[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 99207-99211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Not-
Warranted Finding for the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Rio
Grande cutthroat trout, a subspecies of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarkii), inhabit high-elevation streams in New Mexico and southern
Colorado. After a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing the Rio Grande cutthroat
trout as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted at this
time. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new
information relevant to the status of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout or
its habitat.
DATES: The finding in this document was made on December 10, 2024.
ADDRESSES: A detailed description of the basis for this finding is
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193. Supporting information used to prepare this
finding is also available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Office.
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, New
Mexico Ecological Services Office, 505-346-2525,
[email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 the 12-month
finding in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(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 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 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
following 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. 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
[[Page 99208]]
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
implementing 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 https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) 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 available data 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.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Rio Grande
cutthroat trout meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information for the 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 finding on a petition to list the
Rio Grande cutthroat trout. We have also elected to include a brief
summary of the analysis on which this finding is based. We provide the
full analysis, including the reasons and data on which the finding is
based, in the decisional file for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. The
following is a description of the documents containing this analysis.
The species assessment form for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
contains more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of
the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of
why we determined that the subspecies does not meet the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To
inform our status review, we completed a species status assessment
(SSA) report for the subspecies. The SSA report contains a thorough
review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and
projected future status for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193.
Previous Federal Actions
The Service was petitioned to list the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act in 1998. On
September 14, 1998, we published a 90-day finding (63 FR 49062) that
the petition did not present substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted. On June 9, 1999, the Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity sued the Service in regard to our 90-
day petition finding. While this litigation was pending, we received
information (particularly related to the presence of whirling disease
in hatchery fish in the wild) that led us to believe that further
review of the status of the subspecies was warranted. On November 8,
2001, the Service and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
entered into a settlement agreement stipulating that the Service would
initiate a status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. On May 14,
2008, we found the subspecies was warranted for listing but precluded
by higher priority actions (73 FR 27900), and the Rio Grande cutthroat
trout was added to our list of candidate species at that time. After
completing a species status assessment in 2014 (SSA; Service 2014,
entire), we subsequently published a 12-month petition finding
determining that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout was not warranted for
listing as endangered or threatened under the Act (79 FR 59140; October
1, 2014). The 2014 decision was challenged in court and vacated and
remanded by the judge on October 31, 2020, when a motion clarifying our
decision was denied. In response to that decision, we initiated another
status review of the subspecies for listing as a threatened or
endangered species under the Act. This document constitutes our new 12-
month finding.
Summary of Finding
Rio Grande cutthroat trout, a subspecies of cutthroat trout,
inhabit high-elevation streams in New Mexico and southern Colorado. The
subspecies is generally assumed to have occupied all streams capable of
supporting them in the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian River basins
(Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). The range of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
has been divided into five geographic management units (GMUs) that
reflect the hydrologic divisions of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout's
historical range by river drainage: Canadian, Rio Grande Headwaters,
Lower Rio Grande, Caballo, and Pecos.
To maintain overall viability, populations of the Rio Grande
cutthroat trout must have sufficient resiliency, representation, and
redundancy. Adequately resilient Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations
must be of sufficient size to withstand demographic and genetic
stochasticity. General guidelines for trout are that effective
population sizes above 500 have a low risk of negative genetic outcomes
and retain long-term adaptive potential, and those below 50 are highly
vulnerable to inbreeding depression and genetic drift. For populations
to be sufficiently resilient, they must occupy stream reaches long
enough to provide the range of habitats needed to complete their life
cycle (i.e., spawning habitat, nursery habitat, adult habitat, refugial
habitat). Streams longer than about 9.7 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi))
are generally assumed to be long enough to encompass the habitat
complexity necessary for the population to survive stochastic events.
Streams shorter than 2.8 km (1.7 mi) are unlikely to have enough
habitat variability for a population to be able to survive stochastic
events. The longer an unobstructed reach of stream, the more habitat
variability is likely to be represented, which increases the likelihood
of survival of various life stages. There are some natural events, such
as wildfires and stream drying, that can be catastrophic in their
impact. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout needs to have multiple resilient
populations
[[Page 99209]]
distributed throughout its historical range to provide for rangewide
redundancy. Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or
ecological diversity is important to maintain the adaptive capacity of
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to future environmental changes. The Rio
Grande cutthroat trout needs to retain populations across the diversity
of its range to maintain the overall potential genetic and life history
attributes that can buffer the subspecies' response to environmental
changes over time.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The
primary threat affecting the Rio Grande cutthroat trout's biological
status is hybridization, competition, and predation from nonnative
trout. The introduction of nonnative trout species has accounted for
most of the loss of the subspecies from its historical range. The Rio
Grande cutthroat trout is also affected by environmental threats such
as wildfires, stream drying, water temperature changes, and flooding,
all of which may be exacerbated by climate change. Most populations of
Rio Grande cutthroat trout are potentially exposed to these threats,
but their likelihood of occurring and magnitude of impact are highly
variable and dependent on local conditions. Past threats, such as land
management practices, disease, and overharvest, are not significantly
impacting the subspecies currently and are unlikely to do so in the
future. A multi-agency conservation agreement between the States of
Colorado and New Mexico, Forest Service, multiple Tribes, and the
Service, among others (known as the Conservation Team), has improved
the resiliency of existing populations and restored the Rio Grande
cutthroat trout to areas where it has been extirpated, primarily
through construction of barriers, removal of nonnative trout, and
habitat improvements. This agreement has been ongoing since 2003 when
it was first signed, having been renewed in 2013 and 2024. Central to
the agreement is the development of the Conservation Strategy, which
outlines specific plans and strategies to improve conditions for the
subspecies over the course of the agreement.
Currently there are 119 Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations
across all five GMUs. These populations currently occupy 1,197 river km
(744 mi)); this represents an 82 percent reduction from the presumed
historical range. Rangewide, 60 populations (50 percent) have a
complete barrier, 14 (12 percent) have a partial barrier, and 45 (38
percent) do not have a barrier in place. Barriers are a key
conservation measure to prevent colonization by nonnative trout. Fifty
populations (40 percent) currently co-occur with nonnative trout. The
remaining 60 percent of populations are not currently exposed to this
threat.
The 119 populations are distributed across a wide geographic area,
providing sufficient redundancy to reduce the likelihood of large-scale
extirpation due to a single catastrophic event. Furthermore, the Rio
Grande cutthroat trout Conservation Team has a demonstrated track
record of responding to negative events to protect and even expand
populations in the aftermath of large-scale changes to streams.
Populations cover the breadth of the historical range, ensuring
retention of adaptive capacity (i.e., representation) to promote short-
term adaption to environmental change. The SSA report describes the
uncertainties associated with potential threats and the subspecies'
response to these potential threats, but the best available information
indicates the risk of extinction is low. Therefore, we conclude that
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and does not meet the definition of an
endangered species.
Thus, we proceed with determining whether the subspecies is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range (i.e., threatened). The SSA report includes an analysis of
two future scenarios based on conditions projected for the 2040s and
2080s, which encompasses the best available information for future
projections of population resiliency (Service 2024 pp. 44-63). The
future scenarios indicate that nonnative trout are the most significant
threat to the future persistence of Rio Grande cutthroat trout
populations. Populations currently invaded by nonnative trout and/or
lacking barriers have an elevated risk of extirpation. Other threats
are projected to have less of an impact on population persistence,
although cumulatively they can increase the probability of extirpation.
Despite the risks posed by nonnative trout, conservation measures
will improve the resiliency of existing populations, mainly through
barrier construction and nonnative species removal. We anticipate that
the Conservation Team will continue to promote the viability of the
subspecies and mitigate threats given their commitment to the
conservation agreement and track record of success. Continued
application of these measures could increase the number of resilient
populations by the 2080s. Thus, we project at minimum there will be
multiple resilient populations (between 40 to 70) that will continue to
exist in the future. In both future scenarios, the subspecies is
expected to maintain redundancy and representation because populations
will continue to be distributed throughout most of its known historical
range, including multiple GMUs. Therefore, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
does not meet the definition of a threatened species because it is not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is
any portion of the subspecies' range for which it is true that both (1)
the portion is significant; and (2) the subspecies is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that
portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to
address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first.
We can choose to 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 subspecies' range.
In undertaking this analysis for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, we
began by identifying portions of the range where the biological status
of the subspecies may be different from its biological status elsewhere
in its range. For this purpose, we considered information pertaining to
the geographic distribution of (a) populations of the subspecies, (b)
the threats that the subspecies faces, and (c) the resiliency condition
of populations.
We evaluated the range of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to
determine if
[[Page 99210]]
the subspecies is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. Because the range
of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways, we focus our analysis on portions of the species' range
that contribute to the conservation of the species in a biologically
meaningful way. For Rio Grande cutthroat trout, we considered whether
the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any portion
of the subspecies' range than in other portions such that the
subspecies is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in that portion.
For the purposes of considering portions of Rio Grande cutthroat
trout's range, we reviewed the GMUs we identified in the SSA Report.
These units correspond to different watersheds and genetic lineages and
function as independent clusters of populations. They are also the
scale at which management actions are directed. Thus, in evaluating
extinction risk, we did so at the scale of individual GMUs.
We first considered whether the subspecies may be in danger of
extinction in any one of these GMUs. As discussed above, the primary
current threats to the Rio Grande cutthroat trout are hybridization,
predation, and competition with nonnative trout species. We examined
those threats along with the effects from habitat loss, degradation,
and fragmentation due to hydrological changes (stream drying and
flooding), wildfire, land management practices, overharvest (i.e.,
angling), and disease, including cumulative effects and considered
whether conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms ameliorated any
of the effects.
In general, there are no differences in exposure to primary threats
across the GMUs. Each contains a mix of populations that are invaded by
nonnative trout and there are no notable differences in risk posed by
near-term environmental threats. This is evidenced by the results of
the model developed by the Conservation Team: the distribution of
persistence probabilities in the near-term does not vary between the
GMUs, with the exception of the Caballo GMU, which has a single
population. The greatest difference in extinction risk across the GMUs
is not due to threats or patterns of population resiliency, but instead
the number of populations that contribute to redundancy. The Caballo (1
population), Canadian (10 populations), and Pecos (11 populations) GMUs
are at inherently higher risk due to the smaller number of populations
they contain, which is exacerbated by threats such as nonnative trout.
Mirroring the rangewide trends, these GMUs are a mix of invaded and
noninvaded populations, meaning only a subset of populations are at low
risk of near-term extirpation. Thus, these GMUs have inherently low
redundancy that elevates their risk of extinction.
After identifying a portion of the range (Caballo, Canadian, and
Pecos GMUs), where the subspecies has a potentially different status
than within the remainder of the range, we then proceed to assess
whether the portion constitutes a significant portion of the range. To
do so, we examined the occupied stream lengths within each GMU.
Currently, the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs contain 3, 147, and 59
km (2, 91, 37 mi), respectively, of occupied stream length. Rangewide,
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout occupies 1,197 km (744 mi) of stream
length, meaning combined these three GMUs constitute around 17 percent
of the subspecies' range. With the vast majority of the occupied range
in the Rio Grande Headwaters and Lower Rio Grande GMUs, the remaining
three GMUs, on their own or combined, do not contain a significant
portion of the occupied range. Furthermore, these three GMUs do not
possess unique or high-quality habitat that would promote the
conservation of the subspecies. As this is not a significant portion of
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout range, we determined the species is not
in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
We next considered whether the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout a significant portion of its range. Again, threats are
projected to be similar across the range, with no disparities in
exposure to nonnative species, wildfire, stream drying, or flooding.
GMUs have a mix of populations that have barriers and some that do not,
and the Conservation Team has been and is projected to perform
conservation activities in all five GMUs. The most recent iteration of
the Conservation Strategy places an emphasis on the Pecos and Canadian
GMUs, acknowledging their more precarious status. As with the near-
term, projections in the 2040s and 2080s are that each GMU will be a
mix of populations with varying levels of extirpation risk.
Similar to the near-term analysis, the main difference in
extinction risk for each GMU is the disparity in the number of
populations, which influences redundancy. In our assessment, we did not
assume that more populations would be added to a GMU via
reintroduction. Therefore, the current number of populations in each
GMU (1 for Caballo, 10 for Canadian, and 11 for Pecos) would be the
maximum number of populations present in the future. Thus, these GMUs
will continue to have limited redundancy in the future and at
heightened extinction risk. Looking into the future, further
extirpations would erode the number and distribution of populations in
the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs, reducing redundancy even more
and increasing the risk that a single catastrophic event could result
in extinction of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout from a GMU.
After identifying a portion of the range (Caballo, Canadian, and
Pecos GMUs) where the subspecies will potentially have different status
in the future, we then proceed with whether these areas constitute a
significant portion of the range. Although we did not project the
addition of more populations in our assessment that would adjust the
proportion of overall subspecies range contained within each GMU, most
of the ongoing major restoration projects would add populations and
river miles to the Rio Grande Headwaters and Lower Rio Grande GMUs.
Thus, the percentage of the occupied range for the subspecies within
the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs will not change substantially in
the future. The 17 percent of the future range contained within these
GMUs does not constitute a large portion of the range. Furthermore,
these three GMUs will not possess unique or high-quality habitat that
would promote the conservation of the subspecies.
These areas do not represent a significant portion of the range;
therefore, we find that the subspecies is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), because,
in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014),
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions
held to be invalid.
[[Page 99211]]
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not in danger of extinction or likely
to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Rio Grande cutthroat trout as an endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193 (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, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in the Rio Grande cutthroat trout
SSA report. We sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers
and received five responses. Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193. 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 the Rio
Grande cutthroat trout to the person specified above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor the subspecies and make appropriate decisions
about its conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts.
References
A complete list of the references used in this petition finding is
available in the species assessment form, which is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2024-0193 (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the field office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
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.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-28749 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P