[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8391-8395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02419]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0106; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 245]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding for the
Gray Wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western United States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
finding on the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains
(NRM) and in the Western United States. After a thorough review of the
best available scientific and commercial data, we find that gray wolves
within the NRM area do not, on their own, represent a valid listable
entity; therefore, the NRM is not warranted for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the gray
wolf in the Western United States is a valid listable entity; however,
the gray wolf in the Western United States does not meet the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. Thus, we find that
listing the gray wolf in the Western United States is not warranted at
this time.
DATES: The finding in this document was made on February 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: This finding and the supporting information that we
developed for this finding, including the species status assessment
(SSA) report and species assessment form, are available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0106.
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Nelson, Acting Assistant
Regional Director, Ecological Services Mountain-Prairie Region, 720-
582-3524, [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:
Previous Federal Actions
Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
populations of subspecies in the lower 48 United States and Mexico. We
detail these various original rulemakings in the November 3, 2020, rule
delisting the gray wolf throughout much of its range in the lower 48
States and Mexico (85 FR 69778).
In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf in
Minnesota as a threatened species and gray wolves elsewhere in the
lower 48 United States and Mexico as an endangered species. We later
revised this listing by designating the population of gray wolves in
the NRM, including Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the eastern one-third
of Oregon and Washington, and a small portion of north-central Utah, as
a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and, following legal challenges and
several rulemakings, ultimately delisting this population due to
recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011; 77 FR
55530, September 10, 2012; 82 FR 20284, May 1, 2017). Since delisting,
gray wolves in the NRM have been managed by the States and Tribes.
On November 3, 2020, we published a final rule removing the Act's
protections for gray wolves everywhere they were listed in the lower 48
States and Mexico, not including the Mexican
[[Page 8392]]
wolf subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi) (85 FR 69778). The rule took
effect January 4, 2021.
On June 1, 2021, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, Humane
Society Legislative Fund, and the Sierra Club requesting that the gray
wolf in the NRM be emergency listed as a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Act. The petition included, as an
alternative option, a request that we list a Western DPS of gray wolf
that would include all of California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and, if the Service chose to
include them, Arizona and New Mexico, north of Interstate 40 (first
petition). The Act does not provide a process to petition for emergency
listing; therefore, we evaluated this petition under the normal process
of determining if it presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
On July 29, 2021, we received a petition from Western Watersheds
Project and 70 other organizations requesting that gray wolves in
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Colorado,
California, Nevada, and northern Arizona be listed as an endangered
species under the Act (second petition). On August 10, 2021, we
received an addendum to the second petition, which provided minor
clarifications and corrections to the original petition but did not
change the scope of the petitioned entity.
On September 17, 2021, we published a 90-day finding (86 FR 51857)
concluding that both petitions contained substantial information
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, and we
initiated a status review to determine whether the petitioned actions
were warranted.
On February 10, 2022, the gray wolf 2020 final delisting rule was
vacated and remanded by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. (Defenders of Wildlife v. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, No. 21-00344 (N.D. Cal.), WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt,
No. 21-00349 (N.D. Cal.), NRDC v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No.
21-00561 (N.D. Cal.)). On November 3, 2023, we published a final rule
to comply with the district court's order (88 FR 75506). As a result,
all gray wolves in the lower 48 States, outside of the NRM, are
currently listed under the Act. The court's decision was specific to
the gray wolf and does not affect the separate endangered listing of
the Mexican wolf subspecies.
On March 1, 2022, we received a petition from the International
Wildlife Coexistence Network and nine other organizations requesting
that a DPS of the gray wolf in the NRM or in the Western United States
be emergency listed under the Act. As stated previously, we evaluate
petitions requesting emergency listing under our normal petition review
process. However, because we were actively engaged in a status review
of the entities for which the petitioners requested listing, we did not
issue a 90-day finding; rather, we evaluated the information provided
by the petitioners in the context of this status review.
On August 9, 2022, petitioners (June 1, 2021 petition) filed a
lawsuit to compel us to complete a 12-month finding on their petition
(Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. Department of the
Interior et al. No. 22-00134 (D. MT). On March 31, 2023, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement under which the Service agreed
that, on or before February 2, 2024, we would submit to the Federal
Register a determination as to whether listing a Northern Rocky
Mountains DPS or a Western United States DPS of the gray wolf as a
threatened species or an endangered species is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals.
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding, 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, as to whether the petitioned action is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals (known
as a ``12-month finding''). We must publish a notification of this 12-
month finding in the Federal Register.
Listable Entity Requirements
Under the Act, the term ``species'' includes any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). To interpret and implement the distinct population segment
(DPS) provisions of the Act, the Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration published in the Federal Register the Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS
Policy). Under the DPS Policy, we consider three elements to determine
whether to classify a population of a vertebrate species as a DPS: (1)
the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standard for listing, delisting, or reclassification. Both discreteness
and significance are used to determine whether the population segment
constitutes a valid DPS. If it does, then the population segment's
conservation status is used to consider whether the DPS warrants
listing.
Summary of Biological Information
Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae or dog
family (Mech 1974, pp. 11-12). Gray wolves have a circumpolar range
including North America, Europe, and Asia. In the Western United
States, the gray wolf currently occurs in one interconnected
metapopulation with packs distributed across California, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, and, more recently, wolves
have been documented in Colorado (Service 2023, pp. 13-16).
Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals and group
hunters, normally living in packs with high reproductive capacity (Mech
1970, pp. 38-43; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 8; Paquet and Carbyn 2003,
pp. 485-486; Stahler et al. 2020, p. 46). Gray wolves are habitat
generalists, meaning they can thrive in a variety of habitats and
consume a diversity of prey species (though wolves are primarily
predators of medium and large mammals) (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163).
In general, to maintain populations in the wild over time, wolves in
the Western United States need well-connected and genetically diverse
subpopulations that function as a metapopulation distributed across
enough of their range to be able to withstand stochastic events,
rebound after catastrophes (e.g., severe disease outbreaks), and adapt
to changing environmental conditions (Service 2023, p. 29).
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
[[Page 8393]]
``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 (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act
defines an ``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and a ``threatened species'' as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. 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 expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species
now and in the foreseeable future.
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. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act to determine whether the gray wolf in the Western United
States meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or
``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 petitions,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information for the gray wolf in the Western United States.
Our evaluation included information from recognized experts; Federal,
State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign
governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
This document announces the not-warranted finding for the gray wolf
in the NRM and the gray wolf in the Western United States, in
accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). In this
document, we have also elected to include a summary of the analysis on
which this finding is based. We provide the full analysis, including
our rationale and the data on which the finding is based, in the
decisional file for the action in this document. The following is a
description of the documents containing this full analysis:
The species assessment form contains detailed biological
information; a thorough analysis of the listing factors; an explanation
of why we determined (1) the gray wolf in the NRM is not a valid
listable entity and (2) the gray wolf in the Western United States is a
valid listable entity, but this entity does not meet the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'';
and a list of literature cited. To inform our status review, we
completed an SSA Report for the gray wolf in the Western United States
(Service 2023, entire). The SSA contains a thorough review of the
taxonomy, life history, ecology, current condition, and projected
future condition for the gray wolf in the Western United States. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0106 (see ADDRESSES,
above).
Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations,
portions of which were last revised in 2019. Given that we proposed
further revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40764),
we have also analyzed whether the decision would be different if we
were to apply those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decision
would have been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023
regulations. The analysis under both the regulations currently in
effect and the regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023,
proposed revisions are included in our decision file for this action.
Gray Wolf in the NRM
Summary of Finding
After a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial data, we determined that gray wolves within the boundaries
of the NRM DPS described in our 2009 rule (i.e., Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming, the eastern
[[Page 8394]]
one-third of Oregon and Washington, and a small portion of north-
central Utah) no longer constitute a valid DPS. Gray wolves in the NRM
are not markedly separated from other populations of the taxon outside
of the NRM western boundary (i.e., the wolves in the eastern one-third
of Oregon and Washington are not markedly separated from the wolves in
California and the western two-thirds of Oregon and Washington) and,
therefore, the NRM does not meet the ``discreteness'' element of the
DPS Policy as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Thus, we find that
gray wolves in the NRM area do not, on their own, represent a valid DPS
and we do not consider the status of gray wolves in the NRM area as a
separately listable entity. However, we considered the status of gray
wolves in the NRM area in the context of our significant portion of the
range analysis for the gray wolf in the Western United States (see
below). A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the species assessment form and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above).
Gray Wolf in the Western United States
Summary of Finding
Based on our review of the best available scientific data, we
determined that the gray wolf in the Western United States is a DPS. We
find that the gray wolf in the Western United States meets both
possible discreteness criteria of our DPS Policy: (1) it is markedly
separated, genetically and physically, from other populations of the
taxon (i.e., wolves in the Great Lakes area and ``coastal wolves'');
and (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries (the
United States and Canada border) within which differences in control of
exploitation and regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996).
We also find that the gray wolf in the Western United States meets the
significance criteria of the DPS Policy because its loss would result
in a significant gap in the range of the taxon because it would create
a gap of more than 1,000 mi (1,600 km) between the Mexican wolf
subspecies of gray wolf to the south of the Western United States wolf
metapopulation and gray wolves in Canada to the north. Because the
Western United States population of gray wolf is both discrete and
significant, we determined that it is a valid DPS and considered its
conservation status under the Act.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the gray wolf in the Western United States and evaluated the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary stressors with the
potential to affect the gray wolf's biological status include human-
caused mortality (Factor C), disease and parasites (Factor C), and
inbreeding depression (Factor E) (Service 2023, pp. 30-93). We also
considered the potential effects of climate change (Factor E), diseases
in prey species (Factor E), and other sources of habitat modification
(Factor A) on gray wolves in the Western United States, but these
stressors have not negatively influenced gray wolf viability, nor are
they anticipated to do so in the foreseeable future (Service 2023, pp.
93-103).
Our assessment of current condition indicates that habitat and prey
for wolves are abundant and well distributed in the Western United
States. This, in conjunction with the high reproductive potential of
wolves and their innate behavior to disperse and locate social openings
or vacant suitable habitats, has allowed wolf populations to withstand
relatively high rates of human-caused mortality. Our analysis of the
current condition of gray wolves in the Western United States
demonstrates that, despite current levels of regulated harvest, lethal
control, and episodic disease outbreaks, wolf abundance in the Western
United States has generally continued to increase and occupied range
has continued to expand since reintroduction in the 1990s, with the
exception of 3 years during which wolf abundance in the Western
metapopulation decreased slightly (i.e., a decrease of approximately 50
to 100 wolves in 1 year). As of the end of 2022, States estimated that
there were 2,797 wolves distributed among at least 286 packs in 7
States. This large population size and broad distribution contributes
to the resiliency and redundancy of wolves in the Western United
States. Moreover, wolves in the Western United States currently have
high levels of genetic diversity and connectivity, further supporting
the resiliency of wolves throughout the West. Finally, based on several
metrics for assessing adaptive capacity, wolves in the Western United
States currently retain the ability to adapt to changes in their
environment (representation) (Service 2023, pp. 104-134).
We also evaluated the future condition of gray wolves in the
Western United States under multiple different future scenarios that
varied levels of harvest and disease. Our analysis indicates that
wolves will avoid extirpation in the Western United States over the
next 100 years. Even in the extremely unlikely scenarios in which
harvest substantially increases and is maintained at high rates over
time in Idaho and Montana, while population sizes decrease in these
states, the overall population remains well above quasi-extinction
levels in the Western United States; the median projected population
sizes for the entirety of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and
Wyoming (the five states we modeled) in 100 years ranged from 935
wolves (95% Credible Interval 739-1,091) for the most impactful
combination of disease and harvest scenarios we analyzed to 2,161
wolves (95% Credible Interval 1,684-2,586) for the least impactful
combination of disease and harvest scenarios we analyzed. More
generally, gray wolves in the Western metapopulation will retain the
ability to withstand stochastic and catastrophic events in the future
(resiliency and redundancy) despite the decrease in the number of
wolves relative to current condition under our future scenarios. We
also expect the population size to remain large enough, with sufficient
connectivity and genetic diversity, to avoid consequential levels of
inbreeding or inbreeding depression in the future. Given this
maintained connectivity, combined with wolves' adaptable life-history
characteristics, we expect wolf populations in the Western United
States will be able to maintain their evolutionary potential and adapt
to future change (representation). The likelihood of additional wolves
in California and Colorado (and possibly in Arizona, New Mexico, and
Utah in the long term), the continued recolonization of Western Oregon
and Washington, and the availability of suitable wolf habitat and prey
further support the continued viability of the gray wolf in the Western
United States under the existing management commitments, albeit at
potentially reduced population sizes compared to current numbers
(Service 2023, pp. 135-188).
According to our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial data, now and into the foreseeable future, wolves in the
Western United States are projected to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity, increased human-caused mortality, potential
disease events, and changing environmental conditions. Given the
natural resiliency of wolf populations (e.g., high fecundity, dispersal
abilities), the conservation
[[Page 8395]]
efforts and regulatory mechanisms in place reinforce that States within
the Western U.S. metapopulation will continue to manage human-caused
mortality such that this stressor does not compromise the current or
future viability of the metapopulation.
Specifically, now and into the foreseeable future, wolves are
likely to retain a healthy level of abundance. Given the assumptions in
our model (Service 2023a, pp. 181-186), our analysis of our model
projections indicates that there is no risk of quasi-extinction in the
next 100 years under any of our future scenarios. More specifically,
according to the population projections from our forecasting model
(Service 2023, pp. 185-188), which incorporates Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming's minimum management commitments since delisting (Service 2023,
pp. 163-164), we project there would be at least 739 wolves throughout
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming for the next 100 years
(Service 2023, pp. 185-188) (according to the lower credible interval
of the population projection from the most impactful combination of
disease and harvest scenarios we analyzed, scenarios we find unlikely
for the reasons explained in the SSA Report (Service 2023, pp. 172-
177)). If states continue to harvest wolves at past observed rates of
harvest (Harvest Scenario 1), which they have yet to significantly
exceed despite implementing less-restrictive regulations and which are
more consistent with new management objectives in Idaho (IDFG 2023b,
pp. 39-42), the projected population size would remain above
approximately 1,300 to 1,600 wolves for the next 100 years, even with
catastrophic levels of disease (Service 2023, pp. 185-188). Prey and
habitat are not limiting and are not likely to become so. Wolves are
also likely to retain their connectivity within the Western United
States and to Canada, supporting healthy levels of genetic diversity.
Wolves are also likely to be able to withstand catastrophic events
(i.e., disease) now and into the foreseeable future, given their
retention of a wide distribution, their high fecundity, and the fact
that our models indicate the population would not crash due to
catastrophic disease events. Finally, wolves currently have the ability
to and will retain the ability to adapt to changes in their environment
given their retained distribution across a diversity of ecoregions
(even with projected future population declines in Idaho and Montana),
their generalist life history, and their genetic diversity. Thus, after
assessing the best available data, we conclude that the gray wolf in
the Western United States is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Having concluded that gray wolves in the Western United States are
not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout their range, we also evaluated four different
potential significant portions of the range: (1) Idaho; (2) Montana;
(3) California, Western Oregon, and Western Washington; and (4) the
NRM. We determined that, due to the current and projected demographic
health of these portions and the existing regulatory mechanisms, none
of these portions are in danger of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future (i.e., none of these portions have a different
status than the gray wolf throughout its entire range in the Western
United States, now or into the foreseeable future). After assessing the
best available data, we concluded that the gray wolf in the Western
United States is not in danger of extinction, or likely to become in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find
that listing the gray wolf in the Western United States as an
endangered species or a threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the species assessment form and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the SSA report for the gray wolf in the
Western United States. On behalf of the Service, an outside contractor
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. We incorporated the results of
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the
scientific foundation for this finding.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available in the species assessment form, which is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-
0106 (see ADDRESSES, 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. 2024-02419 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P