Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions for Gray Wolf, 1419-1421 [2024-31754]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
(5) Such other matters as justice may
require; and
(6) Whether a recipient provided
service described in a cease and desist
order after issuance of such order by the
Chief Counsel.
(c) The Chief Counsel office may
mitigate the remedy when the recipient
can document corrective action of
alleged violation. The Chief Counsel’s
decision to mitigate a remedy shall be
determined on the basis of how much
corrective action was taken by the
recipient and when it was taken.
Systemic action to prevent future
violations will be given greater
consideration than action simply to
remedy violations identified during
FTA’s inspection or identified in a
complaint.
(d) In the event the Chief Counsel
finds a pattern of violations, the remedy
ordered shall bar a recipient from
receiving Federal transit assistance in an
amount that the Chief Counsel considers
appropriate.
(e) The Chief Counsel may make a
decision to withhold Federal financial
assistance in a lump sum or over a
period of time not to exceed five years.
Subpart J—Appeal to Administrator
and Final Agency Orders
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 604.48 Appeal from Chief Counsel
decision.
(a) Each party adversely affected by
the Chief Counsel’s office decision may
file an appeal with the Administrator
within 21 days of the date of the Chief
Counsel’s issued his or her decision.
Each party may file a reply to an appeal
within 21 days after it is served on the
party. Filing and service of appeals and
replies shall be by personal delivery
consistent with §§ 604.30 and 604.31.
(b) If an appeal is filed, the
Administrator reviews the entire record
and issues a final agency decision based
on the record that either accepts, rejects,
or modifies the Chief Counsel’s decision
within 30 days of the due date of the
reply. If no appeal is filed, the
Administrator may take review of the
case on his or her own motion. If the
Administrator finds that the respondent
is not in compliance with this part, the
final agency order shall include a
statement of corrective action, if
appropriate, and identify remedies.
(c) If no appeal is filed, and the
Administrator does not take review of
the decision by the office on the
Administrator’s own motion, the Chief
Counsel’s decision shall take effect as
the final agency decision and order on
the twenty-first day after the actual date
the Chief Counsel’s decision was issued.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
(d) The failure to file an appeal is
deemed a waiver of any rights to seek
judicial review of the Chief Counsel’s
decision that becomes a final agency
decision by operation of paragraph (c) of
this section.
§ 604.49 Administrator’s discretionary
review of the Chief Counsel’s decision.
(a) If the Administrator takes review
on the Administrator’s own motion, the
Administrator shall issue a notice of
review by the twenty-first day after the
actual date of the Chief Counsel’s
decision that contains the specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law
in the decision subject to review by the
Administrator.
(b) Parties may file one brief on
review to the Administrator or rely on
their post-hearing briefs to the Chief
Counsel’s office. Briefs on review shall
be filed not later than 10 days after
service of the notice of review. Filing
and service of briefs on review shall be
by personal delivery consistent with
§§ 604.30 and 604.31.
(c) The Administrator shall issue a
final agency decision and order within
30 days of the due date of the briefs on
review. If the Administrator finds that
the respondent is not in compliance
with this part, the final agency order
shall include a statement of corrective
action, if appropriate, and identify
remedies.
(d) If the Administrator takes review
on the Administrator’s own motion, the
decision of the Chief Counsel is stayed
pending a final decision by the
Administrator.
Subpart K—Judicial Review
§ 604.50 Judicial review of a final decision
and order.
(a) A person may seek judicial review
in an appropriate United States District
Court of a final decision and order of the
Administrator as provided in 5 U.S.C.
701–706. A party seeking judicial
review of a final decision and order
shall file a petition for review with the
Court not later than 60 days after a final
decision and order is effective.
(b) The following do not constitute
final decisions and orders subject to
judicial review:
(1) FTA’s decision to dismiss a
complaint as set forth in § 604.29;
(2) A recommended decision issued
by a PO at the conclusion of a hearing;
or
(3) A Chief Counsel decision that
becomes the final decision of the
Administrator because it was not
appealed within the stated timeframes.
[FR Doc. 2024–30970 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1419
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187;
FXES1113090FEDR–256–FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Two
Petitions for Gray Wolf
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on two concurrently
filed companion petitions to revise the
currently listed gray wolf (Canis lupus)
entities under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA).
Together, the petitions requested that
the Service: designate and delist a
Western Great Lakes (WGL) distinct
population segment (DPS) of gray wolf
due to recovery; and designate a West
Coast States DPS of gray wolf and list it
as a threatened species, and potentially
delist the remnant areas of the gray wolf
entity in the lower 48 States due to
extinction. Based on our review, we find
that the petitions do not present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted.
DATES: This finding was made on
January 8, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documents: A
summary of the basis for the petition
finding contained in this document is
available on https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187. In addition,
this supporting information is available
by contacting the appropriate person, as
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Headquarters;
telephone: 703–358–2491; email:
rachel_london@fws.gov. 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-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1420
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for adding species to,
removing species from, or reclassifying
species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part
17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to add a species to the List (i.e.,
‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from
the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or
change a listed species’ status from
endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered (i.e.,
‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our regulations establish that
substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in
support of the petition’s claims such
that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would
conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)). A positive 90-day
petition finding does not indicate that
the petitioned action is warranted; the
finding indicates only that the
petitioned action may be warranted and
that a full review should occur.
When evaluating a petition, we must
also consider whether the petitioned
entity may be a listable entity under the
Act, i.e., a species, a subspecies, or a
potential distinct population segment
(DPS) of a vertebrate species or
subspecies. The evaluation of the
taxonomic status of a species or
subspecies or the validity of a potential
DPS centers on whether the information
presented in the petition reaches the
substantial information threshold. It is
not within our purview to determine
taxonomic status or DPS validity in a
90-day petition evaluation; rather, we
evaluate information submitted by the
petitioners to determine whether the
information indicates the petitioned
entity may be a listable entity under the
Act. We will not expand the scope of
our evaluation beyond the petitioned
entities, including various combinations
of DPSs.
A species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
species because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The
five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
These factors represent broad categories
of natural or human-caused actions or
conditions that could have an effect on
a species’ continued existence. In
evaluating these actions and conditions,
we look for those that may have a
negative effect on individuals of the
species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to, or are reasonably likely to,
affect individuals of a species
negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition, or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not
be sufficient to compel a finding that the
information in the petition is substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
information presented in the petition
must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that these threats may be
affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
such information, our subsequent status
review will evaluate all identified
threats by considering the individual-,
population-, and species-level effects
and the expected response by the
species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of the threats on the species as a
whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that are expected
to have positive effects on the species—
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that
may ameliorate threats. It is only after
conducting this cumulative analysis of
threats and the actions that may
ameliorate them, and the expected effect
on the species now and in the
foreseeable future, that we can
determine whether the species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the
Act requires that we promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species, and we will subsequently
complete a status review in accordance
with our prioritization methodology for
12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July
27, 2016).
Summary of Petition Finding
Species and Range
Currently Listed Entities
• Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as
endangered in all or portions of 43 of
the contiguous United States (all of
Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont,
Wisconsin, and West Virginia; and
portions of Arizona, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and
Mexico. This entity also includes a
designated nonessential experimental
population in Colorado.
• Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as
threatened in Minnesota.
Petitioned Actions for Revising the
Currently Listed Entities
Petitioners asked us to revise the
currently listed gray wolf entities by
splitting and/or combining the current
listings for gray wolf into one or more
DPSs and a non-DPS remnant
(Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation et al.
2023b, pp. 25–26, footnote 52).
Evaluation of Information Summary
On June 29, 2023, we received two
concurrently filed ‘‘companion’’
petitions from the Sportsmen’s Alliance
Foundation, Michigan Bear Hunters
Association, Upper Peninsula Bear
Houndsmen Association, and Wisconsin
Bear Hunters Association (petitioners).
Petitioners urged us to consider their
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
petitions simultaneously (Sportsmen’s
Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 34).
In one petition, petitioners asked us to
designate a Western Great Lakes (WGL)
DPS of gray wolf and remove that
petitioned DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
because the DPS does not meet the Act’s
definition of an endangered or
threatened species (Sportsmen’s
Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a,
entire). Petitioners also presented claims
related to currently listed gray wolves
outside of the Western Great Lakes, and
provided two suggestions for how the
Service should address these wolves.
First, petitioners stated that the nonDPS remnant is a listable entity that
would be entitled to the continued
protections of the Act (Sportsmen’s
Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 35)
(‘‘The circumstances here warrant
continuing protections for remnant
wolves in the original Lower 48 wolf
listing through a non-DPS remnant
listing.’’). Alternatively, they suggested
that the Service could adopt the
approach in their companion petition
and protect West Coast wolves as a DPS
(Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation et al.
2023a, p. 36) (‘‘Alternatively, even if the
Service does not continue a ‘‘non-DPS
remnant’’ listing under the original
Lower 48 listing, delisting the WGL DPS
will not result in the elimination of
protections for the remnant population
because the remnant West Coast
[w]olves satisfy the criteria to be listed
as a DPS if ESA protections are
warranted.’’).
In their companion petition,
petitioners proposed two specific
actions for addressing listed gray wolves
in the lower 48 States outside of the
petitioned WGL DPS: (1) recognize a
non-DPS remnant and continue
endangered species protections for the
non-DPS remnant; and (2) recognize a
West Coast DPS of gray wolf and
reclassify the petitioned DPS from an
endangered species to a threatened
species under the Act (Sportsmen’s
Alliance Foundation et al. 2023b,
entire). Petitioners did not ask the
Service to assign any specific status to
the remainder of the listed entity if the
second action is implemented, but they
suggested that we might delist all the
remnant areas not included within the
two petitioned DPSs due to extinction.
Finally, petitioners clarified that we
should take one, or preferably both,
actions concurrent with recognizing and
delisting a WGL DPS.
Each petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). As requested by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
petitioners, we are evaluating their
petitions jointly and this finding
addresses both petitions.
Finding
Based on our review of the petitions,
sources cited in the petitions, and other
readily available information (within
the constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)), we find that the petitions
do not provide substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. The petitioners failed to
present substantial information for us to
conclude that the petitions, considered
together, provide a valid approach for
revising the current gray wolf (Canis
lupus) listed entities. As requested by
petitioners, we have considered these
petitions jointly. Based on our review of
the petitions, we find that petitioners
provide substantial information that the
Western Great Lakes population of gray
wolf may qualify as a valid DPS under
the Act. However, we find that the
petitions do not provide substantial
information supporting the petitioned
action with respect to gray wolves
outside of the Western Great Lakes.
They fail to provide substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that a gray wolf remnant in
the lower 48 States or a West Coast gray
wolf population may constitute a valid
listable entity under the Act. Thus, we
do not further consider whether revising
the currently listed gray wolf entities to
recognize a Western Great Lakes DPS
and delist it due to recovery may be
warranted. The basis for our finding on
these petitions and other information
regarding our review of the petitions can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented in the petitions
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the gray wolf do
not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, we will not
further consider whether the petitioned
revisions to the currently listed gray
wolf entities are warranted.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species,
Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1421
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–31754 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041;
FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] RIN
1018–BH49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Bleached Sandhill
Skipper
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the bleached sandhill skipper
(Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), an
insect subspecies from Humboldt
County, Nevada, as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
determination also serves as our 12month finding on a petition to list the
bleached sandhill skipper. After a
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that listing the subspecies is warranted.
Accordingly, we propose to list the
bleached sandhill skipper as an
endangered species under the Act. If we
finalize this rule as proposed, the final
rule would add this subspecies to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and extend the Act’s
protections to the subspecies. We find
that a designation of critical habitat for
the bleached sandhill skipper is not
determinable at this time.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
March 10, 2025.
Comments submitted electronically
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on
the closing date. We must receive
requests for a public hearing, in writing,
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by February 24,
2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1419-1421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31754]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0187; FXES1113090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
Two Petitions for Gray Wolf
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on two concurrently filed companion petitions to revise
the currently listed gray wolf (Canis lupus) entities under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). Together, the
petitions requested that the Service: designate and delist a Western
Great Lakes (WGL) distinct population segment (DPS) of gray wolf due to
recovery; and designate a West Coast States DPS of gray wolf and list
it as a threatened species, and potentially delist the remnant areas of
the gray wolf entity in the lower 48 States due to extinction. Based on
our review, we find that the petitions do not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
actions may be warranted.
DATES: This finding was made on January 8, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documents: A summary of the basis for the
petition finding contained in this document is available on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0187. In addition,
this supporting information is available by contacting the appropriate
person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters;
telephone: 703-358-2491; email: [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:
[[Page 1420]]
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., ``list'' a
species), remove a species from the List (i.e., ``delist'' a species),
or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)). A positive 90-day petition finding
does not indicate that the petitioned action is warranted; the finding
indicates only that the petitioned action may be warranted and that a
full review should occur.
When evaluating a petition, we must also consider whether the
petitioned entity may be a listable entity under the Act, i.e., a
species, a subspecies, or a potential distinct population segment (DPS)
of a vertebrate species or subspecies. The evaluation of the taxonomic
status of a species or subspecies or the validity of a potential DPS
centers on whether the information presented in the petition reaches
the substantial information threshold. It is not within our purview to
determine taxonomic status or DPS validity in a 90-day petition
evaluation; rather, we evaluate information submitted by the
petitioners to determine whether the information indicates the
petitioned entity may be a listable entity under the Act. We will not
expand the scope of our evaluation beyond the petitioned entities,
including various combinations of DPSs.
A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D);
and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E).
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect
individuals of a species negatively. The term ``threat'' includes
actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information
presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest
that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents such information, our
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by
considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and
the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also
consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this
cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate
them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable
future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the
status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status
review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month
findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
Summary of Petition Finding
Species and Range
Currently Listed Entities
Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as endangered in all or
portions of 43 of the contiguous United States (all of Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, and West Virginia; and
portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and
Mexico. This entity also includes a designated nonessential
experimental population in Colorado.
Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as threatened in
Minnesota.
Petitioned Actions for Revising the Currently Listed Entities
Petitioners asked us to revise the currently listed gray wolf
entities by splitting and/or combining the current listings for gray
wolf into one or more DPSs and a non-DPS remnant (Sportsmen's Alliance
Foundation et al. 2023b, pp. 25-26, footnote 52).
Evaluation of Information Summary
On June 29, 2023, we received two concurrently filed ``companion''
petitions from the Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, Michigan Bear
Hunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, and
Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association (petitioners). Petitioners urged us
to consider their
[[Page 1421]]
petitions simultaneously (Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a,
p. 34).
In one petition, petitioners asked us to designate a Western Great
Lakes (WGL) DPS of gray wolf and remove that petitioned DPS from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife because the DPS does not
meet the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened species
(Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, entire). Petitioners
also presented claims related to currently listed gray wolves outside
of the Western Great Lakes, and provided two suggestions for how the
Service should address these wolves. First, petitioners stated that the
non-DPS remnant is a listable entity that would be entitled to the
continued protections of the Act (Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation et
al. 2023a, p. 35) (``The circumstances here warrant continuing
protections for remnant wolves in the original Lower 48 wolf listing
through a non-DPS remnant listing.''). Alternatively, they suggested
that the Service could adopt the approach in their companion petition
and protect West Coast wolves as a DPS (Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation
et al. 2023a, p. 36) (``Alternatively, even if the Service does not
continue a ``non-DPS remnant'' listing under the original Lower 48
listing, delisting the WGL DPS will not result in the elimination of
protections for the remnant population because the remnant West Coast
[w]olves satisfy the criteria to be listed as a DPS if ESA protections
are warranted.'').
In their companion petition, petitioners proposed two specific
actions for addressing listed gray wolves in the lower 48 States
outside of the petitioned WGL DPS: (1) recognize a non-DPS remnant and
continue endangered species protections for the non-DPS remnant; and
(2) recognize a West Coast DPS of gray wolf and reclassify the
petitioned DPS from an endangered species to a threatened species under
the Act (Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation et al. 2023b, entire).
Petitioners did not ask the Service to assign any specific status to
the remainder of the listed entity if the second action is implemented,
but they suggested that we might delist all the remnant areas not
included within the two petitioned DPSs due to extinction. Finally,
petitioners clarified that we should take one, or preferably both,
actions concurrent with recognizing and delisting a WGL DPS.
Each petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at
50 CFR 424.14(c). As requested by the petitioners, we are evaluating
their petitions jointly and this finding addresses both petitions.
Finding
Based on our review of the petitions, sources cited in the
petitions, and other readily available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)), we find that the
petitions do not provide substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted.
The petitioners failed to present substantial information for us to
conclude that the petitions, considered together, provide a valid
approach for revising the current gray wolf (Canis lupus) listed
entities. As requested by petitioners, we have considered these
petitions jointly. Based on our review of the petitions, we find that
petitioners provide substantial information that the Western Great
Lakes population of gray wolf may qualify as a valid DPS under the Act.
However, we find that the petitions do not provide substantial
information supporting the petitioned action with respect to gray
wolves outside of the Western Great Lakes. They fail to provide
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a gray
wolf remnant in the lower 48 States or a West Coast gray wolf
population may constitute a valid listable entity under the Act. Thus,
we do not further consider whether revising the currently listed gray
wolf entities to recognize a Western Great Lakes DPS and delist it due
to recovery may be warranted. The basis for our finding on these
petitions and other information regarding our review of the petitions
can be found as an appendix at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0187 under the Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that
the petitions summarized above for the gray wolf do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we will not further
consider whether the petitioned revisions to the currently listed gray
wolf entities are warranted.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-31754 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
