[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49985-49989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19062]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0011; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Jaguar
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
90-day finding in response to a petition to revise critical habitat for
the jaguar (Panthera onca) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). The petition requests the Service to revise the
existing critical habitat designation by removing approximately 20,234
hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the northern Santa Rita Mountains in
Arizona and an adjoining critical habitat subunit, including land
containing the proposed Rosemont Mine. Our 90-day finding is that the
petition does not present substantial scientific information indicating
that the requested revision to the critical habitat designation may be
warranted.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 7,
2021.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0011. Information and
supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection pursuant to current COVID-19
restrictions. You may contact the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office at 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 (telephone
602-242-0210) for further information about these restrictions. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above mailing address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 602-242-0210. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
[[Page 49986]]
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species.
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 describe our criteria
for designating critical habitat. We are to consider physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the ``physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species'' as
the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features,
sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions.
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and
connectivity. In addition, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.02 define ``special management considerations or protection'' as
methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of listed species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate and make
revisions to critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if
she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless she determines that the failure to designate such area as
critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species
concerned.
5 U.S.C. 553(e) gives interested persons the right to petition for
the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a Federal rule. Section
4(b)(3)(D) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a
finding on whether a petition to revise critical habitat for a species
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
revision may be warranted. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i)
state that `` `substantial scientific information' refers to credible
scientific information in support of the petition's claims such that a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted.
Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible
scientific information will not be considered `substantial
information.' ''
In determining whether substantial scientific information exists,
we consider several factors, including information submitted with, and
referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available
in our files. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(4) require that when
the petitioner requests removal of areas from currently designated
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it was listed, we consider whether the petition contains
information indicating that areas petitioned to be removed from
currently designated critical habitat do not contain the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species, or that these features do not require special management
considerations or protection. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(e)(5)
require that, for areas petitioned to be added to or removed from
designated critical habitat that were outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it was listed, the petitioner must
present information indicating why the petitioned areas are essential
(if areas are being added) or are not essential (if areas are being
removed) for the conservation of the species.
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding
within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our
notification of the finding promptly in the Federal Register. We are to
base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting
information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. If we find that a petition presents substantial
scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted,
we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the
requested revision within 12 months after receiving the petition and
promptly publish notification of such intention in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
In 1972, the jaguar was listed as endangered (37 FR 6476; March 30,
1972) in accordance with the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969 (ESCA), a precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Under the ESCA, the Service
maintained separate listings for foreign species and species native to
the United States. At that time, the jaguar was believed to be extinct
in the United States; thus, the jaguar was included only on the foreign
species list. The jaguar's range was described as extending from the
international boundary of the United States and Mexico southward to
include Central and South America (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972). In
1973, the Act superseded the ESCA. The foreign and native lists were
replaced by a single ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife''
(List), which was first published in the Federal Register on September
26, 1975 (40 FR 44412). In the 1975 List, the jaguar's range again was
described as including Central and South America (40 FR 44412,
September 26, 1975, p. 40 FR 44418), but not the United States. On July
22, 1997, we published a final rule clarifying that endangered status
for the jaguar extended into the United States (62 FR 39147).
The 1997 clarifying rule included a determination that designation
of critical habitat for the jaguar was not prudent (62 FR 39147, July
22, 1997, p. 62 FR 39155). However, after several petitions and legal
actions, on August 20, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77
FR 50214) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar.
In that proposed rule, we proposed to designate approximately 339,220
hectares (838,232 acres) as critical habitat in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County,
New Mexico. The comment period opened August 20, 2012, and closed
October 19, 2012.
On March 12, 2013, we received a report from the bi-national Jaguar
Recovery Team entitled Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update
(Sanderson and Fisher 2013, entire) that included a revised habitat
model for the jaguar in the proposed Northwestern Recovery Unit. This
report recommended defining habitat patches of less than 100 square
kilometers (km\2\) (38.6 square miles (mi\2\)) in size as unsuitable
for jaguars, as well as slight changes to some of the features
comprising jaguar habitat. Therefore, we incorporated this information
into the physical and biological features for the jaguar, resulting in
changes to the boundaries as described in our August 20, 2012, proposed
critical habitat rule.
On July 1, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 39237)
a revised proposed rule that described the revisions explained above to
our
[[Page 49987]]
proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar; with those
revisions, the proposed critical habitat for the jaguar totaled
approximately 347,277 hectares (858,137 acres) in six units located in
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County,
New Mexico. We also announced the availability of a draft economic
analysis and draft environmental assessment of the revised proposed
designation of critical habitat for jaguar and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal. Additionally, we announced the
reopening of the comment period. The comment period opened July 1,
2013, and closed August 9, 2013.
On August 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the Service's motion to extend the deadline for
publishing a final critical habitat designation for the jaguar to
December 16, 2013. This rescheduled final rulemaking date allowed us to
reopen the public comment period again, because we had received
multiple requests to do so. On August 29, 2013, we announced the
reopening of the comment period for an additional 15 days (78 FR
53390). The comment period opened August 29, 2013, and closed September
13, 2013.
From October 1 to October 17, 2013, the U.S. Federal Government
entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations due to a lapse
in appropriations. Due to this delay, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the Service's motion to extend the
deadline for submitting a final critical habitat designation for the
jaguar to the Federal Register to no later than February 14, 2014. On
February 12, 2014, we submitted the final rule to the Federal Register,
and on March 5, 2014, the final rule to designate critical habitat for
the jaguar published in the Federal Register (79 FR 12572). In that
final rule, we designated approximately 309,263 hectares (764,207
acres) in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo
County, New Mexico. The rule went into effect on April 4, 2014.
On February 10, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona ruled on a crossclaim filed by Rosemont Copper Company in a
lawsuit challenging the critical habitat designation for the jaguar
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 441 F.
Supp. 3d 843 (D. Ariz. 2020) (Ctr. for Biological Diversity)). The
court upheld the Service's critical habitat designation, but found that
critical habitat Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time of listing. This
decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Rosemont
Copper Company. The case is currently stayed, and no final judgment on
the matter has been entered.
Petition History
On November 11, 2020, we received a petition from the petitioner
(Rosemont Copper Company) requesting that critical habitat for the
jaguar be revised under the Act, pursuant to section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533) and 50 CFR 424.10 and 424.14. The petition requested
approximately 20,234 hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the northern
Santa Rita Mountains and an adjoining critical habitat subunit,
including land containing the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, be removed
from the critical habitat designation for the jaguar. In particular,
the petition seeks the removal of a portion of critical habitat Unit 3
and Subunit 4b. The Service found that Unit 3 was occupied by the
jaguar at the time of listing, but, due to uncertainty regarding
occupation at the time of listing, we also determined that Unit 3 was
essential to the conservation of the species. We also found Subunit 4b
was unoccupied at the time of listing but essential to the conservation
of the species.
In the petition, the petitioner provided the following assertions
to support its requested revisions:
1. ``The Arizona District Court has subsequently determined that
the Santa Rita Mountains were not occupied at the time of listing,
and in designating critical habitat, the Service failed to evaluate
areas that are occupied by jaguars in accordance with its own
rules'' (Rosemont 2020, p. 7).
2. ``The northern Santa Rita Mountains provide limited
conservation benefits and are not essential to the conservation of
the species'' (Rosemont 2020, p. 8).
3. ``The FWS erroneously relied on the 2013 BiOp [biological
opinion for the Rosemont Copper Mine] and did not consider excluding
the northern Santa Rita Mountains from the critical habitat''
(Rosemont 2020, p. 10).
4. ``The critical habitat designation is no longer 'prudent' ''
based on the August 27, 2019, final rule (84 FR 45020) that amended
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 governing the listing of species
and designation of critical habitat (Rosemont 2020, p. 12).
5. Subunit 4b (a subunit providing connectivity from Unit 4 to
Mexico through Unit 3) is unoccupied; no evidence exists that a
jaguar has used the subunit or would need to use it to travel to and
from Mexico; more direct routes from Unit 4 to Mexico are available;
and, if the northern Santa Rita Mountains are removed from critical
habitat, there is no reason to designate Subunit 4b (Rosemont 2020,
pp. 12-13).
6. ``The removal of the northern Santa Rita Mountains and
Subunit 4b will have little impact on the remaining critical
habitat'' (about 6.5% of the total) (Rosemont 2020, p. 13).
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50
CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Species Information
The jaguar is the largest species of cat native to the Western
Hemisphere. Jaguars are muscular cats with relatively short, massive
limbs and a deep-chested body. They are cinnamon-buff in color with
many black spots; melanistic forms are also known, primarily from the
southern part of the range (Service 1997, p. 39147). Jaguars
historically ranged from the southern United States to central
Argentina (Swank and Teer 1989, p. 14; Caso et al. 2008, p. 2).
Currently, they range from the southwestern United States to northern
Argentina, are found in all countries except for El Salvador and
Uruguay (Zeller 2007, all maps), and are estimated to occupy 51 percent
of their historical range (Quigley et al. 2017, p. 3;
J[eogon]drzejewski et al. 2018, p. 10).
Jaguars breed year-round rangewide, but at the southern and
northern ends of their range there is evidence for a spring breeding
season. Gestation is about 100 days; litters range from one to four
cubs (usually two). Cubs remain with their mother for nearly 2 years.
Females begin sexual activity at 3 years of age, males at 4. Studies
have documented few wild jaguars more than 11 years old. The list of
prey consumed by jaguars rangewide includes more than 85 species
(Seymour 1989, p. 340), such as peccaries (javelina), capybaras, pacas,
armadillos, caimans, turtles, and various birds and fish. Javelina and
deer are presumably mainstays in the diet of jaguars in the United
States and Mexico borderlands (Service 1997, p. 39147).
Jaguars are known from a variety of habitats (for example, see
Seymour 1989, p. 340). They show a high affinity to lowland wet
habitats, typically swampy savannas or tropical rain forests. However,
they also occur, or once did, in upland habitats in warmer regions of
North and South America. Within the United States, jaguars have been
recorded most commonly from Arizona, but there are also records from
California, New Mexico, and Texas, and reports from Louisiana (Service
1997, p. 39147).
Evaluation of Information for the 90-Day Finding
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate and revise
critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the best scientific
data available. Section
[[Page 49988]]
4(b)(3)(D)(i) requires us to make a finding as to whether the petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
revision may be warranted. For the purposes of findings on petitions to
revise critical habitat, we apply the definition of ``substantial
scientific information'' set forth at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i).
90-Day Finding
As noted earlier, the court in Ctr. for Biological Diversity upheld
our critical habitat determination for jaguar, but found that critical
habitat Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time of listing. That decision has
been appealed by the petitioner. The case is currently stayed. In an
abundance of caution, we analyzed the petition under both 50 CFR
424.14(e)(4) and (e)(5). That is, we considered the petition as if Unit
3 was occupied at the time of listing and, separately, consistent with
the District Court's judgment, as if Unit 3 was unoccupied at the time
of listing. Under either analysis, we do not find that the petition
meets the substantial scientific information standard.
In the first analysis, we considered whether the petition, pursuant
to 50 CFR 424.14(e)(4), contains substantial scientific information
indicating that areas to be removed from currently designated critical
habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed (Unit 3) do not contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that
these features do not require special management considerations or
protection. The petition did not provide substantial scientific
information that Unit 3, including the northern Santa Rita Mountains
and the area around the proposed mine, no longer contains the physical
or biological features of jaguar critical habitat, nor did the petition
provide substantial scientific information that these features no
longer require special management considerations or protection.
In the second analysis, we applied the standard set forth at 50 CFR
424.14(e)(5) to both Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. We find the petition does
not contain substantial scientific information indicating that areas
petitioned to be removed from critical habitat (the northern portion of
Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b) are not essential for the conservation of
the species. Subunit 4b is essential to the conservation of the jaguar
because it contributes to the species' persistence by providing
connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) to Mexico via Unit 3
(79 FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12589). The ability for jaguars
in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (one of two recovery units deemed
essential to the jaguar by the Jaguar Recovery Team; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2018, p. 82) to use physical and biological habitat
features in the borderlands region is ecologically important to the
recovery of the species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico
is essential to the conservation of the jaguar (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12574). The petition states that there is no evidence
that a jaguar has used Subunit 4b or would need to use the subunit to
travel to and from Mexico because jaguars have more direct geographic
connections to Mexico via the mountain ranges close to the border
(Rosemont 2020, p. 12). However, because Subunit 4b is considered
unoccupied, evidence of jaguar use is not a requirement to consider the
subunit essential. Additionally, speculation about where a jaguar may
or may not travel is not substantial scientific information according
to our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i). Therefore, the petition
does not provide substantial scientific information as to why this
subunit is not essential or why it does not contribute to connectivity
to Mexico.
Unit 3 was found to be unoccupied by the court, but the court
determined that Unit 3 is essential to the recovery of the species (see
Ctr. for Biological Diversity at 873). When designating critical
habitat for the jaguar, we recognized that an argument could be made
that no areas in the United States were occupied by the species at the
time it was listed, or that only areas containing undisputed Class I
records from between 1962 and 1982 were occupied (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12582). For this reason, in our final critical habitat
rule, we also analyzed whether or not these areas are essential to the
conservation of the species. In the final rule, we determined that
areas we considered occupied (such as Unit 3) are also essential to the
conservation of the species because: (1) They have demonstrated recent
(since 1996) occupancy by jaguars; (2) they contain features that
comprise jaguar habitat; and (3) they contribute to the species'
persistence in the United States by allowing the normal demographic
function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery
Unit, which is essential to the conservation of the species. The
petition provides no substantial scientific information indicating why
Unit 3 is not essential for the conservation of the species based on
these three factors we identified in the critical habitat rule.
First, the petition does not provide information challenging that
Unit 3 has demonstrated recent (since 1996) occupancy by jaguars. The
petition acknowledges that a single male jaguar was detected in the
Santa Rita Mountains from 2012-2015, one that was also detected in the
Whetstone Mountains (Unit 4) in 2011. We have information in our files
corroborating the presence of this jaguar in the Santa Rita Mountains
from 2012-2015. Therefore, the petition does not provide substantial
scientific information indicating Unit 3 does not demonstrate recent
(since 1996) occupancy by jaguars.
Second, the petition does not provide information that Unit 3 does
not contain features that comprise jaguar habitat. Instead, the
petition states the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources rates the type of habitat found in the Santa Rita
Mountains as ``marginal'' habitat for jaguars (Rosemont 2020, pp. 9-
10). This information does not indicate that jaguar habitat is no
longer present or essential in Unit 3. We acknowledge in the final rule
designating jaguar critical habitat that the ``more open, dry habitat
of the southwestern United States has been characterized as marginal
habitat for jaguars in terms of water, cover, and prey densities'' (79
FR 12572, March 5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12573). We also acknowledge that
``while habitat in the United States can be considered marginal when
compared to other areas throughout the species' range, it appears that
a few, possibly resident jaguars are able to use the more open, arid
habitat found in the southwestern United States'' (79 FR 12572, March
5, 2014, p. 79 FR 12573). It is for these reasons that we determined
that all of the primary constituent elements discussed in the March 5,
2014, final rule must be present in each specific area to constitute
critical jaguar habitat in the United States (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12587). The petition does not provide evidence that all
of the primary constituent elements are no longer present in Unit 3.
Therefore, the petition does not provide substantial scientific
information that Unit 3 does not contain features that comprise jaguar
habitat.
Third, the petition does not provide information challenging the
contribution of critical habitat to the species' persistence in the
United States by allowing the normal demographic function and possible
range expansion of the Northwestern Recovery Unit, which is essential
to the conservation of the species. The petition states that the
[[Page 49989]]
United States contains, at most, less than 1 percent of the worldwide
jaguar habitat, and has no resident population of jaguars (Rosemont
2020, p. 9). This information relates to the status of the species and
does not address whether or not Unit 3 allows for the normal
demographic function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit. The petition also states that removal of the northern
Santa Rita Mountains and Subunit 4b represents a very small percentage
of the total critical habitat--about 6.5 percent--that would be removed
by the petitioned action and will not prevent the remaining critical
habitat from functioning as intended for the support of the Northwest
Recovery Unit (Rosemont 2020, pp. 13-14). The recovery function and
value of critical habitat for the jaguar within the United States is to
contribute to the species' persistence and, therefore, overall
conservation by identifying areas that support some individuals during
dispersal movements, that contain small patches of habitat (perhaps in
some cases with a few resident jaguars), and that allow for cyclic
expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding
population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (79 FR 12572, March 5,
2014, p. 79 FR 12574). Removal of the northern Santa Rita Mountains
would withdraw areas that currently provide the physical and biological
features of jaguar critical habitat and in which confirmed jaguar
detections occurred between 2012 and 2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, p. 295). In addition, removal of Subunit 4b eliminates
half of the available connections to Mexico for Unit 4 (specifically to
Subunit 4a), which is a unit in which the same jaguar that occupied the
Santa Rita Mountains (Unit 3) was detected in 2011. The petition does
not explain why these areas are no longer essential other than to
assert that most critical habitat units would be unaffected, and that
impacts to Unit 3 and Unit 4 would be minor and would not prevent the
units from functioning as intended. This assertion does not demonstrate
that changes have occurred to these areas such that the function they
provide to jaguars, and the reason for which they were designated as
critical habitat, is compromised. Therefore, the petition does not
provide substantial scientific information that the northern Santa Rita
Mountains in Unit 3 and all of Subunit 4b no longer function as
critical habitat and are not essential in allowing for the normal
demographic function and possible range expansion of the Northwestern
Recovery Unit.
The petition discusses the 2013 biological opinion for the Rosemont
Copper Mine, which was overturned by a court decision (Ctr. for
Biological Diversity at 873), and our 2019 amendments to the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 in its request to revise critical habitat
for jaguars. We reviewed the petition's argument and find that these
documents are not relevant to the question of whether the petition
contained substantial information to support the removal of areas from
critical habitat. Neither line of discussion speaks to whether the
areas petitioned for removal contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species or provides
information that these features do not require special management
considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.14(e)(4).
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted for the jaguar. Because the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that revision of critical habitat
for jaguar may be warranted, we do not intend to proceed with any such
revision. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning this species' habitat at
any time by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19062 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P