Proposed Rule2021-16943
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
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 9, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of foreign plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists during the period October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past 2 years, the current number of foreign species that are candidates for listing is 19. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners, resource managers, range countries, and other stakeholders to take actions to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notification provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43470-43490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16943]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2020-0146; FF09E22000 FXES11180900000 212]
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
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of foreign
plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have
proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
[[Page 43471]]
Wildlife and Plants (Lists) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted
petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists during the
period October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Combined with other
decisions for individual species that were published separately from
this CNOR in the past 2 years, the current number of foreign species
that are candidates for listing is 19. Identification of candidate
species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance
notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners, resource
managers, range countries, and other stakeholders to take actions to
alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species
as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate
species, the early notification provided here could result in more
options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier
candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this
document at any time.
ADDRESSES: This document is available on the internet at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> and <a href="http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html">http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html</a>.
Species assessment forms with information and references on a
particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing
priority assignment are available for review at the office listed below
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or on our website (<a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/candidate-species">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/candidate-species</a>). Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on
this document or pertaining to a particular species to the address
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Species-specific
information and materials we receive will be available on the internet
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 Sec.
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. 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 <a href="http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html">http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html</a>. 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. 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
[[Page 43472]]
distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a
portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the
species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and
the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause
mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population
levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the
extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of
the threat(s).
As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for
listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct
population segments of vertebrate species (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:
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf</a>.
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. 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''):
(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). 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-
[[Page 43473]]
but-precluded 12-month finding to the candidate list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we
receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as
a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate
species and 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
[[Page 43474]]
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).
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. 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.
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. 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.
(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
[[Page 43475]]
example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching
it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may
also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an
action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. Since before
Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in
1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more
resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing
Program. Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process.
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. 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. 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).
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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. 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-
[[Page 43476]]
month findings, and identified which 12-month findings we would
complete by FY 2025 for foreign species that have been petitioned for
Federal protections under the Act. As we implement our Workplan and
work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we increase
efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and
these may include species with lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-priority
species. The Foreign Species Workplan is available online at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html">https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html</a>.
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. 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)).
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). 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. 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).
[[Page 43477]]
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. 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 Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50574-50582
Status for Coastal Threatened with
Distinct Population Section 4(d) Rule and
Segment of the Pacific 12-Month Petition
Marten. Finding.
10/9/2018................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50560-50574
Status for Black- Threatened with
Capped Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule. 12-Month Petition
Finding.
10/9/2018................... 12-Month Petition Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50610-50630
Finding and Threatened Threatened with
Species Status for Section 4(d) Rule and
Eastern Black Rail 12-Month Petition
With a Section 4(d) Finding.
Rule.
10/9/2018................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50582-50610
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule and Critical Section 4(d) Rule and
Habitat Designation Critical Habitat and
for Slenderclaw 12-Month Finding.
Crayfish.
10/11/2018.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 51570-51609
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule and Critical Section 4(d) Rule and
Habitat Designation Critical Habitat and
for Atlantic Pigtoe. 12-Month Finding.
11/21/2018.................. Endangered Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 58747-58754
Status for the Candy Endangered.
Darter.
12/19/2018.................. 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 83 FR 65127-65134
Petitions to List 13 Findings.
Species as Endangered
or Threatened Species.
12/28/2018.................. Threatened Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 67131-67140
Status for Trispot Threatened.
Darter.
2/26/2019................... Listing the Scarlet Final Listing-- 84 FR 6278-6311
Macaw. Endangered northern
subspecies;
Threatened northern
DPS of southern
subspecies; and
Threatened status for
southern DPS and
subspecies crosses
based on similarity
of appearance.
4/4/2019.................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition
Petitions to List Findings.
Eight Species as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
4/4/2019.................... 12-Month Petition Proposed Listing--
Finding and Endangered Endangered and 12-
Species Status for the Month Petition
Missouri Distinct Finding.
Population Segment of
Eastern Hellbender.
4/26/2019................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition
Four Species (3 Findings.
domestic species and 1
foreign species) *.
5/22/2019................... Threatened Species Proposed Listings--
Status with Section Threatened Status
4(d) Rule for Neuse with Section 4(d)
River Waterdog and Rule with Critical
Endangered Species Habitat; Endangered
Status for Carolina Status with Critical
Madtom and Proposed Habitat and 12-Month
Designations of Petition Findings.
Critical Habitat.
8/13/2019................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing--
Status for Franklin's Endangered and 12-
Bumble Bee. Month Petition
Finding.
8/15/2019................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition
Petitions to List Findings.
Eight Species as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/15/2019................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition
Three Species. Findings.
9/6/2019.................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition
Three Species. Findings.
10/07/2019.................. Twelve Species Not 12-Month Petition
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
10/21/2019.................. Endangered Species Final Listing--
Status for Barrens Endangered.
Topminnow.
11/08/2019.................. 12-Month Finding for 12-Month Petition
the California Spotted Finding.
Owl.
11/21/2019.................. Threatened Species Final Listing--
Status for Meltwater Threatened with
Lednian Stonefly and Section 4(d) Rule.
Western Glacier
Stonefly With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
[[Page 43478]]
12/06/2019.................. Endangered Species Proposed Listings--
Status for Beardless Endangered with
Chinchweed With Critical Habitat;
Designation of Threatened with
Critical Habitat, and Section 4(d) Rule and
Threatened Species 12-Month Petition
Status for Bartram's Findings.
Stonecrop With Section
4(d) Rule.
12/19/2019.................. Five Species Not 12-Month Petition
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
12/19/2019.................. 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition
Species. Findings.
01/08/2020.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing--
Status for the Hermes Threatened with
Copper Butterfly With Section 4(d) Rule and
4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
01/08/2020.................. Endangered Status for Proposed Listing--
the Sierra Nevada Endangered.
Distinct Population
Segment of the Sierra
Nevada Red Fox.
05/05/2020.................. Endangered Status for Final Listing--
the Island Marble Endangered with
Butterfly and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
05/15/2020.................. Endangered Species Final Listing--
Status for Southern Endangered.
Sierra Nevada Distinct
Population Segment of
Fisher.
7/16/2020................... 90-Day Finding for the 90-Day Petition
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Finding.
7/22/2020................... 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition
Species. Findings.
7/23/2020................... Four Species Not 12-Month Petition
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/26/2020................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-
Status for Marron Endangered with
Bacora and Designation Critical Habitat and
of Critical Habitat. 12-Month Petition
Finding.
9/1/2020.................... Two Species Not 12-Month Petition
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
9/16/2020................... Findings on a Petition 12-Month Petition
To Delist the Distinct Finding.
Population Segment of
the Western Yellow-
Billed Cuckoo and a
Petition To List the
U.S. Population of
Northwestern Moose **.
9/17/2020................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-
Status for Chapin Mesa Threatened With
milkvetch and Section Section 4(d) Rule and
4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
9/17/2020................... Threatened Species Proposed Listings-
Status for Big Creek Threatened With
crayfish and St. Section 4(d) Rule and
Francis River Crayfish Critical Habitat.
and With Section 4(d)
Rule with Designation
of Critical Habitat.
9/29/2020................... Threatened Species Proposed Listings-
Status for longsolid Threatened With
and round hickorynut Section 4(d) Rule and
mussel and Section Critical Habitat; 12-
4(d) Rule With Month Petition
Designation of Findings.
Critical Habitat, Not
Warranted 12-Month
Finding for purple
Lilliput.
9/29/2020................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-
Status for Wright's Threatened With
Marsh Thistle and Section (4) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule With Critical Habitat.
Designation of
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.
South Llano Springs moss............... 12-month finding.
[[Page 43479]]
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 Proposed listing determination
DPS). 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.
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 Final Rule--Delisting. 83 FR 52775-52786
Milkvetch (Astragalus
desereticus) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
02/26/2019.................. Removing the Borax Lake Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 6110-6126
Chub From the List of Delisting.
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
03/15/2019.................. Removing the Gray Wolf Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 9648-9687
(Canis lupus) From the Delisting.
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
05/03/2019.................. Reclassifying the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 19013-19029
American Burying Downlisting.
Beetle From Endangered
to Threatened on the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
With a 4(d) Rule.
08/27/2019.................. Removing Trifolium Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 44832-44841
stoloniferum (Running Delisting.
Buffalo Clover) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
09/13/2019.................. Removing the Foskett Final Rule--Delisting. 84 FR 48290-48308
Speckled Dace From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
10/03/2019.................. Removal of the Monito Final Rule--Delisting. 84 FR 52791-52800
Gecko (Sphaerodactylus
micropithecus) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
10/07/2019.................. Removal of Howellia Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 53380-53397
aquatilis (Water Delisting.
Howellia) From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
10/09/2019.................. Removing the Kirtland's Final Rule--Delisting. 84 FR 54436-54463
Warbler From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
[[Page 43480]]
10/24/2019.................. Removal of the Interior Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 56977-56991
Least Tern From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
11/05/2019.................. Removing Oenothera Final Rule--Delisting. 84 FR 59570-59588
coloradensis (Colorado
Butterfly Plant) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019.................. Removing Bradshaw's Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65067-65080
Lomatium From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019.................. Removal of the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65098-65112
Nashville Crayfish Delisting.
From the Federal List
of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
11/26/2019.................. Reclassification of the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65080-65098
Endangered June Sucker Downlisting.
to Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
12/19/2019.................. Reclassifying the Final Rule-- 84 FR 69918-69947
Hawaiian Goose From Downlisting.
Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
01/02/2020.................. Removing the Hawaiian Final Rule--Delisting. 85 FR 164-189
Hawk From the Federal
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
01/06/2020.................. Removing the Kanab Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 487-492
Ambersnail From the Delisting.
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
01/22/2020.................. Reclassification of the Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 3586-3601
Humpback Chub From Downlisting.
Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
03/10/2020.................. Removing Lepanthes Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 13844-13856
eltoroensis From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
4/23/2020................... Reclassifying the Final Downlisting-- 85 FR 22653-22663
Golden Conure from Threatened with
Endangered to Section 4(d) Rule.
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
04/27/2020.................. Removing Arenaria Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 23302-23315
cumberlandensis Delisting.
(Cumberland Sandwort)
From the Federal List
of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
06/01/2020.................. Removing San Benito Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 33060-33078
Evening-Primrose Delisting.
(Camissonia
benitensis) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
06/11/2020.................. Removing the Borax Lake Final Rule--Delisting. 85 FR 35574-35594
Chub From the List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
7/24/2020................... Reclassification of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 44821-44835
Morro Shoulderband Downlisting.
Snail (Helminthoglypta
walkeriana) From
Endangered to
Threatened With a 4(d)
Rule.
8/19/2020................... Reclassification of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 50991-51006
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Downlisting.
From Endangered To
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020................... Reclassification of Proposed Rule--
Virgin Islands Tree Downlisting.
Boa From Endangered To
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020................... Reclassficiation of Proposed Rule--
beach layia (Layia Downlisting.
carnosa) From
Endangered To
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo (Scytalopus
novacapitalis).
Bras[iacute]lia Tapaculo
Bras[iacute]lia 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 Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is described as rare, but the
population size is unknown. Despite a lack of data on population
trends, the population is
[[Page 43481]]
assumed to be declining because of the continued decline of the
tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat. The species is currently known to
occur in six protected areas and has been found on private land next to
protected areas. These protected areas are limited in extent and size,
with few larger than 25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)). In the
early 2000s, only 1.2 percent of the Cerrado was in protected areas;
however, more recent estimates are 6.5 percent.
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 Bras[iacute]lia
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 Bras[iacute]lia 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.
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. 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.
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
[[Page 43482]]
noted internationally, and the species is not included in the
Appendices to CITES. In 1997, the species was listed in Annex B of the
European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations as part of a genus-level
listing of all species in the genus 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
[[Page 43483]]
Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher may be at risk from loss of
genetic diversity given its small population size.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Bogot[aacute] Rail
The Bogot[aacute] 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 Bogot[aacute],
Colombia, on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] 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 Bogot[aacute] 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 Bogot[aacute], 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 Bogot[aacute] rail is listed as endangered by IUCN.
The species is not known to be in international trade, and is not
included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Bogot[aacute] rail was assigned
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have
determined that no change in the LPN for the species is needed. The
Bogot[aacute] 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 Bogot[aacute] 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
[[Page 43484]]
and imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 2 to reflect imminent threats of
high magnitude.
Takah[emacr]
The takah[emacr] (Porphyrio hochstetteri) is the largest extant
rail in the world. It is flightless. The takah[emacr] 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 takah[emacr] 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 takah[emacr]; however, control efforts do not
completely eliminate the threat.
Takah[emacr] 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
takah[emacr]. The population of takah[emacr] 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 takah[emacr] a nationally vulnerable species and it is protected
under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The takah[emacr] is listed as
endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not known to be in
international trade, and the species is not included in the Appendices
to CITES.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the takah[emacr] was assigned an LPN
of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takah[emacr], 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
takah[emacr] does not represent a monotypic genus. Limited suitable
habitat and the threat of predation, combined with the takah[emacr]'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, S[atilde]o Paulo, Paran[aacute], 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. 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 Paran[aacute] 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.
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. 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
[[Page 43485]]
Red List, as well as by the Peruvian government. The species is not
included in the Appendices to CITES.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
[[Page 43486]]
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. The minimum average standing population
of the Colorado delta clam in the upper Gulf was estimated to be at
least 5 billion individuals over the past 1,000 years to account for
the shells accumulated in ridges, with the delta clam accounting for
84-95 percent of all bivalve mollusks in the upper Gulf. However, after
decades of dam building on the Colorado River and its tributaries, the
Colorado delta clam is estimated to be 6 percent as abundant in the
upper Gulf as it was before dam construction began. While it is clear
the clam has declined dramatically in the upper Gulf where it was most
abundant before Colorado River dams were built, we are not aware of
total population estimates covering its full range because benthic
surveys of the near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna in central and
southern Gulf are lacking.
The species has not been assessed for the IUCN Red List. It is not
commercially harvested or known to be in international trade, and is
not included in the Appendices to CITES.
Although the specific causes for the dramatic decline of the clam
in the Colorado delta and upper Gulf of California region have not
definitively been identified, several researchers have indicated that
it was a consequence of decrease in the Colorado River's inflow to the
estuary since completion of the dams. Environmental changes to the
estuary associated with the decrease in river inflow include increased
salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of naturally derived
nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer flood. Dams and
diversions along the Colorado River have greatly affected the estuarine
environment of the Colorado delta and have likely caused the localized
decline in abundance of the clam in this region. However, the best
available information does not indicate that dams and diversions are a
stressor for the Colorado delta clam elsewhere within its range in the
northern and central portions of the Gulf of California. Additionally,
stressors for the clam throughout its range may arise from other
natural or manmade factors affecting the clam's continued existence,
such as pollution-related problems and effects from climate change,
which are likely to increase in the future.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Colorado delta clam was assigned
an LPN of 8. With the confirmation that the clam is Mulinia modesta, we
recognize that it has a broader distribution into the northern and
central portions of the Gulf of California and is capable of living in
full seawater. However, we lack information about the distribution and
viability of populations of the clam outside of the Colorado delta
region. Despite the conservation measures in place (primarily portions
of the species' range occurring within two large protected areas), the
species continues to face habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado
delta region due to dams and diversions on the Colorado River, along
with other changes associated with decrease in river inflow and
pollution. Because this threat appears to be affecting the clam in
upper Gulf of California, and not in the remainder of its range, it is
moderate in magnitude. The threat of habitat loss and degradation in
the Colorado delta region is ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of
8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Fluminense Swallowtail
Fluminense swallowtail (Parides ascanius) is a black, white, and
red swallowtail butterfly. The species may be confused with the Harris'
mimic swallowtail, but the Harris' mimic has a red streak on the
underside of its wing. The fluminense swallowtail also inhabits the
restinga (sand forest) habitats of the coastal Atlantic Forest of
Brazil within the State of Rio de Janeiro. There are at least eight
confirmed subpopulations of fluminense swallowtail, and several other
small, likely ephemeral, subpopulations are currently being studied
(i.e., 8-12 estimated subpopulations). The overall number of
subpopulations reported for the species has declined from fewer than 20
colonies in 1994, to 8 to 12 in 2017. The butterfly is described as
seasonally common, with sightings of up to 50 individuals at one colony
in a single morning. A study at Biological Reserve of Po[ccedil]o das
Antas estimated that the subpopulation ranged from 10 to 50
individuals. The best available information does not provide estimates
for butterfly numbers in the remaining subpopulations. The best
available information indicates that there is a decline of
subpopulations as well as a decrease in the numbers of individuals
within each subpopulation. An estimate of the total area occupied by
this species is less than 500 square kilometers (193 square miles).
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the primary
threats to this species. The species occupies highly specialized
habitat and requires large areas to maintain a viable colony. Based on
a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as a result of human activities. Habitat
loss and destruction is caused primarily by road and building
construction, drainage of swamps, and vegetation suppression, and the
remaining tracts are severely fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or
human-caused, has the potential to destroy the few remaining occupied
habitats. This coastal butterfly may also be affected by habitat loss
from sea-level rise, which may be compounded by human use of the
remaining land for infrastructure and housing. The species' life
history also contributes to its scarcity. Fluminense swallowtails,
whose larvae feed only on a single plant species, tend to be more
affected by habitat degradation than
[[Page 43487]]
species with multiple food sources. Illegal collection of the
fluminense swallowtail is likely occurring and ongoing. The species is
located near urban areas and is easy to capture. Recently, multiple
specimens of fluminense swallowtail have been advertised online with
costs ranging from $220 to $700 USD. The impact of illegal collection
to the fluminense swallowtail is difficult to assess, but removal of
individuals from the remaining small and fragmented populations could,
in combination with other stressors, contribute to local extirpations.
Only one of the subpopulations is presently found within a large
protected area (Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve), and the
majority of the remaining populations are on smaller, fragmented
parcels with limited or no protections and are vulnerable to
extirpation. The fluminense swallowtail was the first invertebrate to
be officially noted on the list of Brazilian animals threatened with
extinction in 1973. The species is currently categorized by Brazil as
endangered. It has been classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List
since 1983, and it is not included in the Appendices to CITES. However,
the European Commission listed the species on Annex B of the European
Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require a
permit for import.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the fluminense swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the stressors to this species,
we have determined that no change to the LPN is warranted. The
fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The
overall number of subpopulations recorded for the species has declined
from previous records of fewer than 20 colonies to approximately 8 to
12, and the species continues to decline. Threats are high in magnitude
and imminent because of ongong habitat loss and fragmentation,
catastrophic events of wildfire, and illegal collection. Only one of
the known subpopulations is presently found within a large protected
area. The majority of the remaining subpopulations are on small,
fragmented parcels with limited or no protections and are vulnerable to
extirpation. Despite the conservation measures in place, the species
continues to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and destruction, and
illegal collection and trade). Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for
this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (Parides hahneli) is a large black
and yellow butterfly endemic to Brazil. It is known from three remote
locations along the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River
basin in the states of Amazonas and Par[aacute]. Its preferred habitat
is on old sand strips (stranded beaches) that are overgrown with dense
scrub vegetation or forest. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is described
as very scarce and extremely localized in association with its
specialized habitat and its larval host plant. Population size and
trends are not known for this species.
Loss of habitat from deforestation is the primary threat to the
species. Brazil reported the greatest loss of primary forest from 1990
to 2015, and the states of Par[aacute] and Amazonas experienced high
rates of deforestation in the last decade. Habitat loss and destruction
will likely continue in the future. Additionally, habitat alteration
and destruction for dam construction, agriculture, and cattle grazing,
as well as crop transportation, are ongoing in Par[aacute] and
Amazonas. Collection is also a potential threat for Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail. The species has been collected for commercial trade and
also may be reared for trade. Locations in the wild have been kept
secret given the high value of this butterfly to collectors. Multiple
specimens of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail were noted for sale or sold
from locations in the United States for $70 to $500 USD and from
Germany (approximately $166 USD).
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is classified as data deficient on
the IUCN Red List. The species is listed as endangered on the State of
Par[aacute]'s list of threatened species, but it is not listed by the
State of Amazonas or by Brazil. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not
included in the Appendices to CITES. It is listed on Annex B of the
European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B
require a permit for import.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, we have determined that no change in
the LPN is warranted. This swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude and imminent due to
its small endemic population and the limited and decreasing
availability of its highly specialized habitat. Habitat alteration and
destruction are ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas where the butterfly
is found and are likely to continue. Potential impacts from collection
are unknown but could, in combination with other stressors, contribute
to local extirpations. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this
species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Harris' Mimic Swallowtail
Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides lysithous harrisianus) is a
medium-sized black, white, and red swallowtail butterfly that inhabits
the mixed dense and open scrubby restinga (sand forest) habitats within
the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil. The Harris' mimic swallowtail
butterfly mimics three butterfly species in the Parides genus,
primarily the Flumenense swallowtail (Parides ascanius). The
butterflies it mimics sequester toxins from host plants, rendering them
toxic to most predators. The subspecies historically occurred in
southern Esp[iacute]rito Santo State and along the coast of the State
of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Records indicated that there are a total of
five sites occupied by the butterfly in the State of Rio de Janeiro.
Two areas are within protected national parks, and the other sites
appear to be under municipal conservation with uncertain protected
status, including sites in the City of Rio de Janeiro that are located
in small patches of vegetation and are possibly at risk of extirpation.
The best-studied site at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o has maintained
a stable and viable size for nearly two decades, but there is limited
information on its status since 2004. The best available data do not
indicate recent population numbers in any of the other colonies or
locations.
Habitat destruction has been the main threat and is ongoing. Based
on a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as the result of human activities. In
addition to the overall loss and degradation of its habitat, the
remaining tracts of its habitat are severely fragmented. Fire, either
wildfire or human-caused, is a stressor for Harris' mimic swallowtail
due to its potential to destroy the few remaining occupied habitats.
Sea-level rise may result in habitat loss, and this loss from sea-level
rise may be compounded by an increased demand by humans to use
remaining land for housing and infrastructure. Collection may also
affect this butterfly. Although Harris' mimic swallowtail is
categorized as endangered on the list of Brazilian fauna threatened
with extinction, and collection and trade of the subspecies is
prohibited, it has been offered for sale
[[Page 43488]]
on the internet. Specimens of Harris' mimic swallowtail are routinely
advertised online ranging from $1,000 to $2,200 U.S. dollars (USD),
indicating that illegal collection and trade may be occurring and
demand for this butterfly is high. Harris' mimic swallowtail is not
currently on the IUCN Red list, although it was identified as a
threatened or extinct subspecies in the family Papilionidae in the 1994
IUCN Red List. The subspecies is not included in the Appendices to
CITES. It is also not regulated on the annexes to European Union
Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, Harris' mimic swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the threats to this
subspecies, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted.
Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies that is not within a
monotypic genus. Threats are high in magnitude and imminent because the
butterfly only occurs in a few small, fragmented colonies, habitat loss
and degradation is ongoing, and the potential for catastrophic events
such as fire remains. Additionally, although the subspecies is
protected by Brazilian law and several of the colonies are located
within protected areas, the high price advertised online for specimens
indicates that there is demand for the subspecies, likely from illegal
collection. Despite the conservation measures in place, the species
continues to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and destruction, and
illegal collection and trade). Therefore, an LPN of 3 remains valid for
this subspecies to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail
Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium marcellinus, syn.
Eurytides marcellinus) is a small blue-green and black butterfly
endemic to Jamaica. This butterfly is regarded as Jamaica's most
endangered butterfly. The species occurs in three limestone forest
habitats containing dense stands of its only known larval host plant,
Oxandra lanceolata, known as black lancewood or West Indian lancewood,
and these stands are rare. There are five known sites that support
colonies of the Jamaican kite swallowtail, although there is no known
estimate of population size. Two of the sites may be recently
extirpated, one is thought to be tenuous, and two are viable with
strong numbers in some years.
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are considered the
primary factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail. Historical
habitat loss and destruction occurred when forests were cleared for
agriculture and timber extraction. Only 8 percent of the total land
area of Jamaica is natural forest with minimal human disturbance. More
recent habitat destruction is occurring primarily from sapling cutting
for yam sticks, fish pots, or charcoal. Charcoal-making also carries
the risk of fire, which may destroy pupae in the leaf litter.
Additionally, mining for limestone that is used for roadbuilding and
bauxite production that is an important economic activity pose threats
to remaining forested tracts. The two strongest subpopulations occur in
protected areas, although habitat destruction within these areas
continues. Additionally, Jamaica's Forest Act of 1996 and Forest
Regulations Act of 2001 have increased the power of Jamaican
authorities to protect the species' habitat; the Jamaican kite
swallowtail is included in Jamaica's National Strategy and Action Plan
on Biological Diversity. This strategy established specific plans for
protecting sites that support two subpopulations of the swallowtail,
but, to date, they have not been initiated due to funding and capacity
constraints.
Illegal collection and trade of the species may be occurring. Three
specimens of the Jamaican kite swallowtail were noted for sale on the
internet as recently as 2017, for as much as $120 USD, and one specimen
sold in 2015 for $178 USD. Specimens of the Homerus swallowtail
(Papilio homerus, another rare Jamaican butterfly) have also been
illegally traded, indicating that there is a market for Jamaican
butterflies despite heavy fines under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection
Act. Predation from native predators, including spiders, the Jamaican
tody (Todus todus), and praying mantis (Mantis religiosa), may be
adversely affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, especially in the
smaller subpopulations. In years where large numbers of spiders were
observed, very few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae survived.
Additionally, this species may be at greater risk of extinction due to
natural events such as hurricanes, and small fragmented subpopulations
are generally at greater risk of extinction from habitat loss,
predation, and stochastic environmental events.
Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been categorized on
IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but the assessment is marked as needs
updating. This species is not included in the Appendices to CITES or
the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations, although some level of
illegal trade is likely occurring.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors affecting the
Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have determined that no change in LPN is
warranted because the threats are high in magnitude and imminent. The
Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The
Jamaican kite swallowtail is known from only five small subpopulations,
and as few as two of these subpopulations may presently be viable.
Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve native
swallowtail habitat, plans for conservation of vital areas for the
butterfly have not been implemented. Thus, an LPN of 2 remains valid
for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind Swallowtail
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis) is a green,
black, and orange swallowtail butterfly that is large, ornate, and
native to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar,
Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam. The species occurs in the foothills of
the Himalayan Mountains and other mountainous regions at altitudes of
1,500-3,050 m (4,921-10,000 ft) above sea level, in undisturbed
(primary) broad-leaved evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests.
Although it has a relatively large range, it is restricted to higher
elevations and occurs only locally within this range, and populations
are described as being very local and never abundant. Even early
accounts of the species described it as being a very rare occurrence.
Larval host plants are limited to Magnolia and Daphne species, and in
some regions the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is strictly monophagous,
only using a single species of Magnolia as a host plant.
Habitat destruction negatively affects this species, which prefers
undisturbed, high-altitude forests. In China and India, the Kaiser-i-
Hind swallowtail populations are affected by habitat modification and
destruction due to commercial and illegal logging, as well as clearing
for agriculture in India. In Nepal, the species is affected by habitat
disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, wood collection for
use as fuel, deforestation, collection of fodders and fiber plants,
forest fires, invasion of bamboo species into the oak forests,
agriculture, and grazing animals. In Vietnam, the forest habitat is
reportedly declining. Comprehensive information on the rate of
degradation of Himalayan forests containing the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail is not available, but habitat loss is consistently reported
as one of the primary ongoing threats to the
[[Page 43489]]
species. Collection for commercial trade is also regarded as a threat
to the species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has
been collected and traded despite various prohibitions. Although it is
difficult to assess the potential impacts from collection, it is
possible that collection in combination with other stressors contribute
to local extirpations.
In China, the species is protected by the Law of the People's
Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife. In India, the Kaiser-
i-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife
Protection Act. In Thailand, all butterflies in the genus Teinopalpus,
including the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail, are listed under Thailand's
Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act. In Vietnam, the species is
listed as ``Vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book and is
reported to be the most valuable of all butterflies in Vietnam. In
2006, the species was listed on Vietnam's Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32
on management of endangered, precious, and rare forest plants and
animals. Since 1996, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been categorized
on the IUCN Red List as lower risk/near threatened, but IUCN indicates
that this assessment needs updating. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has
been included in CITES Appendix II since 1987. Additionally, the
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is listed on Annex B of the European Union
Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require an import
permit.
In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted because
threats to the species are moderate in magnitude and imminent. The
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats
from habitat destruction and illegal collection are moderate in
magnitude due to the species' wide distribution and to various
protections in place within each country. The threats are imminent due
to ongoing habitat destruction and high market value for specimens.
Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect
imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Current CNOR
We gather data on plants and animals foreign to the United States
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This document
identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for
addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies
of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This
compilation relies on information from status surveys and information
from foreign countries, other Federal agencies, knowledgeable
scientists, public and private natural resource interests, and comments
received in response to previous CNORs.
Table 4, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by common
names under the major group headings. Animals are grouped by class or
order. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in
parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an ``equals'' sign. We
incorporate standardized common names in these CNORs as they become
available.
Table 4 lists all candidate species, plus species currently
proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that in this document
we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we
will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in
the future. We encourage foreign countries where a candidate species
occurs, other Federal agencies, and other parties to consider these
species in environmental planning.
In Table 4, the ``Category'' column on the left side of the table
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category does
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the
proposed rule.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other
higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for
which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition
to list. Our analysis for this document included making new findings on
all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-but-precluded''
findings. We identify the species for which we made a continued
warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code
``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate
Species, above, for additional information).
The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21,
1983).
Following the scientific name (third column) and the family
designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The
sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the
historical range for the DPS), indicated by country. Many species no
longer occur in all of the areas indicated in the historical range
column.
Request for Information
We request additional status information that may be available for
any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider
this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate
species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and
future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional
species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future
updates of this CNOR.
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available.
We are particularly interested in information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of
candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate
status;
(3) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(4) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing
candidate species;
(5) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the
species;
(6) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
(7) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical
ranges.
We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR
in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to
undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency
listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate).
Submit information, materials, or comments regarding foreign
species to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above. We will maintain information we receive for each candidate
species mentioned in the submission, and information and comments we
receive will become part
[[Page 43490]]
of the administrative record for the species.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on August 4, 2021, for publication.
Authority
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Table 4--Candidate Notice of Review (Foreign Species)
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
-------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *........... 2 Scytalopus Rhinocryptidae... Tapaculo, Brasilia... Brazil.
novacapitalis.
C *........... 2 Pauxi koepckeae...... Cracidae......... Curassow, Sira....... Peru.
C *........... 2 Pauxi unicornis...... Cracidae......... Curassow, southern Bolivia.
helmeted.
C *........... 6 Strepera graculina Cracticidae...... Currawong, Lord Howe Lord Howe Island,
crissalis. Island pied. New South Wales.
C *........... 8 Haematopus Haematopodidae... Oystercatcher, Chatham Islands, New
chathamensis. Chatham. Zealand.
C *........... 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi Psittacidae...... Parakeet, orange- New Zealand.
fronted.
C *........... 2 Rallus semiplumbeus.. Rallidae......... Rail, Bogot[aacute].. Colombia.
C *........... 8 Porphyrio Rallidae......... Takah[emacr]......... New Zealand.
hochstetteri.
C *........... 8 Tangara peruviana.... Thraupidae....... Tanager, black-backed Brazil.
C *........... 2 Aulacorhynchus Ramphastidae..... Toucanet, yellow- Peru.
huallagae. browed.
C *........... 2 Zosterops Zosteropidae..... White-eye, Gizo...... Solomon Islands.
luteirostris.
C *........... 8 Dryocopus galeatus... Picidae.......... Woodpecker, helmeted. Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay.
C *........... 2 Dendrocopos noguchii. Picidae.......... Woodpecker, Okinawa.. Okinawa Island,
Japan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE............ ......... Acipenser dabryanus.. Acipenseridae.... Sturgeon, Yangtze.... China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *........... 8 Mulinia modesta...... Mactridae........ Clam, Colorado delta. Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *........... 2 Parides ascanius..... Papilionidae..... Swallowtail, Brazil.
fluminense.
C *........... 2 Parides hahneli...... Papilionidae..... Swallowtail, Hahnel's Brazil.
Amazonian.
C *........... 3 Mimoides (=Eurytides Papilionidae..... Swallowtail, Harris' Brazil.
or Graphium) mimic.
lysithous
harrisianus.
C *........... 2 Protographium Papilionidae..... Swallowtail, Jamaican Jamaica.
(=Eurytides or kite.
Graphium or
Neographium or
Protesilaus)
marcellinus.
C *........... 8 Teinopalpus Papilionidae..... Swallowtail, Kaiser-i- Bhutan, China,
imperialis. Hind. India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2021-16943 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 9, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.