```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 99207-99211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28749]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Not-
Warranted Finding for the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
(Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Rio 
Grande cutthroat trout, a subspecies of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 
clarkii), inhabit high-elevation streams in New Mexico and southern 
Colorado. After a thorough review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that listing the Rio Grande cutthroat 
trout as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted at this 
time. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new 
information relevant to the status of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout or 
its habitat.

DATES: The finding in this document was made on December 10, 2024.

ADDRESSES: A detailed description of the basis for this finding is 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193. Supporting information used to prepare this 
finding is also available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
normal business hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Office. 
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, New 
Mexico Ecological Services Office, 505-346-2525, 
[email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we 
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is 
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have 
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month 
finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but precluded by other 
listing activity. We must publish a notification of the 12-month 
finding in the Federal Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as 
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines an ``endangered 
species'' as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive

[[Page 99208]]

effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or 
conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species 
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing 
the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.
    In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Rio Grande 
cutthroat trout meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the 
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the 
past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information for the species. Our evaluation 
may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and 
Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private 
entities; and other members of the public.
    In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this 
document announces the not-warranted finding on a petition to list the 
Rio Grande cutthroat trout. We have also elected to include a brief 
summary of the analysis on which this finding is based. We provide the 
full analysis, including the reasons and data on which the finding is 
based, in the decisional file for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. The 
following is a description of the documents containing this analysis.
    The species assessment form for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
contains more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of 
the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of 
why we determined that the subspecies does not meet the Act's 
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To 
inform our status review, we completed a species status assessment 
(SSA) report for the subspecies. The SSA report contains a thorough 
review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and 
projected future status for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. This 
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Service was petitioned to list the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act in 1998. On 
September 14, 1998, we published a 90-day finding (63 FR 49062) that 
the petition did not present substantial information indicating that 
the petitioned action may be warranted. On June 9, 1999, the Southwest 
Center for Biological Diversity sued the Service in regard to our 90-
day petition finding. While this litigation was pending, we received 
information (particularly related to the presence of whirling disease 
in hatchery fish in the wild) that led us to believe that further 
review of the status of the subspecies was warranted. On November 8, 
2001, the Service and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 
entered into a settlement agreement stipulating that the Service would 
initiate a status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout. On May 14, 
2008, we found the subspecies was warranted for listing but precluded 
by higher priority actions (73 FR 27900), and the Rio Grande cutthroat 
trout was added to our list of candidate species at that time. After 
completing a species status assessment in 2014 (SSA; Service 2014, 
entire), we subsequently published a 12-month petition finding 
determining that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout was not warranted for 
listing as endangered or threatened under the Act (79 FR 59140; October 
1, 2014). The 2014 decision was challenged in court and vacated and 
remanded by the judge on October 31, 2020, when a motion clarifying our 
decision was denied. In response to that decision, we initiated another 
status review of the subspecies for listing as a threatened or 
endangered species under the Act. This document constitutes our new 12-
month finding.

Summary of Finding

    Rio Grande cutthroat trout, a subspecies of cutthroat trout, 
inhabit high-elevation streams in New Mexico and southern Colorado. The 
subspecies is generally assumed to have occupied all streams capable of 
supporting them in the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian River basins 
(Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). The range of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
has been divided into five geographic management units (GMUs) that 
reflect the hydrologic divisions of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout's 
historical range by river drainage: Canadian, Rio Grande Headwaters, 
Lower Rio Grande, Caballo, and Pecos.
    To maintain overall viability, populations of the Rio Grande 
cutthroat trout must have sufficient resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy. Adequately resilient Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations 
must be of sufficient size to withstand demographic and genetic 
stochasticity. General guidelines for trout are that effective 
population sizes above 500 have a low risk of negative genetic outcomes 
and retain long-term adaptive potential, and those below 50 are highly 
vulnerable to inbreeding depression and genetic drift. For populations 
to be sufficiently resilient, they must occupy stream reaches long 
enough to provide the range of habitats needed to complete their life 
cycle (i.e., spawning habitat, nursery habitat, adult habitat, refugial 
habitat). Streams longer than about 9.7 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) 
are generally assumed to be long enough to encompass the habitat 
complexity necessary for the population to survive stochastic events. 
Streams shorter than 2.8 km (1.7 mi) are unlikely to have enough 
habitat variability for a population to be able to survive stochastic 
events. The longer an unobstructed reach of stream, the more habitat 
variability is likely to be represented, which increases the likelihood 
of survival of various life stages. There are some natural events, such 
as wildfires and stream drying, that can be catastrophic in their 
impact. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout needs to have multiple resilient 
populations

[[Page 99209]]

distributed throughout its historical range to provide for rangewide 
redundancy. Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or 
ecological diversity is important to maintain the adaptive capacity of 
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to future environmental changes. The Rio 
Grande cutthroat trout needs to retain populations across the diversity 
of its range to maintain the overall potential genetic and life history 
attributes that can buffer the subspecies' response to environmental 
changes over time.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and we evaluated all relevant 
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory 
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The 
primary threat affecting the Rio Grande cutthroat trout's biological 
status is hybridization, competition, and predation from nonnative 
trout. The introduction of nonnative trout species has accounted for 
most of the loss of the subspecies from its historical range. The Rio 
Grande cutthroat trout is also affected by environmental threats such 
as wildfires, stream drying, water temperature changes, and flooding, 
all of which may be exacerbated by climate change. Most populations of 
Rio Grande cutthroat trout are potentially exposed to these threats, 
but their likelihood of occurring and magnitude of impact are highly 
variable and dependent on local conditions. Past threats, such as land 
management practices, disease, and overharvest, are not significantly 
impacting the subspecies currently and are unlikely to do so in the 
future. A multi-agency conservation agreement between the States of 
Colorado and New Mexico, Forest Service, multiple Tribes, and the 
Service, among others (known as the Conservation Team), has improved 
the resiliency of existing populations and restored the Rio Grande 
cutthroat trout to areas where it has been extirpated, primarily 
through construction of barriers, removal of nonnative trout, and 
habitat improvements. This agreement has been ongoing since 2003 when 
it was first signed, having been renewed in 2013 and 2024. Central to 
the agreement is the development of the Conservation Strategy, which 
outlines specific plans and strategies to improve conditions for the 
subspecies over the course of the agreement.
    Currently there are 119 Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations 
across all five GMUs. These populations currently occupy 1,197 river km 
(744 mi)); this represents an 82 percent reduction from the presumed 
historical range. Rangewide, 60 populations (50 percent) have a 
complete barrier, 14 (12 percent) have a partial barrier, and 45 (38 
percent) do not have a barrier in place. Barriers are a key 
conservation measure to prevent colonization by nonnative trout. Fifty 
populations (40 percent) currently co-occur with nonnative trout. The 
remaining 60 percent of populations are not currently exposed to this 
threat.
    The 119 populations are distributed across a wide geographic area, 
providing sufficient redundancy to reduce the likelihood of large-scale 
extirpation due to a single catastrophic event. Furthermore, the Rio 
Grande cutthroat trout Conservation Team has a demonstrated track 
record of responding to negative events to protect and even expand 
populations in the aftermath of large-scale changes to streams. 
Populations cover the breadth of the historical range, ensuring 
retention of adaptive capacity (i.e., representation) to promote short-
term adaption to environmental change. The SSA report describes the 
uncertainties associated with potential threats and the subspecies' 
response to these potential threats, but the best available information 
indicates the risk of extinction is low. Therefore, we conclude that 
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range and does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species.
    Thus, we proceed with determining whether the subspecies is likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range (i.e., threatened). The SSA report includes an analysis of 
two future scenarios based on conditions projected for the 2040s and 
2080s, which encompasses the best available information for future 
projections of population resiliency (Service 2024 pp. 44-63). The 
future scenarios indicate that nonnative trout are the most significant 
threat to the future persistence of Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
populations. Populations currently invaded by nonnative trout and/or 
lacking barriers have an elevated risk of extirpation. Other threats 
are projected to have less of an impact on population persistence, 
although cumulatively they can increase the probability of extirpation.
    Despite the risks posed by nonnative trout, conservation measures 
will improve the resiliency of existing populations, mainly through 
barrier construction and nonnative species removal. We anticipate that 
the Conservation Team will continue to promote the viability of the 
subspecies and mitigate threats given their commitment to the 
conservation agreement and track record of success. Continued 
application of these measures could increase the number of resilient 
populations by the 2080s. Thus, we project at minimum there will be 
multiple resilient populations (between 40 to 70) that will continue to 
exist in the future. In both future scenarios, the subspecies is 
expected to maintain redundancy and representation because populations 
will continue to be distributed throughout most of its known historical 
range, including multiple GMUs. Therefore, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
does not meet the definition of a threatened species because it is not 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is 
any portion of the subspecies' range for which it is true that both (1) 
the portion is significant; and (2) the subspecies is in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that 
portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to 
address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. 
We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which 
question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect 
to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the 
other question for that portion of the subspecies' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, we 
began by identifying portions of the range where the biological status 
of the subspecies may be different from its biological status elsewhere 
in its range. For this purpose, we considered information pertaining to 
the geographic distribution of (a) populations of the subspecies, (b) 
the threats that the subspecies faces, and (c) the resiliency condition 
of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to 
determine if

[[Page 99210]]

the subspecies is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. Because the range 
of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways, we focus our analysis on portions of the species' range 
that contribute to the conservation of the species in a biologically 
meaningful way. For Rio Grande cutthroat trout, we considered whether 
the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any portion 
of the subspecies' range than in other portions such that the 
subspecies is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future in that portion.
    For the purposes of considering portions of Rio Grande cutthroat 
trout's range, we reviewed the GMUs we identified in the SSA Report. 
These units correspond to different watersheds and genetic lineages and 
function as independent clusters of populations. They are also the 
scale at which management actions are directed. Thus, in evaluating 
extinction risk, we did so at the scale of individual GMUs.
    We first considered whether the subspecies may be in danger of 
extinction in any one of these GMUs. As discussed above, the primary 
current threats to the Rio Grande cutthroat trout are hybridization, 
predation, and competition with nonnative trout species. We examined 
those threats along with the effects from habitat loss, degradation, 
and fragmentation due to hydrological changes (stream drying and 
flooding), wildfire, land management practices, overharvest (i.e., 
angling), and disease, including cumulative effects and considered 
whether conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms ameliorated any 
of the effects.
    In general, there are no differences in exposure to primary threats 
across the GMUs. Each contains a mix of populations that are invaded by 
nonnative trout and there are no notable differences in risk posed by 
near-term environmental threats. This is evidenced by the results of 
the model developed by the Conservation Team: the distribution of 
persistence probabilities in the near-term does not vary between the 
GMUs, with the exception of the Caballo GMU, which has a single 
population. The greatest difference in extinction risk across the GMUs 
is not due to threats or patterns of population resiliency, but instead 
the number of populations that contribute to redundancy. The Caballo (1 
population), Canadian (10 populations), and Pecos (11 populations) GMUs 
are at inherently higher risk due to the smaller number of populations 
they contain, which is exacerbated by threats such as nonnative trout. 
Mirroring the rangewide trends, these GMUs are a mix of invaded and 
noninvaded populations, meaning only a subset of populations are at low 
risk of near-term extirpation. Thus, these GMUs have inherently low 
redundancy that elevates their risk of extinction.
    After identifying a portion of the range (Caballo, Canadian, and 
Pecos GMUs), where the subspecies has a potentially different status 
than within the remainder of the range, we then proceed to assess 
whether the portion constitutes a significant portion of the range. To 
do so, we examined the occupied stream lengths within each GMU. 
Currently, the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs contain 3, 147, and 59 
km (2, 91, 37 mi), respectively, of occupied stream length. Rangewide, 
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout occupies 1,197 km (744 mi) of stream 
length, meaning combined these three GMUs constitute around 17 percent 
of the subspecies' range. With the vast majority of the occupied range 
in the Rio Grande Headwaters and Lower Rio Grande GMUs, the remaining 
three GMUs, on their own or combined, do not contain a significant 
portion of the occupied range. Furthermore, these three GMUs do not 
possess unique or high-quality habitat that would promote the 
conservation of the subspecies. As this is not a significant portion of 
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout range, we determined the species is not 
in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
    We next considered whether the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout a significant portion of its range. Again, threats are 
projected to be similar across the range, with no disparities in 
exposure to nonnative species, wildfire, stream drying, or flooding. 
GMUs have a mix of populations that have barriers and some that do not, 
and the Conservation Team has been and is projected to perform 
conservation activities in all five GMUs. The most recent iteration of 
the Conservation Strategy places an emphasis on the Pecos and Canadian 
GMUs, acknowledging their more precarious status. As with the near-
term, projections in the 2040s and 2080s are that each GMU will be a 
mix of populations with varying levels of extirpation risk.
    Similar to the near-term analysis, the main difference in 
extinction risk for each GMU is the disparity in the number of 
populations, which influences redundancy. In our assessment, we did not 
assume that more populations would be added to a GMU via 
reintroduction. Therefore, the current number of populations in each 
GMU (1 for Caballo, 10 for Canadian, and 11 for Pecos) would be the 
maximum number of populations present in the future. Thus, these GMUs 
will continue to have limited redundancy in the future and at 
heightened extinction risk. Looking into the future, further 
extirpations would erode the number and distribution of populations in 
the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs, reducing redundancy even more 
and increasing the risk that a single catastrophic event could result 
in extinction of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout from a GMU.
    After identifying a portion of the range (Caballo, Canadian, and 
Pecos GMUs) where the subspecies will potentially have different status 
in the future, we then proceed with whether these areas constitute a 
significant portion of the range. Although we did not project the 
addition of more populations in our assessment that would adjust the 
proportion of overall subspecies range contained within each GMU, most 
of the ongoing major restoration projects would add populations and 
river miles to the Rio Grande Headwaters and Lower Rio Grande GMUs. 
Thus, the percentage of the occupied range for the subspecies within 
the Caballo, Canadian, and Pecos GMUs will not change substantially in 
the future. The 17 percent of the future range contained within these 
GMUs does not constitute a large portion of the range. Furthermore, 
these three GMUs will not possess unique or high-quality habitat that 
would promote the conservation of the subspecies.
    These areas do not represent a significant portion of the range; 
therefore, we find that the subspecies is not in danger of extinction 
now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any 
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the 
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321 
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), because, 
in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014), 
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions 
held to be invalid.

[[Page 99211]]

    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
the Rio Grande cutthroat trout is not in danger of extinction or likely 
to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Rio Grande cutthroat trout as an endangered species or threatened 
species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the 
basis for this finding can be found in the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193 (see 
ADDRESSES, above).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
reviews of the information contained in the Rio Grande cutthroat trout 
SSA report. We sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers 
and received five responses. Results of this structured peer review 
process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R2-ES-2024-0193. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Rio 
Grande cutthroat trout to the person specified above under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information 
will help us monitor the subspecies and make appropriate decisions 
about its conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and 
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation 
efforts.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this petition finding is 
available in the species assessment form, which is available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2024-0193 (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the field office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-28749 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
```