[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81813-81822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27523]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2020-0103; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for the Monarch Butterfly
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus plexippus) as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. After a thorough review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing
the monarch butterfly as an endangered or threatened species is
warranted but precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We will develop a
proposed rule to list the monarch butterfly as our priorities allow.
However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information relevant
to the status of the species or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding in this document was made on December 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: A detailed description of the basis for this finding is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS-R3-ES-2020-0103.
Supporting information used to prepare this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by
contacting the person specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the person specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hosler, Regional Listing
Coordinator, Ecological Services, Great Lakes Region, telephone: 517-
351-6326, email: [email protected]. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to make a
finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month finding''). We must make
a finding that the petitioned action is (1) not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) warranted but precluded. ``Warranted but precluded''
means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for
which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that, when we find that a petitioned
action is warranted but precluded, we treat the petition as though it
is resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a
subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists (found in 50 CFR
part 17). The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and ``threatened species'' as any species
that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only
[[Page 81814]]
after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the monarch butterfly
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific
and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats to the species. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information. This evaluation may include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment form for the monarch butterfly contains more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, and an explanation of why we determined that this species
meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
This supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-R3-ES-2020-0103. The
following is an informational summary of the finding in this document.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 26, 2014, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Center for Food Safety (CFS), Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and Dr. Lincoln Brower,
requesting that we list the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus
plexippus) as a threatened species under the Act. On December 31, 2014,
we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information, indicating that listing the
monarch butterfly may be warranted (79 FR 78775). On March 10, 2016,
the CFS and CBD filed a complaint against the Service for not issuing a
finding on the petition within the statutory timeframe, and on July 5,
2016, we entered a stipulated settlement agreement with CFS and CBD to
submit the 12-month finding to the Federal Register by June 30, 2019.
On May 24, 2019, the court granted an extension of this deadline to
December 15, 2020.
Summary of Finding
The petition that the Service received in 2014 was for listing a
subspecies of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus)
(Center for Biological Diversity et al., 2014, p. 4). The petition also
requested a determination of whether any new North American subspecies
of Danaus plexippus should be listed. After careful examination of the
literature and consultation with experts, there is no clearly agreed
upon definition of potential subspecies of Danaus plexippus or where
the geographic borders between these subspecies might exist. Given
these findings, we examined the entire range of Danaus plexippus.
Monarch butterflies in eastern and western North America represent
the ancestral origin for the species worldwide. They exhibit long-
distance migration and overwinter as adults at forested locations in
Mexico and California. These overwintering sites provide protection
from the elements (for example, rain, wind, hail, and excessive
radiation) and moderate temperatures, as well as nectar and clean water
sources located nearby. Adult monarch butterflies feed on nectar from a
wide variety of flowers. Reproduction is dependent on the presence of
milkweed, the sole food source for larvae. Monarch butterflies are
found in 90 countries, islands, or island groups. Monarch butterflies
have become naturalized at most of these locations outside of North
America since 1840. The populations outside of eastern and western
North America (including southern Florida) do not exhibit long-distance
migratory behavior.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the monarch butterfly, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary threats
to the monarch's biological status include loss and degradation of
habitat from conversion of grasslands to agriculture, widespread use of
herbicides, logging/thinning at overwintering sites in Mexico,
senescence and incompatible management of overwintering sites in
California, urban development, and drought (Factor A); exposure to
insecticides (Factor E); and effects of climate change (Factor E).
Conservation efforts are addressing some of the threats from loss of
milkweed and nectar resources across eastern and western North America
and management at overwintering sites in California; however, these
efforts and the existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not
sufficient to protect the species from all of the threats. We found no
evidence that the monarch butterfly is currently impacted at the
population level by overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) or predation or disease
(Factor C), nor did we find information to suggest that the species
will be impacted by these factors in the future.
Based on the past annual censuses, the eastern and western North
American migratory populations have been generally declining over the
last 20 years. The monarch butterfly is also known from 29 populations
that are outside of the 2 migratory North American populations. At
least 1 monarch butterfly has been observed in 25 of these populations
since 2000, and these are considered extant. Monarch butterfly presence
within the remaining four populations has not been confirmed since
2000, but they are presumed extant. We know little about population
sizes or trends of most of the populations outside of the eastern and
western North American populations (except for Australia, which has an
estimate of just over 1 million monarch butterflies). We do not have
information related to the threats acting on the populations outside of
eastern and western North America; however, we
[[Page 81815]]
determined that 15 of the 29 populations, including the Australian
population, are classified as being ``at risk'' due to sea-level rise
or increasing temperatures, resulting from climate change.
The North American migratory populations are the largest relative
to the other rangewide populations, accounting for more than 90 percent
of the worldwide number of monarch butterflies. For the two North
American migratory populations, we estimated the probability of the
population abundance reaching the point at which extinction is
inevitable (pE) for each population. In its current condition, the
eastern North American population has a pE less than 10 percent over
the next 10 years. The western North American population has a much
higher risk of extinction due to current threats, with a pE of 60-68
percent over the next 10 years. Looking across the range of future
conditions that we can reasonably determine, the pE for the eastern
population is estimated to be 24 percent to 46 percent in 30 years, and
the pE for the western population is estimated to be 92 percent to 95
percent in 30 years. These pE estimates incorporate the primary factors
that influence the populations' resiliency, including availability of
milkweed and nectar resources (losses as well as gains from
conservation efforts), loss and degradation of overwintering habitat,
insecticides, and effects of climate change. Additionally, at the
current and projected population numbers, both the eastern and western
populations become more vulnerable to catastrophic events (for example,
extreme storms at the overwintering habitat). Also, under different
climate change scenarios, the number of days and the area in which
monarch butterflies will be exposed to unsuitably high temperatures
will increase markedly. The potential loss of the North American
migratory populations from these identified threats would substantially
reduce the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy.
To alleviate threats to the monarch butterfly, numerous
conservation efforts have been developed and/or implemented since the
species was petitioned in 2014, and these were considered in our
assessment of the status of the species. Protection, restoration,
enhancement and creation of habitat is a central aspect of recent
monarch butterfly conservation strategies. In the breeding and
migratory grounds, these habitat conservation strategies include the
enhancement and creation of milkweed and nectar sources. Improved
management at overwintering sites in California has been targeted to
improve the status of western North American monarch butterflies. Major
overarching landscape-level conservation plans and efforts include the
Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy developed by the Midwest
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (MAFWA) and the Western
Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan developed by the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). In early 2020, the
Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement for Monarch Butterfly on
Energy and Transportation Lands (CCAA/CCA) was finalized and will
contribute to meeting the MAFWA Strategy and WAFWA Plan goals. Under
this agreement, energy and transportation entities will provide habitat
for the species along energy and transportation rights-of-way corridors
across the country, including a 100 foot extension of the right-of-way
onto private agricultural lands. Participants will carry out
conservation measures to reduce or remove threats to the species and
create and maintain habitat annually. In exchange for implementing
voluntary conservation efforts and meeting specific requirements and
criteria, those businesses and organizations enrolled in the CCAA will
receive assurance from the Service that they will not have to implement
additional conservation measures should the species be listed. The goal
of the CCAA, which participants may continue to join until a final
listing rule is published, is enrollment of up to 26 million acres of
land in the agreement, providing over 300 million additional stems of
milkweed.
Many conservation efforts implemented under Federal, Tribal, State,
or other programs, such as the Farm Service Agency's Conservation
Reserve Program, the Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program and Conservation Stewardship Program, and
the Service's Partners For Fish and Wildlife Program, are expected to
contribute to the overarching habitat and population goals of the MAFWA
Strategy and WAFWA Plan. Smaller conservation efforts implemented by
local governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private
businesses, and interested individuals will also play an important role
in reaching habitat and population goals established in the MAFWA
Strategy and WAFWA Plan. The Service developed the Monarch Conservation
Database (MCD) to capture information about monarch butterfly
conservation plans and efforts to inform the listing decision. As of
June 1, 2020, there are 48,812 complete monarch butterfly conservation
effort records in the MCD that have a status of completed, implemented,
or planned since 2014, and 113 monarch butterfly conservation plans.
Among the efforts included in the MCD are those provided by NRCS from
EQIP, their program designed to provide financial and technical
assistance to agricultural producers to address natural resource
concerns. Across the 10 states that NRCS targeted for monarch butterfly
conservation efforts through EQIP (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin), efforts on
16,952 acres have already been implemented and NCRS anticipates
conservation on an additional 31,322 acres through ongoing enrollment
(see https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/mcd.html). In addition to
conservation of the breeding and migratory habitats, land managers in
California are developing and implementing grove management strategies
within the western population's overwintering sites as well.
The monarch butterfly species assessment form and the Monarch
Species Status Assessment report (Service 2020) provide additional
details on the status of the monarch butterfly and the conservation
efforts listed here (see ADDRESSES, above).
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the monarch
butterfly under the Act is warranted. We will make a determination on
the status of the species as threatened or endangered when we complete
a proposed listing determination. When we complete a proposed listing
determination, we will examine whether the species may be endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range or whether the species may be
endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
However, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action
is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions and final
listing determinations. This work includes all the actions listed in
the National Listing Workplan discussed below under Preclusion and in
the tables below under Expeditious Progress, as well as other actions
at various stages of completion, such as 90-day findings for new
petitions.
[[Page 81816]]
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.
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.
For 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, listings, domestic critical
habitat determinations, and related activities. For 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. Our practice of proposing to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing species requires
additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work.
Since completing all of the work for outstanding listing and critical
habitat actions has for so long required more funding than has been
available within the spending cap, 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 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 or critical habitat
determinations 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--a single
petition even 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
[[Page 81817]]
multispecies 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 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 each 12-
month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is
critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the
status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform
key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation
efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status
of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited.
As a general rule, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a
higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with
a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions--for
example, we may schedule a lower priority finding earlier if batching
it with a higher priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may
also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an
action should be bumped up (or down) in scheduling. One limitation that
might result in divergence from priority order is when the current
highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our
scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with
their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution
of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance
workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress first
established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the
Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than
the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program.
Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our
listing process.
In 2016, we assigned the 12-month finding for monarch butterfly to
bin 4 due to the many conservation efforts underway to address threats
facing the species. We determined that these efforts were likely to
reduce threats from loss of breeding habitat for the eastern and
western North American populations and overwintering habitat for the
western North American population. However, due to the stipulated
settlement agreement, we are completing the 12-month finding for
monarch butterfly before other higher priority actions.
After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied
that methodology to develop a multiyear National Listing 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 May 2019, the Service released its updated
Workplan for addressing the Act's domestic listing and critical habitat
decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The updated Workplan identified
the Service's schedule for addressing all domestic species on the
candidate list and conducting 267 status reviews and accompanying 12-
month findings by FY 2023 for domestic 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 multispecies 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.
Overall, 161 species on the Workplan (64 percent) have a higher bin
number than the monarch butterfly. Current funding levels would not be
sufficient to complete all of those 12-month findings in FY 2020, and
listing appropriations for FY 2021 are not determined yet. The National
Listing Workplan is available online at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-workplan.html.
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 a listing priority number (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 listing priority number,
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.
Based on our listing priority system, we are assigning an LPN of 8
for the monarch butterfly. This priority number indicates the magnitude
of threats is moderate to low and those threats are imminent. The
priority number also reflects that we are evaluating monarch
butterflies at the species level. We will continue to monitor the
threats to the monarch butterfly and the species' status on an annual
basis, and should the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change,
we will revisit our assessment of the LPN.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2019
outlined work for domestic species over the period from 2019 to 2023.
Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher
priority listing actions that we completed through 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 National Listing Workplan includes
74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various
stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the
actions scheduled in the National Listing Workplan, the overall Listing
Program workload also includes the development and revision of listing
regulations that are required by new court orders or settlement
agreements, or to address the repercussions of any new court decisions,
as well as 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 are
actions included in the Workplan and actions required to address court
decisions. As described in
[[Page 81818]]
``Prioritizing Listing Actions,'' above, listing of the monarch
butterfly is a lower priority action than these types of work.
Therefore, these higher priority actions precluded immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action in FY 2020, and the
Service anticipates that they will continue to preclude work on listing
the monarch butterfly in FY 2021 and the near future.
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). Therefore, under the Act, expeditious
progress includes actions to reclassify species--that is, either remove
them from the list of threatened species and add them to the list of
endangered species, or remove them from the list of endangered species
and add them to the 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
cataloged 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 domestic 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 List, we explain our expeditious progress in removing
from the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the
Act.
First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species
that may warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30,
2020), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 14 species.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best
scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they
face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted.
In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 12-
month findings for 69 species. In addition, we funded and worked on the
development of 12-month findings for 34 species and proposed listing
determinations for 9 candidates. 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 final listing rules for 7 species, including final
critical habitat designations for 1 of those species and final
protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for 2 of the
species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional
20 species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations
for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's
section 4(d) for 14 species).
As required by the Act, we are also making 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) domestic species, as well as reclassifying
endangered species to threatened species status (downlisting). This
work is being completed under the Recovery program in light of the
resources available for recovery actions, which are funded through the
recovery line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program.
Because recovery actions are funded separately from listing actions,
they 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. During FY 2019 and FY
2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we finalized downlisting of 1 species,
finalized delisting rules for 7 species, proposed downlisting of 7
species, and proposed delisting of 11 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.
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
domestic listing actions; Table 2 includes domestic 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 domestic species.
[[Page 81819]]
Table 1--Completed Domestic Listing Actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020
[As of September 30]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Publication date Title Action(s) citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing--Threatened 83 FR 50574-50582.
Coastal Distinct Population with Section 4(d) Rule and
Segment of the Pacific 12-Month Petition Finding.
Marten.
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing--Threatened 83 FR 50560-50574.
Black-Capped Petrel With a with Section 4(d) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule. 12-Month Petition Finding.
10/9/2018................ 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Listing--Threatened 83 FR 50610-50630.
Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and
for Eastern Black Rail With 12-Month Petition Finding.
a Section 4(d) Rule.
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Status Proposed Listing--Threatened 83 FR 50582-50610.
With Section 4(d) Rule and with Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat Designation Critical Habitat and 12-
for Slenderclaw Crayfish. Month Finding.
10/11/2018............... Threatened Species Status Proposed Listing--Threatened 83 FR 51570-51609.
With Section 4(d) Rule and with Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat Designation Critical Habitat and 12-
for Atlantic Pigtoe. Month Finding.
11/21/2018............... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing--Endangered.... 83 FR 58747-58754.
the Candy Darter.
12/19/2018............... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition Findings... 83 FR 65127-65134.
Petitions to List 13 Species
as Endangered or Threatened
Species.
12/28/2018............... Threatened Species Status for Final Listing--Threatened.... 83 FR 67131-67140.
Trispot Darter.
4/4/2019................. 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition Findings... 84 FR 13237-13242.
Petitions to List Eight
Species as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
4/4/2019................. 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Listing--Endangered 84 FR 13223-13237.
Endangered Species Status and 12-Month Petition
for the Missouri Distinct Finding.
Population Segment of
Eastern Hellbender.
4/26/2019................ 90-Day Findings for Four 90-Day Petition Findings..... 84 FR 17768-17771.
Species (3 domestic species
and 1 foreign species) *.
5/22/2019................ Threatened Species Status Proposed Listings--Threatened 84 FR 23644-23691.
with Section 4(d) Rule for Status with Section 4(d)
Neuse River Waterdog and Rule with Critical Habitat;
Endangered Species Status Endangered Status with
for Carolina Madtom and Critical Habitat and 12-
Proposed Designations of Month Petition Findings.
Critical Habitat.
8/13/2019................ Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing--Endangered 84 FR 40006-40019.
Franklin's Bumble Bee. and 12-Month Petition
Finding.
8/15/2019................ 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition Findings... 84 FR 41694-41699.
Petitions to List Eight
Species as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/15/2019................ 90-Day Findings for Three 90-Day Petition Findings..... 84 FR 41691-41694.
Species.
9/6/2019................. 90-Day Findings for Three 90-Day Petition Findings..... 84 FR 46927-46931.
Species.
10/07/2019............... Twelve Species Not Warranted 12-Month Petition Findings... 84 FR 53336-53343.
for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
10/21/2019............... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing--Endangered.... 84 FR 56131-56136.
Barrens Topminnow.
11/08/2019............... 12-Month Finding for the 12-Month Petition Finding.... 84 FR 60371-60372.
California Spotted Owl.
11/21/2019............... Threatened Species Status for Final Listing--Threatened 84 FR 64210-64227.
Meltwater Lednian Stonefly with Section 4(d) Rule.
and Western Glacier Stonefly
With a Section 4(d) Rule.
12/06/2019............... Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listings--Endangered 84 FR 67060-67104.
Beardless Chinchweed With with Critical Habitat;
Designation of Critical Threatened with Section 4(d)
Habitat, and Threatened Rule and 12-Month Petition
Species Status for Bartram's Findings.
Stonecrop With Section 4(d)
Rule.
12/19/2019............... Five Species Not Warranted 12-Month Petition Findings... 84 FR 69707-69712.
for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
12/19/2019............... 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition Findings..... 84 FR 69713-69715.
Species.
01/08/2020............... Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing--Threatened 85 FR 1018-1050.
the Hermes Copper Butterfly with Section 4(d) Rule and
With 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
01/08/2020............... Endangered Status for the Proposed Listing--Endangered. 85 FR 862-872.
Sierra Nevada Distinct
Population Segment of the
Sierra Nevada Red Fox.
05/05/2020............... Endangered Status for the Final Listing--Endangered 85 FR 26786-26820.
Island Marble Butterfly and with Critical Habitat.
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
05/15/2020............... Endangered Species Status for Final Listing--Endangered.... 85 FR 29532-29589.
Southern Sierra Nevada
Distinct Population Segment
of Fisher.
7/16/2020................ 90-Day Finding for the Dunes 90-Day Petition Finding...... 85 FR 43203-43204.
Sagebrush Lizard.
7/22/2020................ 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition Findings..... 85 FR 44265-44267.
Species.
7/23/2020................ Four Species Not Warranted 12-Month Petition Findings... 85 FR 44478-44483.
for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/26/2020................ Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing--Endangered 85 FR 52516-52540.
Marron Bacora and with Critical Habitat and 12-
Designation of Critical Month Petition Finding.
Habitat.
9/1/2020................. Two Species Not Warranted for 12-Month Petition Findings... 85 FR 54339-54342.
Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
[[Page 81820]]
9/16/2020................ Findings on a Petition To 12-Month Petition Finding.... 85 FR 57816-57818.
Delist the Distinct
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 Status for Proposed Listing--Threatened 85 FR 58224-58250.
Chapin Mesa milkvetch and With Section 4(d) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat.
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
9/17/2020................ Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listings--Threatened 85 FR 58192-58222.
Big Creek crayfish and St. With Section 4(d) Rule and
Francis River Crayfish and Critical Habitat.
With Section 4(d) Rule with
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
9/29/2020................ Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listings--Threatened 85 FR 61384-61458.
longsolid and round With Section 4(d) Rule and
hickorynut mussel and Critical Habitat; 12-Month
Section 4(d) Rule With Petition Findings.
Designation of Critical
Habitat, Not Warranted 12-
Month Finding for purple
Lilliput.
9/29/2020................ Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing--Threatened 85 FR 61460-61498.
Wright's Marsh Thistle and With Section (4) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule With Critical Habitat.
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 90-Day finding batches may include findings regarding both domestic and foreign species. The total number of
90-day findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to domestic species only.
** Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of
12-month findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to listing petitions only.
Table 2--Domestic Listing Actions Funded and Initiated in Previous FYs
and in FY 2020 That Are Not Yet Complete as of September 30, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
northern spotted owl................... 12-month finding.
false spike............................ 12-month finding.
Guadalupe fatmucket.................... 12-month finding.
Guadalupe orb.......................... 12-month finding.
Texas fatmucket........................ Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Texas fawnsfoot........................ Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Texas pimpleback....................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
South Llano Springs moss............... 12-month finding.
peppered chub.......................... 12-month finding.
whitebark pine......................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Key ringneck snake..................... 12-month finding.
Rimrock crowned snake.................. 12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla cryptica............ 12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla purpura............. 12-month finding.
Hamlin Valley pyrg..................... 12-month finding.
longitudinal gland pyrg................ 12-month finding.
sub-globose snake pyrg................. 12-month finding.
Louisiana pigtoe....................... 12-month finding.
Texas heelsplitter..................... 12-month finding.
triangle pigtoe........................ 12-month finding.
prostrate milkweed..................... 12-month finding.
alligator snapping turtle.............. 12-month finding.
Black Creek crayfish................... 12-month finding.
bracted twistflower.................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Canoe Creek clubshell.................. 12-month finding.
Clear Lake hitch....................... 12-month finding.
Doll's daisy........................... 12-month finding.
frecklebelly madtom.................... 12-month finding.
longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta 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
or not warranted finding.
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.
[[Page 81821]]
tufted puffin.......................... 12-month finding.
western spadefoot...................... 12-month finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Completed Domestic Recovery Actions (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) in FY 2019 and FY
2020
[As of September 30, 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Publication date Title Action(s) Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/18/2018........................ Removing Deseret Milkvetch Final Rule--Delisting..... 83 FR 52775-52786.
(Astragalus desereticus)
From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
02/26/2019........................ Removing the Borax Lake Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 6110-6126.
Chub From the List of
Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
03/15/2019........................ Removing the Gray Wolf Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 9648-9687.
(Canis lupus) From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
05/03/2019........................ Reclassifying the American Proposed Rule--Downlisting 84 FR 19013-19029.
Burying 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--Delisting.. 84 FR 44832-44841.
stoloniferum (Running
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--Delisting.. 84 FR 53380-53397.
aquatilis (Water
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.
10/24/2019........................ Removal of the Interior Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 56977-56991.
Least Tern From the
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--Delisting.. 84 FR 65067-65080.
Lomatium (Lomatium
bradshawii) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
11/26/2019........................ Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting 84 FR 65080-65098.
Endangered June Sucker to
Threatened With a Section
4(d) Rule.
11/26/2019........................ Removal of the Nashville Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 65098-65112.
Crayfish From the Federal
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
12/19/2019........................ Reclassifying the Hawaiian Final Rule--Downlisting... 84 FR 69918-69947.
Goose From Endangered to
Threatened With a Section
4(d) Rule.
01/02/2020........................ Removing the Hawaiian Hawk Final Rule--Delisting..... 85 FR 164-189.
From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
01/06/2020........................ Removing the Kanab Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 85 FR 487-492.
Ambersnail From the List
of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
01/22/2020........................ Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting 85 FR 3586-3601
Humpback Chub From
Endangered to Threatened
With a Section 4(d) Rule.
03/10/2020........................ Removing Lepanthes Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 85 FR 13844-13856.
eltoroensis From the
Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
[[Page 81822]]
4/27/2020......................... Removing Arenaria......... Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 85 FR 23302-23315.
cumberlandensis
(Cumberland Sandwort)
From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
06/01/2020........................ Removing San Benito Proposed Rule--Delisting.. 85 FR 33060-33078.
Evening-Primrose
(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.
07/24/2020........................ Reclassification of Morro Proposed Rule--Downlisting 85 FR 44821-44835.
Shoulderband Snail
(Helminthoglypta
walkeriana) From
Endangered to Threatened
With a 4(d) Rule.
08/19/2020........................ Reclassification of Proposed Rule--Downlisting 85 FR 50991-51006.
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat
From Endangered to
Threatened With a Section
4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020......................... Reclassification of Layia Proposed Rule--Downlisting 85 FR 61684-61700.
carnosa (Beach Layia)
From Endangered To
Threatened Species Status
With Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020......................... Reclassifying the Virgin Proposed Rule--Downlisting 85 FR 61700-61717.
Islands Tree Boa 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 Candidate
Notice of Review. The number of candidate species remaining in FY 2020
is the lowest it has been since 1975. For these species, we are working
on developing a species status assessment, preparing proposed listing
determinations, or preparing not-warranted 12-month findings.
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.
The monarch butterfly will be added to the candidate list, and we
will continue to evaluate this species as new information becomes
available. Continuing review will determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in
the monarch butterfly species assessment form and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We intend that any proposed listing rule for the monarch butterfly
will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this finding. We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status
of, threats to, or conservation actions for the monarch butterfly to
the person specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information will help us monitor this species
and make appropriate decisions about its conservation and status. We
encourage all stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and
conservation efforts.
References Cited
The list of the references cited in the petition finding is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS-R3-ES-2020-0103 and upon request from the person specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-27523 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P