threats to the 

species (Petition, pp. 64–70). The 

petition claims that the ineffectiveness 

of these regulatory mechanisms is 

demonstrated by their failure to 

significantly reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions (Petition, pp. 69–70). See our 

analysis of Factor A above, where we 

found that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to effects on walruses 

resulting from changes in climate and 

sea-ice habitats. The petition further 

claims that existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to address 

impacts of oil and gas development, as 

made evident by the fact that important 

walrus habitats were not deleted from 

Minerals Management Service lease 

sales (Petition, pp. 70). It states that 

existing regulations both domestically 

and internationally are inadequate to 

protect Pacific walruses and their 

habitat from harm due to shipping and 

ocean acidification (Petition, pp. 71–72). 

After reviewing the supporting 

references cited in the petition, we find 

that the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information in 

our files, presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted due to inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The petition claims that ocean 

acidification poses a profound threat to 

marine ecosystems due to impacts on 

photosynthesis of phytoplankton, 

metabolic rates of zooplankton and fish, 

oxygen supply of squid, reproduction of 

clams, nitrification by microorganisms, 

and the uptake of metals (Petition, p. 72; 

WBGU 2006, p. 69). The petition further 

claims that ocean acidification threatens 

the Pacific walrus because of its 

deleterious effects on walrus prey 

species (Petition, p. 72), including 

mollusk species that are similar to those 

species consumed by the Pacific walrus 

(Berge et al. 2005, p. 1; Gazeau et al. 

2007, p. 1). 

The petition claims that additional 

impacts on the Pacific walrus include 

threats from offshore oil and gas 

development in the United States, 

Canada, and Russia, which has the 

potential to negatively impact large 

portions of the Pacific walrus’ foraging 

and breeding habitat with oil and noise 

pollution (Petition, p. 73). The petition 

states that exposure to contaminants 

may also increase for Pacific walruses as 

a result of increasing precipitation and 

ice melt (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, p. 

318). The petition also states that 

commercial fisheries pose a threat to the 

Pacific walrus by causing direct 

mortality through incidental take as 

fisheries bycatch (Woodley and Lavinge 

1991, p. 12), and by depleting essential 

prey resources (Petition, p. 82). 

After reviewing the supporting 

references cited in the petition, we find 

that some of the information provided 

in the petition, specifically information 

on threats due to ocean acidification, as 

well as other information in our files, 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to this factor. The petition does not 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46551 

present substantial information, nor do 

we have substantial information in our 

files, to suggest that fisheries or oil and 

gas activities, with the possible 

exception of potential oil spills, may 

threaten the Pacific walrus. However, all 

factors will be evaluated when we 

conduct our status review. 

Finding 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our process for making this 90-day 

finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act is limited to a determination of 

whether the information in the petition 

presents ‘‘substantial scientific and 

commercial information,’’ which is 

interpreted in our regulations as ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). As 

described in our threats evaluation, 

above, the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Pacific walrus throughout its entire 

range may be warranted based on 

Factors A, D, and E. Based on our 

threats evaluation, the petition does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that Factors B and C may be 

a threat to this species. 

Based on this review and evaluation, 

we find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Pacific walrus throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range may be 

warranted due to current and future 

threats under Factors A, D, and E. 

Therefore, we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether listing the 

Pacific walrus under the Act is 

warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding is not the 

same as the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding is not a status assessment of 

the species and does not constitute a 

status review under the Act. In a 12- 

month finding, we will determine 

whether a petitioned action is warranted 

after we have completed a thorough 

status review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

indicate that listing is warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Alaska Regional Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Alaska Regional 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 1, 2009. 

Sam D. Hamilton, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21759 Filed 9–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2009–0047] 

[MO 92210530083-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to List the Amargosa Toad 

(Bufo nelsoni) as Threatened or 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90–day finding on a petition to list the 

Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

to determine if listing the Amargosa 

toad is warranted. To ensure that the 

status review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial data 

and other information regarding this 

species. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document on September 10, 

2009. To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

November 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0047; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 4701 

North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 

89130, by telephone (702–515–5230), or 

by facsimile (702–515–5231). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. To 

ensure that the status review (12–month 

finding) is complete and based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information concerning the status of the 

Amargosa toad. We request information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning the status 

of the Amargosa toad. We are seeking 

information regarding: 

(1) The species’ historical and current 

status and distribution, its biology and 

ecology, and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species and its habitat. 

(2) Information relevant to the factors 

that are the basis for making a listing 

determination for a species under 

section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), which are: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1