# 86 FR 43470: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-16943

## Section

- **Citation:** 86 FR 43470
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 86 / 86 FR 43470

## Text

ions.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2020-0146.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), 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 § 17.11 (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, 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
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 person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.
Previous CNORs
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent CNOR that included foreign species was published on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), and covered the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018. CNORs published since 1994 are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.
Previous CNORs
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent CNOR that included foreign species was published on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), and covered the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018. CNORs published since 1994 are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.
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
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 the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and
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 (DPS)
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 (DPS).
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/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species assessment 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
fr43098-43105.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species assessment 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.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the last CNOR that included foreign species on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), 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.
We are not identifying any new candidates or removing any candidates through this document. However, we are changing the listing priority number for one existing candidate.
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR that included foreign species, 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, 19 foreign species are candidates awaiting preparation of a proposed listing rule or “not-warranted” finding. Table 4 identifies these 19 species.
Petition Findings
The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing
ill under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).
Combined with other findings and determinations published separately from this CNOR, 19 foreign species are candidates awaiting preparation of a proposed listing rule or “not-warranted” finding. Table 4 identifies these 19 species.
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 petition 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 must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of the following three possible findings (a “12-month finding”):
imum 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 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 are required to 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. 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)
d-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, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-
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 through this 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. 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 4, below.
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
)(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.
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) of the Act 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
ew 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. For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) 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 (see below). Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species
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 (see below). Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted 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, the 19 foreign species candidates for which we have received a petition to list. 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. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.
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, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Below we describe the actions that continue to 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
-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 such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) the amount of resources available for completing the listing 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
regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) the amount of resources available for completing the listing 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 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)
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. Since 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.
In FY 2019, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service $18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign listing work, including status assessments, listing determinations, domestic critical habitat designations, and related activities. In FY 2020, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L
9, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service $18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign listing work, including status assessments, listing determinations, domestic critical habitat designations, and related activities. In FY 2020, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94, December 20, 2019), Congress appropriated $20,318,000 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; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review 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. The Service has developed several ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has available under the spending cap for listing and critical habitat actions each year
ndertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. The Service has developed several ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has available under the spending cap 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 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
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 that are 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 2020, we had 36 12-month petition findings for foreign species yet to be initiated and completed and 422 12-month petition findings for domestic species yet to be initiated and 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 outstanding 12-month petition findings to one of five priority bins
etermine 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 outstanding 12-month petition findings 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
Consistent with our 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. 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— We prioritize species actions where OLE currently has the expertise and workforce capacity to identify taxa ( e.g., some invertebrates require time-intensive inspection and expertise to differentiate listed from non-listed species). The capacity to identify taxa to effectively enforce a listing greatly increases the impact of the listing.
2
S Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforcement capacity— We prioritize species actions where OLE currently has the expertise and workforce capacity to identify taxa ( e.g., some invertebrates require time-intensive inspection and expertise to differentiate listed from non-listed species). The capacity to identify taxa to effectively enforce a listing greatly increases the impact of the listing.
2. Species in trade to and/or from the United States— We prioritize actions for these species over those that are neither imported to nor exported from the United States because we can regulate import, export, and other activities with these species through permitting and incentivizing activities—including requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposes—that benefit the conservation of the species, and by deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. In addition, the Lacey Act, in part, makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase species taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any U.S. law, treaty, or regulation. Thus, violations of the Act and its implementing regulations can be one component of a Lacey Act violation, further adding to the impact of the Act's listing.
3. Species in trade through U.S. ports (i.e., in-transit or transshipment)— We prioritize timing of actions for these species over those in trade outside of the United States because the capacity to track, regulate, and enforce this activity is greater than for species in trade outside the United States.
4. Within the United States, interstate trade— We prioritize timing of actions for species traded between States within the United States (interstate activity) over those not traded between States within the United States (intrastate activity). The Act prohibits certain activities with listed species in interstate commerce
activity is greater than for species in trade outside the United States.
4. Within the United States, interstate trade— We prioritize timing of actions for species traded between States within the United States (interstate activity) over those not traded between States within the United States (intrastate activity). The Act prohibits certain activities with listed species in interstate commerce. FWS regulation of this interstate activity can result in incentivizing and permitting activities—including requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposes—that benefit the conservation of the species, and deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. As noted above, such violations of the Act can also be one component of a Lacey Act violation.
5. CITES status —We use Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) status to prioritize timing of listing actions under the Act for species as follows: Appendix II (highest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species) > Appendix III > Appendix I (lowest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species).
• Appendix I species: Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade, and trade in Appendix-I specimens may take place only in exceptional circumstances. With narrow exceptions, CITES does not allow primarily commercial international trade in Appendix-I species, and commercial use of Appendix-I specimens is also prohibited after import. Allowed international trade in these species is subject to a dual permitting process that requires both importing and exporting countries to find that the trade will not be detrimental to the species' survival. Thus, a listing under the Act would generally provide comparatively less additional conservation of these species than for CITES species that are not subject to this level of regulation
rt. Allowed international trade in these species is subject to a dual permitting process that requires both importing and exporting countries to find that the trade will not be detrimental to the species' survival. Thus, a listing under the Act would generally provide comparatively less additional conservation of these species than for CITES species that are not subject to this level of regulation.
• Appendix II species: Appendix II includes species that may become threatened with extinction if their trade is not regulated or because they need to be regulated so that trade in certain other Appendix-I or -II species may be effectively controlled. CITES allows international trade in Appendix-II species for primarily commercial purposes, and does not require the dual-permitting process established for Appendix-I species. Listing under the Act is more likely to improve conservation capacity for Appendix-II species than for the Appendix-I species that are comparatively more tightly controlled under CITES.
• Appendix III species: Appendix III includes species listed unilaterally by a range country to obtain international cooperation in controlling trade. International trade in Appendix-III species exported from a country that has included the species in Appendix III requires an export permit, while other exports and re-exports require documentation. Appendix-III species have fewer substantive conservation controls for trade than for Appendix-I or -II species. However, we generally prioritize the timing for Appendix-II species over Appendix-III species because the CITES Parties having collectively identified Appendix-II species as requiring trade regulation to avoid threatening their survival.
6. IUCN Red List status— We prioritize timing of actions for species considered at greater risk by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) over those that are considered at lesser risk
ies over Appendix-III species because the CITES Parties having collectively identified Appendix-II species as requiring trade regulation to avoid threatening their survival.
6. IUCN Red List status— We prioritize timing of actions for species considered at greater risk by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) over those that are considered at lesser risk. Per IUCN categories, Critically endangered (highest priority) > Endangered > Vulnerable > Near-threatened > Least concern > Data deficient > Not assessed > Extinct (lowest priority). We use this criterion to identify species for which listing would likely have greater positive impacts on their conservation because they are more likely in greater need of conservation. Although IUCN's rating system is not directly comparable to the definitions for an endangered species and threatened species under the Act (which is why this is considered low in our prioritization scheme), and does not establish any legal status, IUCN's Red List provides a readily-accessible, expert-validated assessment of conservation threat.
We applied the methodology and tie-breakers described above to develop a multi-year Foreign Species Workplan (Workplan) for completing the outstanding status assessments and accompanying 12-month findings. The purpose of the Workplan is to provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the priorities. In June 2020, the Service released its Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the Act's foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all foreign species on the candidate list and 45 status reviews and accompanying 12- https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html
w information changes the priorities. In June 2020, the Service released its Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the Act's foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all foreign species on the candidate list and 45 status reviews and accompanying 12- https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html.
As noted above, an additional way in which we determine relative priorities of outstanding actions in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, which apply primarily to candidate species, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined for efficiency with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species status to endangered species status (“uplistings”) 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 Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2020 outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2020 to FY 2025
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 Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2020 outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2020 to FY 2025. Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher-priority listing actions that we completed through the end of FY 2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as those we have been working on in FY 2020 but have not yet completed. For FY 2020, our Foreign Species Workplan includes nine 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 Foreign Species Workplan, the overall Listing Program workload also includes the National Listing Workplan that includes 74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions, 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 2019 and FY 2020 were actions included in the Workplan 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 (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and one list of endangered and threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h))
ined 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 (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and one list of endangered and threatened plants (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 2020 appropriations law included a spending cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, and the FY 2019 appropriations law included a spending cap of $18,318,000 for 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 in adding qualified species to the Lists.
The work of the Service's foreign listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing (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 accompanying 12-month finding); and (3) adding qualified species to the Lists (by publishing proposed and final listing rules)
o the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing (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 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 the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the Act.
Generally, we first make expeditious progress in identifying species that may warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 14 species. However, for foreign species, we have not received petitions to list species in FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020).
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 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 12-month findings for 69 domestic species. In addition, we funded and worked on the development of 12-month findings for 34 domestic species and proposed listing determinations for 9 candidates, and we initiated 12-month findings for nine foreign species. Although we did not complete those actions during FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 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
iated 12-month findings for nine foreign species. Although we did not complete those actions during FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 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 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we published a final listing rule for 1 foreign species and 7 domestic species, including final critical habitat designations for 1 of those domestic species and final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 2 of those domestic species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional 20 domestic species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 14 species).
The Act also requires that we make expeditious progress in removing species from the Lists that no longer require the protections of the Act. Specifically, we are 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
hat 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 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we finalized downlisting of 2 species (one of which is a foreign species), finalized delisting rules for 7 domestic species, proposed downlisting for 7 domestic species, and proposed delisting of 11 domestic species. The rate at which the Service has completed delisting and downlisting actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) is higher than any point in the history of the Act, which underscores the expeditious progress we are making.
The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our evaluation of making expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published foreign listing actions; Table 2 includes foreign listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are not yet complete as of September 30, 2020; and Table 3 includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and delisting actions for foreign species.
Table 1—Listing Actions Completed by the Service in FY 2019 and FY 2020 [As of September 30, 2020] Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 10/9/2018 Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct Population Segment of the Pacific Marten Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding 83 FR 50574-50582 10/9/2018 Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding 83 FR 50560-50574 10/9/2018 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Species Status for Eastern Black Rail With a
of the Pacific Marten Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding 83 FR 50574-50582 10/9/2018 Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding 83 FR 50560-50574 10/9/2018 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Species Status for Eastern Black Rail With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding 83 FR 50610-50630 10/9/2018 Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Slenderclaw Crayfish Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding 83 FR 50582-50610 10/11/2018 Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding 83 FR 51570-51609 11/21/2018 Endangered Species Status for the Candy Darter Final Listing—Endangered 83 FR 58747-58754 12/19/2018 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 83 FR 65127-65134 12/28/2018 Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter Final Listing—Threatened 83 FR 67131-67140 2/26/2019 Listing the Scarlet Macaw Final Listing—Endangered northern subspecies; Threatened northern DPS of southern subspecies; and Threatened status for southern DPS and subspecies crosses based on similarity of appearance 84 FR 6278-6311 4/4/2019 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 4/4/2019 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month Petition Finding 4/26/2019 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic species and 1 foreign species) * 90-Day Petition Findings 5/22/2019 Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neu
ies 12-Month Petition Findings 4/4/2019 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month Petition Finding 4/26/2019 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic species and 1 foreign species) * 90-Day Petition Findings 5/22/2019 Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat Proposed Listings—Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat; Endangered Status with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Findings 8/13/2019 Endangered Species Status for Franklin's Bumble Bee Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month Petition Finding 8/15/2019 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 8/15/2019 90-Day Findings for Three Species 90-Day Petition Findings 9/6/2019 90-Day Findings for Three Species 90-Day Petition Findings 10/07/2019 Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 10/21/2019 Endangered Species Status for Barrens Topminnow Final Listing—Endangered 11/08/2019 12-Month Finding for the California Spotted Owl 12-Month Petition Finding 11/21/2019 Threatened Species Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With a Section 4(d) Rule Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 12/06/2019 Endangered Species Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat, and Threatened Species Status for Bartram's Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Listings—Endangered with Critical Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Findings 12/19/2019 Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 12/19/2019 90-Day Findings for Two Species 90-Day Petition Findings 01/08/2020 Threatened Species Status for the Hermes Copper Butterfly
Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Listings—Endangered with Critical Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Findings 12/19/2019 Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 12/19/2019 90-Day Findings for Two Species 90-Day Petition Findings 01/08/2020 Threatened Species Status for the Hermes Copper Butterfly With 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat 01/08/2020 Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox Proposed Listing—Endangered 05/05/2020 Endangered Status for the Island Marble Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat 05/15/2020 Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher Final Listing—Endangered 7/16/2020 90-Day Finding for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard 90-Day Petition Finding 7/22/2020 90-Day Findings for Two Species 90-Day Petition Findings 7/23/2020 Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 8/26/2020 Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora and Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing-Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding 9/1/2020 Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 12-Month Petition Findings 9/16/2020 Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose ** 12-Month Petition Finding 9/17/2020 Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat 9/17/2020 Threatened Species Status for Big Creek crayfish and St
ion Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose ** 12-Month Petition Finding 9/17/2020 Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat 9/17/2020 Threatened Species Status for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and With Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat 9/29/2020 Threatened Species Status for longsolid and round hickorynut mussel and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat, Not Warranted 12-Month Finding for purple Lilliput Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition Findings 9/29/2020 Threatened Species Status for Wright's Marsh Thistle and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section (4) Rule and Critical Habitat Table 2—Listing Actions Funded and Initiated by the Service in Previous FYs and in FY 2020 That Were Not Complete as of September 30, 2020 [Species denoted with an asterisk were subsequently completed.] Species Action Canadian caribou—Dolphin/Union caribou 12-month finding. Canadian caribou—Peary Island caribou 12-month finding. Yangtze sturgeon * Final listing determination. Egyptian tortoise 12-month finding. Amur sturgeon 12-month finding. Emperor penguin 12-month finding. Russian sturgeon 12-month finding. Stellate sturgeon 12-month finding. Ship sturgeon 12-month finding. Persian sturgeon 12-month finding. northern spotted owl 12-month finding. false spike 12-month finding. Guadalupe fatmucket 12-month finding. Guadalupe orb 12-month finding. Texas fatmucket Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas fawnsfoot Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas pimpleback Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding
inding. Persian sturgeon 12-month finding. northern spotted owl 12-month finding. false spike 12-month finding. Guadalupe fatmucket 12-month finding. Guadalupe orb 12-month finding. Texas fatmucket Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas fawnsfoot Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas pimpleback Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. South Llano Springs moss 12-month finding. peppered chub * 12-month finding. whitebark pine * Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Key ringneck snake 12-month finding. Rimrock crowned snake 12-month finding. Euphilotes ancilla cryptica 12-month finding. Euphilotes ancilla purpura 12-month finding. Hamlin Valley pyrg * 12-month finding. longitudinal gland pyrg 12-month finding. sub-globose snake pyrg * 12-month finding. Louisiana pigtoe 12-month finding. Texas heelsplitter 12-month finding. triangle pigtoe 12-month finding. prostrate milkweed 12-month finding. alligator snapping turtle 12-month finding. Black Creek crayfish 12-month finding. bracted twistflower Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Canoe Creek clubshell * 12-month finding. Clear Lake hitch * 12-month finding. Doll's daisy * 12-month finding. frecklebelly madtom * 12-month finding. longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS) Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. magnificent Ramshorn Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 12-month finding. Ocmulgee skullcap 12-month finding. Penasco least chipmunk Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly * Proposed listing determination. Puget oregonian snail * 12-month finding. relict dace * 12-month finding. Rocky Mountain monkeyflower * 12-month finding. sickle darter * 12-month finding. southern elktoe 12-month finding. southern white-tailed ptarmigan * 12-month finding. tidewater amphipod * 12-month finding. tufted puffin * 12-month finding
t warranted finding. Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly * Proposed listing determination. Puget oregonian snail * 12-month finding. relict dace * 12-month finding. Rocky Mountain monkeyflower * 12-month finding. sickle darter * 12-month finding. southern elktoe 12-month finding. southern white-tailed ptarmigan * 12-month finding. tidewater amphipod * 12-month finding. tufted puffin * 12-month finding. western spadefoot 12-month finding. Table 3—Completed Domestic and Foreign Recovery Actions (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) in FY 2019 and FY 2020 [As of September 30, 2020] Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 10/18/2018 Removing Deseret Milkvetch ( Astragalus desereticus ) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Final Rule—Delisting 83 FR 52775-52786 02/26/2019 Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 6110-6126 03/15/2019 Removing the Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 9648-9687 05/03/2019 Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 84 FR 19013-19029 08/27/2019 Removing Trifolium stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 44832-44841 09/13/2019 Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 48290-48308 10/03/2019 Removal of the Monito Gecko ( Sphaerodactylus micropithecus ) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 52791-52800 10/07/2019 Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 53380-53397 10/09/2019 Removing the Kirtland's Warbler From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 5
lus micropithecus ) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 52791-52800 10/07/2019 Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 53380-53397 10/09/2019 Removing the Kirtland's Warbler From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 54436-54463 10/24/2019 Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 56977-56991 11/05/2019 Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Final Rule—Delisting 84 FR 59570-59588 11/26/2019 Removing Bradshaw's Lomatium From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 65067-65080 11/26/2019 Removal of the Nashville Crayfish From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule—Delisting 84 FR 65098-65112 11/26/2019 Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 84 FR 65080-65098 12/19/2019 Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Final Rule—Downlisting 84 FR 69918-69947 01/02/2020 Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 85 FR 164-189 01/06/2020 Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule—Delisting 85 FR 487-492 01/22/2020 Reclassification of the Humpback Chub From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 85 FR 3586-3601 03/10/2020 Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 85 FR 13844-13856 4/23/2020 Reclassifying the Golden Conure from Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Final Downlisting—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 85 FR 22653-22663 04/27/2020 Removing Arenaria cumber
ion 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 85 FR 3586-3601 03/10/2020 Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 85 FR 13844-13856 4/23/2020 Reclassifying the Golden Conure from Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Final Downlisting—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 85 FR 22653-22663 04/27/2020 Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 85 FR 23302-23315 06/01/2020 Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose ( Camissonia benitensis ) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Proposed Rule—Delisting 85 FR 33060-33078 06/11/2020 Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Final Rule—Delisting 85 FR 35574-35594 7/24/2020 Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail ( Helminthoglypta walkeriana ) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 85 FR 44821-44835 8/19/2020 Reclassification of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 85 FR 50991-51006 9/30/2020 Reclassification of Virgin Islands Tree Boa From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting 9/30/2020 Reclassficiation of beach layia ( Layia carnosa ) From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded, the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is published. If the petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species becomes a “candidate” and is reviewed annually in the CNOR
To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule Proposed Rule—Downlisting When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded, the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is published. If the petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species becomes a “candidate” and is reviewed annually in the CNOR.
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. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPNs for all foreign candidate species and are changing the LPN for the Brasília tapaculo ( Scytalopus novacapitalis ).
Brasília Tapaculo
Brasília tapaculo is a small, shy, ground-dwelling bird with limited flight ability. The tapaculo is found in dense, swampy, gallery-forest habitat that is a smaller habitat component occurring within the wider tropical savanna or Cerrado of the Central Goia's Plateau of Brazil. Gallery forests are narrow fringes of thick streamside vegetation that occur on the edges of rivers and streams at elevations of approximately 800-1,000 meters (m) (2,625-3,281 feet (ft)).
The Brasília tapaculo is described as rare, but the population size is unknown. Despite a lack of data on population trends, the population is
The primary threat to the species is ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation. The Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened tropical savanna in the world
t elevations of approximately 800-1,000 meters (m) (2,625-3,281 feet (ft)).
The Brasília tapaculo is described as rare, but the population size is unknown. Despite a lack of data on population trends, the population is
The primary threat to the species is ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation. The Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened tropical savanna in the world. Land in the Cerrado is currently being converted for intensive grazing and mechanized agriculture, including soybean and rice plantations. The tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat has been less affected by clearing for agriculture than the surrounding Cerrado. However, effects to gallery forest arise from wetland drainage and the diversion of water for irrigation and from annual burning of adjacent grasslands for agricultural space. Effects from climate change may also be negatively altering the Cerrado and the tapaculo's specialized gallery-forest habitat within the Cerrado by reducing the amount of available habitat for the species.
The IUCN recently changed the status of the species from near threatened to endangered, identifying the species' small and fragmented range as justification for the change in status. The Brazilian Red List assessed the species as endangered, noting severe fragmentation and continuing decline in area and quality of habitat. International trade is not a significant threat to the species, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, we assigned the Brasília tapaculo an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we have determined that a change to an LPN of 2 is warranted at this time. The Brasília tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude and are imminent. Habitat destruction and fragmentation and conversion of the Cerrado, mainly for agriculture and livestock, is ongoing and affects the small geographic range of the species
ing the available information, we have determined that a change to an LPN of 2 is warranted at this time. The Brasília tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude and are imminent. Habitat destruction and fragmentation and conversion of the Cerrado, mainly for agriculture and livestock, is ongoing and affects the small geographic range of the species. The species only occurs in a handful of small protected areas, and even in these areas the species is reported as rare. Therefore, an LPN of 2 is valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species
For all 19 candidates, we continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or not-warranted petition findings in the future, 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 18 petitioned candidates that we did not change the LPN, for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 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.
Birds
Sira Curassow
The Sira curassow ( Pauxi koepckeae ) is a large game bird that is known only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru. Size and coloration are similar to the southern helmeted curassow, but their ranges are separated by approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), and the Sira curassow has a shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a horn-like bony appendage above the bill) that is flattened against the head
curassow ( Pauxi koepckeae ) is a large game bird that is known only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru. Size and coloration are similar to the southern helmeted curassow, but their ranges are separated by approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), and the Sira curassow has a shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a horn-like bony appendage above the bill) that is flattened against the head.
The Sira curassow inhabits cloud-forest habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs on high mountains in the tropics) at elevations from 1,100-1,450 m (3,609-4,757 ft) and above.
Historical population data are lacking, but the population is currently estimated at fewer than 250 mature individuals and is declining. The primary cause of the decline is ongoing hunting by local indigenous communities. Additionally, the Sira curassow's range within the Cerros del Sira region is limited (550 square kilometers (212 square miles)) and declining. Its habitat is being degraded by subsistence agriculture, forest clearing, road building, and associated rural development. Although the Sira curassow is legally protected in a large portion of its range in El Sira Communal Reserve, illegal hunting still occurs. A majority of the deforestation occurs outside of the El Sira Communal Reserve.
The species is classified as critically 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. The species is also not included in the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Sira curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Sira curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its very small estimated population and limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and habitat loss
Sira curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Sira curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its very small estimated population and limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and habitat loss. The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the population decline will continue in the future. Because the species is experiencing significant population declines due to both hunting and habitat loss and degradation, we have made no change to the LPN of 2, which reflects imminent threats of high magnitude.
Southern Helmeted Curassow
The southern helmeted curassow ( Pauxi unicornis ) is a game bird with a distinctive pale-blue, horn-like appendage (or casque) above its bill. The southern helmeted curassow is known only from central Bolivia on the eastern slope of the Andes, where large portions of its habitat are in national parks. The species inhabits dense, humid, foothill and lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at altitudes between 450 and 1,500 m (1,476 and 4,921 ft).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals and is declining. Hunting the species is estimated to be the primary threat to the species, followed by habitat loss and degradation. Although the national parks have been important for the preservation of the species, financial and human resources needed to protect park resources are limited. Within the parks, there are human settlements and ongoing encroachment, including illegal logging operations and forest clearing for farming. Rural development and road building limit the species' ability to disperse
loss and degradation. Although the national parks have been important for the preservation of the species, financial and human resources needed to protect park resources are limited. Within the parks, there are human settlements and ongoing encroachment, including illegal logging operations and forest clearing for farming. Rural development and road building limit the species' ability to disperse. Range reductions due to effects from climate change are also predicted for the southern helmeted curassow, when warming temperatures may cause the species to shift its distribution upslope and outside of protected national parks.
The southern helmeted curassow is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been Pauxi. The European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations are directly applicable in all European Union Member States; species listed on Annex B require a permit for import. In 2008, the species was moved from Annex B to Annex D (a lower level of protection) because it was one of the species that are not subject to levels of international trade that might be incompatible with their survival, but warrant monitoring of trade levels. The species continues to be listed on Annex D; species listed on Annex D require an import notification form completed by the importer for import.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the southern helmeted curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted because the threats are of high magnitude and are imminent. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its small, limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and from habitat loss and destruction, and the population will likely continue to decline
hange in the LPN is warranted because the threats are of high magnitude and are imminent. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its small, limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and from habitat loss and destruction, and the population will likely continue to decline. Because the species is experiencing ongoing population declines and habitat loss, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species, which reflects imminent threats of high magnitude.
Lord Howe Island Pied Currawong
Lord Howe Island pied currawong ( Strepera graculina crissalis ) is a fairly large, crow-like bird, endemic to Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, Australia. Lord Howe Island is a small island northeast of Sydney, Australia, with 28 smaller islets and rocks. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong occurs throughout the island but is most numerous in the mountainous areas on the southern end. It has also been recorded to a limited extent on the Admiralty Islands, located 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) north of Lord Howe Island. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong breeds in rainforests and palm forests, particularly along streams. Approximately 75 percent of Lord Howe Island, plus all outlying islets and rocks within the Lord Howe Island group, is protected under the Permanent Park Preserve, which has similar status to that of a national park.
The best current population estimate indicates that there are approximately 200 individuals. Researchers have determined that most, if not all, available habitat on Lord Howe Island is occupied based on the estimate of 200 individuals and estimates of the extent of available breeding habitat.
The potential for the introduction of other nonnative rodents to this island ecosystem has also been identified as an issue for this subspecies, although the subspecies has persisted among invasive black rats
have determined that most, if not all, available habitat on Lord Howe Island is occupied based on the estimate of 200 individuals and estimates of the extent of available breeding habitat.
The potential for the introduction of other nonnative rodents to this island ecosystem has also been identified as an issue for this subspecies, although the subspecies has persisted among invasive black rats. Because the Lord Howe Island pied currawong often preys on small rodents, it may be subject to nontarget poisoning during ongoing rat-baiting programs. In June 2019, the Lord Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project began by placing poison bait traps around the island. To ensure the currawong's safety, project evaluators determined that approximately 50-60 percent of the wild population would need to be held in captive management during the eradication effort. The subspecies is known to sometimes eat rodents and feed them to their offspring. It is unlikely currawong targets the poison bait directly. A study is underway focusing on the effects of this project. In addition to its small population size, direct persecution (via shootings) by humans in retaliation for predation on domestic and endemic birds has been documented. The incidence of shootings has declined since the 1970s, when conservation efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but occasional shootings were still occurring as recently as 2006. Another potential threat to the currawong is rising global temperatures associated with climate change that may affect the cloud layer on the island's mountaintops—resulting in drying of the forest where the currawong gets about half of its food, possibly creating a food shortage for the subspecies.
The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and its small population size, as does Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act List of Threatened Fauna
forest where the currawong gets about half of its food, possibly creating a food shortage for the subspecies.
The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and its small population size, 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 this subspecies is not known to be in international trade.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, 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 Lord Howe Island pied currawong does not represent a monotypic genus or a full species. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to a combination of factors including its small population size and risks from nontarget poisoning from rodent control. Aspects of the rodent-eradication program carry some risk, such as those associated with trapping and holding the birds, and the effects of a missed breeding cycle. If the rodent-eradication program is successful, effects from nontarget poisoning and any predation by rodents on currawong eggs will cease to be stressors for the currawong. However, because significant conservation efforts for the currawong have been implemented, and the subspecies is being closely managed and monitored, we find that the threats are nonimminent. Therefore, based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains valid to reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude.
Chatham Oystercatcher
Chatham oystercatcher ( Haematopus chathamensis ) is the rarest oystercatcher in the world, with a recent population estimate of 300 to 320 individuals. It is native to the Chatham Island group located 860 kilometers (534 miles) east of mainland New Zealand
based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains valid to reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude.
Chatham Oystercatcher
Chatham oystercatcher ( Haematopus chathamensis ) is the rarest oystercatcher in the world, with a recent population estimate of 300 to 320 individuals. It is native to the Chatham Island group located 860 kilometers (534 miles) east of mainland New Zealand. The species breeds along the coastline of four islands in the chain: Chatham, Pitt, South East, and Mangere. The Chatham oystercatcher is found mainly along rocky shores, including wide volcanic rock platforms and occasionally on sandy or gravelly beaches.
Predation of eggs and chicks, and to a lesser extent of adults, is thought to be the main threat to the Chatham oystercatcher population. Although the Mangere and South East nature reserves are free of all mammalian predators, nonnative mammalian predators inhabit Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are the most common predator of eggs. Other documented predators include gulls ( Larus spp.), the native brown skua ( Catharacta antarctica ), weka ( Gallirallus australis hectori ), and domestic dogs. Nest destruction and disturbance by humans and livestock are also noted threats. Habitat loss and degradation has occurred from introductions of nonnative marram grass ( Ammophila arenaria ) in the early 1900s to revegetate destabilized dunes. The dense marram grass is unsuitable for Chatham oystercatcher nesting. Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to shore, where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges; up to 50 percent of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea levels associated with climate change will likely affect future nesting success.
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
rm surges; up to 50 percent of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea levels associated with climate change will likely affect future nesting success.
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. The Chatham oystercatcher is listed as nationally critical by the NZDOC 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.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Chatham oystercatcher was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined no change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population estimate is very small, and the species has a limited range. The NZDOC has taken measures to recover and maintain the species, and the population appears to have stabilized. However, the species continues to face moderate threats from predation, trampling, nest disturbance, storm surges, and habitat loss due to nonnative marram grass that are affecting nesting success and survival. These threats are ongoing and imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Orange-Fronted Parakeet
Orange-fronted parakeet ( Cyanoramphus malherbi ) is considered the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. It is distributed on the South Island of mainland New Zealand and a few offshore islands. The three remaining naturally occurring populations are all within a 30-kilometer (18.6-mile) radius of one another in fragmented beech tree forests ( Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys. Orange-fronted parakeets have also been captive-bred and released onto four predator-free islands where breeding has been confirmed
buted on the South Island of mainland New Zealand and a few offshore islands. The three remaining naturally occurring populations are all within a 30-kilometer (18.6-mile) radius of one another in fragmented beech tree forests ( Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys. Orange-fronted parakeets have also been captive-bred and released onto four predator-free islands where breeding has been confirmed.
The species' range contracted when its population was severely reduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s for unknown reasons. From 1999 to 2000, the mainland population crashed from perhaps 500 to 700 birds to a rough estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result of ship rat or black rat ( Rattus rattus ) eruptions. Information on the current population status is mixed. In 2013, the total population was estimated between 290 and 690 individuals (130 to 270 on the mainland, and 160 to 420 on the islands). More recently, there are indications that both the offshore and mainland populations have declined to around 100 and 250 birds, respectively, but these are rough estimates. In 2019, the orange-fronted parakeet had one of its best breeding seasons in decades with more than three times as many nests compared to previous years and produced at least 150 wild-born chicks, potentially doubling the population.
The most prominent factors affecting the species on the mainland are predation by nonnative mammals such as weasels and rats ( Rattus spp.), as well as habitat destruction. Trade of this species is not known to be a threat. Habitat loss and degradation has historically affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. The species' habitat is also degraded by introduced herbivores that alter forest structure in a way that reduces the available feeding habitat for the parakeet. Additionally, silviculture (care and cultivation) of beech forests has removed mature trees with nest cavities needed by the species
reat. Habitat loss and degradation has historically affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. The species' habitat is also degraded by introduced herbivores that alter forest structure in a way that reduces the available feeding habitat for the parakeet. Additionally, silviculture (care and cultivation) of beech forests has removed mature trees with nest cavities needed by the species. The parakeet competes with two other native parakeets for nest sites and food and with nonnative wasps and finches for food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and feather disease virus is a potential threat to this species. The disease was discovered in wild native birds ( e.g., the red-fronted parakeet, Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae ) in New Zealand in 2008. Infected birds generally follow one of three paths: They develop immunity, die within a couple of weeks, or become chronically infected. Chronic infections result in feather loss and deformities of beak and feathers. However, the disease has not been documented in the orange-fronted parakeet.
The species was uplisted from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC, 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 October 10, 2019, CNOR, the orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors affecting the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing for the species including monitoring known populations, successfully captive-breeding and releasing birds into the wild, and implementing predator control programs. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is limited, there appears to have been some success with predator control, captive-breeding, and translocations to offshore islands
known populations, successfully captive-breeding and releasing birds into the wild, and implementing predator control programs. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is limited, there appears to have been some success with predator control, captive-breeding, and translocations to offshore islands. The species faces threats ( e.g., predation, habitat degradation, and competition for food and suitable nesting habitat) that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC continues to take measures to aid the recovery of the species. We find that the threats to this species are ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Bogotá Rail
The Bogotá rail ( Rallus semiplumbeus ) is a medium-sized nonmigratory bird. The species is found in the East Andes of Colombia, South America, and is largely restricted to areas at elevation from 2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft) in and surrounding Bogotá, Colombia, on the Ubaté-Bogotá Plateau. This region formerly supported vast marshes and swamps, but few lakes with suitable habitat for the rail remain. The species is secretive, and wetland habitats most frequently used by rail are fringed by dense vegetation-rich shallows.
The current population size of the Bogotá rail is estimated between 1,000 and 2,500 mature individuals and is thought to be declining. The primary threat to the rail is habitat loss and degradation of wetlands. Approximately 8 million people live in the City of Bogotá, and 11 million in the larger metro area. The wetlands have experienced a 97 percent loss in historical extent with few suitably vegetated marshes remaining. Additionally, road building may result in further habitat loss and human interference, including introduction of nonnative species in previously stable wetland environments. The Bogotá rail is listed as endangered by IUCN
n the City of Bogotá, and 11 million in the larger metro area. The wetlands have experienced a 97 percent loss in historical extent with few suitably vegetated marshes remaining. Additionally, road building may result in further habitat loss and human interference, including introduction of nonnative species in previously stable wetland environments. The Bogotá 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 October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Bogotá 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 needed. The Bogotá rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the species' habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of widespread habitat loss and degradation of wetlands. Although portions of the Bogotá rail's range occur in protected areas, most of the savanna wetlands are unprotected. The population is small and is estimated to be declining. The factors affecting the species are ongoing
Takahē
The takahē ( Porphyrio hochstetteri ) is the largest extant rail in the world. It is flightless. The takahē was once widespread in the forest and grassland ecosystems on the South Island of New Zealand. It was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered in the Murchison Mountains on the South Island in 1948, inhabiting approximately 650 square kilometers (251 square miles). In addition to its native range on the mainland, the takahē has been introduced to offshore islands and mainland sanctuaries. When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the minimum total population now rests at 306 individuals
e Murchison Mountains on the South Island in 1948, inhabiting approximately 650 square kilometers (251 square miles). In addition to its native range on the mainland, the takahē has been introduced to offshore islands and mainland sanctuaries. When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the minimum total population now rests at 306 individuals.
Several factors have historically led to the species' decline, including hunting, competition from introduced herbivores (animals that feed on plants), and predators such as weasels and the weka, a flightless woodhen that is endemic to New Zealand. Currently, weasel predation appears to be the most significant of these threats. Weasel trapping is an effective tool at slowly increasing survival and reproductive output of takahē; however, control efforts do not completely eliminate the threat.
Takahē is a long-lived bird, potentially living between 14 and 20 years, and has a low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of one to three eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison Mountains (cold winters and high snowfall) may also be a limiting factor to the takahē. The population of takahē remains very small and has low genetic diversity relative to other species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) is currently attempting to manage further loss of genetic diversity through translocations. Additionally, NZDOC has implemented a captive-breeding and release program to supplement the mainland population and has established several reserve populations on islands and fenced mainland sites; these actions are having a positive effect on population growth. New Zealand considers the takahē a nationally vulnerable species and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The takahē 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 October 10, 2019, CNOR, the takahē was assigned an LPN of 8
a positive effect on population growth. New Zealand considers the takahē a nationally vulnerable species and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The takahē 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 October 10, 2019, CNOR, the takahē was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takahē, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The takahē does not represent a monotypic genus. Limited suitable habitat and the threat of predation, combined with the takahē's small population size and naturally low reproductive rate, are threats to this species that are moderate in magnitude. Although it has a small population, has limited suitable habitat, and may experience inbreeding depression, because the NZDOC is actively involved in measures to aid the recovery of the species, we find the threats are moderate in magnitude. Despite the conservation efforts, the threats are ongoing and imminent. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Black-Backed Tanager
Black-backed tanager ( Tangara peruviana ) is a small bird endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest region of southeastern Brazil. It is currently found in the coastal states of Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. The species is generally restricted to the sand-forest restinga habitat, which is a coastal component habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest complex. Restingas are herbaceous, shrubby, coastal sand-dune habitats. The black-backed tanager is primarily found in undisturbed vegetated habitat but has also been observed in secondary-growth forests. It has also been observed visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. The black-backed tanager is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally
eater Atlantic Forest complex. Restingas are herbaceous, shrubby, coastal sand-dune habitats. The black-backed tanager is primarily found in undisturbed vegetated habitat but has also been observed in secondary-growth forests. It has also been observed visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. The black-backed tanager is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the black-backed tanager is generally not considered rare. The population estimate is between 2,500 to 10,000 mature individuals. Populations currently appear to be small, fragmented, and declining. The estimated extent of the resident and breeding range in 2015 was 9,400 square kilometers (3,629 square miles). However, estimates have since increased to 316,000 square kilometers (122,008 square miles) because of updated information in the reported range in coastal areas south of Rio de Janeiro beyond Florianopolis and into the northeast corner of Rio Grande do Sul.
The primary factor affecting the species is rapid and widespread loss and fragmentation of habitat because of urban expansion and beachfront development. The black-backed tanager's remaining suitable habitat in the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Paraná have largely been destroyed, and habitat loss and degradation will likely increase in the future. Additional habitat loss from sea-level rise associated with global climate change may compound an increased demand by humans to develop the remaining land. Small portions of this species' range occur in six protected areas, but intact lowland forest, restinga, and mangrove habitats used by resident black-backed tanagers on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island is unprotected.
The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, although it has infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade
areas, but intact lowland forest, restinga, and mangrove habitats used by resident black-backed tanagers on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island is unprotected.
The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, although it has infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the black-backed tanager was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we have determined that no change in the LPN for this species is warranted at this time. The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. We find that the threat from habitat loss is moderate in magnitude due to the species' fairly large range, its existence in protected areas, and an indication of some flexibility in its diet and habitat suitability. Threats are imminent because the species is at risk due to ongoing and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront and related development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Yellow-Browed Toucanet
Yellow-browed toucanet ( Aulacorhynchus huallagae ) is a rare bird in the toucan family. The species has a small range on the eastern slope of the Andes of north-central Peru, at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft). The yellow-browed toucanet occurs in humid montane forests and occupies four known locations within its small range. Part of the species' range is within national parks. The population status is not well known because of the inaccessibility of its habitat, but is estimated at 600 to 1,500 mature individuals.
Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining appears to be the primary threat. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation for agriculture have been widespread in the region
range. Part of the species' range is within national parks. The population status is not well known because of the inaccessibility of its habitat, but is estimated at 600 to 1,500 mature individuals.
Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining appears to be the primary threat. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation for agriculture have been widespread in the region. The yellow-browed toucanet is described as scarce wherever found, and ongoing population and habitat declines resulting from habitat loss are assumed.
The yellow-browed toucanet is classified as endangered on the IUCN
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, 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 at this time. The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. The estimated population is small with just three known locations 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 valied for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Gizo White-Eye
Gizo white-eye ( Zosterops luteirostris ) is a small passerine (perching) bird described as warbler-like. It is endemic to the small island of Ghizo in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. The total range of the species is estimated to be less than 35 square kilometers (13.5 square miles), of which less than 1 square kilometer (0.39 square mile) is the old-growth forest that the species seems to prefer. Little information is available about this species and its habitat. It is locally common in old-growth forest patches and less common elsewhere. The species has been observed in a variety of habitats on the island, but it is unknown whether sustainable populations can exist outside of forested habitats. The population is estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 mature individuals and is suspected to be declining
mation is available about this species and its habitat. It is locally common in old-growth forest patches and less common elsewhere. The species has been observed in a variety of habitats on the island, but it is unknown whether sustainable populations can exist outside of forested habitats. The population is estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 mature individuals and is suspected to be declining.
Habitat loss appears to be the main threat. The loss of old-growth forested areas and less suitable secondary growth forests because of logging, conversion to agricultural areas, and local resource extraction for firewood affect the species. Forested areas around Gizo—a town on Ghizo Island and the capital of Solomon Islands Western Province—that previously supported the species were degraded by the 2007 tsunami and were found less likely to support the species even 5 years later in 2012. The dense human population of the Solomon Islands may also be adversely affecting the Gizo white-eye and its habitat. There has been prolific growth in human settlement on Ghizo Island, mainly in the form of temporary housing. Small populations of the Gizo white-eye are likely subject to both demographic and unpredictable environmental events that can contribute to extirpations.
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 October 10, 2019, CNOR, 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 Gizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to declining suitable habitat and its small, declining population size. The best information available indicates that forest clearing is occurring at a pace that is rapidly denuding its habitat; secondary-growth forest continues to be converted to agricultural purposes
in the LPN is warranted. The Gizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to declining suitable habitat and its small, declining population size. The best information available indicates that forest clearing is occurring at a pace that is rapidly denuding its habitat; secondary-growth forest continues to be converted to agricultural purposes. Additionally, the human population on the small island is likely contributing to the reduction in old-growth forest for local uses such as timber and clearing for gardens. These threats to the species are ongoing, high in magnitude, and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Helmeted Woodpecker
Helmeted woodpecker ( Dryocopus galeatus ) is a fairly small woodpecker native to regions of southern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina. The helmeted woodpecker is nonmigratory, occurring in subpopulations in suitable habitat within its range. Characteristic habitat is large tracts of well-preserved southern Atlantic Forest in both lowland and montane areas from sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species prefers mature (old-growth) trees in tropical and subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous coniferous forests.
The helmeted woodpecker is one of the rarest woodpeckers in the Americas. Its population declined sharply between 1945 and 2000, in conjunction with the clearing of mature forest habitat, and is currently estimated at 400-8,900 individuals. The principal threat to the helmeted woodpecker is loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its Atlantic Forest habitat. Forest clearing has recently slowed, and the species occurs in at least 17 protected areas throughout its range. However, habitat degradation continues, and the population is likely declining. Competition for nest cavities is also likely a limiting factor
t 400-8,900 individuals. The principal threat to the helmeted woodpecker is loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its Atlantic Forest habitat. Forest clearing has recently slowed, and the species occurs in at least 17 protected areas throughout its range. However, habitat degradation continues, and the population is likely declining. Competition for nest cavities is also likely a limiting factor. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as endangered in Brazil and as vulnerable by the IUCN. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the helmeted woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threats to the species is moderate because the species' range is fairly large. The threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which the species depends is still being altered and degraded. Therefore, an LPN of 8 continues to be valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Okinawa Woodpecker
Okinawa woodpecker ( Dendrocopos noguchii syn. Sapheopipo noguchii ) is a relatively large woodpecker found on Okinawa Island, Japan, and one of the world's rarest woodpeckers. The species prefers subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests that are undisturbed and mature. It currently occurs within the forested areas in the northern part of the island, generally in the Yambaru forest, and in some undisturbed forest in coastal areas. Most of the older forests that support the species are 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.
Deforestation in the Yambaru region has been cited as the main cause of the Okinawa woodpecker's reduced habitat and population
in some undisturbed forest in coastal areas. Most of the older forests that support the species are 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.
Deforestation in the Yambaru region has been cited as the main cause of the Okinawa woodpecker's reduced habitat and population. As of the mid 1990s, only 40 square kilometers (15 square miles) of suitable habitat was available for this species. While most of the activities associated with habitat loss appear to have ceased, the Okinawa woodpecker still suffers from limited suitable habitat and a small population size. This situation makes it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons. Additionally, the species is vulnerable to introduced predators such as feral dogs and cats, Javan mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus ), and Japanese weasel ( Mustela itatsi ).
In 2016, the Japanese Government designated Yambaru National Park and nominated the northern part of Okinawa Island (including Yambaru National Park) as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre. The species is listed as critically endangered in the Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and protected from acquisition and transfer under Japan's wildlife protection system. Okinawa woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known to be in international trade.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude due to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. The population is very small and is likely declining
ternational trade.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude due to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. The population is very small and is likely declining. Although new protected areas have been established that will likely benefit the Okinawa woodpecker, it is not yet clear that these areas will be fully protected from logging and other anthropogenic development and nonnative predators. Even though threats from logging have been reduced, it will take many years for secondary and clear-cut forest habitat to mature such that it is suitable for the woodpecker. The threats to the species are ongoing, imminent, and high in magnitude due to its restricted range, small population size, past habitat loss, and endemism. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Invertebrates
Colorado Delta Clam
Colorado delta clam ( Mulinia modesta ) is a relatively large, estuarine bivalve that was once very abundant at the head of the Gulf of California in the Colorado River estuary in Mexico prior to the construction of dams on the Colorado River. Recognizing that the clam is M. modesta, we now also recognize that the clam has a broader distribution into the northern and central portions of the Gulf of California. Therefore, the species is more widespread and found 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.
Information regarding abundance of the Colorado delta clam in the Gulf of California is limited
in

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [86 FR 47 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Incorporation by Reference](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-29111.md)
- [86 FR 279 International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2021 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-28999.md)
- [86 FR 498 Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-28791.md)
- [86 FR 1022 Calculated Maximum Fuel Element Cladding Temperature](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-29151.md)
- [86 FR 1037 American Indian Probate Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-28306.md)
- [86 FR 2582 Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-00098.md)
- [86 FR 2615 Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_C1-2020-28121.md)
- [86 FR 3889 Proposed Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-34; Northeastern United States](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-00146.md)
- [86 FR 3899 Safety Management Systems for Domestic Passenger Vessels](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-01058.md)
- [86 FR 3935 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Improved Energy Security for Main Operating Bases in Europe (DFARS Case 2020-D030)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-00615.md)
- [86 FR 4582 Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Companies and the Treatment of Qualified Improvement Property Under the Alternative Depreciation System for Purposes of Sections 250(b) and 951A(d)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-27003.md)
- [86 FR 5036 Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations in SBA's Loan and Disaster Assistance Programs](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-00446.md)
- [86 FR 5052 Updates to the Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passengers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2020-29229.md)
- [86 FR 5105 Medicaid Program; Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-01078.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2021-16943. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.