```

[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
```