Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
| Citation | 88 FR 41560 |
| Published date | 27 June 2023 |
| FR Document | 2023-13577 |
| Pages | 41560-41585 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Issuer | Interior Department,Fish and Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41560-41585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13577]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0174; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species
That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual
Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description
of Progress on Listing Actions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and
animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for
addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
[[Page 41561]]
and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This
document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and
describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1,
2021, through September 30, 2022. Combined with other decisions for
individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the
past year, the current number of species that are candidates for
listing is 23 (as of September 30, 2022). Identification of candidate
species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance
notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners, resource
managers, States, Tribes, range countries, and other stakeholders to
take actions to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need
to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently
list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result
in more options for species management and recovery by prompting
earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the
species.
DATES: We are publishing this document on June 27, 2023. We will accept
information on any of the species in this document at any time.
ADDRESSES: This document is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Species assessment forms with information and references on a
particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing
priority assignment are available for review on our website (https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report). Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a
general nature on this document to the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the
address of the Regional Director or Branch Chief in the appropriate
office listed under Request for Information in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caitlin Snyder, Chief, Branch of
Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone: 703-358-2673).
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
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
as amended, requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants
that are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific
and commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the Act, an
endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened
species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species
that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec.
17.11 (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at
50 CFR 17.12. As part of this process, we maintain a list of species
that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one
for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as
endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of
a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We may
identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted
an evaluation of its status--either on our own initiative, or in
response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a
petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted
but precluded by other higher-priority listing actions, we will add the
species to our list of candidates.
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1)
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make
listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to
help us identify those candidate species that may not require
protection under the Act, as well as additional species that may
require the Act's protections; and (5) to request necessary information
for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage
collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer
technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For
additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the
appropriate Office listed under Request for Information, below, or
visit our website at: https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species/what-we-do.
Previous CNORs
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was
published on May 3, 2022 (87 FR 26152).
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a
listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098).
Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12,
depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and
taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires
the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking
system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize
based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the
threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence receive the highest listing priority. All candidate species
face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats
is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of
sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction or make
them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future. However, for species with higher magnitude threats, the threats
have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected
to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are
imminent) than for species with lower-magnitude threats. Because we do
not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be
expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that
contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We,
therefore, consider information such as: (1) The number of populations
or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both;
(2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking
into consideration
[[Page 41562]]
the life-history characteristics of the species and its current
abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species
in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of
persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity
of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are
likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in
population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent;
and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the
severity of the threat(s).
As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for
listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct
population segments of vertebrate species (DPSs).
The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate
an LPN of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude,
with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned
an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (i.e., a species
that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1
category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS would be
assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis
for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a
proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to
a species, each species included in this document as a candidate is one
for which we have concluded that we have sufficient information to
prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at:
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/listing-and-classification-policies-and-regulations. The species assessment and listing priority
assignment form for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a more-
detailed explanation--including citations to, and more-detailed
analyses of, the best scientific and commercial data available--for our
determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and
assignment of the LPN; these forms are available for review on the
website provided above in ADDRESSES.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous CNOR on May 3, 2022 (87 FR
26152), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to
ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and
reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also
evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly
species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3).
This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts
on those species at greatest risk.
After a thorough review of the available scientific and commercial
information, we have determined that the North Cascades Ecosystem of
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is no longer warranted but
precluded for uplisting as information indicates a population is no
longer present. A summary of our updated assessment for this species is
included under Petitions to Reclassify Species Already Listed. We are
currently working on species status assessments for five species that
are foreign species candidates: Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae),
southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis), fluminense swallowtail
butterfly (Parides ascanius), Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail butterfly
(Parides hahneli), and Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly (Mimoides
(syn. Eurytides) lysithous harrisianus). We intend to make
determinations in fiscal year (FY) 2023 whether these five species are
endangered, threatened, or not warranted for listing. Therefore, in
this CNOR, summaries for these five candidate species are not included
under Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, but these species are
included in table 5.
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the
last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list
species, on proposed rules to list species under the Act, and on final
listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have
been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on
others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress,
below, for details).
Combined with other findings and determinations published
separately from this CNOR, 23 species are now candidates awaiting
preparation of a proposed listing rule or ``not-warranted'' finding.
Table 5 (below) identifies these 23 candidate species, along with the
54 species proposed for listing (including 6 species proposed for
listing due to similarity of appearance) as of September 30, 2022.
Table 6 (below) lists the changes for species identified in the
previous CNOR and includes 12 species identified in the previous CNOR
as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no
longer in those categories. This includes nine species for which we
published a final listing rule, one species for which we published a
withdrawal of the proposed listing rule, and one species where we no
longer find the population to be warranted but precluded for uplisting
due to the population being extirpated.
Petition Findings
The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of
section 4(a)(1). The second method provides a mechanism for the public
to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in
the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of
the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for
petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as
candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition
finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a
warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a
``resubmitted'' petition finding that the Act requires the Service to
make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the
statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which
listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need
emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial 12-month finding in some
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a
petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day
finding''). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly
commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we
[[Page 41563]]
must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of
the following three possible findings (a ``12-month finding''):
(1) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case we must
promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register;
(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we must
promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned
action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5)
and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether
or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b)
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the
Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of
the Act are no longer necessary. We refer to this third option as a
``warranted-but-precluded finding,'' and after making such a finding,
we must promptly publish it in the Federal Register.
We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we
receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as
a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate
species and in a CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e.,
substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in
response to the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish
these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the
petition.
Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding.
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that when we make a
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as
one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make
a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year
in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, until we publish a
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition
findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings,
although all previous findings are part of the administrative record
for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or
incorporate them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining
why the finding has changed. We have identified the candidate species
for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-
precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code ``C*'' in the
category column on the left side of table 5, below.
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to implement a
system to monitor effectively the status of all species for which we
have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding and to make prompt
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) to prevent
a significant risk to the well-being of any such species. The CNOR
plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented
for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively
seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review
all new information on candidate species as it becomes available,
prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring
results and other new information, and identify any species for which
emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency
listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of
the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and
specificity of information that we must consider in making and
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a
nationwide basis. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon
our budget for listing activities for non-listed species only, and we
explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has
precluded action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and
threats to, 16 of the 23 current candidate species for which we have
received a petition to list where we found the action warranted but
precluded and 2 species for which we continue to find uplisting
warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a
proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these
species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be,
precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We also find that 1
listed domestic species is no longer warranted but precluded for
uplisting due to the population being extirpated. We are currently
working on species status assessments for five species that are foreign
species candidates: Sira curassow, southern helmeted curassow,
fluminense swallowtail butterfly, Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail
butterfly, and Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly. We intend to make
determinations in FY 2023 whether these species are endangered,
threatened, or not warranted for listing. Therefore, in this CNOR,
summaries for these five foreign candidate species are not included
under Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, but these species are
included in table 5, below. A summary for the longfin smelt San
Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (DPS) is not included
under Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species in this CNOR because
subsequent to the end of FY 2022, but prior to the publication of this
CNOR, our proposal to list the species was published in the Federal
Register on October 7, 2022 (87 FR 60957). However, this DPS is
included in table 5, below.
The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species
was precluded by our work on higher-priority listing actions, listed
below, during the period from October 1, 2021, through September 30,
2022. Below, we describe the actions that continue to
[[Page 41564]]
preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation
implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a
warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious
progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species
from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all
candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information
becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted,
including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of
the Act. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify
and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in
section 4(a)(1)--either on our own initiative or through the mechanism
that section 4 provides for the public to petition us to add species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove
species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal because there
are competing demands for those resources and the relative priority of
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY),
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of a proposal
is precluded by higher-priority listing actions--(1) the amount of
resources available for completing the listing-related function; (2)
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation; and
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of
the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its
workload.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing-related actions are determined
through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and
for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from
depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and
final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of
species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical
habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
For more than two decades, the size and cost of the workload in
these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding
available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing
and critical habitat actions under the Act. As we cannot exceed the
spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work
on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide
basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to
complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after
completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide.
Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying
for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved
settlement agreements--set the framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2022, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022
(Pub. L. 117-103, March 15, 2022), Congress appropriated $21,279,000
for all domestic and foreign listing work. For FY 2023, through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328, December 29,
2022), Congress appropriated $23,398,000 for all domestic and foreign
listing work. The amount of funding Congress will appropriate in future
years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; requesting
peer and partner review on our analyses that support listing decisions
and incorporating those comments, as appropriate; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from
those comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we
can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of
those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. Our practice of proposing to designate critical habitat
concurrently with listing domestic species requires additional
coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work.
Completing all of the outstanding listing and critical habitat actions
has for so long required more funding than is available within the
spending cap that the Service has developed several ways to prioritize
its workload actions and to identify the work it can complete with the
available funding for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1)
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical
habitat designations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential
litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management
functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat
actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing
actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines.
In previous years, the Service received many new petitions,
including multiple petitions to list numerous species--in one example,
a single
[[Page 41565]]
petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that
petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time
through the petition process significantly increased the number of
actions within the third category of our workload--actions that have
absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In
addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program
funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and
complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016
added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we
are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent
effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in
petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-
species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was
compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those
petitions. The number of petitions awaiting status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of
this backlog. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds
of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90
days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at
the beginning of FY 2023 we had 305 12-month petition findings yet to
be completed.
To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month
petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology
(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016), after providing the public
with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81
FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign each 12-
month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is
critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the
status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform
key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation
efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status
of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited.
As a general matter, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a
higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with
a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions--for
example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching
it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may
also consider whether there are any special circumstances whereby an
action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. For example, one
limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when
the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such
that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully
occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic
distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us
to balance workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress
first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the
Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than
the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program.
Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our
listing process.
After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied
that methodology to develop multi-year workplans for domestic and
foreign species for completing the outstanding status assessments and
accompanying 12-month findings, along with other outstanding work such
as designating critical habitat and acting on the status of candidate
species.
Domestic Species Workplan
The purpose of the National Listing Workplan (Workplan) is to
provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the
Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings for domestic
species while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new
information changes the priorities. In March 2022, the Service released
its updated Workplan for addressing the Act's domestic listing and
critical habitat decisions for fiscal years 2022-2027. The updated
Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all domestic
species on the candidate list and conducting 252 status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings by FY 2027 for domestic species that
have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. The
National Listing Workplan is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/project/national-listing-workplan.
Foreign Species Workplan
Similar to the National Listing Workplan, the Foreign Species
Workplan provides the Service's multi-year schedule for addressing our
foreign species listing workload. The Foreign Species Workplan provides
transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service
anticipates completing specific 12-month findings and candidate species
while allowing for flexibility to update the Foreign Species Workplan
when new information changes the priorities. In September 2021 the
Service released its most recent Foreign Species Workplan for
addressing the Act's foreign listing decisions for fiscal years 2021-
2026. The Foreign Species Workplan identifies the Service's
prioritization for addressing all foreign species on the candidate list
and 46 status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for petitioned
species, and identifies which actions we plan to complete by FY 2026.
As we implement our Foreign Species Workplan and work on 12-month
findings and proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we
increase efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-
priority species. The Foreign Species Workplan is available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/project/foreign-species-listing-workplan.
For the 12-month findings, consistent with our prioritization
methodology, within the five priority bins we determine the relative
timing of foreign species actions using sub-ranking considerations,
i.e., as tie-breakers for determining relative timing within each of
the five bins (see the August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43474-43476) for a
detailed description of tie-breakers). We consider the extent to which
the protections of the Act would be able to improve conditions for that
species and its habitat relative to the other species within the same
bin, and in doing so, we give weight to the following considerations,
in order from greater weight to lesser weight.
1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforcement capacity;
2. Species in trade to or from the United States;
3. Species in trade through U.S. ports (i.e., in-transit or
transshipment);
4. Within the United States, interstate trade;
5. Status under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and
6. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List
status.
Prioritization of Domestic and Foreign Species
An additional way in which we determine relative priorities of
outstanding actions for species in the section 4 program is application
of the
[[Page 41566]]
listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983; see
Previous CNORs, above). Proposed rules for listing foreign species,
including foreign candidate species, are generally lower in priority
than domestic listings because we generally have more resources and
authorities to achieve higher conservation outcomes when listing
domestic species. The Service has a responsibility to conserve both
domestic and foreign species; however, our choice to dedicate the bulk
of our funding cap to domestic actions is a rational one given the
likelihood of obtaining better conservation outcomes for domestic
species versus foreign species under the Act. The Act makes no
distinction between foreign species and domestic species in listing
species as endangered or threatened. The protections of the Act
generally apply to both listed foreign species and domestic species,
and section 8 of the Act provides authorities for international
cooperation on foreign species. However, some significant differences
in the Service's authorities result in differences in our ability to
affect conservation for foreign and domestic species under the Act. The
major differences are that the Service has no regulatory jurisdiction
over take of a listed species in a foreign country, or of trade in
listed species outside the United States by persons not subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States (see 50 CFR 17.21). The Service also
does not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in
other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States (50 CFR
424.12(g)).
Additionally, section 7 of the Act in part requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat, and to enter into
consultation with the Service if a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat. An ``action'' that is subject to the
consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as ``all activities or
programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in
part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.''
In view of this regulatory definition, foreign species are rarely
subject to section 7 consultation, apart from consultations for permits
issued under the Act. This differs from the considerable benefits
section 7 affords to domestic species whose life cycle occurs in whole
or in part in the United States, and for which we do designate critical
habitat, which are routinely subject to section 7 consultations and the
conservation benefits that result from those.
These differences in the Service's authorities for foreign and
domestic species under the Act, including relating to take, critical
habitat, and section 7 consultation, means that listing foreign species
is likely to have relatively less conservation effect than for domestic
species. The protections of the Act through listing are likely to have
their greatest conservation effect for foreign species that are in
trade to, from, through, or within the United States. The majority
(likely 12 out of the 14) of current foreign candidate species are not
known to be in trade. Therefore, we made a rational decision to
dedicate more resources to listing domestic species.
Additionally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species status to endangered species status (uplisting) are generally
lower in priority because, as listed species, they are already afforded
the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to
reclassify a species to endangered species status if we can combine
this with higher-priority work.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2022
outlined work for domestic species over the period from FY 2022 to FY
2027. The Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2021
outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2020 to FY
2026. Tables 1 and 2, below, identify the higher-priority listing
actions that we completed through FY 2022 (September 30, 2022), as well
as those we have been working on in FY 2022 but have not yet completed.
For FY 2022, our workload includes 41 12-month findings or proposed
listing actions that are at various stages of completion at the time of
this finding. In addition to the actions scheduled in the National
Listing Workplan and the Foreign Species Workplan (``Workplans''), the
overall Listing Program workload also includes development and revision
of regulations required by new court orders or settlement agreements to
address the repercussions of any new court decisions, and proposed and
final critical habitat designations or revisions for species that have
already been listed. The Service's highest priorities for spending its
funding in FY 2022 are actions included in the Workplans and actions
required to address court decisions.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note
that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the ``Lists'' are grouped as
one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (see 50 CFR 17.11(h))
and one list of endangered and threatened plants (see 50 CFR 17.12(h)).
However, the ``Lists'' referred to in the Act mean one list of
endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened
species (wildlife and plants). For the purposes of evaluating our
expeditious progress, when we refer to the ``Lists,'' we mean this
latter grouping of one list of endangered species and one list of
threatened species.
As with our ``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether
expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources
available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed
earlier, the FY 2022 appropriations law appropriated $21,279,000 for
all domestic and foreign listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work
catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the Lists and to remove from the
Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer
necessary.
The work of the Service's domestic listing and foreign listing
programs in FY 2022 (as of September 30, 2022) includes all three of
the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying
species that may warrant listing (including 90-day petition findings);
(2) undertaking an evaluation of the best available scientific data
about those species and the threats they face to determine whether or
not listing is warranted (a status review and, for petitioned species,
an accompanying 12-month finding); and (3) adding qualified species to
the Lists (by publishing proposed and final listing rules). We explain
in more detail how we are making expeditious progress in all three of
the steps necessary for adding qualified species to the Lists
(identifying, evaluating, and adding species). Subsequent to discussing
our expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists, we
explain our expeditious progress in removing from
[[Page 41567]]
the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the Act.
First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species
that may warrant listing. In FY 2022 (as of September 30, 2022), we
completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 8 domestic species.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best
scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they
face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted.
In FY 2022 (as of September 30, 2022), we completed 12-month findings
for 23 domestic species and 5 foreign species. In addition, we funded
and initiated 12-month findings for 27 domestic species and 8 foreign
species. Although we did not complete those actions during FY 2022 (as
of September 30, 2022), we made expeditious progress towards doing so
by initiating and making progress on the status reviews to determine
whether adding the species to the Lists is warranted.
Third, we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified
species to the Lists. In FY 2022 (as of September 30, 2022), we
published final listing rules for 8 domestic species and no foreign
species, including final critical habitat designations for 7 of those
domestic species and final protective regulations under the Act's
section 4(d) for 4 of those domestic species. In addition, we published
proposed rules to list an additional 18 domestic species and 5 foreign
species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations
for 5 domestic species and concurrent protective regulations under the
Act's section 4(d) for 9 domestic species and 1 foreign species).
Fourth, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
(delisting) species, as well as reclassifying endangered species to
threatened species status (downlisting). Delisting and downlisting
actions are funded through the recovery line item in the budget of the
Endangered Species Program. Thus, delisting and downlisting actions do
not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery
actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing
new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards
our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states
that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to,
and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In FY 2022 (as of September 30, 2022),
we finalized downlisting rules for 5 domestic species with concurrent
final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d), finalized
delisting rules for 3 domestic species, proposed downlisting rules for
2 domestic species (including concurrent protective regulations under
the Act's section 4(d) for 2 domestic species), and proposed delisting
rules for 3 domestic species.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2022 (as of
September 30, 2022) as it pertains to our evaluation of preclusion and
expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published domestic
and foreign listing actions; table 2 includes domestic and foreign
listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY
2022 that were not yet complete as of September 30, 2022; and table 3
includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and
delisting actions for domestic and foreign species.
Table 1--Published Domestic and Foreign Listing Actions (Proposed and Final Listing and Uplisting Rules) in FY
2022
[as of September 30, 2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Publication date Title Action(s) citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/7/2021....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 55775-55789.
Tiehm's Buckwheat. Endangered.
10/14/2021...................... Endangered Species Status for Bog Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 57104-57122.
Buck Moth. Endangered.
11/9/2021....................... Threatened Species Status With Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 62434-62463.
Section 4(d) Rule for Alligator Threatened with a
Snapping Turtle. Section 4(d) Rule.
11/9/2021....................... Threatened Species Status with Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 62122-62137.
Section 4(d) Rule for Egyptian Threatened with a
Tortoise. Section 4(d) Rule.
11/10/2021...................... Threatened Species Status With a Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 62668-62705.
Section 4(d) Rule for Bracted Threatened with a
Twistflower and Designation of Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
11/16/2021...................... Threatened Species Status With Final Listing-- 86 FR 64000-64053.
Section 4(d) Rule for Atlantic Threatened with a
Pigtoe and Designation of Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
11/23/2021...................... 12-Month Finding for Pascagoula Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 66624-66659.
Map Turtle; Threatened Species Threatened with a
Status With Section 4(d) Rule Section 4(d) Rule and
for Pearl River Map Turtle; and a Not-Warranted 12-
Threatened Species Status for month Finding.
Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's
Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle,
and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to
Similarity of Appearance With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
12/21/2021...................... Threatened Species Status With Final Listing-- 86 FR 72394-72433.
Section 4(d) Rule for Hermes Threatened with a
Copper Butterfly and Designation Section 4(d) Rule and
of Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
12/22/2021...................... Threatened Species Status With Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 72547-72573.
Section 4(d) Rule for Cactus Threatened with a
Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. Section 4(d) Rule.
12/28/2021...................... Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog; Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 73914-73945.
Threatened Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule for Two Distinct Section 4(d) Rule;
Population Segments and Endangered.
Endangered Status for Two
Distinct Population Segments.
1/5/2022........................ Threatened Species Status With Final Listing-- 87 FR 546-581.
Section 4(d) Rule for Panama Threatened with a
City Crayfish and Designation of Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
1/25/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 3739-3753.
Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Endangered.
Butterfly.
2/8/2022........................ 12-Month Finding for the Sonoran 12-month Petition 87 FR 7077-7079.
Desert Tortoise. Finding.
2/8/2022........................ 90-Day Findings for Three Species 90-day Petition 87 FR 7079-7083.
Findings.
2/15/2022....................... Endangered Species for Prostrate Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 8509-8543.
Milkweed and Designation of Endangered with
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
[[Page 41568]]
2/28/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing-- 87 FR 11188-11220.
Peppered Chub and Designation of Endangered with
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
3/3/2022........................ Threatened Species Status With Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 12338-12384.
Section 4(d) Rule for Western Threatened with a
Fanshell and ``Ouachita''' Section 4(d) Rule and
Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat.
Critical Habitat.
3/14/2022....................... Three Species Not Warranted for 12-month Petition 87 FR 14227-14232.
Listing as Endangered or Findings.
Threatened Species *.
3/22/2022....................... Threatened Species Status With Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 16320-16363.
Section 4(d) Rule for Sand Dune Threatened with
Phacelia and Designation of Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
3/23/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 16442-16452.
Northern Long-Eared Bat. Endangered.
4/5/2022........................ Lower Colorado River Distinct 12-month Petition 87 FR 19657-19660.
Population Segment of Roundtail Findings.
Chub (Gila robusta).
4/7/2022........................ Endangered Species Status for the Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 20374-20378.
Dixie Valley Toad. Endangered.
4/13/2022....................... Threatened Species Status for Final Listing-- 87 FR 21783-21812.
Streaked Horned Lark With Threatened with a
Section 4(d) Rule. Section 4(d) Rule.
5/3/2022........................ Review of Species That Are CNOR and 12-Month 87 FR 26152-26178.
Candidates for Listing as Petition Findings.
Endangered or Threatened; Annual
Notification of Findings on
Resubmitted Petitions; Annual
Description of Progress on
Listing Actions.
5/4/2022........................ Threatened Species Status With Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 26319-26337.
Section 4(d) Rule for the Threatened with a
Silverspot Butterfly. Section 4(d) Rule.
5/25/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 31834-31854.
Russian, Ship, Persian, and Endangered.
Stellate Sturgeon.
6/6/2022........................ 90-Day Finding for Three 90-day Petition Finding 87 FR 34228-34231.
Petitions To List the
Yellowstone Bison.
6/10/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing-- 87 FR 35431-35459.
Arizona Eryngo and Designation Endangered with
of Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
6/16/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing-- 87 FR 36225-36248.
Marron Bacora and Designation of Endangered with
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
6/22/2022....................... Threatened Species Status With a Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 37378-37428.
Section 4(d) Rule for Ocmulgee Threatened with a
Skullcap and Designation of Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
7/6/2022........................ Endangered Species Status for the Final Listing-- 87 FR 40115-40138.
Canoe Creek Clubshell and Endangered with
Designation of Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
7/6/2022........................ Three Species Not Warranted for 12-month Petition 87 FR 40172-40175.
Listing as Endangered or Findings.
Threatened Species *.
8/18/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 50804-50824.
Magnificent Ramshorn and Endangered.
Designation of Critical Habitat.
8/23/2022....................... 90-Day Findings for Four Species. 90-day Petition 87 FR 51635-51639.
Findings.
9/14/2022....................... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 56381-56393.
Tricolored Bat. Endangered.
9/27/2022....................... Threatened Species Status with Proposed Listing-- 87 FR 58648-58703.
Section 4(d) Rule for Florida Threatened with a
Keys Mole Skink and Designation Section 4(d) Rule and
of Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of
12-month findings reported in this assessment of preclusion and expeditious progress pertains to listing
petitions only.
Table 2--Domestic and Foreign Listing Actions (Proposed and Final
listings and Uplistings) Funded and Initiated in Previous FYs and in FY
2022 That Are not Yet Published as of September 30, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amur sturgeon.......................... Final listing determination.
Brandegee's wild buckwheat *........... 12-month finding.
Brawleys Fork crayfish................. 12-month finding.
Bushy whitlow-wort..................... 12-month finding.
Chowanoke crayfish *................... 12-month finding.
Cisco milk-vetch *..................... 12-month finding.
Columbia oregonian snail *............. 12-month finding.
Cooper's cave amphipod................. 12-month finding.
Cumberland moccasinshell............... 12-month finding.
Dolphin & Union Caribou *.............. Final listing determination.
Emperor penguin *...................... Final listing determination.
Gopher tortoise *...................... Proposed listing determination
or not-warranted finding.
Glowing indian-paintbrush.............. 12-month finding.
Gray wolf (western populations)........ 12-month finding.
Great Basin silverspot................. 12-month finding.
Green floater.......................... 12-month finding.
Isely milk-vetch *..................... 12-month finding.
Key ring-necked snake *................ 12-month finding.
[[Page 41569]]
Lassics lupine *....................... 12-month finding.
Longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta Proposed listing determination
DPS) *. or not-warranted finding.
Louisiana pigtoe *..................... 12-month finding.
Miami cave crayfish.................... 12-month finding.
Minute cave amphipod................... 12-month finding.
Morrison's cave amphipod............... 12-month finding.
Navasota false foxglove................ 12-month finding.
Oblong rocksnail....................... 12-month finding.
Pristine crayfish...................... 12-month finding.
Rim rock crowned snake*................ 12-month finding.
Rye Cove cave isopod*.................. 12-month finding.
Shasta salamander...................... 12-month finding.
Southern elktoe........................ 12-month finding.
Tennessee clubshell.................... 12-month finding.
Tennessee pigtoe....................... 12-month finding.
Texas heelsplitter *................... 12-month finding.
Texas kangaroo rat..................... 12-month finding.
Tharp's blue-star...................... 12-month finding.
Toothless blindcat..................... 12-month finding.
Western spadefoot...................... 12-month finding.
Widemouth blindcat..................... 12-month finding.
Yazoo crayfish......................... 12-month finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes species for which a 12-month finding or listing determination
has published subsequent to the end of FY 2022 (after September 30,
2022).
Table 3--Published Domestic and Foreign Recovery Actions (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) in FY
2022
[as of September 30, 2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Publication date Title Action(s) citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/18/2021...................... Reclassification of the Humpback Final Rule--Downlisting 86 FR 57588-57610.
Chub From Endangered to with Section 4(d) Rule.
Threatened With a Section 4(d)
Rule.
11/17/2021...................... Removal of the Okaloosa Darter Proposed Rule-- 86 FR 64158-64176.
From the Federal List of Delisting.
Endangered and Threated Wildlife.
2/3/2022........................ Removing San Benito Evening- Final Rule--Delisting.. 87 FR 6046-6063.
Primrose (Camissonia benitensis)
From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
2/3/2022........................ Reclassification of Morro Final Rule--Downlisting 87 FR 6063-6077.
Shoulderband Snail From with Section 4(d) Rule.
Endangered to Threatened With
Section 4(d) Rule.
2/17/2022....................... Reclassification of Stephens' Final Rule--Downlisting 87 FR 8967-8981.
Kangaroo Rat From Endangered To with Section 4(d) Rule.
Threatened With a Section 4(d)
Rule.
3/3/2022........................ Reclassification of the Relict Proposed Rule-- 87 FR 12056-12073.
Darter From Endangered to Downlisting with
Threatened With a Section 4(d) Section 4(d) Rule.
Rule.
3/31/2022....................... Reclassification of the Final Rule--Downlisting 87 FR 18722-18739.
Endangered Layia carnosa (Beach with Section 4(d) Rule.
Layia) to Threatened With
Section 4(d) Rule.
4/28/2022....................... Removing Nelson's Checker-Mallow Proposed Rule-- 87 FR 25197-25209.
From the Federal List of Delisting.
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
6/23/2022....................... Reclassification of Mitracarpus Proposed Rule-- 87 FR 37476-37494.
polycladus From Endangered to Downlisting with
Threatened With a Section 4(d) Section 4(d) Rule.
Rule.
7/6/2022........................ Reclassification of Smooth Final Rule--Downlisting 87 FR 40100-40115.
Coneflower From Endangered To with Section 4(d) Rule.
Threatened With a Section 4(d)
Rule.
7/13/2022....................... Removal of the Puerto Rican Boa Proposed Rule-- 87 FR 41641-41655.
From the List of Endangered and Delisting.
Threatened Wildlife.
8/24/2022....................... Removing Adiantum vivesii from Final Rule--Delisting.. 87 FR 51928-51932.
the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants.
8/24/2022....................... Removing the Braken Bat Cave Final Rule--Delisting.. 87 FR 51925-51928.
Meshweaver From the List of
Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we
have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the
requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to
workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related
actions together for publication. For example, in FY 2021, we published
a single proposed delisting rule for 23 species due to extinction (86
FR 54298; September 30, 2021). Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward
[[Page 41570]]
our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to
and from the Lists.
Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species
For 16 candidates, we continue to find that listing is warranted
but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. However,
we are working on thorough reviews of all available data regarding
seven of these species and expect to publish either proposed listing
rules or 12-month not-warranted findings prior to making the next
annual CNOR. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or not-
warranted petition findings, we continue to monitor new information
about these species' status so that we can make prompt use of our
authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act in the case of an emergency
posing a significant risk to any of these species.
Below are updated summaries for the 16 petitioned candidates for
which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act and did
not change the LPN. We note that species-specific discussions below are
summaries. More detailed information is available in the associated
species assessment forms, including information on relevant
developments with respect to the species since publication of the last
CNOR.
In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions
for which we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the
past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-
precluded finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-
month findings on the petitions for these species.
Monarch Butterfly
The petition that the Service received in 2014 was for listing a
subspecies of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus). After
careful examination of the literature and consultation with experts,
there is no clearly agreed-upon definition of potential subspecies of
Danaus plexippus or where the geographic borders between these
subspecies might exist. In our 12-month finding published in the
Federal Register on December 17, 2020 (85 FR 81813), we determined that
the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) warranted listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act, but that listing was
precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
Adults of the monarch butterfly are large and conspicuous, with
bright orange wings surrounded by a black border and covered with black
veins. Monarch butterflies in eastern and western North America
represent the ancestral origin for the species worldwide. They exhibit
long-distance migration and overwinter as adults at forested locations
in Mexico and California. These overwintering sites provide protection
from the elements and moderate temperatures, as well as nectar and
clean water sources located nearby. Adult monarch butterflies feed on
nectar from a wide variety of flowers. Reproduction is dependent on the
presence of milkweed, the sole food source for larvae. Monarch
butterflies are found in 90 countries, islands, or island groups.
Monarch butterflies have become naturalized at most of these locations
outside of North America since 1840. The populations outside of eastern
and western North America (including southern Florida) do not exhibit
long-distance migratory behavior.
The primary threats to the monarch's biological status include loss
and degradation of habitat from conversion of grasslands to
agriculture, widespread use of herbicides, logging/thinning at
overwintering sites in Mexico, senescence and incompatible management
of overwintering sites in California, urban development, drought,
exposure to insecticides, and effects of climate change. Conservation
efforts are addressing some of the threats from loss of milkweed and
nectar resources across eastern and western North America and
management at overwintering sites in California; however, these efforts
and the existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect
the species from all of the threats.
The North American migratory populations are the largest relative
to the other rangewide populations, accounting for more than 90 percent
of the worldwide number of monarch butterflies. Based on the past
annual censuses, the eastern and western North American migratory
populations have been generally declining over the last 20 years. The
western North American population has a much higher risk of extinction
due to current threats than the eastern North American population. At
the current and projected population numbers, both the eastern and
western populations have become more vulnerable to catastrophic events
(for example, extreme storms at the overwintering habitat). Also, under
different climate change scenarios, the number of days and the area in
which monarch butterflies will be exposed to unsuitably high
temperatures will increase markedly. We know little about population
sizes or trends of most of the populations outside of the eastern and
western North American populations (except for Australia, which has an
estimate of just over 1 million monarch butterflies). However, the
potential loss of the North American migratory populations from these
identified threats would substantially reduce the species' resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. Because the magnitude of threats is
moderate to low and those threats are imminent, we assigned an LPN of 8
for the monarch butterfly. The LPN also reflects that we are evaluating
the monarch butterfly at the species level.
Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) is one
of 14 subspecies of cutthroat trout found in the western United States.
Populations of this subspecies are in New Mexico and Colorado in
drainages of the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers. Although once
widely distributed in connected stream networks, Rio Grande cutthroat
trout populations now occupy approximately 11 percent of historical
habitat, and the populations are fragmented and isolated from one
another. The majority of populations occur in high-elevation streams.
We were petitioned to list Rio Grande cutthroat trout as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act in 1998. On May 14, 2008, we
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 27900) our finding that
listing the species was warranted but precluded by higher-priority
actions, and we added the entity to our list of candidate species.
After completing a species status assessment, on October 1, 2014, we
published in the Federal Register (79 FR 59140) a 12-month petition
finding that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout was not warranted for
listing as endangered or threatened under the Act.
On July 29, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and
Taylor McKinnon filed a complaint in the Colorado District Court
challenging the merits of our 2014 ``not warranted'' finding on a
petition to list the Rio Grande cutthroat trout (CBD, et al. v.
Bernhardt, et al., No. 1:16-cv-01932-MSK-STV (D. Colo.)). On September
26, 2019, the court partially vacated and remanded the 2014 ``not
warranted'' finding. We are currently updating the species status
assessment and have added the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to our
workplan for FY 2025. Because the magnitude of threats is moderate to
low and those threats are imminent, we assigned an LPN of 9 to the Rio
Grande cutthroat trout.
[[Page 41571]]
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail
The Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium (Eurytides)
marcellinus) is a small blue-green and black butterfly endemic to
Jamaica. This butterfly is regarded as Jamaica's most endangered
butterfly. On January 10, 1994, we received a petition from Ms. Dee E.
Warenycia to list seven foreign swallowtail butterflies, including the
Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium (Eurytides) marcellinus),
under the Act. On May 10, 1994, we published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 24117) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition
to add the seven species of foreign swallowtail butterflies contained
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
all species. On December 7, 2004, we published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 70580) our finding that listing the species was warranted but
precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to our
list of candidate species.
The Jamaican kite swallowtail is restricted to limestone forests;
breeding populations only occur in rare, dense stands of its only known
larval host plant, black lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). Five known
sites have supported colonies of the Jamaican kite swallowtail. Two of
the sites may be extirpated, the status of one site is uncertain, and
two sites are viable with strong numbers in some years. There is no
known estimate of population size, and numbers of mature adults are low
in most years; however, occasionally there are strong flight seasons in
which adult densities are relatively higher.
The primary threat to the Jamaican kite swallowtail is habitat loss
and fragmentation. Forests were cleared for agriculture and timber
extraction, and more recently for sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish
pots, or charcoal. Additional threats include mining for limestone that
is used for roadbuilding and bauxite production that is an important
economic activity, and charcoal-making also carries the risk of fire.
Only around 8 percent of the total land area of Jamaica is natural
forest with minimal human disturbance. Collection and trade of the
species occurred in the past. Currently, however, this threat may be
negligible because of heavy fines under the Jamaican Wildlife
Protection Act. Predation from native predators, including spiders, the
Jamaican tody (Todus todus), and praying mantis (Mantis religiosa), may
be adversely affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, especially in the
smaller subpopulations. In years with large populations of spiders,
very few swallowtail larvae survive. Additionally, this species may be
at greater risk of extinction due to natural events such as hurricanes
and effects from climate change.
Since 2001, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been protected under
the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. The species is also included in
their National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. The
two strongest subpopulations occur in protected areas, although habitat
destruction within these areas continues. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite
swallowtail has been categorized on IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but
the assessment is marked as ``needs updating.'' This species is not
included in the Appendices to CITES or the European Union Wildlife
Trade Regulations.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Jamaican kite
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors
affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have determined that no
change in LPN is warranted. Only five small subpopulations of the
species are known, and as few as two of these subpopulations may
presently be viable. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind Swallowtail
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis) is a large,
ornate and colorful swallowtail butterfly that displays sexual
dimorphism (sexes differ in size and coloration). The species is native
to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, and Vietnam. On January 10, 1994, we received a petition from
Ms. Dee E. Warenycia to list seven different butterfly species,
including the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail butterfly, under the Act. On
May 10, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 24117) a 90-
day finding in which we announced that the petition to add the seven
species of foreign butterflies contained substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for all species. On December
7, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 70580) our finding
that listing the species was warranted but precluded by higher-priority
actions, and we added the entity to our list of candidate species.
The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has a large range and was likely more
widespread historically; however, it is currently restricted to higher
elevations, 1,500 to 3,050 meters (m) (4,921 to 10,000 feet (ft)) above
sea level, in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains and other
mountainous regions further east. The species prefers undisturbed
(primary) broad-leaved-evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests.
Specific details on locations or population status are not readily
available, and despite widespread distribution, populations are
described as being local and never abundant.
Habitat destruction negatively affects this species. Comprehensive
information on the rate of degradation of Himalayan forests containing
the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is not available, but ongoing habitat
loss is consistently reported as one of the primary threats to the
species. In China and India, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail populations
are affected by habitat modification and destruction due to commercial
and illegal logging, as well as clearing for agriculture in India. In
Nepal, the species is affected by habitat disturbance and destruction
resulting from mining, wood collection for use as fuel, deforestation,
collection of fodders and fiber plants, forest fires, invasion of
bamboo species into the oak forests, agriculture, and grazing animals.
In Vietnam, the forest habitat is reportedly declining. Additionally,
collection for commercial trade is also regarded as a threat to the
species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been
collected and traded despite various prohibitions. Although it is
difficult to assess the potential impacts from collection, the removal
of individuals from the wild in combination with other stressors
contributes to local extirpations.
In China, the species is protected by the Law of the People's
Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife. In India, the species
is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. In
Thailand, all butterflies in the genus Teinopalpus, including the
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail, are listed under Thailand's Wild Animal
Reservation and Protection Act. In Vietnam, the species is listed as
``vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book and is reported to be
the most valuable of all butterflies in Vietnam. In 2006, the species
was listed on Vietnam's Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 on management of
endangered, precious, and rare forest plants and animals. Since 1996,
the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on the IUCN Red List
as lower risk/near threatened, but IUCN indicates that this assessment
needs updating. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been included in
CITES Appendix II since 1987. Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail is listed on Annex B of the
[[Page 41572]]
European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B
require an import permit.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to
this species, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is
warranted. The species has a wide distribution although populations are
local and never abundant. Habitat loss and collection are expected to
continue in the future. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect
imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Black-Backed Tanager
The black-backed tanager (Tangara peruviana) is a vibrant and
patterned bird endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest region of
southeastern Brazil. The species is known to historically occur in the
coastal states of Rio de Janeiro, S[atilde]o Paulo, Paran[agrave], and
Santa Catarina, Brazil. On May 6, 1991, we received a petition from the
International Council for Bird Preservation to list 53 different bird
species, including the black-backed tanager, under the Act. On December
16, 1991, we published in the Federal Register (56 FR 65207) a 90-day
finding in which we announced that the petition to add 53 species of
foreign birds contained substantial information indicating that listing
may be warranted for all species. On May 21, 2004, we published in the
Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our resubmitted petition findings that
listing the species was warranted but precluded by higher-priority
actions, and we added the entity to our list of candidate species.
The black-backed tanager is generally restricted in range and is
associated with sand forest ``restinga'' habitat, which is a coastal
component habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest complex of Brazil. The
black-backed tanager is generally considered not rare within suitable
habitat, with periodic local fluctuations in numbers owing to seasonal
movements. The species is described as a regional migrant and is one of
just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally within the coastal
Atlantic Forest region of Brazil. The best available information
indicates the range is severely fragmented, consisting of approximately
316,000 square kilometers (km\2\) of breeding range with a slightly
larger nonbreeding range of 377,000 km\2\. The population size is
estimated between 2,500 and 10,000 mature adults. Both the habitat and
species population are decreasing.
The primary factor affecting this species is the rapid and
widespread loss and fragmentation of habitat, mainly due to urban
expansion and beachfront development. Much of the species' suitable
habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Paran[aacute] has been destroyed. As much
as 88 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been lost or severely
degraded as the result of human activities. Intact lowland forest,
restinga, and mangrove habitat used by resident black-backed tanagers
on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island (in the state of Santa
Catarina) is unprotected, making the species vulnerable to extirpation
on the island as development looms. Sea-level rise may alter the
regional vegetation and structure and exacerbate the threat of habitat
loss from ongoing coastal development.
The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN.
The species is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil and protected by
law. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, although it has
infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), we assigned the black-
backed tanager an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available
information, we have determined that no change to an LPN is warranted.
The magnitude of threats to the black-backed tanager is moderate, based
on its likely decreasing population size and widespread and ongoing
habitat loss, although a recent evaluation of its population size is
lacking. Small portions of the species' range occur in six protected
areas, but these areas are not effectively protected. Therefore, an LPN
of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Bogot[aacute] Rail
The Bogot[aacute] rail (Rallus semiplumbeus) is a medium-sized,
nonmigratory bird that occurs in the eastern Andean mountain range of
Colombia at elevations from 2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft) above sea
level. On May 6, 1991, we received a petition from the International
Council for Bird Preservation to list 53 foreign bird species,
including the Bogot[aacute] rail, as endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On December 16, 1991, we published in the Federal
Register (56 FR 65207) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the
petition to add 53 species of foreign birds that contained substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for all species.
On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our
resubmitted petition findings that listing the species was warranted
but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to
our list of candidate species.
The rail is found in savanna and p[aacute]ramo (high-elevation
habitats above tree line) marshes surrounding Bogot[aacute], Colombia,
on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau. The species relies on
specific vegetation in wetland and lakeshore habitats at high
elevations in the eastern flank of the eastern Andean mountain range of
Colombia. The bird requires vegetation associated with these habitats
for breeding and foraging. As of 2016, the population was estimated
between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals, and the estimated extent of the
resident/breeding habitat was 11,200 km\2\ (4,324 square miles (mi\2\))
and shrinking.
The primary threat to the rail is habitat loss and degradation of
wetlands. Suitable habitat for the Bogot[aacute] rail occurs around the
most populated area in Colombia with approximately 11 million people in
the greater Bogot[aacute] metropolitan area. Wetlands in the area only
cover approximately 3 percent of their historical extent. Although
portions of the Bogot[aacute] rail's range occur in protected areas
such as Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve, most
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected. Ongoing threats to
remaining major wetlands include encroachment of human infrastructure
and agriculture that causes loss of habitat and altered water levels,
soil erosion, eutrophication caused by untreated effluent and
agrochemicals, hunting, wildfire, and incidental spread of invasive
species.
The Bogot[aacute] rail is listed as endangered by IUCN. The species
is not known to be in international trade and is not included in the
Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Bogot[aacute] rail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined that no change in the LPN for the species is
warranted. The species' range is very small, fragmented, and rapidly
contracting because of ongoing widespread habitat loss and degradation
of wetlands. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Bras[iacute]lia Tapaculo
The Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis) is a small,
gray, ground-dwelling bird with limited flight ability. It is endemic
to the Cerrado in Brazil, the largest tropical savanna in the world
with a mosaic of habitats composed mostly of savannas and patches of
dry forests.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition from the International
Council
[[Page 41573]]
for Bird Preservation to list 53 different bird species, including the
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo, as endangered or threatened species under the
Act. On December 16, 1991, we published in the Federal Register (56 FR
65207) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition to add
53 species of foreign birds contained substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for all species. On May 21,
2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our
resubmitted petition findings that listing the species was warranted
but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to
our list of candidate species.
The Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo's core habitat is dense, narrow strips
of swampy gallery forests at elevations of approximately 800-1,000 m
(2,625-3,281 ft). The species' range is located within six protected
areas within the Cerrado and is not found outside protected areas. The
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is described as rare, and the population size
is unknown. However, the population is assumed to be declining because
of the ongoing decline of the species' galley forest habitat.
The primary threat to the Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is ongoing
habitat loss and fragmentation from agricultural activities. The
Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened
tropical savanna in the world. Land is converted for intensive grazing
and mechanized agriculture, mostly for soybean production. Agriculture
causes direct effects to gallery forests from wetland drainage and
diversion of water for irrigation, as well as burning to create space.
The species' habitat has been less directly affected by clearing for
agriculture than the surrounding Cerrado. However, it is unclear how
much core gallery forest has been destroyed because of habitat
conversion for agriculture. Additionally, effects from climate change
may also be negatively altering the Cerrado and reducing the amount of
specialized habitat for the species.
The IUCN lists the species as endangered, and the Brazilian Red
List assessed the species as endangered, because the species' small,
fragmented range is continuing to decline in area and quality.
International trade is not a significant threat to the species, and the
species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), we assigned the
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available
information, we have determined that no change to an LPN is warranted.
The species only occurs in a handful of small, protected areas, and is
reported as rare. Habitat conversion is ongoing. Therefore, an LPN of 2
remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Chatham Oystercatcher
The Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis) is the rarest
oystercatcher in the world, endemic to the four islands of the Chatham
Island group 860 kilometers (km) (534 miles (mi)) east of mainland New
Zealand. On November 28, 1980, we received a petition from the
International Council for Bird Preservation to list 79 bird species, of
which 19 were species on U.S. territory and 60 were foreign species,
including Chatham oystercatcher, as endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On May 12, 1981, we published in the Federal Register
(46 FR 26464) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition
contained substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for 77 of the 79 bird species, including the Chatham
oystercatcher. On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 29353) our resubmitted petition findings that listing the
species was warranted but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we
added the entity to our list of candidate species.
Chatham oystercatchers are restricted to the coasts, mainly
occurring along rocky shores, including wide volcanic rock platforms,
and occasionally on sandy or gravelly beaches. Humans inhabit the two
largest islands, Chatham and Pitt Islands, while South East and Mangere
Islands are uninhabited nature reserves. Isolated pairs may also breed
on other smaller islands in the archipelago. The population of the
species is approximately 250 mature individuals. The Chatham
oystercatcher uses its long, sturdy bill to hammer open mollusks from
rocky shores and to probe and peck for worms and other small
invertebrates in sand, gravel, or tidal debris. Pairs occupy their
breeding and feeding territories all year, and females lay clutches of
1 to 3 eggs in scrape nests (shallow-rimmed depressions in soil or
vegetation) on sandy beaches, or among rocks above the shoreline. Mean
longevity has been estimated at 7.7 years, and the oldest banded bird
lived more than 30 years.
Predation of eggs and chicks (and to a lesser extent, predation of
adults) is likely the primary threat to Chatham oystercatcher. Mangere
and South East Islands are free of all mammalian predators; nonnative
mammalian predators inhabit Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are
the most common predator of oystercatcher eggs. Trampling of nests by
livestock (sheep and cattle) and humans has been noted on beaches.
Additionally, nonnative Marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) has altered
the sand dunes and leaves few open nesting sites. Consequently, the
Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to shore where nests are
vulnerable to high tides and storm surges. Up to 50 percent of eggs
have been lost because of storms or high tides. Projected rise in sea
level associated with climate change will likely increase storm
frequency and severity, putting at risk most shorelines that the
Chatham oystercatcher relies on for nesting habitat.
The species has experienced a three-fold increase in its population
since the first reliable census was conducted in 1987. Most of this
increase occurred during a period of intensive management, especially
predator control, from 1998 through 2004. Some of these efforts
continue at a reduced level because of a lack of resources but are
still effective at reducing trampling, predation, and loss of nests/
eggs. The Chatham Island Oystercatcher Recovery Plan guides
conservation actions for the species. The New Zealand Department of
Conservation lists the Chatham oystercatcher as nationally critical,
and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. It is classified
as endangered on the IUCN Red List, and the species is not included in
the Appendices to CITES and not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Chatham oystercatcher
was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information,
we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. Although the
population appears to have stabilized, it remains very small
(approximately 250 mature individuals), and occupied breeding habitat
is also small (fewer than 800 hectares (1,977 acres)). Active
management has been instrumental in maintaining stable population
levels, but the species continues to face threats to its nests and
habitat. Therefore, an LPN of 8 is valid for this species to reflect
imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Gizo White-Eye
The Gizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris) is a passerine
(perching) bird described as ``warbler-like.'' It is endemic to the
small island of Ghizo within the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific
Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. On November 28, 1980, we received a
petition from the International Council for Bird Preservation to list
79 bird species, of
[[Page 41574]]
which 19 were species on U.S. territory and 60 were foreign species,
including the Gizo white-eye, as endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On May 12, 1981, we published in the Federal Register (46 FR
26464) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition
contained substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for 77 of the 79 bird species, including the Gizo white-eye.
On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our
resubmitted petition findings that listing the species was warranted
but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to
our list of candidate species.
The Gizo white-eye prefers old-growth forest patches that cover
approximately 1 km\2\ (0.4 mi\2\) of Ghizo Island. The species has been
observed in forest edge, regrowth and mature secondary forest. Limited
information is available to determine whether sustainable populations
can exist outside of forested habitats. The population size of the Gizo
white-eye is approximately 250 to 999 mature individuals in an
estimated area of 35 km\2\ (14 mi\2\).
Habitat loss is the primary threat to the species. Logging,
conversion of forest for agricultural purposes, and local resource
extraction for firewood are main the cause for loss of old-growth
forested and secondary growth forests. Human population growth in the
Solomon Islands has contributed to development on Ghizo Island, such as
construction of temporary housing. Additionally, catastrophic events,
such as the 2007 tsunami, degraded forested areas that were found less
likely to support the species even 5 years later in 2012. Sea-level
rise in the future and an increase in storms could result in coastal
flooding and erosion, saltwater intrusion, and damage to inland
habitats.
The IUCN Red List classifies this species as endangered. It is not
included in the Appendices to CITES, and this species is not known to
be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Gizo white-eye was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we
find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The species has a small
population size and suitable habitat is declining. Therefore, an LPN of
2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Helmeted Woodpecker
The helmeted woodpecker (Celeus galeatus) is a small, nonmigratory
woodpecker native to regions of southern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and
northeastern Argentina. It is one of the rarest woodpeckers in the
Americas. On November 28, 1980, we received a petition from the
International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) to list 79 bird
species, of which 19 were species on U.S. territory and 60 were foreign
species. Subsequently, we received another petition from ICBP
requesting the addition of another 53 foreign bird species, including
helmeted woodpecker, as endangered or threatened species under the Act.
On December 16, 1991, we published in the Federal Register (56 FR
65207) a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition
contained substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for the 53 bird species, including the helmeted woodpecker.
On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our
resubmitted petition findings that listing the species was warranted
but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to
our list of candidate species. At the time of the petition, the
helmeted woodpecker (Celeus galeatus) was classified as Drycopus
galeatus. We recognize the helmeted woodpecker in the genus Celeus in
2021, and recognize the species as C. galeatus and treat D. galeatus
and Hylatomus galeatus as synonyms.
Helmeted woodpeckers prefer mature (old-growth) trees in tropical
and subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous
coniferous forests in the southern Atlantic Forest up to elevations of
1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species typically forages in the mid-story of
the tree canopy pecking at wet bark and rotten wood. Its diet is not
well known, but it has been observed eating insect larvae, ants,
berries, and small fruit. The species seems to favor nesting cavities
in dead or decaying trees. A portion of the nest cavities used by
helmeted woodpeckers have partly covered openings that may help to
conceal the cavities from predators.
The primary threat to the species is habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation, which includes loss of nesting cavities. The Atlantic
Forest biome has lost 88 to 95 percent of the tropical forests because
of human activities. Currently, less than 1 percent of the remaining
Atlantic Forest is primary forest preferred by the helmeted woodpecker.
The species occurs in 17 protected areas throughout its range, although
selective logging and other activities continue to degrade the habitat.
The helmeted woodpecker is listed as endangered in Brazil and as
vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is not included in the Appendices
to CITES and not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), we assigned the helmeted
woodpecker an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information,
we find that no change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The
species is rare, and although the species may have a wider
distribution, loss of primary Atlantic Forest habitat is ongoing.
Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Lord Howe Island Pied Currawong
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)
is a large, crow-like bird that is endemic to Lord Howe Island, off the
coast of New South Wales, Australia. On November 28, 1980, we received
a petition from the International Council for Bird Preservation to list
79 bird species, of which 19 were occurring on U.S. territory and 60
were foreign species, including Lord Howe Island pied currawong, as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On May 12, 1981, we
published in the Federal Register (46 FR 26464) a 90-day finding in
which we announced that the petition contained substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for 77 of the 79 bird species,
including the Lord Howe Island pied currawong. On May 21, 2004, we
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our resubmitted
petition findings that listing the species was warranted but precluded
by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to our list of
candidate species.
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong is a subspecies of the pied
currawong, and occurs throughout the island, although it is most
numerous in mountainous regions. The subspecies breeds in rainforests
and palm forests, particularly along streams, and descends to forage in
lowlands. It is omnivorous, eating fruits, seeds, snails, insects, and
small vertebrates such as rats and mice, small birds, and bird eggs and
nestlings. Lord Howe Island pied currawongs are bold and inquisitive
birds that readily adapt to the presence of humans and can occupy areas
around human settlements, in addition to natural habitats. They are
territorial during the breeding season, with some territories defended
in the non-breeding seasons. The average territory size is between 4.4
to 7.3 hectares (11 to 18 acres).
[[Page 41575]]
The primary threats to the subspecies are the introduction of
nonnative rodents to the island ecosystem and the effects of climate
change. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong has persisted among
invasive black rats (Rattus rattus). However, because the currawong
often preys on small rodents and are naturally curious, it was subject
to nontarget poisoning during an islandwide rat-baiting program. Around
half the population was taken into captivity to protect them during the
rodent eradication efforts, and they have subsequently been released
back into the wild. Additionally, the effects of climate change may
affect the cloud layer on the island's mountaintops, resulting in
drying of the forest where the subspecies gets about half of its food,
and creating a food shortage. The small, isolated population of
currawongs on Lord Howe Island is at risk from loss of genetic
diversity and stochastic (random) environmental events. However, this
population may have always been small and may not have the capacity for
additional growth.
The Australian Government owns Lord Howe Island. Approximately 75
percent of the island, plus all outlying islets and rocks within the
Lord Howe Island group, is protected under the Permanent Park Preserve.
The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan is the formal
recovery plan for threatened species and communities of the Lord Howe
Island Group. Following the removal of poison bait traps in 2020,
monitoring is underway across the island to see if it has become
rodent-free. The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of
1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as vulnerable, as does
Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
List of Threatened Fauna. The subspecies is not listed on the IUCN Red
List, is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known to
be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Lord Howe Island pied
currawong was assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating the threats to
the Lord Howe Island pied currawong, we have determined that no change
in the LPN for the subspecies is warranted. The small population faces
risks from nontarget poisoning from rodent control, although
significant conservation efforts have been implemented. Therefore,
based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains valid to
reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude.
Okinawa Woodpecker
The Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii) is a relatively large
woodpecker endemic to Okinawa Island, Japan, and one of the world's
rarest woodpecker species. Much of the mature forest that supports the
species is located within the Jungle Warfare Training Center (formerly
known as the Northern Training Area or Camp Gonsalves), part of the
U.S. Marine Corps installation on Okinawa Island. On November 28, 1980,
we received a petition from the International Council for Bird
Preservation to list 79 bird species, of which 19 were occurring on
U.S. territory and 60 were foreign species, including the Okinawa
woodpecker, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On May
12, 1981, we published in the Federal Register (46 FR 26464) a 90-day
finding in which we announced that the petition contained substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for 77 of the 79
bird species, including the Okinawa woodpecker. On May 21, 2004, we
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our resubmitted
petition findings that listing the species was warranted but precluded
by higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to our list of
candidate species. At the time of the petition, the Okinawa woodpecker
(Dendrocopos noguchii) was classified as Sapheopipo noguchii. We
recognized the Okinawa woodpecker in the genus Dendrocopos in 2009, and
recognize the species as D. noguchii and treat S. noguchii as a synonym
(74 FR 40540, August 12, 2009, p. 40548).
The Okinawa woodpecker's main breeding areas lie in the northern
part of Okinawa Island, including well-forested areas of Yambaru, a
region of approximately 300 km\2\ (116 mi\2\). Population surveys have
found that the number of Okinawa woodpeckers detected at Yambaru sites
increases as the area of hardwood forest increases. The species feeds
on large arthropods, notably beetle larvae, spiders, moths, and
centipedes, as well as fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts.
Both males and females search dead and live tree trunks and bamboo in
old-growth forests, but males also forage on the ground, sweeping away
leaf-litter and probing for soil-dwelling prey. The Okinawa woodpecker
nests in the decaying heartwood of large trees that are at least 25
centimeters (9.8 inches) in diameter and 3 to 10 m (9.8 to 33 ft) off
the ground, which are typically found in mature forests that are at
least 30 years old.
The primary threats to the Okinawa woodpecker are deforestation in
the Yambaru region and introduced predators such as feral dogs and
cats, small Indian mongoose (Urva auropunctata), and Japanese weasel
(Mustela itatsi). As of the mid 1990s, only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of
suitable habitat was available for the Okinawa woodpecker, mostly in
the Jungle Warfare Training Center, which is relatively undisturbed.
Much of the remaining old-growth forest in Yambaru is protected by
Japanese legislation, and forests have been regrowing following a
reduction in logging in recent decades. While forest regrowth is
reaching ages that meet minimum suitability requirements for Okinawa
woodpeckers and protected areas have improved the habitat, suitable
habitat for the species remains fragmented and old-growth forest is
scarce within the species' range. Mongoose control fences were erected
in 2005 and 2006, and efforts to eradicate mongoose from the Yambura
forest are ongoing and appear to be effective. Complete eradication of
mongooses from the Yambaru region is targeted for 2027. Efforts to
control feral cats have been less successful.
The Japanese Government established Yambaru National Park in 2016.
In July 2021, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) added Amami-Oshima Island; Tokunoshima Island;
the northern part of the main Okinawa Island, which contains Yambaru
National Park; and Iriomote Island to the list of natural World
Heritage sites. The species is listed as critically endangered in the
Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and is protected from acquisition
and transfer under Japan's wildlife protection system. The Okinawa
woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES and is not known
to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Okinawa woodpecker was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the best available
information, we have determined that no change in LPN for the species
is warranted. The population is very small, and threats to its old-
growth habitat and predation by nonnative mammals are ongoing. The
Japanese government is actively taking steps to address the threats of
habitat loss and predation, but the threats remain high in magnitude
due to the species' restricted range, small population size, and
historical habitat loss. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this
species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
[[Page 41576]]
Orange-Fronted Parakeet
The orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi) is the rarest
parakeet in New Zealand and the remaining naturally occurring colonies
are restricted to three valleys on the South Island in the Canterbury
Mountains. Captive-bred orange-fronted parakeets have been translocated
to four predator-free islands, as well as Brook Waim[amacr]rama
Sanctuary on the South Island. On November 28, 1980, we received a
petition from the International Council for Bird Preservation to list
79 bird species, of which 19 were occurring on U.S. territory and 60
were foreign species, including orange-fronted parakeet, as endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On May 12, 1981, we published in
the Federal Register (46 FR 26464) a 90-day finding in which we
announced that the petition contained substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for 77 of the 79 bird species,
including the orange-fronted parakeet. On May 21, 2004, we published in
the Federal Register (69 FR 29353) our resubmitted petition findings
that listing the species was warranted but precluded by higher-priority
actions, and we added the entity to our list of candidate species.
Orange-fronted parakeet populations on New Zealand's South Island
inhabit subalpine mature beech forests (Nothofagus spp.), making their
nests within natural cavities of these trees. Orange-fronted parakeets
rely heavily on beech seeds as a major component of their diet, but
also feed on a range of plant material including buds, sprouts, fruits,
blossoms, leaves, ferns, and grasses; they also eat invertebrates such
as aphids and caterpillars. Breeding is linked with the irregular
seeding of beech trees. During mast years, in which seed production
levels are high, parakeet numbers can increase substantially.
The primary threats affecting the species on the mainland are
predation by nonnative mammals (rats and stoats (Mustela erminea)), as
well as habitat destruction due to deforestation. Numbers of nonnative
mammals spike during mast years, due to abundant food sources, and thus
orange-fronted parakeets are particularly vulnerable to predation in
those years. Habitat loss and degradation has historically affected
large areas of native forest on the mainland. Removal of mature beech
trees with nest cavities has increased competition with other native
parakeets for nest sites. Trade of this species is not known to be a
threat.
The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) initiated a
captive-breeding program and established small populations on four
predator-free islands, one of which is self-sustaining. Another
population has been introduced to a predator-free wildlife sanctuary
with suitable beech forest habitat on the South Island. The species was
uplisted from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC
in 2016; it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act and is listed
as critically endangered on the IUCN's Red List. The orange-fronted
parakeet is included in Appendix II to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the orange-fronted parakeet
was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the orange-
fronted parakeet, we have determined that no change in LPN for the
species is warranted. The current population is small, and the species'
distribution is limited. Nonnative predators and loss of suitable
habitat continue to threaten the species. The NZDOC is actively aiding
the recovery of the species. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Takah[emacr]
The takah[emacr] (Porphyrio hochstetteri) is the largest extant
rail in the world. The species is flightless, native to the South
Island of New Zealand, and present on the North Island, other offshore
islands, and Kahurangi National Park due to reintroduction and
conservation efforts. On November 28, 1980, we received a petition from
the International Council for Bird Preservation to list 79 bird
species, of which 19 were occurring on U.S. territory and 60 were
foreign species, including the takah[emacr], as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On May 12, 1981, we published in the
Federal Register (46 FR 26464) a 90-day finding in which we announced
that the petition contained substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for 77 of the 79 bird species, including the
takah[emacr]. On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69
FR 29353) our resubmitted petition findings that listing the species
was warranted but precluded by higher-priority actions, and we added
the entity to our list of candidate species.
The takah[emacr] was once widespread in the forest and grassland
ecosystems of the South Island. Since the mid-1990s, the species was
present in a relatively small area of the Murchison Mountains. In their
relict range, takah[emacr] are largely herbivorous, feeding on tussocks
(clumps of long grass that are thicker and longer than the grass
growing around them). In the winter, the birds move into forested
valleys, where their major food source is the rhizome of thousand
leaved ferns (Hypolepis millefolium). In introduced populations at
secure sites, takah[emacr] exhibit more generalist behavior, eating
fallen fruits, small reptiles, and chicks of other bird species. The
species is largely solitary and will not form dense colonies, even in
optimal habitat, and will aggressively defend their territories, which
can be up to 100 hectares (247 acres).
Primary threats to the takah[emacr] include hunting, competition
from nonnative species, disease outbreaks in the captive population,
and nonnative predators such as stoats and weasels. Stoats and weasels
appear to be the most significant predator to takah[emacr]. The NZDOC
is actively managing populations through conservation efforts that
include captive-rearing and reintroductions, predator control,
management of grassland habitats, and adaptive research. The
conservation efforts have slowly increased the number of populations
and the species' overall population size.
New Zealand considers the takah[emacr] a nationally vulnerable
species, and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The
takah[emacr] is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species
is not known to be in international trade, and the species is not
included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the takah[emacr] was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the
takah[emacr], we have determined that no change in LPN for the species
is warranted. The takah[emacr] has a small population size and limited
range. The NZDOC is actively managing threats to aid in the recovery of
the species. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent
threats of low to moderate magnitude.
Yellow-Browed Toucanet
The yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae) is a rare
bird of the toucan family that occurs in the Andes Mountains in Peru.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition from the International Council
for Bird Preservation to list 53 different bird species, including the
yellow-browed toucanet, under the Act. On December 16, 1991, we
published in the Federal Register (56 FR 65207) a 90-day finding in
which we announced that the petition to add 53 species of foreign birds
contained substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for all species. On May 21, 2004, we published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 29353) our resubmitted petition
[[Page 41577]]
findings that listing the species was warranted but precluded by
higher-priority actions, and we added the entity to our list of
candidate species.
The yellow-browed toucanet relies on humid montane forests on the
eastern slope of the Andes in north-central Peru, at elevations of
2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft). The species currently occupies three
small locations. Habitat is dominated by tall Clusia (Clusia spp.)
trees, where the species forages in the canopy for fruit and seeds and
uses cavities in the trees to nest. The species is most frequently seen
in pairs but is occasionally found in small groups of three to four
individuals.
Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining
appears to be the primary threat to the viability of the yellow-browed
toucanet. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation for
agriculture have been widespread in the region. Given the inherent
threats to small populations (e.g., loss of genetic diversity via
genetic drift, stochastic environmental events), continued habitat loss
and degradation will exacerbate the risk to the species.
The species is listed as endangered in the IUCN Red List. The
species is not included in the Appendices of CITES and is not known to
be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the yellow-browed toucanet
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information,
we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The estimated
population is small within a restricted range. The magnitude of threats
to the habitat remains high, and its population is likely declining.
Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
Colorado Delta Clam
The Colorado Delta clam (Mulinia modesta; junior synonym = M.
coloradoensis) is a relatively large, light-colored estuarine bivalve
that was once very abundant at the head of the Gulf of California in
the Colorado River estuary. The species currently occurs in the upper,
northern, and central portions of the Gulf of California, and is
capable of living in salinities ranging from brackish (mixture of salt
and fresh water) to full seawater. In March 2012, the Colorado Delta
clam became a candidate species through the Arizona Ecological Services
field office (FWS 2012, entire). A 12-month finding published in the
Federal Register on April 25, 2013, determined that the species
warrants protection, but was precluded from listing at the time (78 FR
24604).
The species inhabits shallow, muddy waters of the coast and
requires adequate substrate and water salinity to successfully breed
and develop. The range of the species is relatively large, although
densities are significantly lower than they were historically.
We are not aware of the total population covering the entire range
of the species. The historical population of the Colorado Delta clam in
the upper Gulf was estimated to be at least 5 billion individuals,
accounting for 84-95 percent of all bivalve mollusks in the upper Gulf.
However, after decades of dam building on the Colorado River and its
tributaries, the Colorado Delta clam is estimated to be 6 percent as
abundant in the upper Gulf as it was before dam construction began.
Environmental changes to the estuary associated with reduced river flow
include increased salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of
naturally derived nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer
flood. From the 1990s until 2017, 0 percent of the Colorado River
flowed into the Gulf. Since 2017, 2 percent of the river flow has
reached the Gulf of California. Low flows are expected to continue and
worsen as climate-change-induced drought reduces river flow.
A binational agreement with Mexico requires the United States to
invest in water conservation, habitat restoration, and scientific
monitoring projects in the delta and release approximately 2 percent of
natural flow through 2026. The clam will likely benefit from ongoing
efforts to conserve other species and their habitats within the greater
Gulf of California, e.g., the totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi) and the
vaquita porpoise (Phocoena sinus). Portions of the species' range occur
within two protected areas that are part of the UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve Program and are owned and managed by the Mexican Government.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), the Colorado Delta clam was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted. The
threat of habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado Delta region is
ongoing. However, this threat appears to be affecting the clam in upper
Gulf of California and not throughout remainder of its range.
Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed
We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on petitions
seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered status for delta
smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).
Because these species are already listed under the Act, they are not
candidates for listing and are not included in table 5, below. Below,
we provide updated summaries for these species previously found to be
warranted but precluded for uplisting.
This document and associated species assessment forms constitute
the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify the delta
smelt and northern spotted owl. Summaries of our updated assessments
for these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to
endangered status for the delta smelt and northern spotted owl are
currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see
Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above). One of the primary
reasons that the work identified above is considered to have higher
priority is that these species are currently listed as threatened, and
therefore already receive certain protections under the Act. We also
find that reclassficiation to endangered status for the grizzly bear is
no longer warranted. Therefore, the grizzly bear in the North Cascades
ecosystem (NCE) will remain a threatened species. For the delta smelt,
grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl, those protections are set forth
in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21. It
is therefore unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to
take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such activity) a delta
smelt or northern spotted owl, subject to applicable exceptions.
Other protections that currently apply to these threatened species
include those under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whereby Federal
agencies must insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species.
Northern Spotted Owl
On June 26, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR
26114) a final rule listing the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) as a threatened species. On August 21, 2012, we
received a petition dated August 15, 2012, from the Environmental
Protection Information Center (EPIC) requesting that the northern
spotted owl be listed as an endangered species pursuant to the Act. On
April 10, 2015, we published a 90-day finding (80 FR
[[Page 41578]]
19259), in which we announced that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that reclassification may be warranted for the
northern spotted owl and that our status review would also constitute
our 5-year status review for the species. On December 15, 2020, we
published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (85 FR 81144) in
which we stated that reclassification of the northern spotted owl from
threatened to endangered was warranted but precluded by higher-priority
actions. On May 3, 2022, a warranted-but-precluded finding for this
taxon was included in a CNOR in the Federal Register (87 FR 26152).
The northern spotted owl is the largest of three subspecies of
spotted owls, and inhabits structurally complex forests from
southwestern British Columbia through Washington and Oregon, and into
northern California. The historical range of the northern spotted owl
included most mature forests or stands throughout the Pacific
Northwest, from southwestern British Columbia to as far south as Marin
County, California. The current range of the northern spotted owl is
smaller than the historical range, as the northern spotted owl is
extirpated or very uncommon in certain areas such as southwestern
Washington and British Columbia.
The northern spotted owl inhabits structurally complex forests,
from southwestern British Columbia through Washington and Oregon and
into northern California. Northern spotted owls rely on older forested
habitats because such forests contain the structures and
characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging. The
northern spotted owl is relatively long-lived, has a long reproductive
life span (6-9 years, Loschl 2008, p. 107), invests significantly in
parental care, and exhibits high adult survivorship relative to other
North American owls (Forsman et al. 1984, entire; Guti[eacute]rrez et
al. 1995, p. 5). Northern spotted owl diets vary across owl
territories, years, seasons, geographical regions, and forest type
(Forsman et al. 2001, pp. 146-148; 2004, pp. 217-220). Home-range sizes
of the northern spotted owl vary geographically, generally increasing
from south to north, which is likely a response to differences in
habitat quality including structural complexity of forest conditions
and availability of prey (55 FR 26114; June 26, 1990). Within the home
range, there is typically a smaller area of concentrated activity
(approximately 20 percent of the home range), often referred to as the
core area (Bingham and Noon 1997, pp. 133-135). Successful juvenile
dispersal may depend on locating unoccupied suitable habitat in close
proximity to other occupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001, pp. 697-698).
Habitat requirements for nesting and roosting are nearly identical.
However, nesting habitat is most often associated with a high incidence
of large trees with various deformities or large snags suitable for
nest placement. Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats
used by territorial northern spotted owls, and is closely tied to the
prey base. Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those
of nesting/roosting habitat, but foraging habitat may not always
support successful nesting pairs (Service 1992, pp. 22-25). Dispersal
habitat is essential to maintaining stable populations by providing
connectivity for owls filling territorial vacancies when resident
northern spotted owls die or leave their territories, and by providing
adequate gene flow across the range of the subspecies.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the northern spotted owl, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the northern spotted owl's biological status include lag
effects of past habitat loss, continued timber harvest, wildfire, and
incursion of the nonnative barred owl (which is currently the stressor
with the largest negative impact on northern spotted owls). On non-
Federal lands, State regulatory mechanisms have not prevented the
continued decline of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat; the amount
of northern spotted owl habitat on these lands has decreased
considerably over the past three decades, including in geographic areas
where Federal lands are lacking. On Federal lands, the Northwest Forest
Plan has reduced habitat loss and allowed for the development of new
northern spotted owl habitat, and the 2016 revised resource management
plans for Bureau of Land Management lands in western Oregon are
expected to do the same; however, the combined effects of climate
change, high-severity wildfire, and past management practices are
changing forest ecosystem processes and dynamics, and the expansion of
barred owl populations is altering the capacity of intact habitat to
support northern spotted owls.
Therefore, we continue to find reclassification of the northern
spotted owl as an endangered species under the Act is warranted and
retain an LPN of 3. This priority number indicates the magnitude of
threat is high and those threats are imminent. The magnitude of threats
is considered high because the barred owl has expanded throughout the
entire range of the northern spotted owl, outcompeting northern spotted
owl for resources and altering the capacity of intact habitat to
support northern spotted owl. Furthermore, the combined effects of
climate change, high-severity wildfire, and past management practices
are changing forest ecosystem processes and dynamics (including
patterns of wildfires and insect and forest disease outbreaks) to a
degree greater than anticipated in the NWFP; these changes are likely
to lead to greater stress on northern spotted owl populations. Threats
are ongoing and therefore imminent because competition from the barred
owl is already significantly impacting the northern spotted owl and
there are no conservation measures currently in place that have
demonstrated success at alleviating this threat at a regional scale. We
note that an LPN of 3 does not connote that uplisting the species to
endangered is a high priority for the Service. Proposed rules to
reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower priority than
listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate species), since
species currently listed as threatened are already afforded the
protection of the Act and implementing regulations.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in
our northern spotted owl species assessment (see ADDRESSES, above), as
well as in our 12-month finding published on December 15, 2020, in the
Federal Register (85 FR 81144), in which we found that reclassification
of the northern spotted owl from threatened to endangered was warranted
but precluded by higher-priority actions.
Delta Smelt
The following summary is based on information contained in our
files and the April 7, 2010, 12-month finding published in the Federal
Register (75 FR 17667); see that 12-month finding for additional
information on why reclassification to endangered is warranted but
precluded. In our 12-month finding, we determined that a change in
status of the delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) from threatened to
endangered was warranted, although precluded by other high-priority
listings. The primary rationale for reclassifying delta smelt from
threatened to endangered was the significant declines in species
abundance that have occurred since 2001, and the continuing and
unabated
[[Page 41579]]
downward trend in all delta smelt cohorts after 2011 supports that
finding. The 2015-2020 results from all four of the surveys analyzed in
the review have been the lowest ever recorded for the delta smelt.
Delta smelt abundance, as indicated by the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT)
survey, was exceptionally low between 2004 and 2010, increased during
the wet year of 2011, and decreased again to very low levels at
present. The last three FMWT surveys (2018-2020) did not detect a
single delta smelt, resulting in an abundance index of 0. The latest
2021 Spring Kodiak Trawl (SKT) survey resulted in an abundance index of
0. Abundance estimates for this year's adult spawning stock based on
the SKT and the enhanced delta smelt monitoring surveys were the lowest
estimates on record with 0 and 267 fish, respectively.
The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by
State and Federal water export facilities, reduction of suitable
habitat through summer and fall increases in salinity and water clarity
resulting from decreases in freshwater flow into the estuary, and
effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the form of ammonium may
also be a significant threat to the survival of the delta smelt.
Additional potential threats are predation by striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and inland
silversides (Menidia beryllina); contaminants; climate change; and
small population size. We have identified a number of existing
regulatory mechanisms that provide protective measures that affect the
stressors acting on the delta smelt. Despite these existing regulatory
mechanisms and other conservations efforts, the stressors continue to
act on the species such that it is warranted for uplisting under the
Act.
As a result of our analysis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, we have retained the recommendation of uplisting the
delta smelt to an endangered species. We have assigned an LPN of 2,
based on the imminent, high magnitude threats faced by the species. The
magnitude of the threats is high because the threats occur rangewide
and result in mortality or significantly reduce the reproductive
capacity of the species. The threats are imminent because they are
ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered
irreversible. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 2 for this species.
We note that an LPN of 2 does not connote that uplisting the
species to endangered is a high priority for the Service. Since the
delta smelt's current classification as threatened and the blanket 4(d)
rule that has prescribed protections for the species since it was
listed already provide the species the protections afforded by the Act,
uplisting the species to endangered status will not substantively
increase protections for the delta smelt, but rather more accurately
classifies the species given its current status.
Grizzly Bear, North Cascades Ecosystem
The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) was listed as a
threatened species in the conterminous 48 States in 1975 (40 FR 31734,
July 28, 1975). Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five
petitions requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly
bear population in Washington (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR
33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August
18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions,
we determined that the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) grizzly bear
population warranted a change to endangered status. We have continued
to find that these petitions are warranted but precluded through our
annual CNOR process. However, we noted in our CNOR for FY 2021 (87 FR
26152; May 3, 2022) that based on a limited number of grizzly bear
observations in the past few decades, the NCE may no longer contain a
population. We now find that the NCE does not contain a grizzly bear
population based on: (1) the amount of search effort without finding
any evidence of grizzly bears or a confirmed population; (2) a limited
number of grizzly bear detections in the NCE in the past few decades;
and (3) the time since the last confirmed detection (1996).
The greater NCE constitutes a large area of contiguous grizzly bear
habitat that spans the international border between the United States
and Canada but is relatively isolated from grizzly bear populations in
other parts of the two countries (Lyons et al. 2018, entire; Service
2022, p. 4). Natural recolonization by females is unlikely in the near
future due to the low numbers of bears in nearby populations and the
highly fragmented landscape (Proctor et al. 2004, pp. 1113-1114; NPS
and Service 2017, p. 36; Service 2022, p. 55); however, there are at
least three grizzly bear populations within the long-distance dispersal
range of males (67-176 km; 42-109 mi) (Service 2022, p. 55). The U.S.
portion of the ecosystem extends across the crest of the Cascade Range
from the temperate rainforests of the west side to the dry ponderosa
pine forests and sage-steppe on the east side, and comprises one of the
most intact wildland areas in the contiguous United States. Historical
records indicate that grizzly bears once occurred throughout the
greater NCE (Rine et al. 2018, entire; Rine et al. 2020, entire). A
grizzly bear habitat evaluation was conducted from 1986 to 1991 in
response to recommendations made in our 1982 nationwide Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan. That habitat evaluation, along with a subsequent report
by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) technical committee
review team, concluded that the U.S. portion of the NCE contained
sufficient habitat quality to maintain and recover a grizzly bear
population (Servheen et al. 1991, entire; Almack et al. 1993, entire).
A more recent model combining habitat and population dynamics indicated
the U.S. portion of the NCE is capable of supporting a grizzly bear
population of approximately 280 bears (Lyons et al. 2018, pp. 28-29).
Previous studies have compiled reports of grizzly bears in the NCE
and provided estimates of grizzly bear abundance. Sullivan (1983,
entire) summarized 233 contemporary and historical reports of grizzly
bears. An additional 33 reports of grizzly bear were documented from
1859-1982 and 153 reports from 1983-1991, and 20 of these reports were
classified as ``highly reliable'' (Almack et al. 1993, entire). From
1989-1991, remote cameras and traps were set in locations where there
were recent and relatively reliable sightings but did not detect
grizzly bears (Almack et al. 1993, p. 13). Nevertheless, based on their
review of reliable reports, Almack et al. (1993, p. 21) concluded that
a small number of grizzly bears likely persisted in the U.S. portion of
the NCE in the early 1990s. In the British Columbia (B.C.), Canada,
portion of the NCE, sightings and supplementation of grizzly bears from
other areas led biologists to estimate the number of grizzly bears to
be 17-23 individuals (Gyug 1998, p. 9).
Since the 1990s, there have been numerous surveys for bears and
other carnivores in the NCE. Several of these surveys were designed
specifically to attract and detect grizzly bears using scented lures
and snares that collect hair for DNA extraction. Hair-snare surveys in
the NCE that focused on black bears and grizzly bears were conducted
from 1999-2000, covering approximately 10 percent of the U.S. portion
of the NCE and distributed in prime bear habitat or areas with previous
detections (Romain-Bondi et al. 2004, entire). Additional hair-snare
surveys were conducted from 2008-2011 (Long et al. 2013, entire), and
2014-2019 (W.L. Gaines 2022, pers. comm.). These efforts were focused
[[Page 41580]]
largely on remote locations and the highest quality bear habitat (as
indicated by a 70 percent success in detecting black bears with cameras
and at hair snares) and covered about 25 percent of the U.S. portion of
the NCE (Gaines et al. 2019, p. 3). Based on their success in detecting
black bears and success others have experienced in detecting grizzly
bears using similar methods (e.g., Poole et al. 2001, entire; Romain-
Bondi et al. 2004, entire; Sawaya et al. 2012, entire), their methods
afforded a reasonably high probability of detecting a grizzly bear if
it were present in the sampled area (Gaines et al. 2019, p. 3). No
grizzly bears were detected in the U.S. portion of the NCE during any
of these surveys from 1999-2019.
In addition to hair-snare studies, many trail-camera surveys for
grizzly bears and various forest and montane carnivores have not
detected grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of the NCE (e.g.,
Christophersen 2006, pp. 5-8; Baum et al. 2018, p. 16; King et al.
2020, pp. 712-714; Whiles 2021, pp. 19-22; J. Ransom 2022, pers.
comm.). For example, one study that included the NCE and the Kettle
Mountains of northeastern Washington, reported 47,620 camera-nights of
effort over two summers, using 650 cameras without any confirmed
detections of a grizzly bear (King et al. 2020, p. 712). In addition to
these formal camera surveys, recreationists and workers in the NCE
backcountry represent a substantial amount of additional informal
search effort that has not resulted in a confirmed observation of a
single grizzly bear within the U.S. portion of the NCE for the last 26
years.
There have been only three confirmed detections of grizzly bears in
the greater NCE, which includes Canada, in the past 10 years. All three
detections occurred in B.C. but may comprise only two individuals (Rine
et al. 2018, p. 41). The last confirmed grizzly bear sighting in the
B.C. portion of the NCE was in 2015, near the East Gate of Manning
Park, Canada, approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) from the U.S.-Canada border.
There has been no confirmed evidence of grizzly bears within the U.S.
portion of the NCE since 1996, when an individual grizzly bear was
observed on the southeastern side of Glacier Peak within the Glacier
Peak Wilderness Area. The most recent direct evidence of reproduction
in the U.S. portion of the ecosystem was a confirmed observation of a
female and cub on upper Lake Chelan in 1991 (Almack et al. 1993, p.
34). We cannot completely rule out the possibility of occasional
transient grizzly bears or relictual individuals persisting in the more
inaccessible areas of the NCE in the United States; however, the lack
of evidence for reproduction or confirmed detections despite decades of
search effort for one of the largest and most identifiable land mammals
in North America leads us to conclude that the NCE grizzly bear
population in the United States is extirpated (see Gaines et al. 2019,
entire; Lewis 2019, p. 5). Therefore, it is no longer warranted for
uplisting, and we are removing it from the candidate list. This finding
specifically addresses the aforementioned petitions; it does not alter
or modify the listing of grizzly bear as a threatened species in the
conterminous United States.
The NCE is relatively isolated from other ecosystems with grizzly
bear populations in Canada and the United States (Mowat et al. 2013,
pp. 4-10; Morgan et al. 2019, p. 3). Natural recolonization is unlikely
in the near future due to the highly fragmented landscape between these
areas, as well as the distance between these ecosystems, which is
beyond the average female dispersal distance. Therefore, it is unlikely
that a grizzly bear population will become established in the ecosystem
on its own (NPS and Service 2017, p. 36; Service 2022, p. 55). We
continue to work with our partners and stakeholders to maintain grizzly
bear habitat protections in the NCE as we consider restoration options
in the United States.
Current Notice of Review
We gather data on plants and animals, both native and foreign to
the United States, that appear to merit consideration for addition to
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists).
This document identifies those species that we currently regard as
candidates for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species
and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate
animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys
conducted for candidate assessment and on information from Tribes,
State Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies,
foreign countries, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural
resource interests, and comments received in response to previous
CNORs.
Tables 5 and 6, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by
common names under the major group headings, and list plants
alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and
varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. We sort plants by scientific name due
to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and
composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a
standardized common name.
Table 5 lists all candidate species, plus species currently
proposed for listing under the Act (as of September 30, 2022). We
emphasize that in this document that we are not proposing to list any
of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed
listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage Tribes,
State agencies, other Federal agencies, foreign countries, and other
parties to consider these species in environmental planning.
In table 5, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category,
as well as PT and PSAT (below), does not include species for which
we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to
similarity of appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other
higher-priority listing actions. This category includes species for
which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a
petition to list. Our analysis for this document included making new
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-
but-precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made
a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted
petition by the code ``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for
Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for additional information).
The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21,
1983).
Following the scientific name (third column) and the family
designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The
sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the
[[Page 41581]]
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories or by country
for foreign species. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas
listed.
Species in table 6 of this document are those species that we
included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous
CNOR (87 FR 26152; May 3, 2022) that are no longer proposed species or
candidates for listing (as of September 30, 2022). In FY 2022 (or
after; please see note to table 6, below), we listed nine species and
removed one species from the candidate list by withdrawing a proposed
rule. We also find that uplisting is no longer warranted but precluded
for a population of one species. The first column indicates the present
status of each species, using the following codes:
E--Species we listed as endangered.
T--Species we listed as threatened.
Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list, because
currently available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp--Species we removed from the candidate list, because we have
withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column indicates why the species is no longer a
candidate species or proposed for listing, using the following codes
(not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
N--Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's
definition of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
X--Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing scientific name, family, common name, and
historical range include information as previously described for table
5.
Request for Information
We request additional status information that may be available for
any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider
this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate
species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and
future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional
species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future
updates of this CNOR.
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available.
We are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of
candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate
status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical
habitat, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would
not be prudent;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing
candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of
the species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated
historical ranges.
We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR
in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to
undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency
listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate).
Submit information, materials, or comments regarding the species to
the person identified as having the lead responsibility for the species
in table 4 below.
Table 4--Contacts for Candidate Species and Species Proposed for Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Name and address Telephone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Ouachita'' fanshell, northern Hugh Morrison, Acting 503-231-2176
spotted owl, sand dune Regional Director,
phacelia, red tree vole. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911
NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232-
4181.
Bracted twistflower, cactus Amy Lueders, Regional 505-248-6920
ferruginous pygmy-owl, Director, U.S. Fish
prostrate milkweed, Rio Grande and Wildlife Service,
cutthroat trout. 500 Gold Avenue SW,
Room 4012,
Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Northern long-eared bat, Charles W. Traxler, 612-713-5334
monarch butterfly, western Acting Regional
fanshell. Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,
5600 American Blvd.
West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437-
1458.
Pascagoula map turtle, Pearl Catherine Phillips, 404-679-4156
River map turtle, Alabama map Acting Regional
turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Director, U.S. Fish
Escambia map turtle, alligator and Wildlife Service,
snapping turtle, Ocmulgee 1875 Century
skullcap, magnificent ramshorn. Boulevard, Suite 200,
Atlanta, GA 30345.
Tricolored bat, bog buck moth.. Kyla Hastie, Acting 413-253-8200
Regional Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 300 Westgate
Center Dr., Hadley, MA
01035.
Grizzly bear, silverspot Matt Hogan, Regional 303-236-7920
butterfly. Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,
134 Union Blvd.,
Lakewood, CO 80228.
Delta smelt, Dixie Valley toad, Paul Souza, Regional 916-414-6464
Tiehm's buckwheat, foothill Director, U.S. Fish
yellow-legged frog, Sacramento and Wildlife Service,
Mountains checkerspot 2800 Cottage Way,
butterfly, longfin smelt. Suite W2606,
Sacramento, CA 95825.
Sturgeon (Russian, ship, Gary Frazer, Assistant 202-208-4646
Persian, stellate, and Amur), Director, Ecological
black-backed tanager, Services, U.S. Fish
Bogot[aacute] rail, and Wildlife Service,
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Chatham oystercatcher, Gizo MS: ES, Falls Church,
white-eye, helmeted VA 22041.
woodpecker, Lord Howe Island
pied currawong, Okinawa
woodpecker, orange-fronted
parakeet, takah[emacr], yellow-
browed toucanet, Jamaican kite
swallowtail, Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail, Colorado Delta
clam, Egyptian tortoise,
fluminense swallowtail
butterfly, Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail butterfly,
Harris's mimic swallowtail
butterfly, Sira curassow,
southern-helmeted curassow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will provide information we receive to the office having lead
responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission,
and information and comments we receive will become part of the
administrative
[[Page 41582]]
record for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate office.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Authority
This document is published under the authority 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.
Table 5--Candidate Notice of Review
[Animals and Plants]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
-------------------------------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Category Priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE............................... .............. Perimyotis subflavus..... Vespertilionidae.... Bat, tricolored.......... U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT,
DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KN, LA, ME, MD,
MA, MI, MN, MI, MO, NE,
NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH,
OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX,
VT, VI, WV, WI, WY),
Mexico, Central America.
PT............................... .............. Rangifer tarandus Cervidae............ Caribou, Dolphin-Union... Canada.
groenlandicus x pearyi.
PE............................... .............. Tamias minimus Sciuridae........... Pe[ntilde]asco least U.S.A (NM).
atristriatus. chipmunk.
PT............................... .............. Gulo gulo luscus......... Mustelidae.......... Wolverine, North American U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT,
(Contiguous U.S. DPS). OR, UT, WA, WY).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.............................. 2 Pauxi koepckeae.......... Cracidae............ Curassow, Sira........... Peru.
C *.............................. 2 Pauxi unicornis.......... Cracidae............ Curassow, southern Bolivia.
helmeted.
C *.............................. 6 Strepera graculina Cracticidae......... Currawong, Lord Howe Lord Howe Island, New
crissalis. Island pied. South Wales.
C *.............................. 8 Haematopus chathamensis.. Haematopodidae...... Oystercatcher, Chatham... Chatham Islands, New
Zealand.
C *.............................. 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi.... Psittacidae......... Parakeet, orange-fronted. New Zealand.
PT............................... .............. Aptenodytes forsteri..... Spheniscidae........ Penguin, emperor......... Antarctica.
PT............................... .............. Pterodroma hasitata...... Procellariidae...... Petrel, black-capped..... Dominican Republic,
Haiti, U.S.A. (GA, NC,
SC).
PT............................... .............. Tympanuchus Phasianidae......... Prairie-chicken, lesser U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK,
pallidicinctus. (northern DPS). TX).
PE............................... .............. Tympanuchus Phasianidae......... Prairie-chicken, lesser U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK,
pallidicinctus. (southern DPS). TX).
PT............................... .............. Lagopus leucura Phasianidae......... Ptarmigan, Mt. Rainier U.S.A. (WA), Canada (BC).
rainierensis. white-tailed.
PT............................... .............. Glaucidium brasilianum Strigidae........... Pygmy-owl, cactus U.S.A. (AZ, TX), Mexico.
cactorum. ferruginous.
C *.............................. 2 Rallus semiplumbeus...... Rallidae............ Rail, Bogota............. Colombia.
C *.............................. 8 Porphyrio hochstetteri... Rallidae............ Takah[emacr]............. New Zealand.
C *.............................. 8 Tangara peruviana........ Thraupidae.......... Tanager, black-backed.... Brazil.
C *.............................. 2 Scytalopus novacapitalis. Rhinocryptidae...... Tapaculo, Brasilia....... Brazil.
C *.............................. 2 Aulacorhynchus huallagae. Ramphastidae........ Toucanet, yellow-browed.. Peru.
C *.............................. 2 Zosterops luteirostris... Zosteropidae........ White-eye, Gizo.......... Solomon Islands.
C *.............................. 8 Celeus galeatus.......... Picidae............. Woodpecker, helmeted..... Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay.
C *.............................. 2 Dendrocopos noguchii..... Picidae............. Woodpecker, Okinawa...... Okinawa Island, Japan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT............................... .............. Plestiodon egregius Scincidae........... Florida keys mole skink.. U.S.A (FL).
egregius.
PT............................... .............. Testudo kleinmanni....... Testudinidae........ Tortoise, Egyptian....... Libya, Egypt, Israel.
C................................ 8 Gopherus polyphemus...... Testudinidae........ Tortoise, gopher (eastern U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA,
population). MS, SC).
PSAT............................. .............. Graptemys pulchra........ Emydidae............ Turtle, Alabama map...... U.S.A. (MS, AL, GA, TN).
PT............................... .............. Macrochelys temminckii... Chelydridae......... Turtle, alligator U.S.A. (AL, AK, FL, GA,
snapping. IL, IN, KS, KN, LA, MS,
MO, OK, TN, TX).
PSAT............................. .............. Graptemys barbouri....... Emydidae............ Turtle, Barbour's map.... U.S.A. (FL, GA, AL).
PSAT............................. .............. Graptemys ernsti......... Emydidae............ Turtle, Escambia map..... U.S.A. (AL, FL).
PSAT............................. .............. Graptemys gibbonsi....... Emydidae............ Turtle, Pascagoula map... U.S.A. (AL, MS).
PSAT............................. .............. Graptemys gibbonsi....... Emydidae............ Turtle, Pascagoula map... U.S.A. (AL, MS).
[[Page 41583]]
PT............................... .............. Graptemys pearlensis..... Emydidae............ Turtle, Pearl River map.. U.S.A. (LA, MS).
PT............................... .............. Macrochelys suwanniensis. Chelydridae......... Turtle, Suwannee U.S.A. (GA, FL).
alligator snapping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT............................... .............. Percina williamsi........ Percidae............ Darter, sickle........... U.S.A (TN & VA).
PT............................... .............. Noturus munitus.......... Ictaluridae......... Madtom, frecklebelly U.S.A. (AL, GA, LA, MS,
(Upper Coosa River DPS). TN).
C................................ 3 Spirinchus thaleichthys.. Osmeridae........... Smelt, longfin (San U.S.A. (CA).
Francisco Bay-Delta DPS).
PE............................... .............. Acipenser schrenckii..... Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, Amur........... China, Russia.
PE............................... .............. Acipenser persicus....... Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, Persian........ Armenia, +5 countries.
PE............................... .............. Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, Russian........ Armenia, +19 countries.
PE............................... .............. Acipenser nudiventris.... Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, ship........... Armenia, +18 countries.
PE............................... .............. Acipenser stellatus...... Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, stellate....... Armenia, +19 countries.
PSAT............................. .............. Salvelinus malma......... Salmonidae.......... Trout, Dolly Varden...... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada,
East Asia.
C *.............................. 9 Oncorhynchus clarkii Salmonidae.......... Trout, Rio Grande U.S.A. (CO, NM, TX).
virginalis. cutthroat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.............................. 8 Mulinia modesta.......... Mactridae........... Clam, Colorado Delta..... Mexico.
PT............................... .............. Cyprogenia sp. cf. aberti Unionidae........... Fanshell, ``Ouachita''... U.S.A. (AK, LA).
PT............................... .............. Cyprogenia aberti........ Unionidae........... Fanshell, western........ U.S.A. (AK, KS, MO, OK).
PE............................... .............. Lampsilis bergmanni...... Unionidae........... Fatmucket, Guadalupe..... U.S.A. (TX).
PE............................... .............. Lampsilis bracteata...... Unionidae........... Fatmucket, Texas......... U.S.A. (TX).
PT............................... .............. Truncilla macrodon....... Unionidae........... Fawnsfoot, Texas......... U.S.A. (TX).
PT............................... .............. Obovaria subrotunda...... Unionidae........... Hickorynut, round........ U.S.A. (AL, GA, IL, IN,
KY, MI, MS, NY, OH, PA,
TN, WV), Canada.
PT............................... .............. Fusconaia subrotunda..... Unionidae........... Longsolid................ U.S.A. (AL, GA, IL, IN,
KY, MS, MO, NY, NC, OH,
PA, SC, TN, VA, WV).
PE............................... .............. Cyclonaias necki......... Unionidae........... Orb, Guadalupe........... U.S.A. (TX).
PT............................... .............. Pleurobema rubrum........ Unionidae........... Pigtoe, pyramid.......... U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN).
PE............................... .............. Cyclonaias petrina....... Unionidae........... Pimpleback, Texas........ U.S.A. (TX).
PE............................... .............. Fusconaia mitchelli...... Unionidae........... Spike, false............. U.S.A. (TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAILS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE............................... .............. Planorbella magnifica.... Planorbidae......... Ramshorn, magnificent.... U.S.A. (NC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.............................. 2 Parides ascanius......... Papilionidae........ Butterfly, fluminense Brazil.
swallowtail.
C *.............................. 2 Parides hahneli.......... Papilionidae........ Butterfly, Hahnel's Brazil.
Amazonian swallowtail.
C *.............................. 3 Mimoides (= Eurytides) Papilionidae........ Butterfly, Harris' mimic Brazil.
lysithous harrisianus. swallowtail.
C *.............................. 2 (Protographium (= Papilionidae........ Butterfly, Jamaican kite Jamaica.
Eurytides) marcellinus). swallowtail.
C *.............................. 8 Teinopalpus imperialis... Papilionidae........ Butterfly, Kaiser-i-Hind Bhutan, China, India,
swallowtail. Laos, Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam.
C *.............................. 8 Danaus plexippus......... Nymphalidae......... Butterfly, monarch....... U.S.A. + 90 Countries.
PE............................... .............. Euphydryas anicia Nymphalidae......... Butterfly, Sacramento U.S.A. (NM).
cloudcrofti. Mountains checkerspot.
PT............................... .............. Speyeria nokomis nokomis. Nymphalidae......... Butterfly, silverspot.... U.S.A. (CO, UT).
PE............................... .............. Hemileuca maia Saturniidae......... Moth, bog buck........... U.S.A. (NY), Canada.
menyanthevora.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT............................... .............. Streptanthus bracteatus.. Brassicaceae........ bracted twistflower...... U.S.A. (TX).
PT............................... .............. Scutellaria ocmulgee..... Lamiaceae........... Ocmulgee skullcap........ U.S.A. (GA, SC).
PT............................... .............. Pinus albicaulis......... Pinaceae............ Pine, whitebark.......... U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV,
OR, WA, WY), Canada (AB,
BC).
[[Page 41584]]
PE............................... .............. Asclepias prostrata...... Apocynaceae......... prostrate milkweed....... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.
PT............................... .............. Phacelia argentea........ Boraginaceae........ sand dune phacelia....... U.S.A. (CA, OR).
PT............................... .............. Cirsium wrightii......... Asteraceae.......... Thistle, Wright's marsh.. U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT............................... .............. Rana boylii.............. Ranidae............. Frog, foothill yellow- U.S.A. (CA).
legged (Central Coast
DPS).
PT/PE............................ .............. Rana boylii.............. Ranidae............. Frog, foothill yellow- U.S.A. (CA).
legged (South Coast DPS).
PT/PE............................ .............. Rana boylii.............. Ranidae............. Frog, foothill yellow- U.S.A. (CA).
legged (South Sierra
DPS).
PT............................... .............. Rana boylii.............. Ranidae............. Frog, foothill yellow- U.S.A. (CA).
legged (North Feather
DPS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LICHENS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE............................... .............. Donrichardsia macroneuron Brachytheciaceae.... Moss, South Llano Springs U.S.A. (TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.
C *: candidate species for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition.
Table 6--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
---------------------------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Category Priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T *............................... L Aptenodytes forsteri...... Spheniscidae......... Penguin, emperor.......... Antarctica.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E *............................... L Myotis septentrionalis.... Vespertilionidae..... Bat, northern long-eared.. U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT,
DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KN, LA, ME, MD,
MA, MI, MN, MI, MO, MT,
NE, NH, NJ, NM, NC, NY,
ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC,
SD, TN, TX, VT, VI, WV,
WI, WY), Canada.
Rc................................ X Ursus arctos horribilis... Ursidae.............. Bear, grizzly (North U.S.A. (WA), Canada.
Cascades Ecosystem).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc................................ 5 Gopherus morafkai......... Testudinidae......... Tortoise, Sonoran desert.. U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E................................. L Macrhybopsis tetranema.... Cyprinidae........... Chub, peppered............ U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK,
TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E................................. L Pleurobema athearni....... Unionidae............ Clubshell, Canoe Creek.... U.S.A. (AL).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T *............................... L Atlantea tulita........... Nymphalidae.......... Butterfly, Puerto Rico U.S.A. (PR).
harlequin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E *............................... L Anaxyrus williamsi........ Bufonidae............ Toad, Dixie Valley........ U.S.A. (NV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rp................................ N Astragalus schmolliae..... Fabaceae............. Chapin Mesa milkvetch..... U.S.A. (CO).
E................................. L Eryngium sparganophyllum.. Apiaceae............. Arizona eryngo............ U.S.A. (AZ).
[[Page 41585]]
E *............................... L Eriogonum tiehmii......... Polygonaceae......... Tiehm's buckwheat......... U.S.A. (NV).
E................................. L Solanum conocarpum........ Solanaceae........... marron bacora............. U.S.A. (PR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.
* Denotes species for which a final listing determination has published subsequent to the end of FY 2022 (after September 30, 2022).
[FR Doc. 2023-13577 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
