Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99207 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Tolerance 

expiration 

date 

Asparagus ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.0 None 

Grape ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 7/1/2025 

(d) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2024–28332 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 highelevation 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, shawn_sartorius@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: 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
99208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ 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’ lifehistory 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
99210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS