Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26152-26178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09376]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0156; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR223]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species
That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual
Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description
of Progress on Listing Actions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this candidate notification of review (CNOR), we, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant
and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed
for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This
document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and
describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1,
2020, through September 30, 2021. Combined with other decisions for
individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the
past year, the current number of species that are candidates for
listing is 27 (as of September 30, 2021). Identification of candidate
species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance
notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners, resource
managers, States, Tribes, range countries, and other stakeholders to
take actions to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need
to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently
list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result
in more options for species management and recovery by prompting
earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the
species.

DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this
document at any time.

ADDRESSES: This document is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.
Species assessment forms with information and references on a
particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing
priority assignment are available for review on our website (https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report). Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a
general nature on this document to the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the
address of the Regional Director or Branch Chief in the appropriate
office listed under Request for Information in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2673). Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
as amended, requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants
that are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific
and commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the Act, an
endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened
species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species
that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec.
17.11 (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at
50 CFR 17.12. As part of this process, we maintain a list of species
that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one
for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as
endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of
a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. We may
identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted
an evaluation of its status--either on our own initiative, or in
response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a
petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted,
but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the
species to our list of candidates.
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1)
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make
listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to
help us identify those candidate species that may not require
protection under the Act, as well as additional species that may
require the Act's protections; and (5) to request necessary information
for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage
collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer
technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For
additional information regarding such

[[Page 26153]]

assistance, please contact the appropriate Office listed under Request
for Information, below, or visit our website at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/index.html.

Previous CNORs

We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent CNOR
addressing species domestic to the United States was published on
November 16, 2020 (85 FR 73164). The most recent CNOR addressing
foreign species was published on August 9, 2021 (86 FR 43470). CNORs
published since 1994 are available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs
published prior to 1994, please contact the Branch of Domestic Listing
(see 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 distribution; (3) whether the threats affect
the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood
of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the
severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or
are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines
in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be
permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts
reduce the severity of the threat(s).
As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for
listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct
population segments of vertebrate species (DPSs).
The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a
listing priority number 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:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a
particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species
assessment and listing priority assignment form for each candidate
contains the LPN chart and a more-detailed explanation--including
citations to, and more-detailed analyses of, the best scientific and
commercial data available--for our determination of the magnitude and
immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.

Summary of This CNOR

Since publication of the previous CNORs on November 16, 2020
(domestic), and August 9, 2021 (foreign), we reviewed the available
information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is
justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned
to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of
these species, particularly species with higher priorities (i.e.,
species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures
that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk.
After a thorough review of the available scientific and commercial
information, we are changing the listing priority number of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). In
addition, we find that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the
Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) and the Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus
brevispinus) no longer meet the definition of an endangered species
throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and are no
longer warranted for uplisting.
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the
last domestic and foreign CNORs, 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, 27 species are now candidates awaiting
preparation of a proposed listing rule or ``not-warranted'' finding.
Table 5 identifies these 27 candidate species, along with the 31

[[Page 26154]]

species proposed for listing as of September 30, 2021.
Table 6 lists the changes for species identified in the previous
CNORs and includes 13 species identified in the previous CNORs as
either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no
longer in those categories. This includes twelve species for which we
published a final listing rule and one species for which we published a
withdrawal of the proposed listing rule.

Petition Findings

The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of
section 4(a)(1). The second method provides a mechanism for the public
to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in
the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of
the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for
petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as
candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition
finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a
warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a
``resubmitted'' petition finding that the Act requires the Service to
make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the
statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which
listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need
emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial 12-month finding in some
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a
petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day
finding''). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly
commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we
must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of
the following three possible findings (a ``12-month finding''):
(1) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case we must
promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register;
(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we must
promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned
action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5)
and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether
or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b)
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the
Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of
the Act are no longer necessary. We refer to this third option as a
``warranted-but-precluded finding,'' and after making such a finding,
we must promptly publish it in the Federal Register.
We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we
receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as
a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate
species and in a CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e.,
substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in
response to the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish
these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the
petition.
Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding.
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that when we make a
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as
one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make
a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year
in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, until we publish a
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition
findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings,
although all previous findings are part of the administrative record
for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or
incorporate them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining
why the finding has changed. We have identified the candidate species
for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-
precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code ``C*'' in the
category column on the left side of Table 5, below.
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to implement a
system to monitor effectively the status of all species for which we
have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding and to make prompt
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) to prevent
a significant risk to the well-being of any such species. The CNOR
plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented
for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively
seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review
all new information on candidate species as it becomes available,
prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring
results and other new information, and identify any species for which
emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency
listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of
the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and
specificity of information that we must consider in making and
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a
nationwide basis. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon
our budget for listing activities for non-listed species only, and we
explain the priority system and why the work we

[[Page 26155]]

have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and
threats to, the 27 candidates for which we have received a petition to
list and the 4 listed species for which we have received a petition to
reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned
action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate
issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for
each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues
to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, for six
of these candidate species, we are currently engaged in a thorough
review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a
proposed listing rule; as a result of this review, we may conclude that
listing is no longer warranted. For the North Cascades grizzly bear
ecosystem population, we are engaged in a thorough review of all
available data to determine the appropriate status for this entity (see
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). For the
remaining candidates and two listed species--delta smelt, and northern
spotted owl, which are candidates for reclassification from threatened
to endangered--we are providing updated species assessment forms and a
summary of those assessments in this document (see Petitions to
Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). Additional information that
is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessment forms
and our decision file 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, 2020, through September 30,
2021. 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 a proposal
is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) the amount of
resources available for completing the listing-related function, (2)
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of
the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its
workload.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing-related actions are determined
through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and
for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from
depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and
final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of
species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical
habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
For more than two decades, the size and cost of the workload in
these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding
available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing
and critical habitat actions under the Act. As we cannot exceed the
spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work
on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide
basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to
complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after
completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide.
Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying
for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved
settlement agreements--set the framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2021, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(Pub. L. 116-260, December 27, 2020), Congress appropriated $20,767,000
for all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding
Congress will appropriate in future years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; requesting
peer and partner review on our analyses that support listing decisions
and incorporating those comments, as appropriate; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from
those

[[Page 26156]]

comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. Our practice of proposing to designate critical habitat
concurrently with listing domestic species requires additional
coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work.
Completing all of the outstanding listing and critical habitat actions
has for so long required more funding than is available within the
spending cap that the Service has developed several ways to prioritize
its workload actions and to identify the work it can complete with the
available funding for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1)
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical
habitat designations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential
litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management
functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat
actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing
actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines.
In previous years, the Service received many new petitions,
including multiple petitions to list numerous species--in one example,
a single petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis
that petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a
time through the petition process significantly increased the number of
actions within the third category of our workload--actions that have
absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In
addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program
funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and
complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016
added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we
are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent
effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in
petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-
species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was
compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those
petitions. The number of petitions awaiting status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of
this backlog. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds
of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90
days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at
the beginning of FY 2021 we had 408 12-month petition findings 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 matter, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a
higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with
a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions--for
example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching
it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may
also consider whether there are any special circumstances whereby an
action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. For example, one
limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when
the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such
that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully
occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic
distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us
to balance workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress
first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the
Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than
the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program.
Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our
listing process.
After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied
that methodology to develop a multi-year workplans for domestic and
foreign species for completing the outstanding status assessments and
accompanying 12-month findings, along with other outstanding work such
as designating critical habitat and acting on the status of candidate
species.

Domestic Species Workplan

The purpose of the National Listing Workplan (Workplan) is to
provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the
Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings for domestic
species while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new
information changes the priorities. In January 2021, 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 265 status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings by FY 2025 for domestic species that
have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. The
National Listing Workplan is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-workplan.html.

Foreign Species Workplan

Similar to the National Listing Workplan, the Foreign Species
Workplan provides the Service's multi-year schedule for addressing our
listing workload. The Foreign Species Workplan provides transparency
and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates
completing specific 12-month findings and candidate species while
allowing for flexibility to update the Foreign Species Workplan when
new information changes the priorities. In September 2021, the Service
released its most recent Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the
Act's foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The
Foreign Species Workplan identifies the Service's prioritization for
addressing all foreign species on the candidate list and 46 status
reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for petitioned species, and
identifies which actions we plan to complete by FY 2026. As we
implement our Foreign Species Workplan and work on 12-month findings
and proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we increase
efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and
these may include species with lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-priority
species. The Foreign Species Workplan is available online at: https://

[[Page 26157]]

www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html.
For the 12-month findings, consistent with our prioritization
methodology, within the five priority bins we determine the relative
timing of foreign species actions using sub-ranking considerations,
i.e., as tie-breakers for determining relative timing within each of
the five bins (see the August 9, 2021 CNOR (86 FR 43474-43476) for a
detailed description of tie-breakers). We consider the extent to which
the protections of the Act would be able to improve conditions for that
species and its habitat relative to the other species within the same
bin, and in doing so, we give weight to the following considerations,
in order from greater weight to lesser weight.

1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforcement capacity
2. Species in trade to or from the United States
3. Species in trade through U.S. ports (i.e., in-transit or
transshipment)
4. Within the United States, interstate trade
5. CITES status
6. IUCN Red List status
Prioritization of Domestic and Foreign Species
An additional way in which we determine relative priorities of
outstanding actions for species in the section 4 program is application
of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983;
see Previous CNORs above). Proposed rules for listing foreign species,
including foreign candidate species, are generally lower in priority
than domestic listings because we generally have more resources and
authorities to achieve higher conservation outcomes when listing
domestic species. The Service has a responsibility to conserve both
domestic and foreign species; however, our choice to dedicate the bulk
of our funding cap to domestic actions is a rational one given the
likelihood of obtaining better conservation outcomes for domestic
species versus foreign species under the Act. The Act makes no
distinction between foreign species and domestic species in listing
species as threatened or endangered. The protections of the Act
generally apply to both listed foreign species and domestic species,
and section 8 of the Act provides authorities for international
cooperation on foreign species. However, some significant differences
in the Service's authorities result in differences in our ability to
affect conservation for foreign and domestic species under the Act. The
major differences are that the Service has no regulatory jurisdiction
over take of a listed species in a foreign country, or of trade in
listed species outside the United States by persons not subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. 50 CFR 17.21. The Service also does
not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other
areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. 50 CFR
424.12(g).
Additionally, section 7 of the Act in part requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat, and to enter into
consultation with the Service if a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat. An ``action'' that is subject to the
consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as ``all activities or
programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in
part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.''
In view of this regulatory definition, foreign species are rarely
subject to section 7 consultation, apart from consultations for permits
issued under the Act. This differs from the considerable benefits
section 7 affords to domestic species whose life cycle occurs in whole
or in part in the United States, and for which we do designate critical
habitat, which are routinely subject to section 7 consultations and the
conservation benefits that result from those.
These differences in the Service's authorities for foreign and
domestic species under the Act, including relating to take, critical
habitat, and section 7 consultation, means that listing foreign species
is likely to have relatively less conservation effect than for domestic
species. The protections of the Act through listing are likely to have
their greatest conservation effect for foreign species that are in
trade to, from, through, or within the United States. The majority
(likely 15 out of the 19) of current foreign candidate species are not
known to be in trade. Therefore, we made a rational decision to
dedicate more resources to listing domestic species.
Additionally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species status to endangered species status (uplisting) are generally
lower in priority because, as listed species, they are already afforded
the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to
reclassify a species to endangered species status if we can combine
this with higher-priority work.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2021
outlined work for domestic species over the period from FY 2021 to FY
2025. The Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2021
outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2020 to FY
2026. Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the
higher-priority listing actions that we completed through FY 2021
(September 30, 2021), as well as those we have been working on in FY
2021 but have not yet completed. For FY 2021, our workload includes 49
12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various
stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the
actions scheduled in the National Listing Workplan and the Foreign
Species Workplan (``Workplans''), the overall Listing Program workload
also includes development and revision of regulations required by new
court orders or settlement agreements to address the repercussions of
any new court decisions, and proposed and final critical habitat
designations or revisions for species that have already been listed.
The Service's highest priorities for spending its funding in FY 2021
are actions included in the Workplans and actions required to address
court decisions.

Expeditious Progress

As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note
that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the ``Lists'' are grouped as
one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (see 50 CFR 17.11(h))
and one list of endangered and threatened plants (see 50 CFR 17.12(h)).
However, the ``Lists'' referred to in the Act mean one list of
endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened
species (wildlife and plants). For the purposes of evaluating our
expeditious progress, when we refer to the ``Lists,'' we mean this
latter grouping of one list of endangered species and one list of
threatened species.
As with our ``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether
expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources
available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed
earlier, the FY 2021 appropriations law appropriated

[[Page 26158]]

$20,767,000 for all domestic and foreign listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work
catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the Lists and to remove from the
Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer
necessary.
The work of the Service's domestic listing and foreign listing
programs in FY 2021 (as of September 30, 2021) includes all three of
the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying
species that may warrant listing (including 90-day petition findings);
(2) undertaking an evaluation of the best available scientific data
about those species and the threats they face to determine whether or
not listing is warranted (a status review and, for petitioned species,
an accompanying 12-month finding); and (3) adding qualified species to
the Lists (by publishing proposed and final listing rules). We explain
in more detail how we are making expeditious progress in all three of
the steps necessary for adding qualified species to the Lists
(identifying, evaluating, and adding species). Subsequent to discussing
our expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists, we
explain our expeditious progress in removing from 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 2021 (as of September 30, 2021), we
completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 19 domestic species. For
foreign species, we did not receive petitions to list species in FY
2021 and do not have any petitions pending for which a 90-day finding
has not been made (as of September 30, 2021).
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 2021 (as of September 30, 2021), we completed 12-month findings
for 68 domestic species and 23 foreign species. In addition, we funded
and initiated 12-month findings for 36 domestic species and 5 foreign
species and proposed listing determinations for 3 candidates. Although
we did not complete those actions during FY 2021 (as of September 30,
2021), 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 2021 (as of September 30, 2021), we
published final listing rules for 10 domestic species and 1 foreign
species, including final critical habitat designations for 4 of those
domestic species and final protective regulations under the Act's
section 4(d) for 4 of those domestic species. In addition, we published
proposed rules to list an additional 21 domestic species and 3 foreign
species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations
for 13 domestic species and concurrent protective regulations under the
Act's section 4(d) for 10 domestic species and 2 foreign species).
Fourth, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
(delisting) species, as well as reclassifying endangered species to
threatened species status (downlisting). Delisting and downlisting
actions are funded through the recovery line item in the budget of the
Endangered Species Program. Thus, delisting and downlisting actions do
not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery
actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing
new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards
our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states
that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to,
and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In FY 2021 (as of September 30, 2021),
we finalized downlisting rules for 2 domestic species with concurrent
final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d), finalized
delisting rules for 8 domestic species, proposed downlisting rules for
8 domestic species (including concurrent protective regulations under
the Act's section 4(d) for 7 domestic species), and proposed delisting
rules for 34 domestic species. The rate at which the Service has
completed delisting and downlisting actions in FY 2021 (as of September
30, 2021) is higher than any point in the history of the Act, which
underscores the expeditious progress we are making.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2021 (as of
September 30, 2021) as it pertains to our evaluation of preclusion and
expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published domestic
and foreign listing actions; Table 2 includes domestic and foreign
listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY
2021 that were not yet complete as of September 30, 2021; and Table 3
includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and
delisting actions for domestic and foreign species.

Table 1--Completed Domestic and Foreign Listing Actions (Proposed and Final Listing and Uplisting Rules) in FY
2021 as of September 30, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/8/2020................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 85 FR 63806-63831
Status for Coastal Threatened with
Distinct Population Section 4(d) Rule.
Segment of the Pacific
Marten With a Section
4(d) Rule.
10/8/2020................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 85 FR 63764-63803
Status for Eastern Threatened with
Black Rail With a Section 4(d) Rule.
Section 4(d) Rule.
10/13/2020.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 64908-64937
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule for Puerto Section 4(d) Rule and
Rican Harlequin Critical Habitat and
Butterfly and 12-Month Petition
Designation of Finding.
Critical Habitat.
11/3/2020................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 69540-69563
Status for the Canoe Endangered with
Creek Clubshell and Critical Habitat and
Designation of 12-Month Petition
Critical Habitat. Finding.
11/12/2020.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 71859-71873
Status With Section Threatened with a
4(d) Rule for Sickle Section 4(d) Rule and
Darter. 12-Month Petition
Finding.

[[Page 26159]]

11/16/2020.................. Review of Domestic CNOR and 12-Month 85 FR 73164-73179
Species That Are Petition Findings.
Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual
Notification of
Findings on
Resubmitted Petitions;
Annual Description of
Progress on Listing
Actions.
11/19/2020.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 74050-74088
Status With Section Threatened with a
4(d) Rule for the Section 4(d) Rule and
Upper Coosa River Critical Habitat and
Distinct Population 12-Month Petition
Segment of Finding.
Frecklebelly Madtom
and Designation of
Critical Habitat.
12/1/2020................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 77108-77138
Status for the Endangered with
Peppered Chub and Critical Habitat and
Designation of 12-Month Petition
Critical Habitat. Finding.
12/2/2020................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 77408-77424
Status for Pinus Threatened with a
albicaulis (Whitebark Section 4(d) Rule.
Pine) With Section
4(d) Rule.
12/3/2020................... Eleven Species Not 12-Month Petition 85 FR 78029-78038
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species *.
12/15/2020.................. 12-Month Finding for 12-Month Petition 85 FR 81144-81152
the Northern Spotted Finding.
Owl.
12/17/2020.................. 12-Month Finding for 12-Month Petition 85 FR 81813-81822
the Monarch Butterfly. Finding.
3/4/2021.................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 12563-12591
Status for Arizona Endangered with
Eryngo and Designation Critical Habitat.
of Critical Habitat.
3/9/2021.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 13465-13475
Status for the Endangered.
Missouri Distinct
Population Segment of
Eastern Hellbender.
3/24/2021................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 86 FR 15637-15639
Three Species. Findings.
4/7/2021.................... 12-Month Petition Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 18014-18034
Finding and Threatened Threatened with a
Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule for 12-Month Petition
Suwannee Alligator Finding.
Snapping Turtle.
4/13/2021................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 19186-19207
Status for Streaked Threatened with a
Horned Lark With Section 4(d) Rule.
Section 4(d) Rule.
4/26/2021................... Listing the Yangtze Final Listing-- 86 FR 21950-21961
Sturgeon as an Endangered.
Endangered Species.
5/5/2021.................... Three Salamander 12-Month Petition 86 FR 23869-23872
Species Not Warranted Findings.
for Listing as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
5/11/2021................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 86 FR 25833-25836
Three Species. Findings.
5/11/2021................... Two Species Not 12-Month Petition 86 FR 25806-25808
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species *.
6/1/2021.................... Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 29432-29482
Threatened Status With Endangered;
Section 4(d) Rule for Threatened with a
the Northern Distinct Section 4(d) Rule.
Population Segment and
Endangered Status for
the Southern Distinct
Population Segment.
6/4/2021.................... Finding on a Petition 12-Month Petition 86 FR 29975-29977
To List the Tiehm's Finding.
Buckwheat as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/9/2021.................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 30688-30751
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule for Neuse Section 4(d) Rule and
River Waterdog, Critical Habitat;
Endangered Species Endangered and
Status for Carolina Critical Habitat.
Madtom, and
Designations of
Critical Habitat.
6/15/2021................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 31668-31692
Status for Mount Threatened with a
Rainier White-Tailed Section 4(d) Rule.
Ptarmigan With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
6/15/2021................... Endangered Status for Final Listing-- 86 FR 31830-31868
the Beardless Endangered with
Chinchweed and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
6/17/2021................... 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition 86 FR 32241-32243
Species. Findings.
7/15/2021................... Designation of Critical Proposed Critical 86 FR 37410-37668
Habitat for Rufa Red Habitat.
Knot (Calidris canutus
rufa).
7/27/2021................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 86 FR 40186-40189
Three Species. Findings.
8/3/2021.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 41743-41758
Status for the Sierra Endangered.
Nevada Distinct
Population Segment of
the Sierra Nevada Red
Fox.
8/4/2021.................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 41917-41934
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule for Emperor Section 4(d) Rule.
Penguin.
8/9/2021.................... Review of Foreign CNOR and 12-Month 86 FR 43470-43490
Species That Are Petition Findings.
Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual
Description of
Progress on Listing
Actions.
8/24/2021................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 47221-47238
Status for Franklin's Endangered.
Bumble Bee.
8/25/2021................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 47457-47468
Status for Amur Endangered.
Sturgeon.

[[Page 26160]]

8/26/2021................... Endangered and Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 47916-48011
Threatened Wildlife Endangered with
and Plants; Endangered Critical Habitat;
Species Status With Threatened with
Critical Habitat for Section 4(d) Rule and
Guadalupe Fatmucket, Critical Habitat and
Texas Fatmucket, 12-Month Petition
Guadalupe Orb, Texas Findings.
Pimpleback, and False
Spike, and Threatened
Species Status With
Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat for
Texas Fawnsfoot.
8/31/2021................... Threatened Status With Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 48619-48649
Section 4(d) Rule for Threatened with
the Dolphin and Union Section 4(d) Rule and
Caribou and 12-Month 12-Month Petition
Finding for the Peary Findings.
Caribou.
8/31/2021................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 48545-48569
Status for Bartram's Threatened with
Stonecrop With a Section 4(d) Rule.
Section 4(d) Rule.
9/7/2021.................... 90-Day Finding on a 90-Day Petition 86 FR 49985-49989
Petition To Revise Finding.
Critical Habitat for
the Jaguar.
9/7/2021.................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 49989-50011
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule for Pyramid Section 4(d) Rule.
Pigtoe.
9/8/2021.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 86 FR 50264-50287
Status for Slenderclaw Endangered with
Crayfish and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
9/17/2021................... 90-Day Finding for Two 90-Day Petition 86 FR 51857-51859
Petitions To List the Findings.
Gray Wolf in the
Western United States.
9/27/2021................... 17 Species Not 12-Month Petition 86 FR 53255-53261
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species *.
9/28/2021................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 53583-53609
Status for the Endangered with
Pe[ntilde]asco Least Critical Habitat and
Chipmunk and 12-Month Petition
Designation of Finding.
Critical Habitat.
9/28/2021................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing-- 86 FR 53609-53627
South Llano Springs Endangered with
Moss and Designation Critical Habitat and
of Critical Habitat. 12-Month Petition
Finding.
9/29/2021................... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 86 FR 53937-53941
Five Species. Findings.
9/29/2021................... Two Species Not 12-Month Petition 86 FR 53933-53937
Warranted for Listing Findings.
as Endangered or
Threatened Species *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of
12-month findings reported in this assessment of preclusion and expeditious progress pertains to listing
petitions only.

Table 2--Domestic and Foreign Listing Actions (Proposed and Final Listings and Uplistings) Funded and Initiated
in Previous FYs and in FY 2021 That Are Not Yet Complete as of September 30, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Ouachita'' fanshell............ Proposed listing determination.
alligator snapping turtle *...... 12-month finding.
blanco blind salamander.......... 12-month finding.
bog buckmoth *................... Proposed listing determination.
bracted twistflower *............ Proposed listing determination or not-warranted finding.
bushy whitlow-wort............... 12-month finding.
cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl *... 12-month finding.
Chowanoke crayfish............... 12-month finding.
Cooper's cave amphipod........... 12-month finding.
Cumberland moccasinshell......... 12-month finding.
Egyptian tortoise *.............. 12-month finding.
Georgia bully (swamp buckhorn)... 12-month finding.
glowing indian-paintbrush........ 12-month finding.
Great Basin silverspot........... 12-month finding.
green floater.................... 12-month finding.
Key ring-necked snake............ 12-month finding.
Lassics lupine................... 12-month finding.
longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay- Proposed listing determination or not-warranted finding.
Delta DPS).
Louisiana pigtoe................. 12-month finding.
magnificent ramshorn............. Proposed listing determination or not-warranted finding.
minute cave amphipod............. 12-month finding.
Morrison's cave amphipod......... 12-month finding.
Navasota false foxglove.......... 12-month finding.
oblong rocksnail................. 12-month finding.
Ocmulgee skullcap................ 12-month finding.
Persian sturgeon................. 12-month finding.
prostrate milkweed............... 12-month finding.
rim rock crowned snake........... 12-month finding.
Rio Grande cooter................ 12-month finding.
Russian sturgeon................. 12-month finding.
Shasta salamander................ 12-month finding.

[[Page 26161]]

Siberian sturgeon................ 12-month finding.
ship sturgeon.................... 12-month finding.
southern elktoe.................. 12-month finding.
stellate sturgeon................ 12-month finding.
Tennessee clubshell.............. 12-month finding.
Tennessee pigtoe................. 12-month finding.
Texas heelsplitter............... 12-month finding.
Texas kangaroo rat............... 12-month finding.
Tharp's blue-star................ 12-month finding.
toothless blindcat............... 12-month finding.
western fanshell................. 12-month finding.
western spadefoot................ 12-month finding.
widemouth blindcat............... 12-month finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes species for which a 12-month finding or proposed listing determination has published subsequent to the
end of FY 2021 (after September 30, 2021).

Table 3--Completed Domestic and Foreign Recovery Actions (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) in FY 2021 as of September 30, 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/8/2020.................... Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 85 FR 63474-63499
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
From Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
10/15/2020................... Reclassification of the Final Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule............. 85 FR 65241-65261
American Burying Beetle
From Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
10/21/2020................... Reclassification of Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 85 FR 66906-66925
Eugenia woodburyana as
Threatened and Section
4(d) Rule.
11/3/2020.................... Removing the Gray Wolf Final Rule--Delisting and 90-Day Petition Finding.......... 85 FR 69778-69895
(Canis lupus) From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
1/4/2021..................... Reclassification of the Final Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule............. 86 FR 192-212
Endangered June Sucker
to Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
1/13/2021.................... Removal of the Interior Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 2564-2581
Least Tern From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
1/15/2021.................... Reclassifying Furbish's Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 3976-3986
Lousewort (Pedicularis
furbishiae) From
Endangered to
Threatened Status With
a Section 4(d) Rule.
3/8/2021..................... Removing Bradshaw's Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 13200-13215
Lomatium (Lomatium
bradshawii) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
3/25/2021.................... Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 15855-15876
Hawaiian Stilt From
Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
4/26/2021.................... Removal of the Dwarf- Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 21994-22005
Flowered Heartleaf From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
5/5/2021..................... Removing Five Species Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 23882-23913
From San Clemente
Island From the Federal
Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
6/16/2021.................... Removal of Lepanthes Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 31972-31986
eltoroensis From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
6/16/2021.................... Removing the Water Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 31955-31972
Howellia From the List
of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
6/23/2021.................... Reclassifying the Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 32859-32878
Fender's Blue Butterfly
From Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
6/24/2021.................... Reclassifying Smooth Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 33159-33176
Coneflower as
Threatened With Section
4(d) Rule.
6/24/2021.................... Removal of Chrysopsis Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 33177-33191
floridana (Florida
Golden Aster) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
6/24/2021.................... Removing the Kanab Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 33137-33142
Ambersnail From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
6/30/2021.................... Removing Golden Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 34695-34711
Paintbrush From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
7/7/2021..................... Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 35708-35728
Razorback Sucker From
Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
7/14/2021.................... Reclassification of the Proposed Rule--Downlisting with Section 4(d) Rule.......... 86 FR 37091-37113
Palo de Rosa From
Endangered to
Threatened With Section
4(d) Rule.
7/30/2021.................... Removing Adiantum Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 40996-41000
vivesii From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.

[[Page 26162]]

8/6/2021..................... Removing Trifolium Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 43102-43117
Stoloniferum (Running
Buffalo Clover) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
8/16/2021.................... Removing Arenaria Final Rule--Delisting...................................... 86 FR 45685-45698
cumberlandensis
(Cumberland Sandwort)
From the Federal List
of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
9/1/2021..................... Removing the Snail Proposed Rule--Delisting and 12-Month Petition Finding..... 86 FR 48953-48968
Darter From the List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
9/30/2021.................... Removal of 23 Extinct Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 54298-54338
Species From the Lists
of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
9/30/2021.................... Removing the Braken Bat Proposed Rule--Delisting................................... 86 FR 54145-54148
Cave Meshweaver From
the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we
have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the
requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to
workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related
actions together for publication. For example, in FY 2021, we published
a single proposed delisting rule for 23 species due to extinction (86
FR 54298). 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.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

For all 27 candidates, we continue to find that listing is
warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document.
However, we are working on thorough reviews of all available data
regarding 6 of these species and expect to publish either proposed
listing rules or 12-month not-warranted findings prior to making the
next annual CNOR. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or
not-warranted petition findings, we continue to monitor new information
about these species' status so that we can make prompt use of our
authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act in the case of an emergency
posing a significant risk to any of these species.
Below are updated summaries for the 21 petitioned candidates for
which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act and did
not change the LPN. We changed the LPN for one petitioned candidate
species for which we published findings under 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act; an
updated summary is included under Listing Priority Changes in
Candidates, below. 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

Black-Backed Tanager
The black-backed tanager is a vibrant and distinct color-patterned
bird endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest region of southeastern
Brazil. The extent of the historical range is not known; however, early
records for the species are available from the coastal states of Rio de
Janeiro, S[atilde]o Paulo, Paran[agrave], and Santa Catarina, Brazil.
The black-backed tanager is generally restricted in range and is
associated with sand forest ``restinga'' habitat, which is a coastal
component habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest complex of Brazil.
Restingas are herbaceous, shrubby coastal sand-dune habitats with
characteristic vegetation including shrublands and forests up to 15
meters (49 feet) tall. The species is described as a regional migrant
and is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally within
the coastal Atlantic Forest region of Brazil. At present, the range is
approximately 316,000 km\2\ (122,008 mi\2\) and decreasing. Small
portions of the species' range occur in six protected areas, but
enforcement of protection laws in these areas is not effective. As of
2000, the population size was estimated between 2,500 and 9,999 mature
adults and decreasing; no additional population estimates have been
conducted since 2000.
The primary factor affecting this species is the rapid and
widespread loss and fragmentation of habitat, mainly due to urban
expansion and beachfront development. Much of the species suitable
habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Paran[aacute] has been destroyed. As much
as 88 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been lost or severely
degraded as the result of human activities. Intact lowland forest,
restinga, and mangrove habitat used by resident black-backed tanagers
on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island (in the state of Santa
Catarina) is unprotected, making the species vulnerable to extirpation
on the island as development looms. Sea-level rise may alter the
regional vegetation and structure. Habitat loss from sea-level rise
could exacerbate the threat of habitat loss from ongoing coastal
development.
The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The species
is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil and protected by law. It is not
included in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), although it has
infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the black-backed tanager
was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information,
we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted. The
species may have some flexibility in its diet and habitat suitability,
given its fairly large range. Small portions of the species' range
occur in six protected areas, but these areas are not effectively
protected, and loss of the species habitat is widespread and ongoing.
Therefore, an LPN of 8 is valid for this species to reflect imminent
threats of moderate magnitude.

[[Page 26163]]

Bogot[aacute] Rail
The Bogot[aacute] rail (Rallus semiplumbeus) is a medium-sized,
nonmigratory bird that occurs in the eastern Andean mountain range of
Colombia at elevations from 2,500-4,000 meters (8,202-13,123 feet)
above sea level. The rail is found in savanna and p[aacute]ramo (high-
elevation habitats above tree line) marshes surrounding Bogot[aacute],
Colombia, on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau. The Bogot[aacute]
rail is secretive and difficult to observe. As of 2016, the population
was estimated between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals, and the estimated
extent of the resident/breeding habitat was 11,200 km\2\ (4,324 mi\2\)
and shrinking.
The primary threat to the rail is habitat loss and degradation of
wetlands. Suitable habitat for the Bogot[aacute] rail occurs around the
most populated area in Colombia with approximately 11 million people in
the greater Bogot[aacute] metropolitan area. Wetlands in the area only
cover approximately 3 percent of their historical extent. Although
portions of the Bogot[aacute] rail's range occur in protected areas
such as Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve, most
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected. Ongoing threats to
remaining major wetlands include encroachment of human infrastructure
and agriculture that causes loss of habitat and altered water levels,
soil erosion, eutrophication caused by untreated effluent and
agrochemicals, hunting, wildfire, and incidental spread of invasive
species.
The Bogot[aacute] rail is listed as endangered by IUCN. The species
is not known to be in international trade, and is not included in the
Appendices to CITES.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Bogot[aacute] rail
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this
species, we have determined that no change in the LPN for the species
is warranted. The species' range is very small, fragmented, and rapidly
contracting because of ongoing widespread habitat loss and degradation
of wetlands. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Bras[iacute]lia Tapaculo
The Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis) is a small,
gray, ground-dwelling bird with limited flight ability. It is endemic
to the Cerrado, the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened
tropical savanna in the world with a mosaic of habitats composed mostly
of savannas and patches of dry forests. Within the Cerrado, the
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is resident in its core habitat of dense,
narrow strips of swampy gallery forests that occur on the edges of
rivers and streams in narrow fringes, which are usually no wider than
200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) and occur at elevations of approximately
800-1,000 m (2,625-3,281 ft). The range of the Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo
is in six protected areas within the Cerrado. In the early 2000s, only
1.2 percent of the Cerrado was in protected areas; however, more recent
estimates are 6.5 percent. The Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is described as
rare, and the population size is unknown. However, the population is
assumed to be declining because of the continued decline of the
gallery-forest habitat.
The primary threat to Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo is ongoing habitat
loss and fragmentation. Land in the Cerrado is converted for intensive
grazing and mechanized agriculture, mostly for soybean production.
Agriculture causes direct effects to gallery forests from wetland
drainage and diversion of water for irrigation, as well as burning to
create space. The Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat has
been less affected by clearing for agriculture than the surrounding
Cerrado. However, it is unclear how much core gallery forest has been
destroyed because of habitat conversion. Additionally, effects from
climate change may also be negatively altering the Cerrado and reducing
the amount of specialized habitat for the species.
The IUCN lists the species as endangered, and the Brazilian Red
List assessed the species as endangered, because of the species' small,
fragmented range and the 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 our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), we assigned the
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available
information, we have determined that no change to an LPN is warranted.
The species only occurs in a handful of small, protected areas, and is
reported as rare. Habitat conversion is ongoing. Therefore, an LPN of 2
remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Chatham Oystercatcher
Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis) is the rarest
oystercatcher in the world. The population is approximately 300
individuals, and the bird breeds along the coastline of four islands in
the Chatham Island group: Chatham, Pitt, South East, and Mangere.
Chatham and Pitt Islands are inhabited by humans, while South East and
Mangere are uninhabited nature reserves. There was one report of
individuals on Star Keys, east of Pitt Island, but this observation was
unconfirmed. Isolated pairs may breed on other smaller islands in the
group.
Predation of eggs and chicks (and to a lesser extent, predation of
adults) is likely the main impediment to Chatham oystercatcher
population growth. Mangere and South East Islands are free of all
mammalian predators; nonnative mammalian predators inhabit Chatham and
Pitt Islands. Feral cats are the most common predator of oystercatcher
eggs. Nest destruction by farm animals (sheep and cattle) and humans
has been noted on beaches. Additionally, nonnative Marram grass
(Ammophila arenaria) has altered the sand dunes and leaves few open
nesting sites. Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to
nest closer to shore where nests are vulnerable to high tides and storm
surges. Up to 50 percent of eggs have been lost because of storms or
high tides. Projected rise in sea levels associated with climate change
will likely increase storm frequency and severity, putting at risk the
majority of shorelines that the Chatham oystercatcher relies on for
nesting habitat.
The species has experienced a three-fold increase in its population
since the first reliable census was conducted in 1987. Most of this
increase occurred during a period of intensive management, especially
predator control, from 1998 through 2004. The Chatham Island
Oystercatcher Recovery Plan guides conservation actions for the
species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) lists the
Chatham oystercatcher as nationally critical, and it is protected under
New Zealand's Wildlife Act. It is classified as endangered on the IUCN
Red List, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES
and not known to be in international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Chatham
oystercatcher was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the
available information, we have determined that no change in the LPN is
warranted. Although the population appears to have stabilized, it
remains very small (approximately 300 individuals), and occupied
breeding habitat is also small (fewer than 800 hectares (1,977 acres)).
Active management has been instrumental in maintaining stable
population levels, but the species continues to face threats to its
nests and habitat. Therefore, an LPN of 8 is valid for this species to

[[Page 26164]]

reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Gizo White-Eye
The Gizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris) is a passerine
(perching) bird described as ``warbler-like.'' It is endemic to the
small island of Ghizo in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific
Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. Population size of the Gizo white-eye
is approximately 250 and 999 mature individuals in an estimated area of
35 square kilometers (km \2\) (14 square miles (mi \2\)). Within this
area, the Gizo white-eye is found primarily in old-growth forest
patches that account for approximately 1 km \2\ (0.39 mi \2\) of Ghizo
Island. While the species has been observed in a variety of habitat
types, it is unknown whether sustainable populations can exist outside
of forested habitats.
Habitat loss is the primary threat to the species. The loss of old-
growth forested areas and less suitable secondary-growth forests is
because of logging, conversion to agricultural areas, and local
resource extraction for firewood. The dense human population and
prolific human growth of the Solomon Islands is contributing to the
loss of habitat on Ghizo Island, mainly in the form of temporary
housing. Additionally, natural events like a 2007 tsunami degraded
forested areas that were found less likely to support the species even
5 years later in 2012. Sea-level rise and an increase in storms could
result in coastal flooding and erosion, saltwater intrusion, and damage
to inland habitats.
The IUCN Red List classifies this species as endangered. It is not
included in the Appendices to CITES, and this species is not known to
be in international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Gizo white-eye was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we
find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The species has a small
population size and suitable habitat is declining. Therefore, an LPN of
2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Helmeted Woodpecker
We are updating the candidate list to reflect a change in the
scientific name for helmeted woodpecker (Celeus galeatus). The genus
has been reclassified to Celeus (BLI 2021, unpaginated; ITIS 2021,
unpaginated; Cornell Lab 2021, unpaginated).
The helmeted woodpecker is a small, nonmigratory woodpecker native
to regions of southern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern
Argentina. It is one of the rarest woodpeckers in the Americas.
Helmeted woodpeckers prefer mature (old-growth) trees in tropical and
subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous
coniferous forests in the southern Atlantic Forest up to elevations of
1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species occurs in subpopulations in suitable
habitat within its range, and the total population is estimated to be
between 700 and 21,000 mature individuals. However, a precautionary
best estimate is around 3,600 mature individuals.
The primary threat to the species is habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation, which includes loss of nesting cavities. The Atlantic
Forest biome has lost 88 to 95 percent of its tropical forests because
of human activities. Currently, less than 1 percent of the remaining
Atlantic Forest is primary forest preferred by the helmeted woodpecker.
The species occurs in 17 protected areas throughout its range, although
selective logging and other activities degrade the habitat. Rates of
deforestation in the helmeted woodpecker's range may decrease in
certain years, but habitat degradation continues and the population is
assumed to be declining.
The helmeted woodpecker is listed as endangered in Brazil and as
vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is not included in the Appendices
to CITES and not known to be in international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), we assigned the helmeted
woodpecker an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information,
we find that no change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The
species is rare, and although the species may have a wider
distribution, loss of primary Atlantic Forest habitat is ongoing.
Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Lord Howe Island Pied Currawong
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)
is a fairly large, crow-like bird that is endemic to Lord Howe Island,
New South Wales, Australia. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong occurs
throughout the island but is most numerous in mountainous regions,
breeds in rainforests and palm forests, and descends to foraging areas
in lowlands. The best current population estimate is approximately 200
individuals. 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 primary threats to the subspecies are the introduction of
nonnative rodents to this island ecosystem and the effects of climate
change. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong has persisted among
invasive black rats. However, because the currawong often preys on
small rodents, it may be subject to non-target poisoning during ongoing
rat-baiting programs. A study is underway focusing on how the species
has been affected by the poison-bait applications. The effects of
climate change may affect the cloud layer on the island's mountaintops,
resulting in drying of the forest where the subspecies gets about half
of its food, and creating a food shortage. The small, isolated
population of currawongs is at risk from loss of genetic diversity and
stochastic (random) environmental events. However, this population may
have always been small and may not have the capacity for additional
growth.
The Australian Government owns and manages all the land on Lord
Howe Island. Approximately 75 percent of the island, plus all outlying
islets and rocks within the Lord Howe Island group, is protected under
the Permanent Park Preserve. The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity
Management Plan is the formal recovery plan for threatened species and
communities of the Lord Howe Island Group. Following the removal of
poison-bait traps in 2020, monitoring is underway across the island to
see if it has become rat-free. The New South Wales Threatened Species
Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as
vulnerable, as does Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act List of Threatened Fauna. The subspecies is not listed
on the IUCN Red List, is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and
is not known to be in international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), 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 subspecies'
small population size faces risks from non-target poisoning from rodent
control. Significant conservation efforts have been implemented.
Therefore, based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains
valid to reflect non-imminent threats of high magnitude.

[[Page 26165]]

Okinawa Woodpecker
The 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. Okinawa woodpecker's main breeding areas occur in the forested
areas in the northern part of the island, and in well-forested coastal
areas of Yambaru, an area of approximately 300 km\2\, or 116 mi\2\.
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.
The primary threat to the Okinawa woodpecker is deforestation in
the Yambaru region. As of the mid 1990s, only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of
suitable habitat was available for the Okinawa woodpecker, with most of
it part of the Jungle Warfare Training Center that is relatively
undisturbed. 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).
The Japanese Government established Yambaru National Park in 2016.
In July 2021, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) added Amami-Oshima Island, Tokunoshima Island,
the northern part of the main Okinawa Island (which contains Yambaru
National Park), and Iriomote Island to the list of natural World
Heritage sites. The species is listed as critically endangered in the
Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and protected from acquisition
and transfer under Japan's wildlife-protection system. Okinawa
woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known
to be in international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Okinawa woodpecker
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information,
we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. 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.
Orange-Fronted Parakeet
The orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi) is the rarest
parakeet in New Zealand, and the three remaining naturally occurring
colonies are restricted to a small area on South Island. Beginning in
2005, captive-bred orange-fronted parakeets were translocated to four
predator-free islands and bred successfully. The population size of the
orange-fronted parakeet is approximately 350 individuals, with the
offshore population around 100 individuals and the mainland population
around 250 individuals. 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, almost doubling the population. We do not have information
on the current size of the population after the 2019 breeding season.
The primary threats affecting the species on the mainland are
predation by nonnative mammals, as well as habitat destruction because
of deforestation. Habitat loss and degradation has historically
affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. The orange-
fronted parakeet nests in beech forests (Nothofagus spp.), and removal
of mature trees with nest cavities has increased competition with other
native parakeets for nest sites.
The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) initiated a
captive-breeding program and established small, self-sustaining
populations on four predator-free islands. The species was uplisted
from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC in 2016;
it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act, and is listed as
critically endangered on the IUCN's Red List. The orange-fronted
parakeet is included in Appendix II to CITES.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the orange-fronted
parakeet was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to
the orange-fronted parakeet, we have determined that no change in LPN
for the species is warranted. The current population is small, and the
species' distribution is limited. Nonnative predators and loss of
suitable habitat continue to threaten the species. The NZDOC is
actively aiding the recovery of the species. Therefore, an LPN of 8
remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Sira Curassow
The Sira curassow (Pauxi keopckeae) is a large game bird that is
similar in size and coloration 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 that is flattened against the head. The Sira curassow is known
only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru, which is an isolated
mountain outcrop of the Peruvian Andes. The Sira curassow inhabits
cloud-forest habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs on high
mountains in the tropics) at elevations of at least 1,100-1,450 m
(3,609-4,757 ft). Most of the species' range is in El Sira Communal
Reserve and is limited and declining. The population is estimated at
fewer than 250 adults.
Primary threats to the species are hunting by local indigenous
communities and habitat loss and degradation because of subsistence
agriculture, forest clearing, road building, and associated rural
development. Although the Sira curassow is legally protected in a large
portion of its range within the El Sira Communal Reserve, illegal
hunting and deforestation continues.
The species is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red
List. Sira curassow is not known to be in international trade, and is
not included in the Appendices to CITES. The Sira curassow is also not
included in the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), 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. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude based on its very small estimated
population and limited range. The protected area where the species
occurs continues to face pressure from hunting and habitat loss, and
the very small population and its habitat will likely continue to
decline in the future. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.

[[Page 26166]]

Southern Helmeted Curassow
The southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis), also known as the
helmeted or horned curassow, is a game bird with a distinctive pale-
blue, horn-like appendage (called a ``casque'') above its bill. The
southern helmeted curassow only occurs in central Bolivia on the
eastern slope of the Andes, where it has been found in the neighboring
Ambor[oacute] and Carrasco National Parks. The southern helmeted
curassow strongly resembles the Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae) from
Peru, although their ranges are separated by more than 1,000 kilometers
(621 miles). Casque shape and size are a good distinguishing feature.
The southern helmeted curassow 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 estimated extent of the
resident/breeding area is 10,700 km\2\ (4,131 mi\2\) and declining.
Population size is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 mature
individuals, the equivalent of 1,500 to 7,500 individuals.
Primary threats to the species are hunting and habitat loss.
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 noted
internationally, and the species is not included in the Appendices to
CITES. The species is listed on Annex D of the European Union Wildlife
Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex D require the importer to
complete an import-notification form.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), 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.
The species faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its
small, limited range. The few protected areas where it exists continue
to face pressure from hunting and from habitat loss and destruction,
and the population will likely continue to decline. Therefore, an LPN
of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Takahe
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri) is the largest extant rail in the
world. The species is flightless, native to New Zealand's South Island,
and present on North Island and some offshore islands because of
reintroduction and conservation efforts. The takah[emacr] was once
widespread in the forest and grassland ecosystems of the South Island
of New Zealand. Since the mid-1990s, the species was present in a
relatively small area of the Murchison and Stuart Mountains, inhabiting
approximately 650 km\2\ (251 mi\2\). New Zealand classified 530 km\2\
(205 mi\2\) as a ``special area'' with restricted access. The
population of takah[emacr] remains very small; it is estimated to be 50
to 250 adults and decreasing.
Primary threats to the takah[emacr] include hunting, competition
from nonnative species, and predators such as weasels and the weka
(Gallirallus australis hectori), a flightless woodhen that is endemic
to New Zealand. Currently, weasel predation appears to be the most
significant of these threats. Weasel trapping is ongoing and is an
effective tool to increase takah[emacr]'s breeding success; however,
the threat of weasel predation continues.
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. The NZDOC is actively managing
populations through conservation efforts that include captive-rearing
and reintroductions, predator control, management of grassland
habitats, and research. Population numbers appear to be slowly
increasing due to intensive management of these populations
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the takah[emacr] was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the
takah[emacr], we have determined that no change in LPN for the species
is warranted. The takah[emacr] has a small population size and limited
range. The NZDOC is actively managing threats to aid in the recovery of
the species. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent
threats of moderate magnitude.
Yellow-Browed Toucanet
The yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae) is a rare
bird of the toucan family that occurs in the Andes Mountains of north-
central Peru. The species currently occupies three small locations in
humid montane forests on the eastern slope of the Andes in north-
central Peru at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft) above sea
level. 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
are the primary threat. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation
for agriculture have been widespread in the region. Population declines
resulting from habitat loss are assumed. Given the inherent threats to
small populations (e.g., loss of genetic diversity via genetic drift,
stochastic environmental events), continued habitat loss and
degradation will exacerbate the risk to the species.
Part of the species' range is within protected national parks, with
R[iacute]o Abiseo National Park a target for World Wide Fund for
Nature's top Andean conservation priorities. The yellow-browed toucanet
is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not
included in the Appendices to CITES and is not known to be in
international trade.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the yellow-browed
toucanet was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available
information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The
estimated population is small within a restricted range. The magnitude
of threats to the habitat remains high, and its population is likely
declining. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Fish

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) is one
of 14 subspecies of cutthroat trout found in the western United States.
Populations of this subspecies are in New Mexico and Colorado in
drainages of the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers. Although once
widely distributed in connected stream networks, Rio Grande cutthroat
trout populations now occupy approximately 11 percent of historical
habitat, and the populations are fragmented and isolated from one
another. The majority of populations occur in high-elevation streams.
We were petitioned to list Rio Grande cutthroat trout as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act in 1998. On May 14, 2008, we found
that listing the subspecies was warranted but

[[Page 26167]]

precluded by higher priority actions, and the entity was added to our
list of candidate species (73 FR 27900). After completing a species
status assessment (SSA), we published a 12-month petition finding,
which determined that the Rio Grande cutthroat trout was not warranted
for listing as endangered or threatened under the Act (79 FR 59140;
October 1, 2014).
On July 29, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and
Taylor McKinnon filed a complaint in the Colorado District Court
challenging the merits of our October 1, 2014, ``not warranted''
finding (79 FR 59140); see CBD, et al. v. Bernhardt, et al., No. 1:16-
cv-01932-MSK-STV (D. Colo.). On September 26, 2019, the court partially
vacated and remanded the October 1, 2014, 12-month finding; We have
added the Rio Grande cutthroat trout to our workplan for FY 2025.
Because the magnitude of threats is moderate to low and those threats
are imminent, we assigned an LPN of 9 to the Rio Grande cutthroat
trout.

Clams

Colorado Delta Clam
The Colorado Delta clam (Mulinia modesta) is a relatively large,
light-colored estuarine bivalve that was once very abundant at the head
of the Gulf of California in the Colorado River estuary. The species
inhabits shallow, muddy waters of the coast and requires adequate
substrate and water salinity to successfully breed and develop. The
Colorado Delta clam currently occurs in the upper, northern, and
central portions of the Gulf of California, and is capable of living in
salinities ranging from brackish (mixture of salt and fresh water) to
full seawater. The extent of the species is relatively large, although
densities are significantly lower than they were historically.
The historical population of the Colorado Delta clam in the upper
Gulf was estimated to be at least 5 billion individuals, accounting for
84-95 percent of all bivalve mollusks in the upper Gulf. However, after
decades of dam building on the Colorado River and its tributaries, the
Colorado Delta clam is estimated to be 6 percent as abundant in the
upper Gulf as it was before dam construction began. While the clam has
declined dramatically in the upper Gulf where it was historically most
abundant, we are not aware of total population estimates covering the
entire species' range.
The decline of the clam in the upper Gulf of California region is
likely a consequence of dam building. From the 1990s until 2017, 0
percent of the Colorado River's flow reached the Gulf. Since 2017, 2
percent of the river's flow has reached the Gulf of California.
Environmental changes to the estuary associated with reduced river flow
include increased salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of
naturally derived nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer
flood. Low flows are expected to continue and worsen as climate-change-
induced drought reduces river flow.
A binational agreement with Mexico requires the United States to
invest in water conservation, habitat restoration, and scientific
monitoring projects in the delta and release approximately 2 percent of
natural flow through 2026. Portions of the species' range occur within
two protected areas that are part of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve
Program and are owned and managed by the Mexican Government.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Colorado Delta clam
was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this
species, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is
warranted. The threat of habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado
delta region is ongoing. However, this threat appears to be affecting
the clam in the upper Gulf of California and not throughout the
remainder of its range. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect
imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Insects

Fluminense Swallowtail
The Fluminense swallowtail (Parides ascanius) butterfly is a black,
white, and red swallowtail. The species may be confused with the
Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous
harrisianus), but the Harris' mimic swallowtail has a red streak on the
underside of its wings. Fluminense swallowtail is endemic to sand
forests (or ``restingas'') of the Atlantic Forest in coastal Brazil.
The species currently occupies an estimated 116 km\2\ (45 mi\2\) in
sparse habitat fragments across the swampy coastal forests in the State
of Rio de Janeiro. Fluminense swallowtail occupies at least eight sites
between which there is movement of individuals. A study at Biological
Reserve of Po[ccedil]o das Antas estimated that the subpopulation
ranged from about 10 to 50 individuals. The best available information
does not provide estimates for butterfly numbers in the remaining
subpopulations.
Habitat loss caused by road and building construction is the main
threat affecting Fluminense swallowtail. Sea-level rise may result in
further habitat loss as humans continue to develop suitable habitat
further inland as they relocate to avoid coastal flooding. Eighty-eight
to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely
degraded because of human activities. Additionally, illegal collection
is likely occurring and ongoing. The species is located near urban
areas and is easy to capture. The impact of illegal collection is
difficult to assess, but removal of individuals from the remaining
populations with decreasing habitat could contribute to local
extirpations.
While several of the populations occur in protected areas
(including the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, Tr[ecirc]s
Picos State Park, and Guapia[ccedil]u Ecological Reserve), only one of
the subpopulations occurs within a highly protected area (Po[ccedil]o
das Antas Biological Reserve). The majority of the remaining
populations are on smaller, fragmented parcels with limited or no
protections. Between 2001 and 2006, biological corridors were planned
or created to connect existing protected areas to 13 privately
protected forests by restoring habitat to assist the habitat
connectivity for the species, but this effort has not yet been
evaluated. Management plans for the Restinga National Park of
Jurubatiba and Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve address
conservation of Fluminense swallowtail.
Fluminense swallowtail was the first invertebrate to officially be
noted on the list of Brazilian animals threatened with extinction in
1973. The species is categorized by Brazil as endangered, and has been
classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List since 1983. Fluminense
swallowtail 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 our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), 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
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. 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 to reflect imminent threats of
high magnitude.

[[Page 26168]]

Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (Parides hahneli) is a large black
and yellow butterfly endemic to Brazil. The species is known to occur
in six locations in central Brazil in the states of Amazonas and
Par[aacute]. However, the species is very rare, and there is little
recent data to confirm that the species still occurs in these areas.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail occurs in remote regions along the
tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in sandy
riparian areas with dense scrub vegetation or forest. The species
likely feeds on only one larval host plant species. Although the host
plant species has not been identified, it is suspected to be in the
genus Aristolochia. Population size and trends are not known for this
species.
Loss of habitat from deforestation is the primary threat to the
species. The States of Par[aacute] and Amazonas experienced high rates
of deforestation over the past 30 years, with deforestation continuing
within the range of the species. The butterfly has been collected for
commercial trade and may also be reared for trade. Locations in the
wild have deliberately been kept secret given the high value of this
butterfly to collectors.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail 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. The species is classified as data
deficient on the IUCN Red List, and is not included in the Appendices
to CITES. The species is listed on Annex B of the European Union
Wildlife Trade Regulations; therefore, a permit is required for import
of the species.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, we have determined that no change in
the LPN is warranted. The species has a small endemic population, and
its highly specialized habitat is limited and habitat alteration and
destruction are ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas and is likely to
continue. Potential impacts from collection are unknown but, in
combination with habitat loss, could contribute to local extirpations.
Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of
high magnitude.
Harris' Mimic Swallowtail
Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous
harrisianus) is a medium-sized black, white, and red swallowtail. This
butterfly is a mimic (looks like other species); lower portions of the
hindwing have large red spots that mimic the rose-red markings on the
Fluminense swallowtail, a toxic butterfly that most predators avoid.
Harris' mimic swallowtail occupies coastal habitats of the Atlantic
forest, specifically restinga habitats (sandy, coastal forest) with
lowland swamps and sandy flats above the tidal margins of the coast.
Harris' mimic swallowtail historically occurred in southern Espirito
Santo State and along the coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Records indicated that the butterfly occupied five sites in the State
of Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within protected areas, and the other
sites appear to be under municipal conservation with uncertain
protected status. 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 since 2004 limited information exists on its status. 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.
Eighty-eight 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. Remaining tracts of the
subspecies' habitat are severely fragmented, and coastal Atlantic
Forest ecoregions are at risk from proposed development, climate
change, wildfire, and sea-level rise. Additionally, specimens of
Harris' mimic swallowtail are routinely advertised online, ranging from
$1,000 to $2,200 (U.S. dollars), indicating that illegal collection and
trade may be occurring. The effect of illegal collection to Harris'
mimic swallowtail likely contributes to population decline and local
extirpations.
Harris' mimic swallowtail benefits from the Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve, which was established to protect the golden lion
tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia). The Reserve's purpose is solely for
protection, research, and environmental education and its management
plan has an objective to identify possible occurrences of the
butterfly. Harris' mimic swallowtail is categorized on the list of
Brazilian fauna threatened with extinction. The subspecies 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, and is not regulated on the annexes to European Union Wildlife
Trade Regulations.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), Harris' mimic
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 3. 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 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 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail
The Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium (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 Jamaican kite swallowtail is restricted to limestone
forests; breeding populations only occur in rare, dense stands of its
only known larval host plant, black lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata).
Five known sites have supported colonies of the Jamaican kite
swallowtail. Two of the sites may be extirpated, the status of one site
is uncertain, and two sites are viable with strong numbers in some
years. There is no known estimate of population size, and numbers of
mature adults are low in most years; however, occasionally there are
strong flight seasons in which adult densities are relatively higher.
The primary threat to the Jamaican kite swallowtail is habitat loss
and fragmentation. Forests were cleared for agriculture and timber
extraction, and more recently for sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish
pots, or charcoal. Additional threats include mining for limestone
(used for roadbuilding) and bauxite (for aluminum production, an
important economic activity), and human-caused fires from slash-and-
burn agriculture and charcoal-making. Only around 8 percent of the
total land area of Jamaica is natural forest with minimal human
disturbance. Collection and trade of the species occurred in the past.
Currently, this threat may be negligible because of heavy fines under
the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. Predation from native predators,
including spiders, the Jamaican tody (Todus todus), and praying mantis
(Mantis religiosa), may be adversely affecting the Jamaican kite
swallowtail, especially in the smaller

[[Page 26169]]

subpopulations. In years with large populations of spiders, very few
swallowtail larvae survive. Additionally, this species may be at
greater risk of extinction due to natural events such as hurricanes and
effects from climate change.
Since 2001, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been protected under
the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. The species is also included in
their National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. The
two strongest subpopulations occur in protected areas, although habitat
destruction within these areas continues. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite
swallowtail has been categorized on IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but
the assessment is marked as needs updating. This species is not
included in the Appendices to CITES or the European Union Wildlife
Trade Regulations.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Jamaican kite
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors
affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have determined that no
change in LPN is warranted. Only five small subpopulations of the
species are known, and as few as two of these subpopulations may
presently be viable. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to
preserve native swallowtail habitat, plans for conservation of vital
areas for the butterfly have not been implemented. Therefore, an LPN of
2 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind Swallowtail
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis) is a large,
ornate and colorful swallowtail butterfly that displays sexual
dimorphism (sexes differ in size and coloration). The species is native
to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, and Vietnam. Although the Kaiser-i-Hind butterfly has a large
range and was likely more widespread historically, it is currently
restricted to higher elevations above sea level (1,500 to 3,050 m
(4,921 to 10,000 ft)) in the mountain foothills and other mountainous
regions. The species prefers undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved-
evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests. Specific details on
locations or population status are not readily available, and despite
widespread distribution, populations are described as being local and
never abundant.
Habitat destruction negatively affects this species. 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 ongoing habitat loss is reported
consistently as one of the primary threats to the 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, the removal of individuals from
the wild in combination with other stressors could 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 species
is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. In
Thailand, all butterflies in the genus Teinopalpus, including the
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail, are listed under Thailand's Wild Animal
Reservation and Protection Act. In Vietnam, the species is listed as
``Vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book and is reported to be
the most valuable of all butterflies in Vietnam. In 2006, the species
was listed on Vietnam's Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 on management of
endangered, precious, and rare forest plants and animals. Since 1996,
the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on the IUCN Red List
as lower risk/near threatened, but IUCN indicates that this assessment
needs updating. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been included in
CITES Appendix II since 1987. Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail is listed on Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade
Regulations; species listed on Annex B require an import permit.
In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to
this species, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is
warranted. The species has a wide distribution, although populations
are local and never abundant. 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 to
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Monarch Butterfly
The petition that the Service received in 2014 was for listing a
subspecies of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus). After
careful examination of the literature and consultation with experts,
there is no clearly agreed-upon definition of potential subspecies of
Danaus plexippus or where the geographic borders between these
subspecies might exist. In our December 17, 2020, 12-month finding (85
FR 81813), we determined that the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
warranted listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act,
but that listing was precluded by higher priority listing actions.
Adults of the monarch butterfly are large and conspicuous, with
bright orange wings surrounded by a black border and covered with black
veins. Monarch butterflies in eastern and western North America
represent the ancestral origin for the species worldwide. They exhibit
long-distance migration and overwinter as adults at forested locations
in Mexico and California. These overwintering sites provide protection
from the elements and moderate temperatures, as well as nectar and
clean water sources located nearby. Adult monarch butterflies feed on
nectar from a wide variety of flowers. Reproduction is dependent on the
presence of milkweed, the sole food source for larvae. Monarch
butterflies are found in 90 countries, islands, or island groups.
Monarch butterflies have become naturalized at most of these locations
outside of North America since 1840. The populations outside of eastern
and western North America (including southern Florida) do not exhibit
long-distance migratory behavior.
The primary threats to the monarch's biological status include loss
and degradation of habitat from conversion of grasslands to
agriculture, widespread use of herbicides, logging/thinning at
overwintering sites in Mexico, senescence and incompatible management
of overwintering sites in California, urban development, drought,
exposure to insecticides, and effects of climate change. Conservation
efforts are addressing some of the threats from loss of milkweed and
nectar resources across eastern and western North America and

[[Page 26170]]

management at overwintering sites in California; however, these efforts
and the existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect
the species from all of the threats.
The North American migratory populations are the largest relative
to the other rangewide populations, accounting for more than 90 percent
of the worldwide number of monarch butterflies. Based on the past
annual censuses, the eastern and western North American migratory
populations have been generally declining over the last 20 years. The
western North American population has a much higher risk of extinction
due to current threats than the eastern North American population. At
the current and projected population numbers, both the eastern and
western populations 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 within their migration and breeding habitats will increase
markedly. We know little about population sizes or trends of most of
the populations outside of the eastern and western North American
populations (except for Australia, which has an estimate of just over 1
million monarch butterflies). However, the potential loss of the North
American migratory populations from these identified threats would
substantially reduce the species' resiliency, representation, and
redundancy. Because the magnitude of threats is moderate to low and
those threats are imminent, we assigned an LPN of 8 to the monarch
butterfly. This LPN also reflects that we are evaluating the monarch
butterfly at the species level.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the
LPN for the longfin smelt.

Longfin Smelt

Longfin smelt, Bay-Delta DPS--The following summary is based on our
information contained in our files and the April 2, 2012, 12-month
finding published in the Federal Register (77 FR 19756). In our 12-
month finding, we determined that the longfin smelt San Francisco Bay-
Delta distinct vertebrate population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) warranted
listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act, but that
listing was precluded by higher priority listing actions. Longfin smelt
measure 9 to 11 centimeters (3.5 to 4.3 inches) in length. Longfin
smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous, although anadromy in
longfin smelt is not fully understood and certain populations in other
parts of the species' range are not anadromous and complete their
entire life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt
usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some
individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before dying. In the San
Francisco Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn primarily in
freshwater in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin
River, in South Bay tributaries such as Alviso Creek and Coyote Creek,
and in North Bay tributaries such as the Napa River and Petaluma River.
Longfin smelt numbers in the San Francisco Bay-Delta have declined
significantly since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall
Midwater Trawl, Bay Study Midwater Trawl, and Bay Study Otter Trawl all
show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations from 2002
to 2020. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest
recorded in the 40-year history of the Fall Midwater Trawl and Bay
Study monitoring surveys of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game).
The primary threats to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt are
reduced freshwater flows, competition from introduced species, climate
change, and potential contaminants. Freshwater flows, especially
winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with longfin smelt
abundance (i.e., longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-spring
flows are lower). Reductions in food availability and disruptions of
the Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative
overbite clam (Corbula amurensis) and ammonium released into the system
have also likely attributed to declines in the species' abundance
within the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Even with recent upgrades to the
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant that could reduce
ammonium release (the Plant is the largest discharger of the
contaminant ammonium in the Delta), the primary threats remain high in
magnitude, as they pose a significant risk to the Bay-Delta DPS
throughout its range. Delta outflow is the predominant driver of the
Bay-Delta DPS's abundance, and the recent drought and the consecutive
dry years of 2020 and 2021 have reduced freshwater flow into the
estuary, which is identified as a primary threat. The establishment and
proliferation of the nonnative overbite clam is also an imminent threat
to the food web and the species' food source. As the species is at the
southernmost portion of its range and may already be experiencing water
temperatures beyond its physiological threshold, even modest increases
in temperature resulting from climate change is likely an imminent
threat.
In our 2020 CNOR (85 FR 73164), the longfin smelt was assigned an
LPN of 6. In 2019 we revised the LPN from 3 to 6 in part because the
imminence of threats was partially ameliorated by high winter-spring
flows in 2017 and 2019 (84 FR 54735). Since that time, however, it
appears that the observed population rebound from higher-than-average
flows was both not substantial, as well as temporary, and the
population is again near record lows. Recent water conditions are
extremely poor as California is experiencing a significant drought,
resulting in negative impacts to freshwater flows in the Estuary. It is
generally accepted that freshwater flows in the Estuary are a driver of
population resilience, therefore, the high magnitude threats discussed
above are ongoing and likely to continue into the future, and expected
to worsen with climate change. We therefore consider threats to be
imminent. The magnitude of threats is high for a number of reasons.
These threats include insufficient freshwater flow, the invasive
species overbite clam, and climate change. After reevaluating the
imminence and magnitude of extant threats to the San Francisco Bay-
Delta DPS of the longfin smelt, we have determined that a change to an
LPN of 3 is warranted.

Candidates in Review

The roundtail chub, magnificent ramshorn, gopher tortoise, and
longfin smelt are candidates for which we have initiated the analysis
regarding the threats to the species and status of the species, but the
proposed listing rule or not-warranted finding for these species was
not yet completed as of September 30, 2021. We have funded these
actions and intend to complete our classification decision in FY 2022
according to our National Listing Workplan. A proposed listing rule for
the bracted twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus) was published on
November 10, 2021 (86 FR 62668) and a 12-month not-warranted finding
for the Sonoran Desert (Gopherus morafkai) tortoise was published on
February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7077), subsequent to the end of FY 2021; we do
not discuss these species in this document; please refer to the
proposed listing rule for information on the status of and threats to
the bracted twistflower and the 12-month finding

[[Page 26171]]

for information on the status of and threats to the Sonoran Desert
tortoise.

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed

We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on petitions
seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered status for four
species. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are two
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina), and Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus). Because these
species are already listed under the Act, they are not candidates for
listing and are not included in Table 5.
This document and associated species assessment forms constitute
the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify the North
Cascades grizzly bear population, delta smelt, northern spotted owl,
and Pariette cactus. Our updated assessments for these species are
provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered status for
the North Cascades grizzly bear population, delta smelt, and northern
spotted owl are currently warranted but precluded by work identified
above (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above). One of
the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to
have higher priority is that these species are currently listed as
threatened, and therefore already receive certain protections under the
Act. For the grizzly bear, delta smelt, and northern spotted owl, those
protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by
reference, 50 CFR 17.21. It is therefore unlawful for any person, among
other prohibited acts, to take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in
such activity) a grizzly bear, delta smelt, or northern spotted owl,
subject to applicable exceptions.
Other protections that currently apply to these threatened species
include those under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whereby Federal
agencies must insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species.
This document and associated species assessment form also
constitute the finding for the resubmitted petition to reclassify the
Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear population. This document also constitutes
the finding for the resubmitted petition to reclassify the Pariette
cactus. For a thorough review of the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear
population's biology and life history, please see the species' USFWS 5-
Year Status Review (https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species_nonpublish/942.pdf). For a thorough review of the Pariette cactus' biology and
life history, please see the species' USFWS 5-Year Status Review
(https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species_nonpublish/3017.pdf). We find
that reclassification from threatened status to endangered status for
Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear population and Pariette cactus is not
warranted at this time.

Two Populations of Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), North Cascades ecosystem
population--Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five petitions
requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly bear
population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57
FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453,
June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions, we determined that
grizzly bears in the North Cascades ecosystem warrant a change to
endangered status. We have continued to find that these petitions are
warranted but precluded through our annual CNOR process. However, based
on a limited number of grizzly bear observations in this ecosystem in
the past few decades, the North Cascades ecosystem may no longer
contain a population. In addition, this ecosystem is isolated from
other grizzly bear populations in British Columbia and the United
States, meaning that it is unlikely grizzly bears will reoccupy the
ecosystem on their own. We are currently deliberating over whether to
designate grizzly bears in this ecosystem as an experimental population
to facilitate their reintroduction.
Until we complete those deliberations, we continue to find that
reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem as endangered is
warranted but precluded, and we continue to assign an LPN of 3 for the
uplisting of the North Cascades population based on high-magnitude
threats, including human-caused mortality due to incomplete habitat-
protection measures (motorized-access management), the limited number
of bears, and genetic and demographic isolation from other populations.
The threats are high in magnitude because the limiting factors for
grizzly bears in this recovery zone are human-caused mortality and the
limited number of individuals remaining. These threats are ongoing and
imminent. However, higher-priority listing actions, including court-
approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for
petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing
determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude
reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed
rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower
priority than listing currently unprotected species, as species
currently listed as threatened are already afforded protection under
the Act and its implementing regulations.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem
(CYE) population--Since 1992, we have received and reviewed six
petitions requesting a change in status for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly
bear population (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12,
1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998; 64 FR
26725, May 17, 1999; 81 FR 1368, January 12, 2016). In response to
these petitions, in 1993, we determined that grizzly bears in the CYE
warranted a change to endangered status (58 FR 8250; February 12,
1993). However, in the 2014 CNOR (79 FR 72450; December 5, 2014), we
determined that threatened status was appropriate and that uplisting to
endangered status was no longer warranted. In 2017, in Alliance for the
Wild Rockies v. Ryan Zinke, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (D. Mont. 2017), the
District Court of Montana remanded the determination back to the
Service for further consideration. Therefore, the CYE reverted back to
the status of ``warranted but precluded'' for uplisting to endangered;
this CNOR announces the result of our reevaluation of the CYE's status.
Since 2017, the Service completed an SSA of the grizzly bear in the
lower 48 States, including the CYE, which provides a comprehensive
biological status review. Scientific experts contributed to our
analysis, and the draft SSA was independently peer reviewed and
reviewed by partners, including those from State wildlife agencies,
Federal agencies, and Tribal wildlife agencies. Although the CYE is
still slowly recovering from being close to historical extirpation, it
has experienced over a decade of positive population trends and high
female survival. It has also significantly benefited from an
augmentation program. Although levels of connectivity are still low, in
recent years movement of male bears has been observed between the Yaak
and Cabinet portions of the CYE, and males have immigrated into the
Yaak portion of the CYE from British Columbia and subsequently bred.
Therefore, we find that reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem
as endangered is no longer

[[Page 26172]]

warranted. For an in depth review of the species' biology and an
analysis of its' current and future conditions, refer to the SSA
(Service 2021, entire).
However, the CYE grizzly bear population continues to face several
threats, including human-caused mortality and motorized access, and
continues to have low numbers of bears. In addition, our analysis of
future conditions in the SSA showed that within 30 to 45 years in the
future, the resiliency of the CYE could range from very low to high,
depending on levels of future conservation efforts. Given these future
projections, the grizzly bear in the CYE could experience increased
risk of extinction under one out of the five future scenarios. Although
all scenarios represent plausible future outcomes for the grizzly bear
in the CYE, there is enough future uncertainty associated with
conservation efforts such that we determined that the grizzly bear in
the CYE remains likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, grizzly
bears in the Cabinet Yaak will retain their current status as
threatened.

Delta Smelt

Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the April 7, 2010, 12-
month finding published in the Federal Register (75 FR 17667); see that
12-month finding for additional information on why reclassification to
endangered is warranted but precluded. In our 12-month finding, we
determined that a change in status of the delta smelt from threatened
to endangered was warranted, although precluded by other high-priority
listings. The primary rationale for reclassifying delta smelt from
threatened to endangered was the significant declines in species
abundance that have occurred since 2001, and the continuing and
unabated downward trend in all delta smelt cohorts after 2011 supports
that finding. Results from 2015-2020 from all four of the surveys
analyzed in this review have been the lowest ever recorded for the
delta smelt, frequently returning zero or incalculable abundance index
values. Delta smelt abundance, as indicated by the Fall Midwater Trawl
(FMWT) survey, was exceptionally low between 2004 and 2010, increased
during the wet year of 2011, and decreased again to very low levels at
present. The last three FMWT surveys (2018-2020) have returned
abundance indices of 0. The latest index of adult abundance, the 2021
Spring Kodiak Trawl (SKT) survey, resulted in an abundance index of 0.
Abundance estimates for this year's adult spawning stock based on the
SKT and the Enhanced Delta Smelt Monitoring surveys were the lowest
estimates on record with 0 and 267 fish, respectively.
The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainment by
State and Federal water-export facilities, reduction of suitable
habitat through summer and fall increases in salinity and water clarity
that result from decreases in freshwater flow into the estuary, and
effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the form of ammonium may
also be a significant threat to the survival of the delta smelt.
Additional potential threats are predation by striped bass, largemouth
bass, and inland silversides; contaminants; climate change; and small
population size. We have identified a number of existing regulatory
mechanisms that provide protective measures that affect the stressors
acting on the delta smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms
and other conservations efforts, the stressors continue to act on the
species such that it is warranted for uplisting under the Act.
As a result of our analysis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, we have retained the recommendation of uplisting the
delta smelt to an endangered species. We have assigned an LPN of 2,
based on the high magnitude and high imminence of threats faced by the
species. The magnitude of the threats is high because the threats occur
rangewide and result in mortality or significantly reduce the
reproductive capacity of the species. Threats are imminent because they
are ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), are
considered irreversible and worsening. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN
of 2 for this species.
We note that an LPN of 2 does not connote that uplisting the
species to endangered is a high priority for the Service. Because the
delta smelt's current classification as threatened and the blanket
section 4(d) rule that has prescribed protections for the species since
it was listed already provide the species the full protections afforded
by the Act, uplisting the species to endangered status will not
substantively increase protections for the delta smelt, but would more
accurately classify the species given its current status.

Pariette Cactus

Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus) is restricted to clay
badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of
northeastern Utah. The species is known from several subpopulations
that comprise a single metapopulation with an overall range of
approximately 20 miles by 14 miles in extent. The species' entire range
is within a developed and expanding oil and gas field. The location of
the species' habitat exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and
well-site construction in connection with oil and gas development. The
entire range is leased as rangeland for grazing of domestic livestock,
and also heavily used by feral horses. Trampling from domestic, wild,
and feral animals exposes the species to damage and death from
trampling. The species may be illegally collected as a specimen plant
for horticultural use. Recreational use of off-road vehicles poses an
additional threat through crushing of individuals and habitat
degradation. The species is currently federally listed as threatened
(44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). In
2007, the Service determined that Pariette cactus was ``warranted but
precluded'' for uplisting to endangered status, based on the current
and future impacts to the species from energy development (72 FR 53211;
September 18, 2007).
On August 11, 2020, the Service completed a 5-year status review
for Pariette cactus (Service 2020), which is available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc6501.pdf. The 5-year review
evaluated the best available information regarding the biology, status,
and threats affecting the species, and found that since 2007,
significant measures have been taken to reduce the impact of energy
development on the species. These efforts have included the
identification of core areas for protection with disturbance limits,
the adoption of standard conservation measures by the primary land
mangers (the Bureau of Land Management and Northern Ute Tribe) and
operators, and the development of an energy-specific species management
plan by the Northern Ute Tribe. For our full analysis of the status of
Pariette cactus, see our 5-year status review (Service 2020).
Based on this new information and updated analysis, the 5-year
review found that Pariette cactus is not in danger of extinction but is
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, and therefore
recommended that the species' status should remain as threatened.
Therefore, we find that Pariette cactus is no longer warranted for
uplisting to endangered status. The species remains listed as
threatened.

[[Page 26173]]

Northern Spotted Owl

On June 26, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR
26114) a final rule listing the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) as a threatened species. On August 21, 2012, we
received a petition dated August 15, 2012, from the Environmental
Protection Information Center requesting that the northern spotted owl
be listed as an endangered species pursuant to the Act. On April 10,
2015, we published a 90-day finding (80 FR 19259), in which we
announced that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that reclassification may be warranted for the northern
spotted owl and that our status review would also constitute our 5-year
status review for the species. On December 15, 2020, we published a 12-
month finding in the Federal Register (85 FR 81144) in which we stated
that reclassification of the northern spotted owl from threatened to
endangered was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions.
The northern spotted owl is the largest of three subspecies of
spotted owls, and inhabits structurally complex forests from
southwestern British Columbia through Washington, Oregon, and into
northern California. The historical range of the northern spotted owl
included most mature forests or stands throughout the Pacific
Northwest, from southwestern British Columbia to as far south as Marin
County, California. The current range of the northern spotted owl is
smaller than the historical range, as the northern spotted owl is
extirpated or very uncommon in certain areas such as southwestern
Washington and British Columbia.
Northern spotted owls rely on older forested habitats because such
forests contain the structures and characteristics required for
nesting, roosting, and foraging. The northern spotted owl is relatively
long-lived, has a long reproductive life span (6 to 9 years; Loschl
2008, p. 107), invests significantly in parental care, and exhibits
high adult survivorship relative to other North American owls (Forsman
et al. 1984, entire; Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1995, p. 5). Northern
spotted owl diets vary across owl territories, years, seasons,
geographical regions, and forest type (Forsman et al. 2001, pp. 146-
148; 2004, pp. 217-220). Home-range sizes of the northern spotted owl
vary geographically, generally increasing from south to north, which is
likely a response to differences in habitat quality including
structural complexity of forest conditions and availability of prey (55
FR 26114; June 26, 1990). Within the home range, there is typically a
smaller area of concentrated activity (approximately 20 percent of the
home range), often referred to as the core area (Bingham and Noon 1997,
pp. 133-135). Successful juvenile dispersal may depend on locating
unoccupied suitable habitat in close proximity to other occupied sites
(LaHaye et al. 2001, pp. 697-698). Habitat requirements for nesting and
roosting are nearly identical. However, nesting habitat is most often
associated with a high incidence of large trees with various
deformities or large snags suitable for nest placement. Foraging
habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial
northern spotted owls, and is closely tied to the prey base. Foraging
habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting/roosting
habitat, but foraging habitat may not always support successful nesting
pairs (USDI 1992, pp. 22-25). Dispersal habitat is essential to
maintaining stable populations by providing connectivity for owls
filling territorial vacancies when resident northern spotted owls die
or leave their territories, and by providing adequate gene flow across
the range of the subspecies.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the northern spotted owl, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the northern spotted owl's biological status include lag
effects of past habitat loss, continued timber harvest, wildfire, and
incursion of the nonnative barred owl, which is currently the stressor
with the largest negative impact on northern spotted owls. On non-
Federal lands, State regulatory mechanisms have not prevented the
continued decline of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat; the amount
of northern spotted owl habitat on these lands has decreased
considerably over the past two decades, including in geographic areas
where Federal lands are lacking. On Federal lands, the Northwest Forest
Plan has reduced habitat loss and allowed for the development of new
northern spotted owl habitat, and the 2016 revised Resource Management
Plans for the Bureau of Land Management's lands in western Oregon are
expected to do the same; however, the combined effects of climate
change, high-severity wildfire, and past management practices are
changing forest ecosystem processes and dynamics, and the expansion of
barred owl populations is altering the capacity of intact habitat to
support northern spotted owls.
Therefore, we find that reclassification of the northern spotted
owl as an endangered species under the Act is warranted and assign the
species an LPN of 3. A detailed discussion of the basis for this
finding can be found in our northern spotted owl SSA, as well as in our
12-month finding published on December 15, 2020 (85 FR 81144), in which
we found that reclassification of the northern spotted owl from
threatened to endangered was warranted but precluded by higher priority
actions.
Because the northern spotted owl's current classification as
threatened and the blanket section 4(d) rule that has prescribed
protections for the species since it was listed already provide the
species the full protections afforded by the Act, uplisting the species
to endangered status will not substantively increase protections for
the northern spotted owl, but would more accurately classify the
species given its current status.

Current Notice of Review

We gather data on plants and animals, both native and foreign to
the United States, that appear to merit consideration for addition to
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists).
This document identifies those species that we currently regard as
candidates for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species
and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate
animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys
conducted for candidate assessment and on information from Tribes,
State Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies,
foreign countries, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural
resource interests, and comments received in response to previous
CNORs.
Tables 5 and 6, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by
common names under the major group headings, and list plants
alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and
varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. We sort plants by scientific name due
to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and
composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a
standardized common name.

[[Page 26174]]

Table 5 lists all candidate species, plus species currently
proposed for listing under the Act (as of September 30, 2021). We
emphasize that in this document that we are not proposing to list any
of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed
listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage Tribes,
State agencies, other Federal agencies, foreign countries and other
parties to consider these species in environmental planning.
In Table 5, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes
(not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category, as
well as PT and PSAT (below), does not include species for which we have
withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAE--Species proposed for listing as endangered due to similarity
of appearance.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity
of appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other
higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for
which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition
to list. Our analysis for this document included making new findings on
all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-but-precluded''
findings. We identify the species for which we made a continued
warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code
``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate
Species, above, for additional information).
The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21,
1983).
Following the scientific name (third column) and the family
designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The
sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories or by country
for foreign species. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas
listed.
Species in Table 6 of this document are those species that we
included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous
CNORs (domestic published November 16, 2020 (85 FR 73164); foreign
published August 9, 2021 (86 FR 43470)) that are no longer proposed
species or candidates for listing (as of September 30, 2021). In FY
2021, we listed nine species, and we removed one species from the
candidate list by withdrawing a proposed rule. The first column
indicates the present status of each species, using the following codes
(not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
E--Species we listed as endangered.
T--Species we listed as threatened.
SAT--Species we listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance.
Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list, because currently
available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp--Species we removed from the candidate list, because we have
withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column indicates why the species is no longer a
candidate species or proposed for listing, using the following codes
(not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
A--Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously
believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats
sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons
other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the
threats to the species).
I--Species for which the best available information on biological
vulnerability and threats is insufficient to support a conclusion that
the species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
M--Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species
in the last notice of review.
N--Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's
definition of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
U--Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient
to warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not
candidates for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation
efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species.
X--Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing scientific name, family, common name, and
historical range include information as previously described for Table
5.

Request for Information

We request additional status information that may be available for
any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider
this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate
species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and
future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional
species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future
updates of this CNOR.
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available.
We are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of
candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate
status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical
habitat, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not
be prudent;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing
candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the
species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical
ranges.
We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR
in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to
undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency
listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate).
Submit information, materials, or comments regarding the species to
the person identified as having the lead responsibility for the species
in table 4 below.

[[Page 26175]]

Table 4--Contacts for Candidate Species and Species Proposed for Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact name Address and telephone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly varden trout, Mt. Rainier white- Robyn Thorson............................. Regional Director, U.S.
tailed ptarmigan, and northern spotted Fish and Wildlife
owl. Service, Eastside Federal
Complex, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR
97232-4181; telephone:
503-231-6158.
Arizona eryngo, false spike, Guadalupe Amy Lueders............................... Regional Director, U.S.
fatmucket, Guadalupe orb, lesser Fish and Wildlife
prairie-chicken (northern and southern Service, 500 Gold Avenue
DPSs), peppered chub, South Llano SW, Room 4012,
Springs moss, Texas fatmucket, Texas Albuquerque, NM 87102;
fawnsfoot, Texas pimpleback, Wright's telephone: 505-248-6920.
marsh thistle, roundtail chub, Rio
Grande cutthroat trout, bracted
twistflower, Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk, and Sonoran desert tortoise.
Big Creek crayfish, round hickorynut, Charlie Wooley............................ Regional Director, U.S.
St. Francis River crayfish, and monarch Fish and Wildlife
butterfly. Service, 5600 American
Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437-
1458; telephone: 612-713-
5334.
Atlantic pigtoe *, black-capped petrel, Leo Miranda-Castro........................ Regional Director, U.S.
Canoe Creek clubshell, frecklebelly Fish and Wildlife
madtom (Upper Coosa River DPS), Service, 1875 Century
longsolid, marron bacora, Panama City Boulevard, Suite 200,
crayfish *, pink pigtoe, Puerto Rico Atlanta, GA 30345;
harlequin butterfly, sickle darter, telephone: 404-679-4156.
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle,
gopher tortoise, and magnificent
ramshorn.
bog buck moth........................... Wendi Weber............................... Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service, 300 Westgate
Center Dr., Hadley, MA
01035; telephone: 413-253-
8200.
Chapin Mesa milkvetch, grizzly bear, Matt Hogan................................ Acting Regional Director,
Pariette cactus, and whitebark pine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, P.O. Box 25486,
Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486;
telephone: 303-236-7400.
Delta smelt, Hermes copper butterfly *, Paul Souza................................ Regional Director, U.S.
Tiehm's buckwheat, and longfin smelt. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2800 Cottage
Way, Suite W2606,
Sacramento, CA 95825;
telephone: 916-414-6464.
Amur sturgeon, Dolphin-Union caribou, Gary Frazer............................... Assistant Director,
emperor penguin, Egyptian tortoise, Ecological Services, U.S.
Sira curassow, southern helmeted Fish and Wildlife
curassow, Lord Howe Island pied Service, 5275 Leesburg
currawong, Chatham oystercatcher, Pike, MS: ES, Falls
orange-fronted parakeet, Bogota rail, Church, VA 22041;
Takah[emacr], black-backed tanager, telephone: 202-208-4646.
Bras[iacute]lia tapaculo, yellow-browed
toucanet, Gizo white-eye, helmeted
woodpecker, Okinawa woodpecker,
Colorado Delta clam, fluminense
swallowtail butterfly, Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail butterfly,
Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly,
Jamaican kite swallowtail butterfly,
and Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail butterfly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes species for which a final listing determination has published subsequent to the end of FY 2021 (after
September 30, 2021).

We will provide information we receive to the office having lead
responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission,
and information and comments we receive will become part of the
administrative record for the species, which we maintain at the
appropriate office.

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.

Authority

This document is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Table 5--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.............. ......... Neotamias minimus Sciuridae.............. Chipmunk, U.S.A. (NM).
atristriatus. Pe[ntilde]asco
least.
PT.............. ......... Rangifer tarandus Cervidae............... Caribou, Dolphin- Canada.
groenlandicus x Union.
pearyi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26176]]

BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.............. ......... Lagopus leucura Phasianidae............ Ptarmigan, Mt. U.S.A. (WA),
rainierensis. Rainier white- Canada (BC).
tailed.
PT.............. ......... Tympanuchus Phasianidae............ Prairie-chicken, U.S.A. (CO, KS,
pallidicinctus. lesser (northern NM, OK, TX).
DPS).
PE.............. ......... Tympanuchus Phasianidae............ Prairie-chicken, U.S.A. (CO, KS,
pallidicinctus. lesser (southern NM, OK, TX).
DPS).
PT.............. ......... Pterodroma Procellariidae......... Petrel, black- Dominican
hasitata. capped. Republic, Haiti,
U.S.A. (GA, NC,
SC).
PT.............. ......... Aptenodytes Spheniscidae........... Penguin, emperor.. Antarctica.
forsteri.
C *............. 2 Pauxi koepckeae... Cracidae............... Curassow, Sira.... Peru.
C *............. 2 Pauxi unicornis... Cracidae............... Curassow, southern Bolivia.
helmeted.
C *............. 6 Strepera graculina Cracticidae............ Currawong, Lord Lord Howe Island,
crissalis. Howe Island pied. New South Wales.
C *............. 8 Haematopus Haematopodidae......... Oystercatcher, Chatham Islands,
chathamensis. Chatham. New Zealand.
C *............. 8 Cyanoramphus Psittacidae............ Parakeet, orange- New Zealand.
malherbi. fronted.
C *............. 2 Rallus Rallidae............... Rail, Bogota...... Colombia.
semiplumbeus.
C *............. 8 Porphyrio Rallidae............... Takah[emacr]...... New Zealand.
hochstetteri.
C *............. 8 Tangara peruviana. Thraupidae............. Tanager, black- Brazil.
backed.
C *............. 2 Scytalopus Rhinocryptidae......... Tapaculo, Brasilia Brazil.
novacapitalis.
C *............. 2 Aulacorhynchus Ramphastidae........... Toucanet, yellow- Peru.
huallagae. browed.
C *............. 2 Zosterops Zosteropidae........... White-eye, Gizo... Solomon Islands.
luteirostris.
C *............. 8 Celeus galeatus... Picidae................ Woodpecker, Argentina, Brazil,
helmeted. Paraguay.
C *............. 2 Dendrocopos Picidae................ Woodpecker, Okinawa Island,
noguchii. Okinawa. Japan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.............. ......... Macrochelys Chelydridae............ Turtle, Suwannee U.S.A. (GA, FL).
suwanniensis. alligator
snapping.
PT.............. ......... Testudo kleinmanni Testudinidae........... Tortoise, Egyptian Egypt, Libya,
Israel.
C *............. 5 Gopherus morafkai. Testudinidae........... Tortoise, Sonoran U.S.A. (AZ),
desert. Mexico.
C *............. 8 Gopherus Testudinidae........... Tortoise, gopher U.S.A. (AL, FL,
polyphemus. (eastern GA, LA, MS, SC).
population).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.............. ......... Acipenser Acipenseridae.......... Sturgeon, Amur.... China, Russia.
schrenckii.
PSAT............ ......... Salvelinus malma.. Salmonidae............. Trout, Dolly U.S.A. (AK, WA),
Varden. Canada, East
Asia.
PE.............. ......... Macrhybopsis Cyprinidae............. Chub, peppered.... U.S.A. (CO, KS,
tetranema. NM, OK, TX).
PT.............. ......... Noturus munitus... Ictaluridae............ Madtom, U.S.A. (AL, GA,
frecklebelly LA, MS, TN).
(Upper Coosa
River DPS).
PT.............. ......... Percina williamsi. Percidae............... Darter, sickle.... U.S.A. (NC, TN,
VA).
C *............. ......... Gila robusta...... Cyprinoidea............ Chub, roundtail... U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
NV, NM).
C *............. ......... Oncorhynchus Salmonidae............. Trout, Rio Grande U.S.A. (CO, NM,
clarkii cutthroat. TX).
virginalis.
C *............. 3 Spirinchus Osmeridae.............. Smelt, longfin U.S.A. (CA).
thaleichthys. (San Francisco
Bay-Delta DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.............. ......... Pleurobema Unionidae.............. Clubshell, Canoe U.S.A. (AL).
athearni. Creek.
PE.............. ......... Fusconaia Unionidae.............. Spike, false...... U.S.A. (TX).
mitchelli.
PE.............. ......... Lampsilis Unionidae.............. Fatmucket, U.S.A. (TX).
bergmanni. Guadalupe.
PE.............. ......... Cyclonaias necki.. Unionidae.............. Orb, Guadalupe.... U.S.A. (TX).
PE.............. ......... Lampsilis Unionidae.............. Fatmucket, Texas.. U.S.A. (TX).
bracteata.
PT.............. ......... Truncilla macrodon Unionidae.............. Fawnsfoot, Texas.. U.S.A. (TX).
PE.............. ......... Cyclonaias petrina Unionidae.............. Pimpleback, Texas. U.S.A. (TX).
PT.............. ......... Obovaria Unionidae.............. Hickorynut, round. U.S.A. (AL, GA,
subrotunda. IL, IN, KY, MI,
MS, NY, OH, PA,
TN, WV), Canada.
PT.............. ......... Fusconaia Unionidae.............. Longsolid......... U.S.A. (AL, GA,
subrotunda. IL, IN, KY, MS,
MO, NY, NC, OH,
PA, SC, TN, VA,
WV).
PT.............. ......... Pleurobema rubrum. Unionidae.............. Pigtoe, pyramid... U.S.A. (AL, KY,
TN).
C *............. 8 Mulinia modesta... Mactridae.............. Clam, Colorado Mexico.
Delta.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26177]]

SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............. 2 Planorbella Planorbidae............ Ramshorn, U.S.A. (NC).
magnifica. magnificent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.............. ......... Atlantea tulita... Nymphalidae............ Puerto Rico U.S.A. (PR).
harlequin
butterfly.
C............... 8 Danaus plexippus.. Nymphalidae............ Butterfly, monarch U.S.A. + 90
Countries.
C *............. 2 Parides Papilionidae........... Butterfly, Brazil.
ascaniusAscanius. Fluminense
swallowtail.
C *............. 2 Parides hahneli... Papilionidae........... Butterfly, Brazil.
Hahnel's
Amazonian
swallowtail.
C *............. 3 Mimoides (= Papilionidae........... Butterfly, Harris' Brazil.
Eurytides) mimic swallowtail.
lysithous
harrisianus.
C *............. 2 (Protographium (= Papilionidae........... Butterfly, Jamaica.
Eurytides) Jamaican kite
marcellinus). swallowtail.
C *............. 8 Teinopalpus Papilionidae........... Butterfly, Kaiser- Bhutan, China,
imperialis. i-Hind India, Loas,
swallowtail. Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand,
Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.............. ......... Eryngium Apiaceae............... Eryngo, Arizona... U.S.A. (AZ).
sparganophyllum.
PT.............. ......... Cirsium wrightii.. Asteraceae............. Thistle, Wright's U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
marsh. Mexico.
PE.............. ......... Solanum conocarpum Solanaceae............. Bacora, marron.... U.S.A. (PR).
PT.............. ......... Astragalus Fabaceae............... Milkvetch, Chapin U.S.A. (CO).
schmolliae. Mesa.
C *............. 8 Streptanthus Brassicaceae........... Bracted U.S.A. (TX).
bracteatus. twistflower.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONIFERS AND CYCADS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.............. ......... Pinus albicaulis.. Pinaceae............... Pine, whitebark... U.S.A. (CA, ID,
MT, NV, OR, WA,
WY), Canada (AB,
BC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LICHENS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.............. ......... Donrichardsia Brachytheciaceae....... Moss, South Llano U.S.A. (TX).
macroneuron. Springs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
---------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Code Expl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............... L Vulpes vulpes Canidae................ Fox, Sierra Nevada U.S.A. (CA, OR).
necator. red (Sierra
Nevada DPS).
T............... L Martes caurina.... Mustelidae............. Marten, Pacific U.S.A. (CA).
(coastal DPS).
Rp.............. N Gulo gulo luscus.. Mustelidae............. Wolverine, North U.S.A. (CA, CO,
American ID, MT, OR, UT,
(Contiguous U.S. WA, WY).
DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............... L Laterallus Rallidae............... Rail, eastern U.S.A. (AL, AK,
jamaicensis black. CO, CT, DE, FL,
jamaicensis. GA, IL, IN, IA,
KN, KT, LA, MD,
MA, MI, MN, MS,
MO, NE, NH, NJ,
NM, NY, NC, OH,
OK, PA, PR, RI,
SC, TN, TX, VT,
VA, VI, WV, WI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............... L Cryptobranchus Cryptobranchidae....... Hellbender, U.S.A. (MO).
alleganiensis eastern (Missouri
alleganiensis. DPS).
T............... L Necturus lewisi... Proteidae.............. Waterdog, Neuse U.S.A. (NC).
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26178]]

FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............... L Noturus furiosus.. Ictaluridae............ Madtom, Carolina.. U.S.A. (NC).
E............... L Acipenser Acipenseridae.......... Sturgeon, Yangtze. China.
dabryanus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............... L Fusconaia masoni.. Unionidae.............. Pigtoe, Atlantic.. U.S.A. (GA, NC,
VA).
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............... L Bombus franklini.. Apidae................. Bumble bee, U.S.A. (CA, OR).
Franklin's.
T............... L Lycaena hermes.... Lycaenidae............. Butterfly, Hermes U.S.A. (CA).
copper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............... L Cambarus cracens.. Cambaridae............. Crayfish, U.S.A. (AL).
slenderclaw.
T............... L Procambarus Cambaridae............. Crayfish, Panama U.S.A. (FL).
econfinae. City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-09376 Filed 5-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P