Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 54732-54757 [2019-21478]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54732
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009;
FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Review of Domestic and
Foreign Species That Are Candidates
for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual Notification of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;
Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
AGENCY:
In this candidate notice of
review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), present an
updated list of plant and animal species
that we regard as candidates for or have
proposed for addition to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Identification of candidate species can
assist environmental planning efforts by
providing advance notice of potential
listings, and by allowing landowners
and resource managers 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. 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, 2016, through September 30,
2018. Moreover, we request any
additional status information that may
be available for the candidate species
identified in this CNOR.
DATES: We will accept information on
any of the species in this notice at any
time.
ADDRESSES: This notice is available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/
cnor.html.
For domestic species: Species
assessment forms with information and
references on a particular candidate
species’ range, status, habitat needs, and
listing priority assignment are available
for review at the appropriate Regional
Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
INFORMATION or at the Branch of
Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA (see
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT), or 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 notice to the appropriate
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 Endangered
Species Coordinator in the appropriate
Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. Species-specific
information and materials we receive
will be available for public inspection
by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the appropriate Regional Office
listed below under Request for
Information in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. General information we
receive will be available at the Branch
of Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA
(see address under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
For species foreign to the United
States: Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions of a general nature on this
notice or pertaining to a specific species
to the appropriate address listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Species-specific information and
materials we receive will be available
for public inspection by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
appropriate address listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. General
information we receive will be available
at the Branch of Delisting and Foreign
Species, Falls Church, VA (see address
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For domestic species: Chief, Branch of
Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803
(telephone 703–358–1796).
For species foreign to the United
States: Chief, Branch of Delisting and
Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803
(telephone 703–358–1735).
Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
may call the Federal Information Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
request additional status information
that may be available for any of the
candidate species identified in this
CNOR (see Request for Information,
below). We will consider this
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 notice of review. We also request
information on additional species to
consider including as candidates as we
prepare future updates of this notice.
Candidate Notice of Review
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires that we identify species
of wildlife and plants that are
endangered or threatened based solely
on the best scientific and commercial
data available. As defined in section 3
of the ESA, 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 at 50 CFR
17.11 or the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As
part of this program, we maintain a list
of species that we regard as candidates
for listing. A candidate species is one
for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support a proposal for
listing as endangered or threatened, but
for which preparation and publication
of a proposal is precluded by higherpriority 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 ESA, as
well as additional species that may
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to
request necessary information for setting
priorities for preparing listing proposals.
We encourage collaborative
conservation efforts for candidate
species and offer technical and financial
assistance to facilitate such efforts. For
additional information regarding such
assistance, please contact the
appropriate Office listed under Request
for Information, below, or visit our
website, https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/what-we-do/cca.html.
Publication of this notice has been
delayed due to efforts to resolve
outstanding issues. As a result, many of
the candidate forms reflect that our
formal analysis was conducted in fall of
2017, as shown by the date as of which
the information is current on each form.
However, we were able to update a
small subset of the candidate forms
recently to reflect additional
information we have obtained on those
species. We intend to publish an
updated combined CNOR for animals
and plants that will update all of the
candidate forms, including our findings
on resubmitted petitions and a
description of our progress on listing
actions, in the near future in the Federal
Register.
Previous Notices of Review
We have been publishing CNORs
since 1975. The most recent was
published on December 2, 2016 (81 FR
87246). CNORs published since 1994
are available on our website, 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 an 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 ESA (16 U.S.C.
1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to
establish guidelines for such a priorityranking 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 lowermagnitude 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 (DPS).
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54733
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 notice as a candidate is
one for which we have concluded that
we have sufficient information to
prepare a proposed rule for listing
because it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process
and standards used in assigning LPNs,
a copy of the 1983 guidance is available
on our website at: https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_
Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the
LPN assigned to a particular species is
summarized in this CNOR, and the
species assessment for each candidate
contains the LPN chart and a moredetailed 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.
To the extent this revised notice
differs from any previous animal, plant,
and combined CNORs or previous 12month warranted-but-precluded petition
findings for those candidate species that
were petitioned for listing, this notice
supersedes them.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous
CNORs for species foreign to the United
States on October 17, 2016 (81 FR
71457) and for domestic species on
December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87246), 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.
In addition to reviewing candidate
species since publication of the last
CNORs, we have worked on findings in
response to petitions to list species, on
proposed rules to list species under the
ESA, and on final listing
determinations. Some of these findings
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54734
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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, 41 species are now
candidates awaiting preparation of rules
proposing their listing. Table 1
identifies these 41 species, along with
the 17 species currently proposed for
listing (including 1 species proposed for
listing due to similarity in appearance).
Table 2 lists the changes for species
identified in the previous CNORs, and
includes 29 species identified in the
previous CNORs as either proposed for
listing or classified as candidates that
are no longer in those categories. This
includes 17 species for which we
published a final listing rule, 8
candidate species for which we
published separate not-warranted
findings and removed them from
candidate status, and 4 species for
which we published a withdrawal of a
proposed rule.
New Candidates
We are not identifying any new
candidate species through this notice.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPNs for all
candidate species and are changing the
LPN for the Colorado delta clam
(Mulinia modesta) and longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys) for the reasons
discussed below.
Colorado delta clam—The Colorado
delta clam is a relatively large, estuarine
bivalve that was once very abundant at
the head of the Gulf of California in the
Colorado River estuary in Mexico prior
to the construction of dams on the
Colorado River. In our previous CNOR
(81 FR 71457; October 17, 2016), we
reported that the Colorado delta clam
was endemic to the upper Gulf of
California within the Colorado River
estuary. However, experts have recently
confirmed that Mulinia coloradoensis is
actually a junior synonym (part of the
broader taxon) of M. modesta.
Recognizing that the clam is M.
modesta, we now also recognize that the
clam has a broader distribution into the
northern and central portions of the
Gulf of California. Therefore, the species
is more widespread than we previously
believed, and it is capable of living in
salinities ranging from brackish
(mixture of salt and fresh water) to full
seawater. Because this species is not
restricted to the Colorado delta, it is
likely that there are subpopulations of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
the species in other areas in the Gulf of
California.
Information on the population
numbers and trends for the species is
limited. The subpopulation in the
Colorado River delta and upper Gulf of
California has experienced at least a 90
percent decline, and one post-dam
study indicated that the species
comprised 0.77 percent of the overall
living intertidal shelly macrofauna
(including mollusk, echinoderm, and
brachiopod) in this area. We could not
find information regarding numbers of
the Colorado delta clam in
subpopulations elsewhere in the Gulf of
California because benthic surveys of
the near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna
in this area appear to be lacking.
However, the area of potentially suitable
habitat available to the clam is greater
than we previously believed. The
species has not been assessed for the
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red
List. It is not commercially harvested or
threatened by international trade, and it
is not listed in any appendices of the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES).
Although the specific causes for the
dramatic decline of the clam in the
Colorado delta and upper Gulf of
California region have not definitively
been identified, several researchers have
indicated that it was a consequence of
decrease in the Colorado River’s inflow
to the estuary since completion of the
dams, and there is strong circumstantial
evidence for this assertion.
Environmental changes to the estuary
associated with the decrease in river
inflow include increased salinity,
decreased sediment load, decreased
input of naturally derived nutrients, and
elimination of the spring/summer flood.
Dams and diversions along the Colorado
River have greatly affected the estuarine
environment of the Colorado delta and
have likely caused the localized decline
in abundance of the clam in this region.
However, we have no reason to believe
that dams and diversions are a stressor
for the Colorado delta clam elsewhere
within its range in the northern and
central portions of the Gulf of
California.
Stressors for the clam throughout its
range may arise from other natural or
manmade factors affecting the clam’s
continued existence, such as pollutionrelated problems and effects from
climate change. One example of a
pollution-related problem is a 2003
harmful algal bloom that caused fish
and bivalve mortalities along 94 square
kilometers (km2) (36 square miles (mi2))
of the coastline. Potential stressors to
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the clam associated with the effects of
climate change include marine
transgression, increased intensity and
frequency of storms, and further
invasion by nonnative species.
However, studies of climate change and
its effects to species in the Gulf of
California are limited.
In the previous CNOR (81 FR 71457;
October 17, 2016), the Colorado delta
clam was assigned an LPN of 2. After
reevaluating the status of and threats to
the Colorado delta clam, we have
determined that a change in the LPN for
the species is warranted. With the
recent confirmation that the clam is
Mulinia modesta, we now recognize that
it has a broader distribution into the
northern and central portions of the
Gulf of California and is capable of
living in full seawater. Therefore, our
review of the best information available
indicates that the Colorado delta clam
exists across a greater range in the Gulf
of California than we previously
believed. However, we lack information
about the distribution and viability of
populations of the clam outside of the
Colorado delta region. Despite the
conservation measures in place
(primarily two large protected areas),
the species continues to face habitat loss
and degradation in the Colorado delta
region due to dams and diversions on
the Colorado River. Because this threat
appears to be affecting the clam in
upper Gulf of California, and not in the
remainder of its range, it is moderate in
magnitude. The threat of habitat loss
and degradation in the Colorado delta
region is ongoing and, therefore,
imminent. Thus, we have changed the
LPN from a 2 to an 8 to reflect imminent
threats of moderate magnitude.
Longfin smelt, Bay-Delta DPS—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the 12-month finding published in the
Federal Register on April 2, 2012 (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. In our previous
CNOR (81 FR 87246; December 2, 2016),
the longfin smelt was assigned an LPN
of 3. Longfin smelt measure 9–11
centimeters (cm) (3.5–4.3 inches (in)) in
length. Longfin smelt are considered
pelagic and anadromous, although
anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly
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
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
2 years, spawn, and then die, although
some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3year-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.
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 BayDelta longfin smelt populations from
2002 to 2016. Longfin smelt abundance
over the last decade is the lowest
recorded in the 40-year history of the
Fall Midwater Trawl 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, 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 BayDelta food web caused by establishment
of the nonnative overbite clam (Corbula
amurensis) and ammonium
concentrations have also likely
attributed to declines in the species’
abundance within the San Francisco
Bay-Delta. The threats remain high in
magnitude, as they pose a significant
risk to the DPS throughout its range.
While Delta outflow is the
predominant driver of the DPS’s
abundance, the best available
information indicates that high winterspring flows have occurred in recent
and the current water years.
Additionally, the State of California has
listed the longfin smelt under the
California Endangered Species Act, and
is preparing a new permit for operation
of the State Water Project that will be
issued by the end of the year. The
California State Water Resources
Control Board just adopted new flow
objectives for the Lower San Joaquin
River and will be addressing Delta flow
objectives this year. Through these
processes, we anticipate the State will
take action to reduce the threats
particularly around outflow, and is
poised to do so in the near term.
Therefore, the threat is not operative in
the immediate future, and thus is
nonimminent. As such, we are
identifying an LPN of 6 for this
population.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
Candidate Removals
Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus
uvaeensis)—We have evaluated the
threats to the Uvea parakeet and have
considered factors that, individually
and in combination, currently or
potentially could pose a risk to the
species and its habitat. After a review of
the best scientific and commercial data
available, we conclude that listing this
species is not warranted because it is
not in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,
or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Therefore, we no
longer consider the Uvea parakeet to be
a candidate species for listing. We will
continue to monitor the status of this
species and to accept additional
information and comments concerning
this finding. We will reconsider our
determination in the event that we
gather new information that indicates
that the threats are of a considerably
greater magnitude or imminence than
identified through assessments of
information contained in our files, as
summarized below.
The Uvea parakeet is a relatively
large, green parakeet found on the small
atoll of Uvea, located approximately
1,500 kilometers (km) (932 miles (mi))
east of Australia in the Loyalty
Archipelago, New Caledonia (a territory
of France). The entire island of Uvea is
considered an ‘‘Important Bird Area’’ by
BirdLife International, which works
with communities to combine
conservation with sustainable
livelihoods. Additionally, in 2008, Uvea
Island became part of the ‘‘Lagoons of
New Caledonia’’ a United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage
Site.
Uvea parakeets were introduced to the
adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a
second population) in 1925 and 1963,
but these introductions failed. The
species occupies both the north and
south ends of Uvea Island. The species
primarily uses older (old-growth) forest
habitats and nests in the cavities of
living Syzygium and Mimusops trees.
Their exclusive use of tree cavities for
nesting may be a limiting factor. In
1977, the Uvea parakeet population was
estimated to be between 500 to 800
individuals. The most recent estimate of
the Uvea parakeet population is 1,730
birds with a 95-percent confidence
interval of 963 to 3,203 individuals.
The Uvea parakeet is listed as
‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List.
More recently, IUCN downlisted the
Uvea parakeet to vulnerable, noting that
decline in forest quality may not be
affecting the species, and because the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54735
population trend is increasing. This
species was listed on Appendix I of
CITES in July 2000. An Appendix I
listing includes species threatened with
extinction whose trade is permitted only
under exceptional circumstances, which
generally precludes commercial trade.
Historically, the primary stressor to
the Uvea parakeet was the capture of
juveniles for the pet trade. Although
New Caledonian law has protected the
Uvea parakeet from trade since 1935,
harvest and export were common until
recent decades. Capture and trade likely
increased in the second half of the 20th
century. Between September 1992 and
February 1993, it appears that more than
50 young parakeets were illegally
captured and most were then illegally
exported. Additionally, capture of
young parakeets involves cutting nest
cavities open to extract nestlings, which
destroys the cavities and makes them
unsuitable for future nesting.
In 1993, a nongovernmental
organization, the Association for the
Protection of the Uvea Parakeet
(Association), was formed to help
recover the species. The Association
was established with mostly local
members to increase the chances that
Uvea parakeet conservation would be
accepted by the Island community. The
Association initiated long-term
monitoring and ecological studies and
prepared two recovery plans (1997–
2002 and 2003–2008). Capture of Uvea
parakeets is now restricted, and the
species is monitored using local guides
as part of its recovery plan. As part of
this effort, these local guides are paid to
spread conservation messages and
protect parakeet nests; since 2006, the
number of guides increased to 10. With
the establishment of a community-based
effort to protect the parakeet, it appears
that nest poaching is no longer
occurring such that it significantly
affects the species.
Other potential threats to the parakeet
include: (1) Habitat loss and
degradation, particularly as it negatively
affects nesting sites and may impede
species dispersal; (2) competition and
predation from nonnative species such
as the honey bee (Apis mellifera
ligustica), which competes with the
Uvea parakeet for tree cavities, and the
potential introduction of the nonnative
ship rat (Rattus rattus), which preys on
forest birds (although we are not aware
of any indication at this time that such
an invasion has already occurred, if an
invasion were to occur in the future, it
could very quickly affect the parakeet);
(3) the potential for Psittacine beak and
feather disease; and (4) effects from
climate change, which may negatively
alter the Uvea parakeet’s habitat in the
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54736
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
future if they lead to loss of forest
habitat or important food sources, and
the parakeet is unable to adapt.
Overall, the increase in the
population is attributed to the reduction
in nest poaching, and it appears that the
community-based efforts to protect the
parakeet have been successful. The
population has increased significantly
from 1998 to 2008 despite the threats
noted above.
In our previous CNOR (81 FR 71457;
October 17, 2016), we assigned the Uvea
parakeet an LPN of 8. After reevaluating
the available information, including
new information that has become
available since our previous CNOR, we
find that this species no longer warrants
listing. Although it is an island endemic
that is restricted in range, the primary
threat to the species—poaching and
trade—has been removed, and the
population has responded and
expanded. Although we identified a
number of other potential threats to the
species (e.g., habitat loss and
degradation, competition and predation
from nonnative species, disease, future
effects from climate change), the
population has rebounded despite these
stressors and is increasing. Recent
population trend data support these
findings and have lead to the
Interantional Union for Conservation of
Nature’s decision to downlist the
species on its Red List from
‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘vulnerable’’ in 2017.
Additionally, New Caledonia and its
conservation partners remain active in
conservation efforts, and the designation
of Uvea Island as both an ‘‘Important
Bird Area’’ and a UNESCO World
Heritage Site bode well for future
conservation of the species and its
habitat. Therefore, we have determined
that this species no longer warrants
listing, and we are removing it from the
candidate list.
Petition Findings
The ESA 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’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
petition finding that the ESA requires
the Service to make each year; and (3)
it documents the Service’s compliance
with the statutory requirement to
monitor the status of species for which
listing is warranted but precluded, and
to ascertain if they need emergency
listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial
petition finding in some instances.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA,
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 ‘‘12month finding’’):
(1) The petitioned action is not
warranted, and promptly publish the
finding in the Federal Register;
(2) The petitioned action is warranted
(in which case we are required to
promptly publish a proposed regulation
to implement the petitioned action;
once we publish a proposed rule for a
species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of
the ESA govern further procedures,
regardless of whether or not we issued
the proposal in response to a petition);
or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted,
but (a) the immediate proposal of a
regulation and final promulgation of a
regulation implementing the petitioned
action is precluded by pending
proposals to determine whether any
species is endangered or threatened, and
(b) expeditious progress is being made
to add qualified species to the Lists. We
refer to this third option as a
‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding,’’ and
after making such a finding, we must
promptly publish it in the Federal
Register.
We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to
mean those species for which the
Service has on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support issuance of a
proposed rule to list, but for which
issuance of the proposed rule is
precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5,
1996). The standard for making a
species a candidate through our own
initiative is identical to the standard for
making a warranted-but-precluded 12month petition finding on a petition to
list, and we add all petitioned species
for which we have made a warrantedbut-precluded 12-month finding to the
candidate list.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Therefore, all candidate species
identified through our own initiative
already have received the equivalent of
substantial 90-day and warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings.
Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to
list a species that we have already
identified as a candidate, we review the
status of the newly petitioned candidate
species and through this CNOR publish
specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e.,
substantial 90-day and warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings) in
response to the petitions to list these
candidate species. We publish these
findings as part of the first CNOR
following receipt of the petition. We
have identified the candidate species for
which we received petitions and made
a continued warranted-but-precluded
finding on a resubmitted petition by the
code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on
the left side of Table 1, below.
Second, the CNOR serves as a
‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section
4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that
when we make a warranted-butprecluded 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 ESA, until we publish a proposal to
list the species or make a final notwarranted finding. We make these
annual resubmitted petition findings
through the CNOR. To the extent these
annual findings differ from the initial
12-month warranted-but-precluded
finding or any of the resubmitted
petition findings in previous CNORs,
they supersede the earlier findings,
although all previous findings are part
of the administrative record for the new
finding, and in the new finding, we may
rely upon them or incorporate them by
reference as appropriate, in addition to
explaining why the finding has
changed.
Third, through undertaking the
analysis required to complete the
CNOR, the Service determines if any
candidate species needs emergency
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA
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
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 ESA. For example,
on August 10, 2011, we emergency
listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR
49542). We have been reviewing and
will continue to review, at least
annually, the status of every candidate,
whether or not we have received a
petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and
accompanying species assessment forms
constitute the Service’s system for
monitoring and making annual findings
on the status of petitioned species under
sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii)
of the ESA.
A number of court decisions have
elaborated on the nature and specificity
of information that we must consider in
making and describing the petition
findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that
published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57804), describes these court decisions
in further detail. As with previous
CNORs, we continue to incorporate
information of the nature and specificity
required by the courts. For example, we
include a description of the reasons why
the listing of every petitioned candidate
species is both warranted and precluded
at this time. We make our
determinations of preclusion on a
nationwide basis to ensure that the
species most in need of listing will be
addressed first and also because we
allocate our listing budget on a
nationwide basis (see below). Regional
priorities can also be discerned from
Table 1, below, which includes the lead
region and the LPN for each species.
Our preclusion determinations are
further based upon our budget for listing
activities for unlisted species only, and
we explain the priority system and why
the work we have accomplished has
precluded action on listing candidate
species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed
the current status of, and threats to, the
41 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
listing actions. Additional information
that is the basis for this finding is found
in the species assessments and our
administrative record for each species.
Our review included updating the
status of, and threats to, petitioned
candidate or listed species for which we
published findings, under section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous
CNOR. We have incorporated new
information we gathered since the prior
finding and, as a result of this review,
we are making continued warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings on the
petitions for these species. However, for
some of these 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.
The immediate publication of
proposed rules to list these species was
precluded by our work on higherpriority listing actions, listed below,
during the period from October 1, 2016,
through September 30, 2017. 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 ESA.
In addition to identifying petitioned
candidate species in Table 1 below, we
also present brief summaries of why
each of these candidates warrants
listing. More complete information,
including references, is found in the
species assessment forms. You may
obtain a copy of these forms from the
Regional Office having the lead for the
domestic species, from the appropriate
office listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT for species foreign
to the United States, or from the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s internet website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/
candidate-species-report. As described
above, under section 4 of the ESA, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54737
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 threatened or endangered; and
(2) that expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to either
of the lists and to remove species from
the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the
Service does not have sufficient
resources available to complete the
proposal, because there are competing
demands for those resources, and the
relative priority of those competing
demands is higher. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate
whether it will be possible to undertake
work on a proposed listing regulation or
whether promulgation of such a
proposal is precluded by higher-priority
listing actions—(1) The amount of
resources available for completing the
listing function, (2) the estimated cost of
completing the proposed listing
regulation, and (3) the Service’s
workload, along with the Service’s
prioritization of the proposed listing
regulation in relation to other actions in
its workload.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds that may be
expended for the Listing Program
(spending cap). This spending cap was
designed to prevent the listing function
from depleting funds needed for other
functions under the ESA (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 ESA; critical
habitat petition findings; proposed rules
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54738
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / 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).
We cannot spend more for the Listing
Program than the amount of funds
within the spending cap without
violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, from
FY 2002 through FY 2017, the Service’s
listing budget included a subcap for
critical habitat designations for alreadylisted species to ensure that some funds
within the listing cap are available for
completing Listing Program actions
other than critical habitat designations
for already-listed species. (‘‘The critical
habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to
address other listing activities.’’ House
Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st
Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and
each year until FY 2006, the Service had
to use virtually all of the funds within
the critical habitat subcap to address
court-mandated designations of critical
habitat, and consequently none of the
funds within the critical habitat subcap
were available for other listing
activities. In some FYs between 2006
and 2017, we have not needed to use all
of the funds within the critical habitat
subcap to comply with court orders, and
we therefore could use the remaining
funds within the subcap towards
additional proposed listing
determinations for high-priority
candidate species. In other FYs, while
we did not need to use all of the funds
within the critical habitat subcap to
comply with court orders requiring
critical habitat actions, we did not apply
any of the remaining funds towards
additional proposed listing
determinations, and instead applied the
remaining funds towards completing
critical habitat determinations
concurrently with proposed listing
determinations. This allowed us to
combine the proposed listing
determination and proposed critical
habitat designation into one rule,
thereby being more efficient in our
work.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 courtapproved settlement agreements
requiring critical habitat actions for
already-listed species, listing actions for
foreign species, and petition findings,
respectively—set the framework within
which we make our determinations of
preclusion and expeditious progress.
From FY 2012 through FY 2017,
Congress had put in place two
additional subcaps within the listing
cap: One for listing actions for foreign
species and one for petition findings. As
with the critical habitat subcap, if the
Service did not need to use all of the
funds within either subcap, we were
able to use the remaining funds for
completing proposed or final listing
determinations.
For FY 2017, Congress passed a
Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2017 (Pub. L. 115–31), included an
overall listing spending cap of
$20,515,000, and the subcaps of no
more than $4,569,000 to be used for
critical habitat determinations; no more
than $1,501,000 to be used for listing
actions for foreign species; and no more
than $1,498,000 to be used to make 90day or 12-month findings on petitions.
In FY 2018, through the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
115–141), the use of subcaps was
discontinued, and Congress
appropriated the Service $18,818,000
under a consolidated cap for all
domestic and foreign listing work,
including status assessments, listings,
domestic critical habitat determinations,
and related activities.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer-review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information from
those comments into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex
actions generally are more costly. Our
practice of proposing to designate
critical habitat concurrent with listing
species requires additional coordination
and an analysis of the economic impacts
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the designation, and thus adds to the
complexity and cost of our work. In the
past, we estimated that the median cost
for preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month
finding, $68,875. We estimated that the
median costs for preparing and
publishing a proposed listing rule with
proposed critical habitat is $240,000;
and for a final listing determination
with a final critical habitat
determination, $205,000.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service’s Listing Program
workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service
prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance
with court orders and court-approved
settlement agreements requiring that
petition findings or listing or critical
habitat determinations be completed by
a specific date; (2) essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing
program-management functions; (3)
section 4 (of the ESA) 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 and a
single petition to list 404 domestic
species, significantly increasing the
number of actions within the third
category of our workload—actions that
have absolute statutory deadlines. 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 end
of FY 2018, we had more than 446 12month petition findings for domestic
species yet to be initiated and
completed. Because we are not able to
work on all of these at once, we
prioritized status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings (81
FR 49248; July 27, 2016) and developed
a multi-year workplan for completing
them. For foreign species, we currently
have 17 pending 12-month petition
findings yet to be initiated and
completed.
An additional way in which we
prioritize work in the section 4 program
is application of the listing priority
guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21,
1983). Under those guidelines, we
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12,
depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of
threats (imminent or nonimminent), and
taxonomic status of the species (in order
of priority: Monotypic genus (a species
that is the sole member of a genus), a
species, or a part of a species
(subspecies or distinct population
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
segment)). The lower the listing priority
number, the higher the listing priority
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1
would have the highest listing priority).
A species with a higher LPN would
generally be precluded from listing by
species with lower LPNs, unless work
on a proposed rule for the species with
the higher LPN can be combined with
work on a proposed rule for other highpriority species.
Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered species are generally lower
in priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protections
of the ESA and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency
reasons, we may choose to work on a
proposed rule to reclassify a species to
endangered if we can combine this with
work that is subject to a court order or
court-approved deadline.
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.
On September 1, 2016, the Service
released its National Listing Workplan
for addressing ESA domestic listing and
critical habitat decisions over the
subsequent 7 years. At the close of FY
2018, the workplan identified the
Service’s schedule for addressing all
domestic species on the candidate list
and conducting 251 status reviews (also
referred to as 12-month findings) by FY
2023 for domestic species that have
been petitioned for Federal protections
under the ESA. The petitioned species
are prioritized using our final
prioritization methodology (81 FR
49248; July 27, 2016). As we implement
our listing work plan and work on
proposed rules for the highest-priority
species, we increase efficiency by
preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include
species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same
threats as one of the highest-priority
species. The National Listing Workplan
is available online at: https://
www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/
listing-workplan.html.
For foreign species, the Service has 17
pending 12-month petition findings that
are subject to statutory deadlines.
Because these actions are subject to
statutory deadlines, and, thus, are
higher priority than work on proposed
listing determinations for the 19 foreign
candidate species, publication of
proposed rules for these 19 species is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
precluded. In addition, available staff
resources are also a factor in
determining which high-priority foreign
species are provided with funding. The
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species
may, depending on available staff
resources, work on foreign candidate
species with an LPN of 2 or 3 and, when
appropriate, species with a lower
priority if they overlap geographically or
have the same threats as the species
with higher priority.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that
the Service released in 2016 outlined
work for domestic species over the
period from 2017 to 2023. Through FY
2017, commitments set forth as part of
a settlement agreement in a case before
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Endangered Species Act
Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL
Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D.D.C.
May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement
Agreement’’)) greatly affected our
preclusion analysis. First, the Service
was limited in the extent to which it
could undertake additional actions
within the Listing Program through FY
2017 because complying with the
requirements of the MDL Settlement
Agreement exhausted a large portion of
the funds within the spending cap for
the listing program. Second, because the
settlement was court-approved, it was
the Service’s highest priority
(compliance with a court order) for FY
2016 to fulfill the requirements of those
settlement agreements. Included within
the settlement agreements was a
requirement to complete—by the end of
FY 2016—proposed listings or notwarranted findings for the remaining
candidate species that were included in
the 2010 CNOR, as well as to make final
determinations on any of the proposed
listings within the statutory timeframe.
Therefore, one of the Service’s highest
priorities was to make steady progress
towards completing the remaining final
listing determinations for the 2010
candidate species by the end of 2017,
taking into consideration the availability
of staff resources. In FY 2018, the
Service fulfilled the commitments set
forth as part of the MDL Settlement
Agreement.
Based on these prioritization factors,
we continue to find that proposals to list
the petitioned candidate species
included in Table 1 are all precluded by
higher-priority listing actions. We
provide tables under Expeditious
Progress, below, identifying the higherpriority listing actions that we
completed in FYs 2017 and 2018, as
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54739
well as those we worked on but did not
complete in FY 2017 or 2018.
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. 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 2017
appropriations law included a spending
cap of $20,515,000 for listing activities;
within that amount, Congress prohibited
the Service from spending more than
$1,501,000 on listing determinations for
foreign species. The FY 2018
appropriations law included a spending
cap of $18,818,000 for listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited
resources available for listing, we find
that we are making expeditious progress
in adding qualified species to the Lists.
(Although we do not discuss it in detail
here, we are also making expeditious
progress in removing domestic species
from the list under the Recovery
program, as well as reclassifying
endangered species as threatened, in
light of the resources available for
delisting domestic species, which is
funded through the recovery line item
in the budget of the Endangered Species
Program. During FYs 2017 and 2018, we
finalized delisting rules for 8 species
and downlisting rules for 5 species (in
addition to completing numerous
recovery planning activities).)
Below, we provide tables cataloguing
the work of the Service’s domestic and
foreign species listing programs in FYs
2017 and 2018. This work includes all
three of the steps necessary for adding
species to the Lists: (1) Identifying
species that may warrant listing; (2)
undertaking the evaluation of the best
available scientific data about those
species and the threats they face in
preparation for a proposed or final
determination; and (3) adding species to
the Lists by publishing proposed and
final listing rules that include a
summary of the data on which the rule
is based and show the relationship of
that data to the rule. As the tables below
demonstrate, during FYs 2017 and 2018,
the Service completed the following
number of actions within category 1: 90day findings for 13 species; within
category 2: 12-month findings for 42
species; and within category 3:
Proposed listing rules for 21 species
(including concurrent proposed critical
habitat designations for 3 species), and
final listing rules for 28 species
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54740
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(including concurrent final critical
habitat determinations for 3 species).
After taking into consideration the
limited resources available for these
accounts, the competing demands for
those funds, and the completed work
catalogued in the tables below, we find
that we are making expeditious progress
in all three of the steps necessary for
adding qualified species to the Lists
(identifying, evaluating, and adding/
removing species).
First, we are making expeditious
progress in identifying species that may
qualify for listing. In FYs 2017 and
2018, we completed 90-day findings on
petitions to list 13 species and 12-month
findings for petitions to list 42 species.
Second, we are making expeditious
progress in working towards adding
candidate species to the Lists. In FYs
2017 and 2018, we funded and worked
on the development of 12-month
findings for 29 species and proposed
listing determinations for 11 candidates.
Although we did not complete those
actions during FY 2017 or FY 2018, we
made expeditious progress towards
doing so.
Third, we are making expeditious
progress in listing qualified species. In
FYs 2017 and 2018, we resolved the
status of 28 species that we determined,
or had previously determined, qualified
for listing, delisting, or downlisting.
Moreover, for 24 of those species, the
resolution was to finalize the listing
proposal (22 species), some with
concurrent designations of critical
habitat for domestic species, or the
delisting proposal. For four species, we
published withdrawals of the proposed
rules. We also proposed to list an
additional 21 qualified species and to
downlist an additional 2 species.
Our accomplishments in FYs 2017
and 2018 should also be considered in
the broader context of our commitment
to reduce the number of candidate
species for which we have not made
final determinations whether to list. On
May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the
MDL Litigation a settlement agreement
that put in place an ambitious schedule
for completing proposed and final
listing determinations at least through
FY 2016; the court approved that
settlement agreement on September 9,
2011. That agreement required, among
other things, that for all 251 domestic
species that were included as
candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the
Service submit to the Federal Register
proposed listing rules or not-warranted
findings by the end of FY 2016, and for
any proposed listing rules, the Service
complete final listing determinations
within the statutory time frame. By the
end of FY 2018, the Service had
completed proposed listing rules or notwarranted findings for all 251 of the
domestic candidate species in the 2010
CNOR, as well as final listing
determinations for all of the proposed
listings rules among them—thus
completing all requirements specified
under the MDL Settlement Agreement.
By completing both the requirements
under the MDL Settlement Agreement
and numerous other listing actions
included in the Service’s current
workplan, the Service is making
expeditious progress to add qualified
species to the Lists.
The Service’s progress in FYs 2017
and 2018 included completing and
publishing the following actions:
FY 2017–2018 COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING AND FOREIGN ACTIONS
Publication date
Title *
Actions
10/4/2016 ..........
Proposed Threatened Species Status for
Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly.
Threatened Species Status for Kentucky Arrow
Darter with 4(d) Rule.
Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger
Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana).
Threatened Species Status for Suwannee
Moccasinshell.
12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 10 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.
Proposed Threatened Species Status for Louisiana Pinesnake.
Endangered Species Status for Black Warrior
Waterdog.
Proposed Threatened Species Status for
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense
(Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida
Pineland
Crabgrass),
and
Chamaesyce
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat)
and Endangered Species Status for Dalea
carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida PrairieClover).
Threatened Species Status for Hyacinth Macaw
90-Day Findings on Three Petitions .....................
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
81 FR 68379–68397
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
81 FR 68963–68985
Final Listing—Endangered ....................................
81 FR 68985–69007
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
81 FR 69417–69425
12-Month Petition Findings (10 domestic species)
81 FR 69425–69442
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
81 FR 69454–69475
Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................
81 FR 69500–69508
Proposed Listing—Threatened or Endangered ....
81 FR 70282–70308
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for
listing and 1 foreign species).
Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................
81 FR 85488–85507
81 FR 86315–86318
Final Listing—Endangered ....................................
82 FR 3186–3209
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
Final Delisting .......................................................
82 FR 16559–16569
82 FR 16522–16540
Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ............................
82 FR 16981–16988
10/5/2016 ..........
10/5/2016 ..........
10/6/2016 ..........
10/6/2016 ..........
10/6/2016 ..........
10/6/2016 ..........
10/11/2016 ........
11/28/2016 ........
11/30/2016 ........
12/14/2016 ........
1/11/2017 ..........
4/5/2017 ............
4/5/2017 ............
4/7/2017 ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Endangered Species Status for Five Sri Lankan
Tarantulas.
Endangered Species Status for Rusty Patched
Bumble Bee.
Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance ......
Removal of the Scarlet-Chested Parrot and the
Turquoise Parrot From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Threatened Species Status for the Headwater
Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population
Segment.
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
FR pages
10OCP2
81 FR 90297–90314
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
54741
FY 2017–2018 COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING AND FOREIGN ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title *
Actions
4/19/2017 ..........
90-Day Findings on Two Petitions ........................
9/7/2017 ............
Endangered Species Status for Guadalupe Fescue; Designation of Critical Habitat for Guadalupe Fescue.
Endangered Species Status for Sonoyta Mud
Turtle.
Threatened Species Status for Pearl Darter ........
Threatened Species Status for the Iiwi ................
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Kenk’s
Amphipod.
Threatened Species Status for the Candy Darter
12 Month Findings on Petitions To List the Holiday Darter, Trispot Darter, and Bridled Darter;
Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter.
12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 25 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.
Endangered
Species
Status
for
Dalea
carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairieclover), and Threatened Species Status for
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense
(Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida
pineland
crabgrass),
and
Chamaesyce
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat).
12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Four Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.
90-Day Findings for Five Species ........................
90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for
listing).
Final Listing—Endangered; Final Critical Habitat
82 FR 42245–42260
Final Listing—Endangered ....................................
82 FR 43897–43907
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ............................
82 FR 43885–43896
82 FR 43873–43885
82 FR 45551–45574
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
12-Month Petition Findings; Proposed Listing—
Threatened.
82 FR 46197–46205
82 FR 46183–46197
12-Month Petition Findings (25 domestic species)
82 FR 46618–46645
Final Listing—Endangered and Threatened .........
82 FR 46691–46715
12-Month Petition Findings (4 domestic species)
82 FR 57562–57565
90-Day Petition Findings (5 domestic species for
listing).
Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................
82 FR 60362–60366
9/20/2017 ..........
9/20/2017 ..........
9/20/2017 ..........
9/29/2017 ..........
10/4/2017 ..........
10/4/2017 ..........
10/5/2017 ..........
10/6/2017 ..........
12/6/2017 ..........
12/20/2017 ........
12/27/2017 ........
4/17/2018 ..........
Endangered Species Status of the Yangtze Sturgeon.
12-Month Findings on Petitions To List a Species
(Beaverpond Marstonia) and Remove a Species (Southwestern Willow Flycatcher) From
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Threatened Species Status for the Panama City
Crayfish.
Endangered Species Status for Black Warrior
Waterdog and Designation of Critical Habitat.
Endangered Species Status for Barrens
Topminnow.
Taxonomical Update for Orangutan .....................
Endangered Species Status for Texas Hornshell
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando Valley Spineflower).
Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance ......
Threatened Species Status for Louisiana
Pinesnake.
Section 4(d) Rule for Louisiana Pinesnake ..........
Endangered Status for the Island Marble Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat.
90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................
6/27/2018 ..........
90-day Findings for Three Species ......................
7/31/2018 ..........
Endangered Species Status for Five Sri Lankan
Tarantulas.
Threatened Species Status for the Hyacinth
Macaw.
Reclassifying the Golden Conure From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.
12/29/2017 ........
1/3/2018 ............
1/3/2018 ............
1/4/2018 ............
1/16/2018 ..........
2/9/2018 ............
3/15/2018 ..........
4/3/2018 ............
4/6/2018 ............
4/6/2018 ............
4/12/2018 ..........
8/13/2018 ..........
9/5/2018 ............
FR pages
82 FR 18409–18411
83 FR 61230–61241
12-Month Petition Findings Finding (1 domestic
species for listing and 1 domestic species for
delisting).
80 FR 61725–61727
Proposed Listing—Threatened .............................
83 FR 330–341
Final Listing—Endangered; Final Critical Habitat
83 FR 257–284
Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................
83 FR 490–498
Direct Final Rule ...................................................
Final Listing—Endangered ....................................
Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ............................
83 FR 2085–2087
83 FR 5720–5735
83 FR 11453–11474
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
83 FR 14189–14198
83 FR 14958–14982
Proposed Section 4(d) Rule .................................
Proposed Listing—Endangered; Proposed Critical Habitat.
90-Day Petition Findings (1 foreign species for
listing and 1 domestic species for delisting).
90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for
listing and 1 domestic species for delisting).
Final Listing—Endangered ....................................
83 FR 14836–14841
83 FR 15900–15936
Final Listing—Threatened .....................................
83 FR 39894–39916
Proposed Reclassification—Threatened ...............
80 FR 45073–45087
83 FR 16819–16822
83 FR 30091–30094
83 FR 36755–36773
* 90-day and 12-month finding batches include findings regarding delisting or downlisting of domestic species, which are funded through the
Recovery account, as well as findings regarding foreign species, which are funded through the account for foreign species. To make the sources
of funding more clear, and ensure that the number of species reported in the titles of batched findings matches the numbers we report in this
CNOR for domestic listing and foreign species, we identify the number of foreign and domestic species and the requested action (listing or
delisting) in each batch.
Our expeditious progress also
included work on listing actions that we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
funded in previous fiscal years and in
FYs 2017 and 2018, but did not
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
complete in FY 2017 or 2018. For these
species, we completed the first step, and
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54742
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
worked on the second step necessary for
adding species to the Lists. These
actions are listed below.
ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FYS 2017 AND 2018 BUT NOT COMPLETED DURING THAT TIME
Species
Action
Chapin Mesa milkvetch ...................................................................................................................
Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) ..........................................................................................
Hermes copper butterfly ..................................................................................................................
Marron bacora .................................................................................................................................
Rattlesnake-master borer moth .......................................................................................................
Red-crowned parrot ........................................................................................................................
Sierra Nevada red fox .....................................................................................................................
Texas fatmucket ..............................................................................................................................
Texas fawnsfoot ..............................................................................................................................
Texas pimpleback ...........................................................................................................................
Whitebark pine ................................................................................................................................
Northern spotted owl .......................................................................................................................
Lesser prairie chicken .....................................................................................................................
Carolina madtom .............................................................................................................................
Neuse River waterdog ....................................................................................................................
Franklin’s bumblebee ......................................................................................................................
False spike ......................................................................................................................................
Bartram stonecrop ...........................................................................................................................
Beardless chinch weed ...................................................................................................................
Chihuahua scurfpea ........................................................................................................................
Donrichardsonia macroneuron (unnamed moss) ............................................................................
Peppered chub ................................................................................................................................
Eastern hellbender ..........................................................................................................................
Big Cypress epidendrum .................................................................................................................
Cape Sable orchid ..........................................................................................................................
Clam-shell orchid ............................................................................................................................
Longsolid .........................................................................................................................................
Purple lilliput ....................................................................................................................................
Round hickorynut ............................................................................................................................
Ashy darter ......................................................................................................................................
Barrens darter .................................................................................................................................
Redlips darter ..................................................................................................................................
Arkansas mudalia ............................................................................................................................
Brook floater ....................................................................................................................................
Elk River crayfish ............................................................................................................................
Seaside alder ..................................................................................................................................
Yellow banded bumble bee ............................................................................................................
Joshua tree .....................................................................................................................................
Panamint alligator lizard ..................................................................................................................
Tricolored blackbird .........................................................................................................................
We also funded work on resubmitted
petition findings for 20 candidate
species (species petitioned prior to the
last CNOR). We did not include an
updated assessment form as part of our
resubmitted petition findings for the 16
candidate species for which we are
preparing either proposed listing
determinations or not-warranted 12month findings. However, in the course
of preparing the proposed listing
determinations or 12-month notwarranted findings for those species, we
have continued to monitor new
information about their status so that we
can make prompt use of our authority
under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the
case of an emergency posing a
significant risk to the well-being of any
of these candidate species; see
summaries below regarding publication
of these findings (these species will
remain on the candidate list until a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
proposed listing rule is published).
Because the majority of these petitioned
species were already candidate species
prior to our receipt of a petition to list
them, we had already assessed their
status using funds from our Candidate
Conservation Program, so we continue
to monitor the status of these species
through our Candidate Conservation
Program.
During FYs 2017 and 2018, we also
funded work on resubmitted petition
findings for petitions to uplist four
listed species (two grizzly bear
populations, Delta smelt, and
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus)), for which we had previously
received a petition and made a
warranted-but-precluded finding.
Another way that we have been
expeditious in making progress to add
qualified species to the Lists is that we
have endeavored to make our listing
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed listing determination
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
12-month finding.
actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale
and have been batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the ESA,
these efforts also contribute towards
finding that we are making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the
Lists.
Findings for Petitioned Candidate
Species
Below are updated summaries for
petitioned candidates for which we
published findings under section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any
petitions for which we made warranted-
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
but-precluded 12-month findings within
the past year as having been resubmitted
on the date of the warranted-butprecluded finding. We are making
continued warranted-but-precluded 12month findings on the petitions for
these species.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because
we have determined that each candidate
species is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range or likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range, we find it unnecessary to
proceed to an evaluation of potentially
significant portions of the range. Where
the best available information allows the
Services to determine a status for the
species rangewide, that determination
should be given conclusive weight
because a rangewide determination of
status more accurately reflects the
species’ degree of imperilment and
better promotes the purposes of the Act.
Under this reading, we should first
consider whether the species warrants
listing ‘‘throughout all’’ of its range and
proceed to conduct a ‘‘significant
portion of its range’’ analysis if, and
only if, a species does not qualify for
listing as either an endangered or a
threatened species according to the
‘‘throughout all’’ language. We note that
the court in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv–
01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this
issue, and our conclusion is therefore
consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that each
candidate species below, for which we
are making a resubmitted 12-month
finding, warrants listing throughout all
of its range in accordance with sections
3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Birds
Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi
unicornis)—The southern helmeted
curassow is a game bird with a
distinctive pale-blue horn-like
appendage, or casque, above its bill. The
southern helmeted curassow is known
only from central Bolivia on the eastern
slope of the Andes, where large portions
of its habitat are in National Parks. The
species inhabits dense, humid, foothill
and lower montane forest and adjacent
evergreen forest at altitudes between
450 and 1,500 meters (m) (1,476 to 4,921
feet (ft)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
The total population of southern
helmeted curassow is estimated to be
between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals
and is declining. Hunting is believed to
be the primary threat to the species,
followed by habitat loss and
degradation. Although the National
Parks have been important for the
preservation of the species, financial
and human resources needed to protect
park resources are limited. Within the
Parks, there are human settlements and
ongoing encroachment, including illegal
logging operations and forest clearing
for farming. Rural development and
road building limit the species’ ability
to disperse. Range reductions due to
effects from climate change are also
predicted for the southern helmeted
curassow, when warming temperatures
may cause the species to shift its
distribution upslope and outside of
protected National Parks.
The southern helmeted curassow is
classified as critically endangered on
the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been
noted internationally, and the species is
not listed in any appendices of CITES.
The species was listed in Annex B of the
European Union (EU) Wildlife Trade
Regulations that are directly applicable
in all EU Member States. In 1997, the
southern helmeted curassow was listed
with all species in the genus Pauxi. In
2008, it was moved from Annex B to
Annex D (i.e., a lower level of
protection) because it was one of the
species that ‘‘are not subject to levels of
international trade that might be
incompatible with their survival, but
warrant monitoring of trade levels.’’ The
species continues to be listed on Annex
D.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
southern helmeted curassow was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating
the threats to the species, we have
determined that no change in the LPN
is warranted. The southern helmeted
curassow does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude based on its
small, limited range. The few locations
where it is believed to exist continue to
face pressure from hunting and habitat
loss and destruction, and the population
will likely continue to decline. Because
the species is experiencing ongoing
significant population declines and
habitat loss, we have made no change to
the LPN of 2, which reflects imminent
threats of high magnitude.
Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae)—
The Sira curassow is a game bird that
is known only from the Cerros del Sira
region of Peru. Size and coloration are
similar to the southern helmeted
curassow, but the Sira curassow has a
shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54743
horn-like bony appendage above the
bill) that is flattened against the head.
The Sira curassow inhabits cloud-forest
habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs
on high mountains in the tropics) at
elevations from 1,100 to 1,450 m (3,609
to 4,757 ft) and above.
Although historical population data
are lacking, the population is currently
estimated at fewer than 250 mature
individuals and is declining. The
primary cause of the decline is ongoing
hunting by local indigenous
communities. Additionally, the Sira
curassow’s range within the Cerros del
Sira region is limited (550 square
kilometers (km2) (212 square miles
(mi2)) and declining. Its habitat is being
degraded by subsistence agriculture,
forest clearing, road building, and
associated rural development. Although
the Sira curassow is legally protected in
a large portion of its range in El Sira
Communal Reserve, illegal hunting still
occurs there. The species is classified as
critically endangered on the IUCN Red
List. It is not threatened by international
trade, and it is not listed in any
appendices of CITES or the EU Wildlife
Trade Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
sira curassow was assigned an LPN of 2.
After reevaluating the threats to the
species, we have determined that no
change in the LPN is warranted. The
Sira curassow does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude based on its small
estimated population and limited range.
The few locations where it is believed
to exist continue to face pressure from
hunting and habitat loss. The best
scientific and commercial data available
indicate that the population decline will
continue in the future. Because the
species is experiencing significant
population declines due to both hunting
and habitat loss and degradation, we
have made no change to the LPN of 2,
which reflects imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Bogota´ rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)—
The Bogota´ rail is found in the East
Andes of Colombia, South America. It is
a medium-sized nonmigratory rail
largely restricted to areas at elevations
from 2,500–4,000 m (8,202–13,123 ft) in
and surrounding Bogota´, Columbia, on
the Ubate´–Bogota´ Plateau. This region
formerly supported vast marshes and
swamps, but few lakes with suitable
habitat for the rail remain. The species
is secretive, and wetland habitats most
frequently used by rail are fringed by
dense vegetation-rich shallows. The
current population size of the Bogota´
rail is estimated between 1,000 and
2,499 mature individuals and is thought
to be declining. The primary threat to
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54744
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the rail is habitat loss and degradation.
Approximately 8 million people live in
the City of Bogota´, and 11 million in the
larger metro area. The wetlands have
experienced a 97 percent loss in
historical extent with few suitably
vegetated marshes remaining.
Additionally, road building may result
in further colonization and human
interference, including introduction of
nonnative species in previously stable
wetland environments. The Bogota´ rail
is listed as endangered at the global and
national level by IUCN. Trade does not
appear to be of concern at the
international level, and the species is
not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Bogota´ rail was assigned an LPN of 2.
After reevaluating the threats to this
species, we have determined that no
change in the LPN for the species is
needed. The Bogota´ rail does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude due
to the pressures on the species’ habitat.
Its range is very small and is rapidly
contracting because of widespread
habitat loss and degradation. Although
portions of the Bogota´ rail’s range occur
in protected areas, most of the savanna
wetlands are unprotected. The
population is small and is believed to be
declining. The factors affecting the
species are ongoing, and are, therefore,
imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 2
to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri)—The
takahe is a large flightless bird in the
rail family. The takahe was once
widespread in the forest and grassland
ecosystems on the South Island of New
Zealand. It was thought to be extinct
until it was rediscovered in the
Murchison Mountains on the South
Island in 1948. In addition to its native
range on the mainland, the takahe has
been introduced to offshore islands and
mainland sanctuaries.
When rediscovered in 1948, it was
estimated that the takahe population
consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the
minimum total population now rests at
306 individuals. Several factors have
historically led to the species’ decline,
including hunting, competition from
introduced herbivores (animals that feed
on plants), and predators such as
weasels and the weka, a flightless
woodhen that is endemic to New
Zealand. Currently, weasel predation
appears to be the most significant of
these threats. Weasel trapping is an
effective tool at slowly increasing
survival and reproductive output of
takahe; however, control efforts do not
completely eliminate the threat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
Takahe is a long-lived bird,
potentially living between 14 and 20
years, and has a low reproductive rate,
with clutches consisting of one to three
eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison
Mountains (cold winters and high
snowfall) may also be a limiting factor
to the takahe. The population of takahe
remains very small and has low genetic
diversity relative to other species. The
New Zealand Department of
Conservation (NZDOC) is currently
attempting to manage further loss of
genetic diversity through translocations.
Additionally, NZDOC has implemented
a captive-breeding and release program
to supplement the mainland population
and has established several reserve
populations on islands and fenced
mainland sites; these actions are having
a positive effect on population growth.
The takahe is listed as endangered on
the IUCN Red List, and New Zealand
considers it a nationally critical species.
It is not listed in any appendices of
CITES as international trade is not a
concern.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
takahe was assigned an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to the takahe,
we have determined that no change in
the classification of the magnitude and
imminence of threats to the species is
warranted at this time. The takahe does
not represent a monotypic genus. The
species is subject to predation by
nonnative animals, particularly the
introduced weasel. Although it has a
small population, has limited suitable
habitat, and may experience inbreeding
depression, because the NZDOC is
actively involved in measures to aid the
recovery of the species, we find the
threats are moderate in magnitude.
Despite conservation efforts, the threats
are ongoing and, therefore, imminent.
Lack of suitable habitat and predation,
combined with the takahe’s small
population size and naturally low
reproductive rate, are threats to this
species that are moderate in magnitude.
Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect
imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus
chathamensis)—The Chatham
oystercatcher is native to the Chatham
Island group located 860 km (534 mi)
east of mainland New Zealand. The
species breeds along the coastline of
four islands in the chain: Chatham, Pitt,
South East, and Mangere. The Chatham
oystercatcher is found mainly along
rocky shores, including wide volcanic
rock platforms and occasionally on
sandy or gravelly beaches.
The Chatham oystercatcher is the
rarest oystercatcher in the world, with a
recent population estimate of 300 to 320
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individuals. The species has
experienced a three-fold increase in its
population since the first reliable census
was conducted in 1987. Most of this
increase occurred during a period of
intensive management, especially
predator control, from 1998 through
2004. The Chatham oystercatcher is
listed as nationally critical by the
NZDOC. It is classified as endangered
on the IUCN Red List and is not listed
in any appendices of CITES.
Predation of eggs and chicks, and to
a lesser extent of adults, is thought to be
the main impediment to the Chatham
oystercatcher population. Although the
Mangere and South East nature reserves
are free of all mammalian predators,
nonnative mammalian predators inhabit
Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are
the most common predator on eggs.
Other documented predators include
gulls (Larus spp.), the native brown skua
(Catharacta antarctica), weka, and
domestic dogs. Nest destruction and
disturbance by humans and livestock
are also noted threats. Habitat loss and
degradation has occurred from
introductions of nonnative Marram
grass (Ammophila arenaria) in the early
1900s to revegetate destabilized dunes.
The dense marram grass is unsuitable
for Chatham oystercatcher nesting.
Consequently, the Chatham
oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to
shore, where nests are vulnerable to
tides and storm surges; up to 50 percent
of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea
levels associated with climate change
will likely affect future nesting success.
Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher
may be at risk from loss of genetic
diversity given its small population size.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Chatham oystercatcher was assigned an
LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats
to this species, we have determined no
change in the LPN for the species is
warranted. The Chatham oystercatcher
does not represent a monotypic genus.
The current population estimate is very
small, and the species has a limited
range, but NZDOC has taken measures
to recover and maintain the species, and
the population appears to have
stabilized. However, the species
continues to face moderate threats, from
predation, trampling, nest disturbance,
storm surges, and habitat loss due to
nonnative Marram grass, that are
affecting nesting success and survival of
the Chatham oystercatcher. These
threats are ongoing and, thus, are
imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to
reflect imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
Orange-fronted parakeet
(Cyanoramphus malherbi)—The orangefronted parakeet was once well
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
distributed on the South Island of
mainland New Zealand and a few
offshore islands. It is now considered
the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. The
three remaining naturally occurring
populations are all within a 30-km
(18.6-mi) radius of one another in
fragmented beech tree forests
(Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys.
Orange-fronted parakeets have also been
captive-bred and released onto four
predator-free islands where breeding
has been confirmed.
The species’ range contracted when
its population was severely reduced in
the late 1800s and early 1900s for
unknown reasons. From 1999 to 2000,
the mainland population crashed from
perhaps 500 to 700 birds to a rough
estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result
of ship rat (Rattus rattus) eruptions.
Information on current population
status is mixed. In 2013, the total
population was estimated between 290
and 690 individuals (130 to 270 on the
mainland, and 160 to 420 on the
islands). More recently, there are
indications that both the offshore and
mainland populations have declined to
around 100 and 250 birds, respectively,
but these are rough estimates.
The most prominent factors affecting
the species on the mainland are
predation by nonnative mammals such
as weasels and rats (Rattus spp.), as well
as habitat destruction. Habitat loss and
degradation has affected large areas of
native forest on the mainland. In
addition, silviculture (care and
cultivation) of beech forests in the past
had removed mature trees with nest
cavities needed by the parakeet. The
species’ habitat is also degraded by
introduced herbivores that alter forest
structure in a way that reduces the
available feeding habitat for the
parakeet. Additionally, the parakeet
competes with two other native
parakeets for nest sites and food and
with nonnative wasps and finches for
food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and feather
disease virus is a potential threat to this
species. The disease was discovered in
wild native birds in New Zealand in
2008 (e.g., the red-fronted parakeet,
Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae),
although it has not been documented in
the orange-fronted parakeet. Infected
birds generally follow one of three
paths: They develop immunity, die
within a couple of weeks, or become
chronically infected. Chronic infections
result in feather loss and deformities of
beak and feathers.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an
LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors
affecting the species, we have
determined that no change in the LPN
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
is warranted because NZDOC is actively
managing for the species. The orangefronted parakeet does not represent a
monotypic genus. Although the species’
available suitable nesting habitat in
beech forests is limited, there appears to
have been some success with
translocations to offshore islands, and
translocations are continuing. The
species faces threats (e.g., predation,
habitat degradation, and competition for
food and suitable nesting habitat) that
are moderate in magnitude because the
NZDOC continues to take measures to
aid the recovery of the species. We find
that the threats to this species are
ongoing and imminent; thus, the LPN
remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats
of moderate magnitude.
Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus
galeatus)—The helmeted woodpecker is
a fairly small woodpecker native to
regions of southern Brazil, eastern
Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina.
The helmeted woodpecker is nonmigratory, occurring in subpopulations
in suitable habitat within its range.
Characteristic habitat is large tracts of
well-preserved southern Atlantic Forest
in both lowland and montane areas from
sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m
(3,280 ft). The species is believed to
prefer mature (old-growth) trees in
tropical and subtropical semi-deciduous
forests as well as in mixed deciduousconiferous forests.
The helmeted woodpecker is one of
the rarest woodpeckers in the Americas.
Its population is believed to have
declined sharply between 1945 and
2000, in conjunction with the clearing
of mature forest habitat, and is currently
estimated at 400–8,900 individuals.
Although forest clearing has recently
slowed, and the species occurs in at
least 17 protected areas throughout its
range, habitat degradation continues
and the population is still believed to be
declining. The principal threat to the
helmeted woodpecker is loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of its
Atlantic Forest habitat. Competition for
nest cavities is also likely a limiting
factor. The helmeted woodpecker is
listed as endangered in Brazil and as
vulnerable by the IUCN. It is not listed
in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
helmeted woodpecker was assigned an
LPN of 8. After reevaluating the
available information, we find that no
change in the LPN for the helmeted
woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted
woodpecker does not represent a
monotypic genus. The magnitude of
threats to the species is moderate
because the species’ range is fairly large.
The threats are imminent because the
forest habitat upon which the species
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54745
depends is still being altered and
degraded. An LPN of 8 continues to be
accurate for this species.
Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos
noguchii, syn. Sapheopipo noguchii)—
The Okinawa woodpecker is a relatively
large woodpecker found on Okinawa
Island, Japan. The species prefers
subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests
that are undisturbed and mature. It
currently occurs within the forested
areas in the northern part of the island,
generally in the Yambaru forest, and in
some undisturbed forest in coastal areas.
Most of the older forests that support
the species are within the Jungle
Warfare Training Center (formerly
known as the Northern Training Area or
Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S.
Marine Corps installation on Okinawa
Island.
Deforestation in the Yambaru region
has been cited as the main cause of the
Okinawa woodpecker’s reduced habitat
and population. As of the mid 1990s,
only 40 km2 (15 mi2) of suitable habitat
was available for this species. While
most of the activities associated with
habitat loss appear to have ceased, the
Okinawa woodpecker still suffers from
limited suitable habitat and a small
population size. This situation makes it
vulnerable to extinction from disease
and natural disasters such as typhoons.
In addition, the species is vulnerable to
introduced predators such as feral dogs
and cats, Javan mongoose (Herpestes
javanicus), and weasels (Mustela itatsi).
In 2016, the Japanese Government
designated Yambaru National Park and
nominated ‘‘the northern part of
Okinawa Island’’ (including Yambaru
National Park) as a United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization World Heritage Centre.
The species is listed as critically
endangered on the IUCN Red List. It is
legally protected in Japan. It is not listed
in any appendices of CITES and is not
known to be in trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an
LPN of 2. After reevaluating the
available information, we find that no
change in the LPN is warranted. The
Okinawa woodpecker does not
represent a monotypic genus. Threats to
the species are high in magnitude due
to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat.
The population is very small and is
believed to still be 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 from nonnative
predators. Even though threats from
logging have been reduced, it will take
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54746
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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. The
LPN for this species remains a 2 to
reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Yellow-browed toucanet
(Aulacorhynchus huallagae)—The
yellow-browed toucanet has a small
range on the eastern slope of the Andes
of north-central Peru at elevations of
2,000–2,600 m (6,562–8,530 ft). The
toucanet occurs in humid montane
forests. The population status is not
well known because of the
inaccessibility of its habitat, but is
estimated at 600–1,500 mature
individuals. The species currently
occupies three known locations within
a small range. Habitat loss and
destruction from deforestation for
agriculture has been widespread in the
region and is suspected to be the main
threat, although deforestation appears to
have occurred mainly below the
altitudinal range of this toucanet. Gold
mining and manufacturing also are
common in the region. The yellowbrowed toucanet is described as scarce
wherever found, and ongoing
population declines resulting from
habitat loss are assumed. It is classified
as endangered on the IUCN Red List and
is not listed in any CITES appendices.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
yellow-browed toucanet was assigned
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the
available information, we find that no
change in the LPN is warranted at this
time. The yellow-browed toucanet does
not represent a monotypic genus. The
estimated population is small with just
three known locations within a
restricted range. The magnitude of
threats to the habitat remains high, and
its population is likely declining. The
LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent
threats of high magnitude.
Brasilia tapaculo (Scytalopus
novacapitalis)—The Brasilia tapaculo is
a small, secretive, ground-dwelling bird
with limited flight ability. The tapaculo
is found in gallery-forest habitat that is
a smaller habitat component occurring
within the wider tropical savanna or
‘‘Cerrado’’ of the Central Goia´s Plateau
of Brazil. Gallery forests are narrow
fringes of thick streamside vegetation
that occur on the edges of rivers and
streams at elevations of approximately
800–1,000 m (2,625–3,281 ft). The
Brasilia tapaculo is described as ‘‘rare,’’
but the population size is unknown.
Despite a lack of data on population
trends, declines are suspected to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
occurring, due to the continued decline
in area and quality of the tapaculo’s
gallery forest habitat. Effects from
climate change may also be negatively
altering the Cerrado and the tapaculo’s
specialized gallery forest habitat within
the Cerrado by reducing the amount of
available habitat for the species. Results
from one climate change modeling
study predicted that the Brasilia
tapaculo could lose all its range and
protected habitat by 2060. The species
is currently known to occur in six
protected areas and has been found on
private land next to protected areas.
These protected areas are limited in
extent and size, with few larger than
25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)).
In the early 2000s, only 1.2 percent of
the Cerrado was in protected areas;
however, more recent estimates are 6.5
percent.
The primary threat to the species is
ongoing loss, fragmentation, and
degradation of its habitat, which is
expected to limit the availability and
extent of suitable habitat for the
tapaculo. The Cerrado is the largest,
most diverse, and possibly most
threatened tropical savanna in the
world. Land in the Cerrado is currently
being converted for intensive grazing
and mechanized agriculture, including
soybean and rice plantations. The
tapaculo’s gallery-forest habitat has been
less affected by clearing for agriculture
than the surrounding Cerrado. However,
effects to gallery forest arise from
wetland drainage and the diversion of
water for irrigation and from annual
burning of adjacent grasslands.
The IUCN recently changed the status
of the species from near threatened to
endangered, identifying the species’
small and fragmented range as
justification for the change in status.
The Brazilian Red List assessed the
species as endangered, noting severe
fragmentation and continuing decline in
area and quality of habitat. It is not
threatened by international trade and is
not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, we
assigned the Brasilia tapaculo an LPN of
8. After reevaluating the available
information, we have determined that
no change in the LPN is warranted at
this time. The Brasilia tapaculo does not
represent a monotypic genus. Threats to
the species are moderate in magnitude
and are imminent. The species has a
fairly wide geographic range, but is
endemic to the Cerrado and strongly
associated with gallery forests, a very
small component of the Cerrado.
Conversion of the Cerrado is ongoing.
The populations currently appear to be
found only in or next to a handful of
protected areas, and most of these areas
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are small. The species is reported as
rare, even in protected areas. Therefore,
an LPN of 8 remains valid for this
species.
Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops
luteirostris)—The Ghizo white-eye is a
small passerine (perching) bird
described as ‘‘warbler-like.’’ It is
endemic to the small island of Ghizo in
the Solomon Islands in the South
Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New
Guinea. The total range of the Ghizo
white-eye is estimated to be less than 35
km2 (13.5 mi2), of which less than 1 km2
(0.39 mi2) is the old-growth forest that
the species seems to prefer.
Little information is available about
this species and its habitat. It is locally
common in old-growth forest patches
and less common elsewhere. The
species has been observed in a variety
of habitats on the island, but it is
unknown whether sustainable
populations can exist outside of forested
habitats. The population is estimated to
be between 250 and 1,000 mature
individuals and is suspected to be
declining due to habitat degradation,
particularly since a tsunami hit the
island in 2007. Habitat loss appears to
be the main threat. As of 2012, the
human population on the island was
7,177 and growing rapidly, and there
has been prolific growth in informal
human settlements and temporary
housing on Ghizo, which may be
adversely affecting the Ghizo white-eye
and its habitat. Areas around Ghizo
Town, which previously supported the
species, have been further degraded
since the town was devastated by the
2007 tsunami, and habitat was found
less likely able to support the species in
2012. The species is also affected by
conversion of forested areas to
agricultural uses. The old-growth forest
on Ghizo is still under pressure from
clearance for local use as timber and
firewood, and for clearing for gardens,
as are the areas of secondary growth,
which are already suspected to be
suboptimal habitat for this species.
The population of this species is
believed to be declining and, given its
fragmented habitat in combination with
small population sizes, may be at greater
risk of extinction due to synergistic
effects. The IUCN Red List classifies this
species as endangered. It is not listed in
any appendices of CITES, and this
species is not in international trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Ghizo white-eye was assigned an LPN of
2. After reevaluating the available
information, we find that no change in
the LPN is warranted. The Ghizo whiteeye does not represent a monotypic
genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude due to declining suitable
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
habitat and its small, declining
population size. The best information
available indicates that forest clearing is
occurring at a pace that is rapidly
denuding its habitat; secondary-growth
forest continues to be converted to
agricultural purposes. Further, the
human population on the small island
is likely contributing to the reduction in
old-growth forest for local uses such as
timber and clearing for gardens. These
threats to the species are ongoing, high
in magnitude, and imminent. Thus,
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, the LPN
remains a 2 for this species.
Black-backed tanager (Tangara
peruviana)—The black-backed tanager
is endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest
region of southeastern Brazil. It is
currently found in the coastal states of
Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sa˜o
Paulo, Parana`, Santa Catarina, and Rio
Grande do Sul. The species is generally
restricted to the sand-forest ‘‘restinga’’
habitat, which is a coastal component
habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest
complex. Restingas are herbaceous,
shrubby, coastal sand-dune habitats.
The black-backed tanager is primarily
found in undisturbed vegetated habitat
but has also been observed in secondary
(or second-growth) forests. It has also
been observed visiting gardens and
orchards of houses close to forested
areas. The black-backed tanager is one
of just a few tanagers known to migrate
seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the
black-backed tanager is generally not
considered rare. The population
estimate is between 2,500 to 9,999
mature individuals. Populations
currently appear to be small,
fragmented, and declining.
The primary factor affecting this
species is habitat loss and destruction
due to urban expansion and beachfront
development, and this type of
development will continue in the
future. Additional habitat loss from sealevel rise associated with global climate
change may be compounded by an
increased demand by humans to use
remaining land for housing and
infrastructure. In addition to the overall
loss and degradation of its habitat, the
remaining tracts of its habitat are
severely fragmented. The black-backed
tanager’s remaining suitable habitat in
the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Parana´
have largely been destroyed, and habitat
loss and degradation will likely increase
in the future. Although small portions of
this species’ range occur in six protected
areas, protections appear limited. The
black-backed tanager is classified as
vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is
also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is
not listed in any appendices of CITES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
although it has infrequently been
illegally sold in the pet trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
black-backed tanager was assigned an
LPN of 8. After reevaluating the
available information, we have
determined that no change in the LPN
for this species is warranted at this time.
The black-backed tanager does not
represent a monotypic genus. We find
that the threat from habitat loss is
moderate in magnitude due to the
species’ fairly large range, its existence
in protected areas, and an indication of
some flexibility in its diet and habitat
suitability. Threats are imminent
because the species is at risk due to
ongoing and widespread loss of habitat
due to beachfront and related
development. Therefore, an LPN of 8
remains valid for this species.
Lord Howe Island pied currawong
(Strepera graculina crissalis)—The Lord
Howe Island pied currawong is a fairly
large, crow-like bird, endemic to Lord
Howe Island, New South Wales,
Australia. Lord Howe Island is a small
island northeast of Sydney, Australia,
with 28 smaller islets and rocks. The
Lord Howe Island pied currawong
occurs throughout the island but is most
numerous in the mountainous areas on
the southern end. It has also been
recorded to a limited extent on the
Admiralty Islands, located 1 km (0.6 mi)
north of Lord Howe Island. The Lord
Howe Island pied currawong breeds in
rainforests and palm forests, particularly
along streams. Approximately 75
percent of Lord Howe Island, plus all
outlying islets and rocks within the
Lord Howe Island group, is protected
under the Permanent Park Preserve,
which has similar status to that of a
national park.
The best current population estimate
in 2005 and 2006 indicated that there
were approximately 200 individuals.
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong
exists as a small, isolated population,
which makes it vulnerable to stochastic
events. The potential for the
introduction of other nonnative
predators to this island ecosystem has
also been identified as an issue for this
subspecies. In addition to its small
population size, direct persecution (via
shootings) by humans in retaliation for
predation on domestic and endemic
birds has been documented. The
incidence of shootings has declined
since the 1970s, when conservation
efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but
occasional shootings were still
occurring as recently as 2006.
Because the Lord Howe pied
currawong often preys on small rodents,
it may be subject to nontarget poisoning
during ongoing rat-baiting programs,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54747
and especially during an extensive
rodent eradication effort planned for
this year. Project impact evaluations for
the eradication effort determined that
the currawong was at significant risk
from secondary poisoning, and this
action is expected to result in the
temporary disruption of one breeding
cycle. To ensure the currawong’s safety,
project evaluators determined that
approximately 50–60 percent of the
wild population would need to be held
in captive management during the
eradication effort. A pilot study that
housed wild currawongs in aviaries in
anticipation of this eradication effort
has shown promise for protecting the
subspecies. Another potential threat to
the currawong is rising global
temperatures associated with climate
change that may affect the cloud layer
on the island’s mountaintops—resulting
in drying of the forest where the
currawong gets about half of its food
and possibly creating a food shortage for
the subspecies.
The subspecies’ status is not
addressed by IUCN; however, based on
IUCN criteria, it has been assessed as
endangered nationally in Australia. In
addition, the New South Wales
Threatened Species Conservation Act of
1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied
currawong as vulnerable due to its
extremely limited range and its small
population size. It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES, and trade is not an
issue for this subspecies.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Lord Howe Island pied currawong was
assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating
the threats to the Lord Howe Island pied
currawong, we have determined that no
change in the LPN is warranted. The
Lord Howe Island pied currawong does
not represent a monotypic genus. It
faces threats that are high in magnitude
due to a combination of factors
including its small population size and
risks from nontarget poisoning from
rodent control. Additionally, aspects of
the rodent eradication project also carry
some risk, including those associated
with trapping, holding, and a missed
breeding cycle. If the rodent eradication
program is successful, effects from
nontarget poisoning and any predation
by rodents on currawong eggs will cease
to be stressors for the currawong.
Despite conservation efforts, the
population of the Lord Howe Island
pied currawong has remained around
100 to 200 individuals, probably
because of limited suitable nesting
habitat. Species with small population
sizes such as the Lord Howe pied
currawong may be at greater risk of
extinction due to synergistic effects of
factors affecting this subspecies.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54748
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
However, because significant
conservation efforts for the currawong
have been implemented, and the
subspecies is being closely managed and
monitored, we find that the threats are
nonimminent. Thus, based on the best
information available, the LPN remains
at 6 to reflect nonimminent threats of
high magnitude.
Reptiles
Gopher tortoise, eastern population
(Gopherus polyphemus)—The following
summary is based on information in our
files. The gopher tortoise is a large,
terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that
reaches a total length up to 15 in (38
cm) and typically inhabits the sandhills,
pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine
flatwoods associated with the longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A
fossorial animal, the gopher tortoise is
usually found in areas with well–
drained, deep, sandy soils; an open tree
canopy; and a diverse, abundant,
herbaceous groundcover.
The gopher tortoise ranges from
extreme southern South Carolina south
through peninsular Florida, and west
through southern Georgia, Florida,
southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into
extreme southeastern Louisiana. The
eastern population of the gopher tortoise
in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and
Alabama (east of the Mobile and
Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate
species; the gopher tortoise is federally
listed as threatened in the western
portion of its range, which includes
Alabama (west of the Mobile and
Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and
Louisiana.
The primary threat to the gopher
tortoise is fragmentation, destruction,
and modification of its habitat (either
deliberately or from inattention),
including conversion of longleaf pine
forests to incompatible silvicultural or
agricultural habitats, urbanization,
shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly
from fire exclusion or insufficient fire
management), and establishment and
spread of invasive species. Other threats
include disease, predation (mainly on
nests and young tortoises), and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms,
specifically those needed to protect and
enhance relocated tortoise populations
in perpetuity. The magnitude of threats
to the eastern range of the gopher
tortoise is considered moderate to low,
since populations extend over a broad
geographic area and conservation
measures are in place in some areas.
However, since the species is currently
being affected by a number of threats
including destruction and modification
of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics,
and inadequate regulatory mechanisms,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
the threat is imminent. Thus, we have
assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
Snails
Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella
magnifica)—Magnificent ramshorn is
the largest North American air-breathing
freshwater snail in the family
Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e.,
coiling in one plane), relatively thin
shell that reaches a diameter commonly
exceeding 35 millimeters (mm) and
heights exceeding 20 mm. The great
width of its shell, in relation to the
diameter, makes it easily identifiable at
all ages. The shell is brown colored
(often with leopard-like spots) and
fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to
still or slow-flowing aquatic habitats.
The magnificent ramshorn is believed to
be a southeastern North Carolina
endemic. The species is known from
only four sites in the lower Cape Fear
River Basin in North Carolina. Although
the complete historical range of the
species is unknown, the species and the
fact that it was not reported until 1903
suggest that the species may have
always been rare and localized.
Salinity and pH are major factors
limiting the distribution of the
magnificent ramshorn, as the snail
prefers freshwater bodies with
circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the
range of 6.8–7.5). While members of the
family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic,
it is currently unknown whether
magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize
their eggs, mate with other individuals
of the species, or both. Like other
members of the Planorbidae family, the
magnificent ramshorn is believed to be
primarily a vegetarian, feeding on
submerged aquatic plants, algae, and
detritus. While several factors have
likely contributed to the possible
extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn
in the wild, the primary factors include
loss of habitat associated with the
extirpation of beavers (and their
impoundments) in the early 20th
century, increased salinity and
alteration of flow patterns, as well as
increased input of nutrients and other
pollutants. The magnificent ramshorn
appears to be extirpated from the wild
due to habitat loss and degradation
resulting from a variety of humaninduced and natural factors. The only
known surviving individuals of the
species are presently being held and
propagated at a private residence and a
lab at North Carolina State University’s
Veterinary School; the population at the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission’s Watha State Fish
Hatchery was recently lost.
While efforts have been made to
restore habitat for the magnificent
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ramshorn at one of the sites known to
have previously supported the species,
all of the sites continue to be affected
and/or threatened by the same factors
(i.e., salt water intrusion and other water
quality degradation, nuisance aquatic
plant control, storms, sea-level rise, etc.)
believed to have resulted in extirpation
of the species from the wild. Currently,
only two captive populations exist: A
captive population of the species
comprised of approximately 1,000+
adults and one with approximately 300+
adults. Although captive populations of
the species have been maintained since
1993, a single catastrophic event, such
as a severe storm, disease, or predator
infestation, affecting this captive
population could result in the near
extinction of the species. The threats are
high in magnitude and ongoing;
therefore, we assign this species an LPN
of 2.
Insects (Butterflies)
Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Mimoides
lysithous harrisianus)—Harris’ mimic
swallowtail is a subspecies that inhabits
the restinga (sand forest) habitats within
the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil. It
historically occurred in southern
Espirito Santo State and along the coast
of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Recent records indicated that there were
just three sites occupied by the butterfly
in the State of Rio de Janeiro; however,
preliminary results from an ongoing
study indicate that there are two newly
discovered colonies within the City of
Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within
protected National Parks, and the other
sites appear to be under municipal
conservation with uncertain protected
status. These two new colonies in the
City of Rio de Janeiro are located in
small patches of vegetation and are
possibly at risk of extirpation
(disappearing from a specific geographic
area within its range). The best-studied
colony at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o has
maintained a stable and viable size for
nearly two decades; however, there is
limited information on its status since
2004. We could not find recent
population numbers for the subspecies
in any of the other colonies.
Habitat destruction has been the main
threat and is ongoing. Based on a
number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of
the area historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome
has been converted or severely degraded
as the result of human activities. In
addition to the overall loss and
degradation of its habitat, the remaining
tracts of its habitat are severely
fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or
human-caused, is a stressor for Harris’
mimic swallowtail due to its potential to
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
destroy the few remaining, occupied
habitats. Sea-level rise may also affect
this coastal subspecies, and habitat loss
from sea-level rise may be compounded
by an increased demand by humans to
use remaining land for housing and
infrastructure.
Another factor affecting this butterfly
is collection. Although Harris’ mimic
swallowtail is categorized as
endangered on the list of Brazilian fauna
threatened with extinction, and
collection and trade of the subspecies is
prohibited, it has been offered for sale
on the internet. Specimens of Harris’
mimic swallowtail are routinely
advertised online ranging from $1,000 to
$2,200 U.S. dollars (USD), indicating
that illegal collection and trade may be
occurring and demand for this butterfly
is high. Harris’ mimic swallowtail is not
currently on the IUCN Red list, although
it was identified as a ‘‘threatened and
extinct subspecies’’ in the family
Papilionidae in the 1994 IUCN Red List.
The subspecies has not been formally
considered for listing in the appendices
to CITES. It is also not regulated on the
annexes to EU Wildlife Trade
Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR,
Harris’ mimic swallowtail was assigned
an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the
threats to this subspecies, we have
determined that no change in the LPN
is warranted. Harris’ mimic swallowtail
is a subspecies that is not within a
monotypic genus. Threats are high in
magnitude due to the existence of only
a few small, fragmented colonies, and
the potential for catastrophic events
such as fire. Additionally, although the
subspecies is protected by Brazilian law
and several of the colonies are located
within protected areas, the high price
advertised online for specimens
indicates that there is demand for the
subspecies, likely from illegal
collection. Because the population is
very small and limited to approximately
five known colonies, we find the threats
are of high magnitude. Based on the best
information available, the LPN remains
a 3 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Fluminense swallowtail (Parides
ascanius)—Like Harris’ mimic
swallowtail (above), the fluminense
swallowtail also inhabits the restinga
(sand forest) habitats of the coastal
Atlantic Forest of Brazil within the State
of Rio de Janeiro. There are at least eight
confirmed subpopulations of
fluminense swallowtail, and several
other small, likely ephemeral,
subpopulations are currently being
studied (i.e., 8–12 estimated
subpopulations). Thus, the overall
number of subpopulations reported for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
the species has declined from ‘‘fewer
than 20 colonies’’ in 1994, to 8 to 12 in
2017. The body of science on the
species indicates a continual decline of
subpopulations as well as a decrease in
the numbers of individuals within each
subpopulation. Genetic analysis of eight
of the remaining subpopulations is
consistent with metapopulation
dynamics (a group of separate
subpopulations that has some level of
mixing) with low genetic diversity and
trending towards increased isolation of
these populations from urban
development. The butterfly is described
as seasonally common, with sightings of
up to 50 individuals at one colony in a
single morning. A study at Biological
Reserve of Poc
¸o das Antas estimated
that the subpopulation ranged from 10
to 50 individuals. We could not find
estimates for butterfly numbers in the
remaining subpopulations.
Habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation are the principal threats
to this species. The species occupies
highly specialized habitat and requires
large areas to maintain a viable colony.
Based on a number of estimates, 88 to
95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the
Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as a
result of human activities. Habitat loss
and destruction is caused primarily by
road and building construction,
drainage of swamps, and vegetation
suppression, and the remaining tracts
are severely fragmented. Fire, either
wildfire or human-caused, is a stressor
for the fluminense swallowtail and has
the potential to destroy the few
remaining, occupied habitats. This
coastal butterfly may also be affected by
habitat loss from sea-level rise, which
may be compounded by human use of
the remaining land for infrastructure
and housing.
Only one of the subpopulations is
presently found within a large protected
area (Poc¸o das Antas Biological
Reserve), and the majority of the
remaining populations are on smaller,
fragmented parcels with limited or no
protections and are vulnerable to
extirpation.
Illegal collection of the fluminense
swallowtail is likely occurring and
ongoing. The species is located near
urban areas and is easy to capture.
Recently, multiple specimens of
fluminense swallowtail have been
advertised online with costs ranging
from $220 to $700 USD. The impact of
illegal collection to the fluminense
swallowtail is difficult to assess, but
removal of individuals from the
remaining small, fragmented
populations could, in combination with
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54749
other stressors, contribute to local
extirpations.
The fluminense swallowtail butterfly
was the first invertebrate to be officially
noted on the list of Brazilian animals
threatened with extinction in 1973. It
has been classified as vulnerable by the
IUCN Red List since 1983. The species
is currently categorized by Brazil as
endangered. It has not been formally
considered for listing in the appendices
to CITES. However, it is listed on Annex
B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations;
species listed on Annex B require a
permit for import.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
fluminense swallowtail was assigned an
LPN of 2. After reevaluating the
stressors to this species, we have
determined that no change to the LPN
is warranted. The fluminense
swallowtail does not represent a
monotypic genus. The overall number of
subpopulations recorded for the species
has declined from previous records of
‘‘fewer than 20 colonies’’ to
approximately 8 to 12. Only one of these
known subpopulations is presently
found within a large protected area, and
the majority of the remaining
subpopulations are on small,
fragmented parcels with limited or no
protections and are vulnerable to
extirpation. Despite the conservation
measures in place, the species continues
to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and
destruction, and illegal collection and
trade) that are high in magnitude. The
threats are ongoing and, therefore,
imminent. The LPN remains a 2 to
reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail
(Parides hahneli)—Hahnel’s Amazonian
swallowtail is a large black and yellow
butterfly endemic to Brazil. It is known
from three remote locations along the
tributaries of the middle and lower
Amazon River basin in the states of
Amazonas and Para´. Its preferred habitat
is on old sand strips (stranded beaches)
that are overgrown with dense scrub
vegetation or forest. Hahnel’s
Amazonian swallowtail is described as
very scarce and extremely localized in
association with its specialized habitat
and its larval host plant. Population size
and trends are not known for this
species. However, habitat alteration and
destruction are ongoing in Para´ and
Amazonas where this species is found,
and researchers are concerned that this
destruction is taking place before the
butterfly can be better studied and its
ecological needs can be better
understood.
In the 2015 Global Forest Resources
Assessment of 234 countries and
territories, Brazil reported the greatest
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54750
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
loss of primary forest from 1990 to 2015,
and the states of Para´ and Amazonas
(where the butterfly is found)
experienced high rates of deforestation
in the last decade. Habitat loss and
destruction are occurring (e.g., high
rates of deforestation, dam construction,
waterway crop transport, and clearing
for agriculture and cattle grazing) and
will likely continue in the future.
Collection (see Harris’ mimic
swallowtail discussion, above) is also a
potential threat for Hahnel’s Amazonian
swallowtail. The species has been
collected for commercial trade and may
be reared for trade. Locations in the
wild have been kept secret given the
high value of this butterfly to collectors.
Over the past 2 years, multiple
specimens of Hahnel’s Amazonian
swallowtail were noted for sale or sold
from locations in the United States for
$70 to $500 USD and from Germany
(approximately $166 USD).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is
classified as data deficient as of 2018 on
the IUCN Red List. The species is listed
as endangered on the State of Para´’s list
of threatened species, but it is not listed
by the State of Amazonas or by Brazil.
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is not
listed in any appendices of CITES.
However, it is listed on Annex B of the
EU Wildlife Trade Regulations; species
listed on Annex B require a permit for
import.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating
the threats to the Hahnel’s Amazonian
swallowtail, we have determined that
no change in the LPN is warranted. This
swallowtail does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude and imminence
due to its small endemic population and
limited and decreasing availability of its
highly specialized habitat. Habitat
alteration and destruction are ongoing
in Para´ and Amazonas where the
butterfly is found and are likely to
continue. These threats are high in
magnitude due to the species’ highly
localized and specialized habitat
requirements. Potential impacts from
collection are unknown but could, in
combination with other stressors,
contribute to local extirpations. Based
on a reevaluation of the threats, the LPN
remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats
of high magnitude.
Jamaican kite swallowtail
(Protographium marcellinus, syn.
Eurytides marcellinus)—The Jamaican
kite swallowtail is a small blue-green
and black butterfly and is regarded as
Jamaica’s most endangered butterfly.
Breeding populations of the Jamaican
kite swallowtail are found only where
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
there are dense stands of the host plant
(Oxandra lanceolata), and these stands
are rare. There is no known estimate of
population size, but subpopulations are
known from five sites. Two of the sites
may be recently extirpated, one is
thought to be tenuous, and two are
viable with strong numbers in some
years.
Habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation are considered the
primary factors affecting the Jamaican
kite swallowtail. Historical habitat loss
and destruction occurred when forests
were cleared for agriculture and timber
extraction. More recent habitat
destruction is occurring primarily from
sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish pots,
or charcoal. Charcoal-making also
carries the risk of fire, which destroys
pupae in the leaf litter. Additionally,
mining for limestone and bauxite also
pose threats to remaining forested tracts.
The two strongest subpopulations of
the Jamaican kite swallowtail occur in
protected areas (i.e., the Portland Bight
Protected Area and the Forest Reserve in
the Cockpit Country), although habitat
destruction within these areas continues
to be a problem. Additionally, Jamaica’s
Forest Act of 1996 and Forest
Regulations Act of 2001 have increased
the power of Jamaican authorities to
protect the species’ habitat; the
Jamaican kite swallowtail is included in
Jamaica’s National Strategy and Action
Plan on Biological Diversity. This
strategy established specific plans for
protecting sites that support two
subpopulations of the swallowtail.
Although these projects were identified
as high priorities, to date they have not
been initiated due to funding and
capacity constraints. Therefore,
conservation management continues to
be lacking for this species.
Although the Jamaican Wildlife
Protection Act of 1994 carries steep
fines and penalties, illegal collection of
the Jamaican kite swallowtail appears to
be occurring. Three specimens of the
Jamaican kite swallowtail were noted
for sale on the internet as recently as
2017, for as much as 100 Euros ($120
USD), and one specimen sold in 2015
for 150 Euros ($178 USD). Specimens of
the Homerus swallowtail (Papilio
homerus, another rare Jamaican
butterfly) have also been illegally
traded, indicating that there is a market
for Jamaican butterflies despite heavy
fines.
Predation from native predators,
including spiders, the Jamaican tody
(Todus todus), and praying mantis, may
be adversely affecting the few remaining
Jamaican kite swallowtail populations,
especially in the smaller
subpopulations. In years where large
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
numbers of spiders were observed, very
few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae
survived. Additionally, this species may
be at greater risk of extinction due to
small fragmented subpopulations and
synergistic effects of the factors noted
above. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite
swallowtail has been categorized on
IUCN’s Red List as vulnerable, but it is
marked ‘‘needs updating.’’ This species
is not listed in any of the appendices of
CITES or the EU Wildlife Trade
Regulations, although some level of
illegal trade is likely occurring.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Jamaican kite swallowtail was assigned
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the
factors affecting the Jamaican kite
swallowtail, we have determined that
no change in LPN is warranted. The
Jamaican kite swallowtail does not
represent a monotypic genus. The
Jamaican kite swallowtail is known
from only five small subpopulations,
and as few as two of these
subpopulations may presently be viable.
Although Jamaica has taken regulatory
steps to preserve native swallowtail
habitat, plans for conservation of vital
areas for the butterfly have not been
implemented. Based on our reevaluation
of the threats to this species, the LPN
remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats
of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail
(Teinopalpus imperialis)—The Kaiser-iHind swallowtail is a large, ornate,
green-black-and-orange butterfly native
to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan,
China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, and Vietnam. The species
occurs in the foothills of the Himalayan
Mountains and other mountainous
regions at altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m
(4,921 to 10,000 ft) above sea level, in
undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved
evergreen forests or montane deciduous
forests. Although it has a relatively large
range, it is restricted to higher
elevations and occurs only locally
within this range. Adults fly up to open
hilltops above the forests to mate, where
males will often defend mating
territories. Larval host-plants are limited
to Magnolia and Daphne species, and in
some regions the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail is strictly monophagous,
only using a single species of Magnolia
as a host plant. Despite the species’
widespread distribution, populations
are described as being very local and
never abundant. Even early accounts of
the species described it as being a very
rare occurrence.
Habitat destruction is believed to
negatively affect this species, which
prefers undisturbed, high-altitude
forests. In China and India, the Kaiseri-Hind swallowtail populations are
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
affected by habitat modification and
destruction due to commercial and
illegal logging. 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. The
Forest Ministry in Nepal considers
habitat destruction to be a critical threat
to all biodiversity, including the Kaiseri-Hind swallowtail. Comprehensive
information on the rate of degradation of
Himalayan forests containing the Kaiseri-Hind butterfly is not available, but
habitat loss is consistently reported as
one of the primary ongoing threats to
the species there.
Collection for commercial trade is
also regarded as a threat to the species.
The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly
valued and has been collected and
traded despite various prohibitions.
Although it is difficult to assess the
potential impacts from collection, it is
possible that collection in combination
with other stressors could contribute to
local extirpations of small populations.
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
listed in CITES appendix II since 1987.
Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail is listed on annex B of the
EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was assigned
an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the
threats to this species, we have
determined that no change in its LPN of
8 is warranted. The Kaiser-i-Hind
swallowtail does not represent a
monotypic genus. Threats from habitat
destruction and illegal collection are
moderate in magnitude due to the
species’ wide distribution and to
various protections in place within each
country. We find that the threats are
imminent due to ongoing habitat
destruction and high market value for
specimens. Based on our reassessment
of the threats, we have retained an LPN
of 8 to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
Candidates in Review
For several candidates, we continue to
find that listing is warranted but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on thorough reviews of all available data
regarding these species and expect to
publish either proposed listing rules or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
12-month not-warranted findings prior
to making the next annual resubmitted
petition 12-month findings for these
species. In the course of preparing
proposed listing rules or not-warranted
petition findings, we are continuing 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 ESA in the case of
an emergency posing a significant risk
to any of these species. These species
are the following: Pen˜asco least
chipmunk (Tamias minimus
atristriatus), Sierra Nevada red fox—
Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes
necator), red tree vole—north Oregon
coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus),
Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus
gulolineatus), Texas fatmucket
(Lampsilis bracteata), Texas fawnsfoot
(Truncilla macrodon), Texas
pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), Hermes
copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes),
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
(Atlantea tulita), rattlesnake-master
borer moth (Papaipema eryngii),
Astragalus microcymbus (skiff
milkvetch), Astragalus schmolliae
(Chapin Mesa milkvetch), Cirsium
wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle), Pinus
albicaulis (whitebark pine), Solanum
conocarpum (marron bacora), and
Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted
twistflower).
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already
Listed
We previously made warranted-butprecluded findings on four petitions
seeking to reclassify threatened species
to endangered status. The taxa involved
in the reclassification petitions are two
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus
arctos horribilis), delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus). Because these species are
already listed under the ESA, they are
not candidates for listing and are not
included in Table 1. However, this
notice and associated species
assessment forms or 5-year review
documents also constitute the findings
for the resubmitted petitions to
reclassify these species. Our updated
assessments for these species are
provided below. We find that
reclassification to endangered status for
two grizzly bear ecosystem populations,
delta smelt, and Sclerocactus
brevispinus are all 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 the grizzly bear populations, delta
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54751
currently listed as threatened, and
therefore already receive certain
protections under the ESA. Those
protections are set forth in our
regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly
bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by reference,
50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR
17.71, and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.61
(Sclerocactus brevispinus). 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 or a delta smelt,
subject to applicable exceptions. Also, it
is unlawful for any person, among other
prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to
possession Sclerocactus brevispinus
from an area under Federal jurisdiction,
subject to applicable exceptions. Other
protections that apply to these
threatened species even before we
complete proposed and final
reclassification rules include those
under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA,
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.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis),
North Cascades ecosystem population
(Region 6)—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 Cascade
ecosystem warrant a change to
endangered status. We have continued
to find that these petitions are
warranted but precluded through our
annual CNOR process. On January 13,
2017, in partnership with the National
Park Service, we made available for
public comment a draft North Cascades
Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan
(plan) and draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) to determine how to
restore the grizzly bear to the North
Cascades ecosystem (82 FR 4416). The
comment period on this draft plan and
EIS closed on March 14, 2017 and
reopened again on August 2, 2019. The
final restoration plan and EIS are
expected to take up to 2 years to
complete as we evaluate a variety of
alternatives, including population
restoration. This ecosystem does not
contain a verified population (only three
confirmed observations of individuals
in the last 20 years), and is isolated from
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54752
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
other populations in British Columbia
and the United States.
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), very small population
size, and population fragmentation
resulting in genetic isolation. However,
we acknowledge the possibility that
there is no longer a population present
in the ecosystem. The threats are high
in magnitude, because the limiting
factors for grizzly bears in this recovery
zone are human-caused mortality and
extremely small population size. The
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 ESA and its implementing
regulations.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis),
Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population
(Region 6)—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 an August 29, 2011,
5-year status review, we determined that
grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak
ecosystem warranted a change to
endangered status. 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. This decision was
challenged in court (Alliance for the
Wild Rockies v. Ryan Zinke et al. (Case
No. 9:16–cv–00021–DLC)), and on
August 22, 2017, the court ruled against
the Service. The court reinstated the
previous finding that uplisting the
Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of
grizzly bears was warranted but
precluded, with an LPN of 3 for the
uplisting based on high-magnitude
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
threats that are ongoing, thus imminent,
and, therefore, we are reevaluating its
status. 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 ESA and its implementing
regulations.
Delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus) (Region 8)—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 12month 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. Delta smelt abundance, as
indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl
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 primary threats to the delta smelt
are direct entrainments by State and
Federal water export facilities, summer
and fall increases in salinity and water
clarity resulting from decreases in
freshwater flow into the estuary, and
effects from introduced species.
Ammonia in the form of ammonium
may also be a significant threat to the
survival of the delta smelt. Additional
potential threats are predation by
striped and largemouth bass and inland
silversides, contaminants, and small
population size. Existing regulatory
mechanisms have not proven adequate
to halt the decline of delta smelt since
1993, when we listed the delta smelt as
a threatened species (58 FR 12854;
March 5, 1993).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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), considered
irreversible. Thus, we are maintaining
an LPN of 2 for this species.
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus) (Region 6)—Pariette cactus is
restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta
geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of
northeastern Utah. The species is
restricted to one population with an
overall range of approximately 16 miles
by 5 miles in extent. The species’ entire
population 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
species may be illegally collected as a
specimen plant for horticultural use.
Recreational off-road vehicle use and
livestock trampling are additional
threats. The species is currently
federally listed as threatened (44 FR
58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112,
September 15, 2009). The threats are of
a high magnitude, because any one of
the threats has the potential to severely
affect the survival of this species, a
narrow endemic with a highly limited
range and distribution. Threats are
ongoing and, therefore, are imminent.
Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this
species for uplisting. However, higherpriority listing actions, including courtapproved settlements, court-ordered and
statutory deadlines for petition findings
and listing determinations, emergency
listing determinations, and responses to
litigation, continue to preclude
reclassifying the Pariette cactus.
Furthermore, proposed rules to
reclassify threatened species to
endangered are generally a lower
priority than listing currently
unprotected species (i.e., candidate
species), as species currently listed as
threatened are already afforded the
protection of the ESA and the
implementing regulations.
We continue to find that
reclassification of this species to
endangered is warranted but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. (See 72 FR 53211, September 18,
2007, and the species assessment form
(see ADDRESSES) for additional
information on why reclassification to
endangered is warranted but precluded.)
However, we are working on a thorough
review of all available data and expect
to publish a 5-year status review and
draft recovery plan prior to making the
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding. In the course of
preparing a 5-year status review and
draft recovery plan, we are continuing
to monitor new information about this
species’ status.
Current Notice of Review
We gather data on plants and animals
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 notice 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
State Natural Heritage Programs, other
State and Federal agencies,
knowledgeable scientists, public and
private natural resource interests, and
comments received in response to
previous notices of review.
Tables 1 and 2, 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. Several species that have not yet
been formally described in the scientific
literature are included; such species are
identified by a generic or specific name
(in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’
We incorporate standardized common
names in these notices as they become
available. We sort plants by scientific
name due to the inconsistencies in
common names, the inclusion of
vernacular and composite subspecific
names, and the fact that many plants
still lack a standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all candidate species,
plus species currently proposed for
listing under the ESA. We emphasize
that in this notice 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 State
agencies, other Federal agencies, and
other parties to consider these species in
environmental planning.
In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on
the left side of the table identifies the
status of each species according to the
following codes:
PE—Species proposed for listing as
endangered. Proposed species are those
species for which we have published a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
proposed rule to list as endangered or
threatened in the Federal Register. This
category does not include species for
which we have withdrawn or finalized
the proposed rule.
PT—Species proposed for listing as
threatened.
PSAT—Species proposed for listing as
threatened due to similarity of
appearance.
C—Candidates: Species for which we
have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to
support proposals to list them as
endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is
precluded at present by other higher
priority listing actions. This category
includes species for which we made a
12-month warranted-but-precluded
finding on a petition to list. Our analysis
for this notice included making new
findings on all petitions for which we
previously made ‘‘warranted-butprecluded’’ 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).
The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’
identifies the Regional Office to which
you should direct information,
comments, or questions regarding
domestic species (see addresses under
Request for Information, below). For
species foreign to the United States, you
should direct information, comments, or
questions to the office of the Chief,
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Following the scientific name (fourth
column) and the family designation
(fifth column) is the common name
(sixth column). The seventh 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. Many species no longer
occur in all of the areas listed.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
54753
Species in Table 2 of this notice are
those we included either as proposed
species or as candidates in the previous
CNORs (published December 2, 2016, at
81 FR 87246 for domestic species and
October 17, 2016, at 81 FR 71457 for
foreign species) that are no longer
proposed species or candidates for
listing. Since December 2, 2016, for
domestic species and October 17, 2016,
for foreign species, we listed 17 species,
withdrew 4 species from proposed
status, and removed 8 species from the
candidate list by making not-warranted
findings or withdrawing proposed rules.
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).
F—Species whose range no longer
includes a U.S. territory.
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 ESA’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.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
54754
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The columns describing lead region,
scientific name, family, common name,
and historical range include information
as previously described for Table 1.
Request for Information
We request you submit any further
information on the species named in
this notice 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 for domestic
species 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 ESA is appropriate).
For domestic species, submit
information, materials, or comments
regarding a particular species to the
Regional Director of the Region
identified as having the lead
responsibility for that species. The
regional addresses follow:
Pacific Northwest. Hawaii, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, American Samoa,
Guam, and Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Regional
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911
NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–
4181 (503/231–6158).
Southwest. Arizona, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500
Gold Avenue SW, Room 4012,
Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248–
6920).
Midwest. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/
713–5334).
Southeast. Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/679–4156).
Northeast. Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Regional Director (TE), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589
(413/253–8615).
Mountain-Prairie. Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO
80225–0486 (303/236–7400).
Alaska. Alaska. Regional Director
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK
99503–6199 (907/786–3505).
Pacific Southwest. California and
Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage
Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA
95825 (916/414–6464).
We will provide information we
receive to the Region 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 Regional
Office.
For species foreign to the United
States, submit information, materials, or
comments regarding a particular species
to the office of the Chief, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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 notice is published under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 24, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
Status
Category
Lead
region
Priority
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Mammals
Tamias minimus atristriatus ....
Pekania pennanti ....................
Sciuridae ..............
Mustelidae ............
Chipmunk, Pen˜asco least .......
Fisher (West Coast DPS) .......
U.S.A. (NM).
U.S.A (CA, OR, WA).
Vulpes vulpes necator .............
Canidae ................
U.S.A. (CA, OR).
Martes caurina ssp.
humboldtensis.
Arborimus longicaudus ............
Mustelidae ............
Fox, Sierra Nevada red (Sierra
Nevada DPS).
Marten, Humboldt ....................
9
Southwest ........
Pacific Southwest.
Pacific Southwest.
Pacific Southwest.
Pacific ..............
U.S.A. (OR).
6
Mountain-Prairie
Gulo gulo luscus .....................
Mustelidae ............
Vole, red tree (north Oregon
coast DPS).
Wolverine, North American
(Contiguous U.S. DPS).
Curassow, Sira ........................
Curassow, southern helmeted
Peru.
Bolivia.
C * ..............
PT ..............
6
..................
C * ..............
3
PT ..............
..................
C * ..............
PT ..............
Cricetidae .............
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR,
UT, WA, WY).
Birds
C * ..............
C * ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2
2
..........................
..........................
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Pauxi koepckeae .....................
Pauxi unicornis ........................
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Cracidae ...............
Cracidae ...............
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
54755
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
Status
Category
Priority
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Lord Howe Island, New South
Wales.
Chatham Islands, New Zealand.
New Zealand.
U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC).
Colombia.
U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT, DE,
FL, 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).
U.S.A (CA, NV).
C * ..............
6
..........................
Strepera graculina crissalis .....
Cracticidae ...........
C * ..............
8
..........................
Haematopus chathamensis .....
Haematopodidae ..
Currawong, Lord Howe Island
pied.
Oystercatcher, Chatham .........
..............
..............
..............
..............
8
..................
2
..................
..........................
Southeast .........
..........................
Southeast .........
Cyanoramphus malherbi .........
Pterodroma hasitata ................
Rallus semiplumbeus ..............
Laterallus jamaicensis ssp.
jamaicensis.
Psittacidae ...........
Procellariidae .......
Rallidae ................
Rallidae ................
Parakeet, orange-fronted ........
Petrel, black-capped ...............
Rail, Bogota´ .............................
Rail, eastern black ..................
PT ..............
..................
Pacific Southwest.
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Centrocercus urophasianus ....
Phasianidae .........
Porphyrio hochstetteri .............
Tangara peruviana ..................
Scytalopus novacapitalis .........
Aulacorhynchus huallagae ......
Zosterops luteirostris ...............
Dryocopus galeatus ................
Dendrocopos noguchii ............
Rallidae ................
Thraupidae ...........
Rhinocryptidae .....
Ramphastidae ......
Zosteropidae ........
Picidae .................
Picidae .................
Sage-Grouse, Greater (BiState DPS).
Takahe ....................................
Tanager, black-backed ............
Tapaculo, Brasilia ....................
Toucanet, yellow-browed ........
White-eye, Ghizo .....................
Woodpecker, helmeted ...........
Woodpecker, Okinawa ............
C*
PT
C*
PT
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
8
8
8
2
2
8
2
New Zealand.
Brazil.
Brazil.
Peru.
Solomon Islands.
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay.
Okinawa Island, Japan.
Reptiles
C * ..............
8
Southeast .........
Gopherus polyphemus ............
Testudinidae ........
Tortoise, gopher (eastern population).
U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS,
SC).
Hellbender, eastern (Missouri
DPS).
Salamander, Berry Cave .........
Waterdog, Neuse River ...........
U.S.A. (MO).
Amphibians
PE ..............
..................
Midwest ............
C * ..............
PT ..............
8
..................
Southeast .........
Southeast .........
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
alleganiensis.
Gyrinophilus gulolineatus ........
Necturus lewisi ........................
Cryptobranchidae
Plethodontidae .....
Proteidae ..............
U.S.A. (TN).
U.S.A. (NC).
Fishes
PE ..............
C * ..............
..................
6
PE ..............
PE ..............
PSAT .........
N/A
..................
N/A
Southeast .........
Pacific Southwest.
..........................
Southeast .........
Pacific ..............
Noturus furiosus ......................
Spirinchus thaleichthys ...........
Ictaluridae ............
Osmeridae ...........
Madtom, Carolina ....................
Smelt, longfin (San Francisco
Bay–Delta DPS).
Sturgeon, Yangtze ..................
Topminnow, Barrens ...............
Trout, Dolly Varden .................
U.S.A. (NC).
U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA),
Canada.
China.
U.S.A. (TN).
U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada,
East Asia.
Acipenser dabryanus ..............
Fundulus julisia .......................
Salvelinus malma ....................
Acipenseridae ......
Fundulidae ...........
Salmonidae ..........
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Clam, Colorado delta ..............
Fatmucket, Texas ....................
Fawnsfoot, Texas ....................
Pigtoe, Atlantic ........................
Pimpleback, Texas ..................
Mexico.
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (GA, NC, VA).
U.S.A. (TX).
Planorbidae ..........
Ramshorn, magnificent ...........
U.S.A. (NC).
Clams
C*
C*
C*
PT
C*
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
8
2
2
..................
2
..........................
Southwest ........
Southwest ........
Southeast .........
Southwest ........
Mulinia modesta ......................
Lampsilis bracteata .................
Truncilla macrodon ..................
Fusconaia masoni ...................
Quadrula petrina .....................
Mactridae
Unionidae
Unionidae
Unionidae
Unionidae
Snails
C * ..............
2
Southeast .........
Planorbella magnifica ..............
Insects
C * ..............
5
Lycaena hermes ......................
Lycaenidae ...........
Butterfly, Hermes copper ........
U.S.A. (CA).
3
2
Pacific Southwest.
Pacific ..............
Southeast .........
PE ..............
C * ..............
Euchloe ausonides insulanus
Atlantea tulita ..........................
Pieridae ................
Nymphalidae ........
U.S.A. (WA).
U.S.A. (PR).
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
8
5
..................
2
2
Midwest ............
Mountain-Prairie
Mountain-Prairie
..........................
..........................
Papaipema eryngii ..................
Lednia tumana ........................
Zapada glacier ........................
Parides ascanius .....................
Parides hahneli .......................
Noctuidae .............
Nemouridae .........
Nemouridae .........
Papilionidae .........
Papilionidae .........
C * ..............
3
..........................
Papilionidae .........
Brazil.
C * ..............
2
..........................
Mimoides ( = Eurytides or
Graphium) lysithous
harrisianus.
Protographium ( = Eurytides or
Graphium or Neographium
or Protesilaus) marcellinus.
Butterfly, Island marble ...........
Butterfly, Puerto Rican harlequin.
Moth, rattlesnake-master borer
Stonefly, meltwater lednian .....
Stonefly, western glacier .........
Swallowtail, fluminense ...........
Swallowtail, Hahnel’s Amazonian.
Swallowtail, Harris’ mimic .......
Papilionidae .........
Swallowtail, Jamaican kite ......
Jamaica.
C*
PT
PT
C*
C*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, OK).
U.S.A. (MT).
U.S.A. (MT).
Brazil.
Brazil.
54756
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
Status
Category
Priority
C * ..............
8
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
..........................
Teinopalpus imperialis ............
Papilionidae .........
Swallowtail, Kaiser-i-Hind ........
Bhutan, China, India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand,
Vietnam.
Crayfish, Panama City ............
Crayfish, slenderclaw ..............
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (AL).
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
WA,
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
Historical range
Crustaceans
PT ..............
PT ..............
..................
..................
Southeast .........
Southeast .........
Procambarus econfinae ..........
Cambarus cracens ..................
Cambaridae .........
Cambaridae .........
Flowering Plants
C*
C*
C*
C*
..............
..............
..............
..............
8
8
8
8
Mountain-Prairie
Mountain-Prairie
Southwest ........
Mountain-Prairie
Astragalus microcymbus .........
Astragalus schmolliae .............
Cirsium wrightii ........................
Pinus albicaulis .......................
Fabaceae .............
Fabaceae .............
Asteraceae ...........
Pinaceae ..............
Milkvetch, skiff .........................
Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa ..........
Thistle, Wright’s marsh ...........
Pine, whitebark ........................
C * ..............
C * ..............
2
8
Southeast .........
Southwest ........
Solanum conocarpum .............
Streptanthus bracteatus ..........
Solanaceae ..........
Brassicaceae .......
Bacora, marron .......................
Twistflower, bracted ................
(CO).
(CO).
(AZ, NM), Mexico.
(CA, ID, MT, NV, OR,
WY), Canada (AB, BC).
(PR).
(TX).
TABLE 2—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
Code
Lead
region
Expl.
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Mammals
Rc ..............
A
Alaska ..............
Odobenus rosmarus divergens
Odobenidae .........
Walrus, Pacific ........................
U.S.A. (AK), Russia.
U.S.A. (HI).
Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama.
Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama.
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela.
Uvea, New Caledonia.
U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.
Birds
T ................
E ................
L
L
Pacific ..............
..........................
Drepanis coccinea ...................
Ara macao ssp. cyanopterus ..
Fringillidae ............
Psittacidae ...........
Iiwi (honeycreeper) ..................
Macaw, scarlet ........................
T ................
L
..........................
Ara macao ssp. macao ...........
Psittacidae ...........
Macaw, scarlet (northern DPS)
SAT ...........
L
..........................
Ara macao ssp. macao ...........
Psittacidae ...........
Macaw, scarlet (southern
DPS).
Rc ..............
Rc ..............
A
A
..........................
Southwest ........
Eunymphicus uvaeensis .........
Amazona viridigenalis .............
Psittacidae ...........
Psittacidae ...........
Parakeet, Uvea .......................
Parrot, red-crowned ................
Reptiles
T ................
L
Midwest ............
Sistrurus catenatus .................
Viperidae ..............
Massasauga ( = rattlesnake),
eastern.
E ................
L
Southwest ........
Kinosternon sonoriense
longifemorale.
Kinosternidae .......
Turtle, Sonoyta mud ................
U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN,
MO, NY, OH, PA, WI), Canada.
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
Amphibians
Rc ..............
E ................
A
L
Southeast .........
Southeast .........
Notophthalmus perstriatus ......
Necturus alabamensis .............
Salamandridae .....
Proteidae ..............
Newt, striped ...........................
Waterdog, black warrior ( =
Sipsey Fork).
U.S.A. (FL, GA).
U.S.A. (AL).
Chub, headwater .....................
Chub, roundtail (Lower Colorado River Basin DPS).
Darter, diamond ......................
Darter, pearl ............................
U.S.A (AZ, NM).
U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY).
U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV).
U.S.A. (LA, MS).
Hornshell, Texas .....................
Orb, golden .............................
Pimpleback, smooth ................
U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico.
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (TX).
Fishes
Rp ..............
Rp ..............
N
N
Southwest ........
Southwest ........
Gila nigra .................................
Gila robusta .............................
Cyprinidae ............
Cyprinidae ............
E ................
T ................
L
L
Northeast .........
Southeast .........
Crystallaria cincotta .................
Percina aurora .........................
Percidae ...............
Percidae ...............
Clams
E ................
Rc ..............
Rc ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
L
N
N
Southwest ........
Southwest ........
Southwest ........
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Popenaias popei .....................
Quadrula aurea .......................
Quadrula houstonensis ...........
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Unionidae .............
Unionidae .............
Unionidae .............
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
54757
TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued
[Note: See End of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
Status
Code
Lead
region
Expl.
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Insects
E ................
L
Midwest ............
Bombus affinis .........................
Apidae ..................
Bee, rusty patched bumble .....
U.S.A. (CT, DE, DC, GA, IL,
IN, IA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI,
MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC,
ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD,
TN, VT, VA, WV, WI), Canada (Ontario, Quebec).
Rc ..............
N
Mountain-Prairie
Arsapnia ( = Capnia) arapahoe
Capniidae .............
Snowfly, Arapahoe ..................
U.S.A. (CO).
Amphipod, Kenk’s ...................
U.S.A. (DC, MD, VA).
Rockcress, Fremont County or
small.
Sandmat, pineland ..................
U.S.A. (WY).
Crustaceans
Rp ..............
I
Northeast .........
Stygobromus kenki ..................
Crangonyctidae ....
Flowering Plants
Rc ..............
A
Mountain-Prairie
Boechera ( = Arabis) pusilla ...
Brassicaceae .......
T ................
L
Southeast .........
Euphorbiaceae .....
Rp ..............
A
E ................
L
Pacific Southwest.
Southeast .........
T ................
Rc ..............
E ................
Rc ..............
E ................
T ................
L
A
L
A
L
L
Southeast .........
Mountain-Prairie
Southwest ........
Mountain-Prairie
Pacific ..............
Southeast .........
Rc ..............
A
Mountain-Prairie
Chamaesyce deltoidea
pinetorum.
Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina.
Dalea carthagenensis var.
floridana.
Digitaria pauciflora ..................
Eriogonum soredium ...............
Festuca ligulata .......................
Lepidium ostleri .......................
Sicyos macrophyllus ...............
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.
austrofloridense.
Trifolium friscanum ..................
Polygonaceae ......
Fabaceae .............
Spineflower, San Fernando
Valley.
Prairie-clover, Florida ..............
U.S.A. (FL).
Poaceae ...............
Polygonaceae ......
Poaceae ...............
Brassicaceae .......
Cucurbitaceae ......
Sapotaceae ..........
Crabgrass, Florida pineland ....
Buckwheat, Frisco ...................
Fescue, Guadalupe .................
Peppergrass, Ostler’s ..............
Anunu ......................................
Bully, Everglades ....................
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
Fabaceae .............
Clover, Frisco ..........................
U.S.A. (UT).
[FR Doc. 2019–21478 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
U.S.A. (FL).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
U.S.A. (CA).
(FL).
(UT).
(TX), Mexico.
(UT).
(HI).
(FL).
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54732-54757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21478]
[[Page 54731]]
Vol. 84
Thursday,
No. 197
October 10, 2019
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and
Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;
Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54732]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2019-0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic
and Foreign 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: Notice of review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and
animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for
addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of
candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by
providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing
landowners and resource managers 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. 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, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
Moreover, we request any additional status information that may be
available for the candidate species identified in this CNOR.
DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this notice
at any time.
ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.
For domestic species: Species assessment forms with information and
references on a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat
needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review at the
appropriate Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
or at the Branch of Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA (see address
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 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 notice to the appropriate 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 Endangered Species Coordinator in the appropriate
Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Species-specific
information and materials we receive will be available for public
inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for Information
in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we receive will be
available at the Branch of Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA (see
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
For species foreign to the United States: Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on
this notice or pertaining to a specific species to the appropriate
address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Species-specific
information and materials we receive will be available for public
inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
appropriate address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
General information we receive will be available at the Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For domestic species: Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-1796).
For species foreign to the United States: Chief, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-
1735).
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call
the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information
that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in
this CNOR (see Request for Information, below). 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 notice of review. We also request information
on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare
future updates of this notice.
Candidate Notice of Review
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that
are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the ESA, 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 at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of
species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species
is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as
endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of
a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We may
identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted
an evaluation of its status--either on our own initiative, or in
response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a
petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted,
but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the
species to our list of candidates.
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1)
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make
listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to
help us identify those candidate species that may not require
protection under the ESA, as well as additional species that may
[[Page 54733]]
require the ESA's protections; and (5) to request necessary information
for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage
collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer
technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For
additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the
appropriate Office listed under Request for Information, below, or
visit our website, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cca.html.
Publication of this notice has been delayed due to efforts to
resolve outstanding issues. As a result, many of the candidate forms
reflect that our formal analysis was conducted in fall of 2017, as
shown by the date as of which the information is current on each form.
However, we were able to update a small subset of the candidate forms
recently to reflect additional information we have obtained on those
species. We intend to publish an updated combined CNOR for animals and
plants that will update all of the candidate forms, including our
findings on resubmitted petitions and a description of our progress on
listing actions, in the near future in the Federal Register.
Previous Notices of Review
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was
published on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87246). CNORs published since 1994
are available on our website, 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 an 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 ESA
(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 (DPS).
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 notice as a
candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient
information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a
particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a more-
detailed explanation--including citations to, and more-detailed
analyses of, the best scientific and commercial data available--for our
determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and
assignment of the LPN.
To the extent this revised notice differs from any previous animal,
plant, and combined CNORs or previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded
petition findings for those candidate species that were petitioned for
listing, this notice supersedes them.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous CNORs for species foreign to the
United States on October 17, 2016 (81 FR 71457) and for domestic
species on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87246), 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.
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the
last CNORs, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list
species, on proposed rules to list species under the ESA, and on final
listing determinations. Some of these findings
[[Page 54734]]
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, 41 species are now candidates awaiting
preparation of rules proposing their listing. Table 1 identifies these
41 species, along with the 17 species currently proposed for listing
(including 1 species proposed for listing due to similarity in
appearance).
Table 2 lists the changes for species identified in the previous
CNORs, and includes 29 species identified in the previous CNORs as
either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no
longer in those categories. This includes 17 species for which we
published a final listing rule, 8 candidate species for which we
published separate not-warranted findings and removed them from
candidate status, and 4 species for which we published a withdrawal of
a proposed rule.
New Candidates
We are not identifying any new candidate species through this
notice.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the
LPN for the Colorado delta clam (Mulinia modesta) and longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys) for the reasons discussed below.
Colorado delta clam--The Colorado delta clam is a relatively large,
estuarine bivalve that was once very abundant at the head of the Gulf
of California in the Colorado River estuary in Mexico prior to the
construction of dams on the Colorado River. In our previous CNOR (81 FR
71457; October 17, 2016), we reported that the Colorado delta clam was
endemic to the upper Gulf of California within the Colorado River
estuary. However, experts have recently confirmed that Mulinia
coloradoensis is actually a junior synonym (part of the broader taxon)
of M. modesta. Recognizing that the clam is M. modesta, we now also
recognize that the clam has a broader distribution into the northern
and central portions of the Gulf of California. Therefore, the species
is more widespread than we previously believed, and it is capable of
living in salinities ranging from brackish (mixture of salt and fresh
water) to full seawater. Because this species is not restricted to the
Colorado delta, it is likely that there are subpopulations of the
species in other areas in the Gulf of California.
Information on the population numbers and trends for the species is
limited. The subpopulation in the Colorado River delta and upper Gulf
of California has experienced at least a 90 percent decline, and one
post-dam study indicated that the species comprised 0.77 percent of the
overall living intertidal shelly macrofauna (including mollusk,
echinoderm, and brachiopod) in this area. We could not find information
regarding numbers of the Colorado delta clam in subpopulations
elsewhere in the Gulf of California because benthic surveys of the
near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna in this area appear to be lacking.
However, the area of potentially suitable habitat available to the clam
is greater than we previously believed. The species has not been
assessed for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's
(IUCN) Red List. It is not commercially harvested or threatened by
international trade, and it is not listed in any appendices of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES).
Although the specific causes for the dramatic decline of the clam
in the Colorado delta and upper Gulf of California region have not
definitively been identified, several researchers have indicated that
it was a consequence of decrease in the Colorado River's inflow to the
estuary since completion of the dams, and there is strong
circumstantial evidence for this assertion. Environmental changes to
the estuary associated with the decrease in river inflow include
increased salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of
naturally derived nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer
flood. Dams and diversions along the Colorado River have greatly
affected the estuarine environment of the Colorado delta and have
likely caused the localized decline in abundance of the clam in this
region. However, we have no reason to believe that dams and diversions
are a stressor for the Colorado delta clam elsewhere within its range
in the northern and central portions of the Gulf of California.
Stressors for the clam throughout its range may arise from other
natural or manmade factors affecting the clam's continued existence,
such as pollution-related problems and effects from climate change. One
example of a pollution-related problem is a 2003 harmful algal bloom
that caused fish and bivalve mortalities along 94 square kilometers
(km\2\) (36 square miles (mi\2\)) of the coastline. Potential stressors
to the clam associated with the effects of climate change include
marine transgression, increased intensity and frequency of storms, and
further invasion by nonnative species. However, studies of climate
change and its effects to species in the Gulf of California are
limited.
In the previous CNOR (81 FR 71457; October 17, 2016), the Colorado
delta clam was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the status of
and threats to the Colorado delta clam, we have determined that a
change in the LPN for the species is warranted. With the recent
confirmation that the clam is Mulinia modesta, we now recognize that it
has a broader distribution into the northern and central portions of
the Gulf of California and is capable of living in full seawater.
Therefore, our review of the best information available indicates that
the Colorado delta clam exists across a greater range in the Gulf of
California than we previously believed. However, we lack information
about the distribution and viability of populations of the clam outside
of the Colorado delta region. Despite the conservation measures in
place (primarily two large protected areas), the species continues to
face habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado delta region due to
dams and diversions on the Colorado River. Because this threat appears
to be affecting the clam in upper Gulf of California, and not in the
remainder of its range, it is moderate in magnitude. The threat of
habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado delta region is ongoing
and, therefore, imminent. Thus, we have changed the LPN from a 2 to an
8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Longfin smelt, Bay-Delta DPS--The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and the 12-month finding published
in the Federal Register on April 2, 2012 (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. In our
previous CNOR (81 FR 87246; December 2, 2016), the longfin smelt was
assigned an LPN of 3. Longfin smelt measure 9-11 centimeters (cm) (3.5-
4.3 inches (in)) in length. Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and
anadromous, although anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly 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
[[Page 54735]]
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.
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 2016. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest
recorded in the 40-year history of the Fall Midwater Trawl 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, 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 concentrations have also likely attributed to
declines in the species' abundance within the San Francisco Bay-Delta.
The threats remain high in magnitude, as they pose a significant risk
to the DPS throughout its range.
While Delta outflow is the predominant driver of the DPS's
abundance, the best available information indicates that high winter-
spring flows have occurred in recent and the current water years.
Additionally, the State of California has listed the longfin smelt
under the California Endangered Species Act, and is preparing a new
permit for operation of the State Water Project that will be issued by
the end of the year. The California State Water Resources Control Board
just adopted new flow objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River and
will be addressing Delta flow objectives this year. Through these
processes, we anticipate the State will take action to reduce the
threats particularly around outflow, and is poised to do so in the near
term. Therefore, the threat is not operative in the immediate future,
and thus is nonimminent. As such, we are identifying an LPN of 6 for
this population.
Candidate Removals
Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis)--We have evaluated the
threats to the Uvea parakeet and have considered factors that,
individually and in combination, currently or potentially could pose a
risk to the species and its habitat. After a review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that listing this
species is not warranted because it is not in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we no longer
consider the Uvea parakeet to be a candidate species for listing. We
will continue to monitor the status of this species and to accept
additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will
reconsider our determination in the event that we gather new
information that indicates that the threats are of a considerably
greater magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of
information contained in our files, as summarized below.
The Uvea parakeet is a relatively large, green parakeet found on
the small atoll of Uvea, located approximately 1,500 kilometers (km)
(932 miles (mi)) east of Australia in the Loyalty Archipelago, New
Caledonia (a territory of France). The entire island of Uvea is
considered an ``Important Bird Area'' by BirdLife International, which
works with communities to combine conservation with sustainable
livelihoods. Additionally, in 2008, Uvea Island became part of the
``Lagoons of New Caledonia'' a United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site.
Uvea parakeets were introduced to the adjacent island of Lifou (to
establish a second population) in 1925 and 1963, but these
introductions failed. The species occupies both the north and south
ends of Uvea Island. The species primarily uses older (old-growth)
forest habitats and nests in the cavities of living Syzygium and
Mimusops trees. Their exclusive use of tree cavities for nesting may be
a limiting factor. In 1977, the Uvea parakeet population was estimated
to be between 500 to 800 individuals. The most recent estimate of the
Uvea parakeet population is 1,730 birds with a 95-percent confidence
interval of 963 to 3,203 individuals.
The Uvea parakeet is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List.
More recently, IUCN downlisted the Uvea parakeet to vulnerable, noting
that decline in forest quality may not be affecting the species, and
because the population trend is increasing. This species was listed on
Appendix I of CITES in July 2000. An Appendix I listing includes
species threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under
exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.
Historically, the primary stressor to the Uvea parakeet was the
capture of juveniles for the pet trade. Although New Caledonian law has
protected the Uvea parakeet from trade since 1935, harvest and export
were common until recent decades. Capture and trade likely increased in
the second half of the 20th century. Between September 1992 and
February 1993, it appears that more than 50 young parakeets were
illegally captured and most were then illegally exported. Additionally,
capture of young parakeets involves cutting nest cavities open to
extract nestlings, which destroys the cavities and makes them
unsuitable for future nesting.
In 1993, a nongovernmental organization, the Association for the
Protection of the Uvea Parakeet (Association), was formed to help
recover the species. The Association was established with mostly local
members to increase the chances that Uvea parakeet conservation would
be accepted by the Island community. The Association initiated long-
term monitoring and ecological studies and prepared two recovery plans
(1997-2002 and 2003-2008). Capture of Uvea parakeets is now restricted,
and the species is monitored using local guides as part of its recovery
plan. As part of this effort, these local guides are paid to spread
conservation messages and protect parakeet nests; since 2006, the
number of guides increased to 10. With the establishment of a
community-based effort to protect the parakeet, it appears that nest
poaching is no longer occurring such that it significantly affects the
species.
Other potential threats to the parakeet include: (1) Habitat loss
and degradation, particularly as it negatively affects nesting sites
and may impede species dispersal; (2) competition and predation from
nonnative species such as the honey bee (Apis mellifera ligustica),
which competes with the Uvea parakeet for tree cavities, and the
potential introduction of the nonnative ship rat (Rattus rattus), which
preys on forest birds (although we are not aware of any indication at
this time that such an invasion has already occurred, if an invasion
were to occur in the future, it could very quickly affect the
parakeet); (3) the potential for Psittacine beak and feather disease;
and (4) effects from climate change, which may negatively alter the
Uvea parakeet's habitat in the
[[Page 54736]]
future if they lead to loss of forest habitat or important food
sources, and the parakeet is unable to adapt.
Overall, the increase in the population is attributed to the
reduction in nest poaching, and it appears that the community-based
efforts to protect the parakeet have been successful. The population
has increased significantly from 1998 to 2008 despite the threats noted
above.
In our previous CNOR (81 FR 71457; October 17, 2016), we assigned
the Uvea parakeet an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available
information, including new information that has become available since
our previous CNOR, we find that this species no longer warrants
listing. Although it is an island endemic that is restricted in range,
the primary threat to the species--poaching and trade--has been
removed, and the population has responded and expanded. Although we
identified a number of other potential threats to the species (e.g.,
habitat loss and degradation, competition and predation from nonnative
species, disease, future effects from climate change), the population
has rebounded despite these stressors and is increasing. Recent
population trend data support these findings and have lead to the
Interantional Union for Conservation of Nature's decision to downlist
the species on its Red List from ``endangered'' to ``vulnerable'' in
2017. Additionally, New Caledonia and its conservation partners remain
active in conservation efforts, and the designation of Uvea Island as
both an ``Important Bird Area'' and a UNESCO World Heritage Site bode
well for future conservation of the species and its habitat. Therefore,
we have determined that this species no longer warrants listing, and we
are removing it from the candidate list.
Petition Findings
The ESA 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 ESA requires the Service to
make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the
statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which
listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need
emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, 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, and promptly publish
the finding in the Federal Register;
(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are
required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the
petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species,
sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures,
regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a
petition); or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b)
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the
Lists. We refer to this third option as a ``warranted-but-precluded
finding,'' and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it
in the Federal Register.
We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability
and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add
all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded
12-month finding to the candidate list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we
receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as
a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate
species and through this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings
(i.e., substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month
findings) in response to the petitions to list these candidate species.
We publish these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt
of the petition. We have identified the candidate species for which we
received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding
on a resubmitted petition by the code ``C*'' in the category column on
the left side of Table 1, below.
Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding.
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA 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 ESA, until we publish a
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition
findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings,
although all previous findings are part of the administrative record
for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or
incorporate them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining
why the finding has changed.
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA 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
[[Page 54737]]
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 ESA. For example, on
August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR
49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least
annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have
received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species
assessment forms constitute the Service's system for monitoring and
making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under
sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.
A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and
specificity of information that we must consider in making and
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a
nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned
from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for
each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our
budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain
the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded
action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and
threats to, the 41 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. Additional
information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species
assessments and our administrative record for each species.
Our review included updating the status of, and threats to,
petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings,
under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have
incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and,
as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.
However, for some of these 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.
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, 2016, through September 30,
2017. 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 ESA.
In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1
below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates
warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is
found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these
forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the domestic
species, from the appropriate office listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT for species foreign to the United States, or from
the Fish and Wildlife Service's internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report. As described above, under
section 4 of the ESA, 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
threatened or endangered; and (2) that expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove
species from the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY),
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a
proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions--(1) The
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2)
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of
the proposed listing regulation in relation to other actions in its
workload.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from
depleting funds needed for other functions under the ESA (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 ESA; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed rules
[[Page 54738]]
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).
We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act
(31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, from FY 2002 through FY 2017,
the Service's listing budget included a subcap for critical habitat
designations for already-listed species to ensure that some funds
within the listing cap are available for completing Listing Program
actions other than critical habitat designations for already-listed
species. (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that
some funding is available to address other listing activities.'' House
Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY
2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually all
of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
funds within the critical habitat subcap were available for other
listing activities. In some FYs between 2006 and 2017, we have not
needed to use all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to
comply with court orders, and we therefore could use the remaining
funds within the subcap towards additional proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we did not need to use all of the funds within the critical habitat
subcap to comply with court orders requiring critical habitat actions,
we did not apply any of the remaining funds towards additional proposed
listing determinations, and instead applied the remaining funds towards
completing critical habitat determinations concurrently with proposed
listing determinations. This allowed us to combine the proposed listing
determination and proposed critical habitat designation into one rule,
thereby being more efficient in our work.
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 requiring critical habitat actions for already-
listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition
findings, respectively--set the framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
From FY 2012 through FY 2017, Congress had put in place two
additional subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for
foreign species and one for petition findings. As with the critical
habitat subcap, if the Service did not need to use all of the funds
within either subcap, we were able to use the remaining funds for
completing proposed or final listing determinations.
For FY 2017, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), included an overall listing spending cap of
$20,515,000, and the subcaps of no more than $4,569,000 to be used for
critical habitat determinations; no more than $1,501,000 to be used for
listing actions for foreign species; and no more than $1,498,000 to be
used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions.
In FY 2018, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-141), the use of subcaps was discontinued, and Congress
appropriated the Service $18,818,000 under a consolidated cap for all
domestic and foreign listing work, including status assessments,
listings, domestic critical habitat determinations, and related
activities.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating
relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number
of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. Our practice of proposing to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing species requires
additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work. In
the past, we estimated that the median cost for preparing and
publishing a 90-day finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month finding,
$68,875. We estimated that the median costs for preparing and
publishing a proposed listing rule with proposed critical habitat is
$240,000; and for a final listing determination with a final critical
habitat determination, $205,000.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1)
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing or critical habitat
determinations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential
litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management
functions; (3) section 4 (of the ESA) 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 and a
single petition to list 404 domestic species, significantly increasing
the number of actions within the third category of our workload--
actions that have absolute statutory deadlines. 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 end of FY 2018, we had more
than 446 12-month petition findings for domestic species yet to be
initiated and completed. Because we are not able to work on all of
these at once, we prioritized status reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016) and developed a multi-year
workplan for completing them. For foreign species, we currently have 17
pending 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed.
An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4
program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098;
September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus
(a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of
a species (subspecies or distinct population
[[Page 54739]]
segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the
listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the
highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally
be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a
proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined with
work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species
to endangered species are generally lower in priority, because as
listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA
and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court order or
court-approved deadline.
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.
On September 1, 2016, the Service released its National Listing
Workplan for addressing ESA domestic listing and critical habitat
decisions over the subsequent 7 years. At the close of FY 2018, the
workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all domestic
species on the candidate list and conducting 251 status reviews (also
referred to as 12-month findings) by FY 2023 for domestic species that
have been petitioned for Federal protections under the ESA. The
petitioned species are prioritized using our final prioritization
methodology (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016). As we implement our listing
work plan and work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species,
we increase efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-
priority species. The National Listing Workplan is available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-workplan.html.
For foreign species, the Service has 17 pending 12-month petition
findings that are subject to statutory deadlines. Because these actions
are subject to statutory deadlines, and, thus, are higher priority than
work on proposed listing determinations for the 19 foreign candidate
species, publication of proposed rules for these 19 species is
precluded. In addition, available staff resources are also a factor in
determining which high-priority foreign species are provided with
funding. The Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species may, depending on
available staff resources, work on foreign candidate species with an
LPN of 2 or 3 and, when appropriate, species with a lower priority if
they overlap geographically or have the same threats as the species
with higher priority.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2016
outlined work for domestic species over the period from 2017 to 2023.
Through FY 2017, commitments set forth as part of a settlement
agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), Document 31-1
(D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')) greatly affected
our preclusion analysis. First, the Service was limited in the extent
to which it could undertake additional actions within the Listing
Program through FY 2017 because complying with the requirements of the
MDL Settlement Agreement exhausted a large portion of the funds within
the spending cap for the listing program. Second, because the
settlement was court-approved, it was the Service's highest priority
(compliance with a court order) for FY 2016 to fulfill the requirements
of those settlement agreements. Included within the settlement
agreements was a requirement to complete--by the end of FY 2016--
proposed listings or not-warranted findings for the remaining candidate
species that were included in the 2010 CNOR, as well as to make final
determinations on any of the proposed listings within the statutory
timeframe. Therefore, one of the Service's highest priorities was to
make steady progress towards completing the remaining final listing
determinations for the 2010 candidate species by the end of 2017,
taking into consideration the availability of staff resources. In FY
2018, the Service fulfilled the commitments set forth as part of the
MDL Settlement Agreement.
Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that
proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1
are all precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We provide tables
under Expeditious Progress, below, identifying the higher-priority
listing actions that we completed in FYs 2017 and 2018, as well as
those we worked on but did not complete in FY 2017 or 2018.
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. 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 2017
appropriations law included a spending cap of $20,515,000 for listing
activities; within that amount, Congress prohibited the Service from
spending more than $1,501,000 on listing determinations for foreign
species. The FY 2018 appropriations law included a spending cap of
$18,818,000 for listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding
qualified species to the Lists. (Although we do not discuss it in
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
domestic species from the list under the Recovery program, as well as
reclassifying endangered species as threatened, in light of the
resources available for delisting domestic species, which is funded
through the recovery line item in the budget of the Endangered Species
Program. During FYs 2017 and 2018, we finalized delisting rules for 8
species and downlisting rules for 5 species (in addition to completing
numerous recovery planning activities).)
Below, we provide tables cataloguing the work of the Service's
domestic and foreign species listing programs in FYs 2017 and 2018.
This work includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species
to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing; (2)
undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific data about
those species and the threats they face in preparation for a proposed
or final determination; and (3) adding species to the Lists by
publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of
the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that
data to the rule. As the tables below demonstrate, during FYs 2017 and
2018, the Service completed the following number of actions within
category 1: 90-day findings for 13 species; within category 2: 12-month
findings for 42 species; and within category 3: Proposed listing rules
for 21 species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat
designations for 3 species), and final listing rules for 28 species
[[Page 54740]]
(including concurrent final critical habitat determinations for 3
species).
After taking into consideration the limited resources available for
these accounts, the competing demands for those funds, and the
completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are
making expeditious progress in all three of the steps necessary for
adding qualified species to the Lists (identifying, evaluating, and
adding/removing species).
First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species
that may qualify for listing. In FYs 2017 and 2018, we completed 90-day
findings on petitions to list 13 species and 12-month findings for
petitions to list 42 species.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in working towards
adding candidate species to the Lists. In FYs 2017 and 2018, we funded
and worked on the development of 12-month findings for 29 species and
proposed listing determinations for 11 candidates. Although we did not
complete those actions during FY 2017 or FY 2018, we made expeditious
progress towards doing so.
Third, we are making expeditious progress in listing qualified
species. In FYs 2017 and 2018, we resolved the status of 28 species
that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for
listing, delisting, or downlisting. Moreover, for 24 of those species,
the resolution was to finalize the listing proposal (22 species), some
with concurrent designations of critical habitat for domestic species,
or the delisting proposal. For four species, we published withdrawals
of the proposed rules. We also proposed to list an additional 21
qualified species and to downlist an additional 2 species.
Our accomplishments in FYs 2017 and 2018 should also be considered
in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of
candidate species for which we have not made final determinations
whether to list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL
Litigation a settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious
schedule for completing proposed and final listing determinations at
least through FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on
September 9, 2011. That agreement required, among other things, that
for all 251 domestic species that were included as candidates in the
2010 CNOR, the Service submit to the Federal Register proposed listing
rules or not-warranted findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any
proposed listing rules, the Service complete final listing
determinations within the statutory time frame. By the end of FY 2018,
the Service had completed proposed listing rules or not-warranted
findings for all 251 of the domestic candidate species in the 2010
CNOR, as well as final listing determinations for all of the proposed
listings rules among them--thus completing all requirements specified
under the MDL Settlement Agreement. By completing both the requirements
under the MDL Settlement Agreement and numerous other listing actions
included in the Service's current workplan, the Service is making
expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists.
The Service's progress in FYs 2017 and 2018 included completing and
publishing the following actions:
FY 2017-2018 Completed Domestic Listing and Foreign Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title * Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/4/2016................... Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 68379-68397
Species Status for Threatened.
Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly and Western
Glacier Stonefly.
10/5/2016................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 81 FR 68963-68985
Status for Kentucky Threatened.
Arrow Darter with 4(d)
Rule.
10/5/2016................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 81 FR 68985-69007
Status for the Miami Endangered.
Tiger Beetle
(Cicindelidia
floridana).
10/6/2016................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 81 FR 69417-69425
Status for Suwannee Threatened.
Moccasinshell.
10/6/2016................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 81 FR 69425-69442
Petitions To List 10 Findings (10 domestic
Species as Endangered species).
or Threatened Species.
10/6/2016................... Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 69454-69475
Species Status for Threatened.
Louisiana Pinesnake.
10/6/2016................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 69500-69508
Status for Black Endangered.
Warrior Waterdog.
10/11/2016.................. Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 70282-70308
Species Status for Threatened or
Sideroxylon reclinatum Endangered.
ssp. austrofloridense
(Everglades Bully),
Digitaria pauciflora
(Florida Pineland
Crabgrass), and
Chamaesyce deltoidea
ssp. pinetorum
(Pineland Sandmat) and
Endangered Species
Status for Dalea
carthagenensis var.
floridana (Florida
Prairie-Clover).
11/28/2016.................. Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 85488-85507
Status for Hyacinth Threatened.
Macaw.
11/30/2016.................. 90-Day Findings on 90-Day Petition 81 FR 86315-86318
Three Petitions. Findings (2 domestic
species for listing
and 1 foreign
species).
12/14/2016.................. Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 81 FR 90297-90314
Status for Five Sri Endangered.
Lankan Tarantulas.
1/11/2017................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 3186-3209
Status for Rusty Endangered.
Patched Bumble Bee.
4/5/2017.................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 82 FR 16559-16569
Status for Yellow Threatened.
Lance.
4/5/2017.................... Removal of the Scarlet- Final Delisting....... 82 FR 16522-16540
Chested Parrot and the
Turquoise Parrot From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
4/7/2017.................... Threatened Species Withdrawal of Proposed 82 FR 16981-16988
Status for the Listing.
Headwater Chub and
Roundtail Chub
Distinct Population
Segment.
[[Page 54741]]
4/19/2017................... 90-Day Findings on Two 90-Day Petition 82 FR 18409-18411
Petitions. Findings (2 domestic
species for listing).
9/7/2017.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 42245-42260
Status for Guadalupe Endangered; Final
Fescue; Designation of Critical Habitat.
Critical Habitat for
Guadalupe Fescue.
9/20/2017................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 43897-43907
Status for Sonoyta Mud Endangered.
Turtle.
9/20/2017................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 43885-43896
Status for Pearl Threatened.
Darter.
9/20/2017................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 43873-43885
Status for the Iiwi. Threatened.
9/29/2017................... Withdrawal of the Withdrawal of Proposed 82 FR 45551-45574
Proposed Rule to List Listing.
Kenk's Amphipod.
10/4/2017................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 82 FR 46197-46205
Status for the Candy Threatened.
Darter.
10/4/2017................... 12 Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 82 FR 46183-46197
Petitions To List the Findings; Proposed
Holiday Darter, Listing--Threatened.
Trispot Darter, and
Bridled Darter;
Threatened Species
Status for Trispot
Darter.
10/5/2017................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 82 FR 46618-46645
Petitions To List 25 Findings (25 domestic
Species as Endangered species).
or Threatened Species.
10/6/2017................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 82 FR 46691-46715
Status for Dalea Endangered and
carthagenensis var. Threatened.
floridana (Florida
Prairie-clover), and
Threatened Species
Status for Sideroxylon
reclinatum ssp.
austrofloridense
(Everglades Bully),
Digitaria pauciflora
(Florida pineland
crabgrass), and
Chamaesyce deltoidea
ssp. pinetorum
(pineland sandmat).
12/6/2017................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 82 FR 57562-57565
Petitions To List Four Findings (4 domestic
Species as Endangered species).
or Threatened Species.
12/20/2017.................. 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 82 FR 60362-60366
Five Species. Findings (5 domestic
species for listing).
12/27/2017.................. Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 61230-61241
Status of the Yangtze Endangered.
Sturgeon.
12/29/2017.................. 12-Month Findings on 12-Month Petition 80 FR 61725-61727
Petitions To List a Findings Finding (1
Species (Beaverpond domestic species for
Marstonia) and Remove listing and 1
a Species domestic species for
(Southwestern Willow delisting).
Flycatcher) From the
Federal Lists of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
1/3/2018.................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 330-341
Status for the Panama Threatened.
City Crayfish.
1/3/2018.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 257-284
Status for Black Endangered; Final
Warrior Waterdog and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
1/4/2018.................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 490-498
Status for Barrens Endangered.
Topminnow.
1/16/2018................... Taxonomical Update for Direct Final Rule..... 83 FR 2085-2087
Orangutan.
2/9/2018.................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 5720-5735
Status for Texas Endangered.
Hornshell.
3/15/2018................... Withdrawal of the Withdrawal of Proposed 83 FR 11453-11474
Proposed Rule To List Listing.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. fernandina (San
Fernando Valley
Spineflower).
4/3/2018.................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 14189-14198
Status for Yellow Threatened.
Lance.
4/6/2018.................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 14958-14982
Status for Louisiana Threatened.
Pinesnake.
4/6/2018.................... Section 4(d) Rule for Proposed Section 4(d) 83 FR 14836-14841
Louisiana Pinesnake. Rule.
4/12/2018................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 15900-15936
the Island Marble Endangered; Proposed
Butterfly and Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
4/17/2018................... 90-Day Findings for Two 90-Day Petition 83 FR 16819-16822
Species. Findings (1 foreign
species for listing
and 1 domestic
species for
delisting).
6/27/2018................... 90-day Findings for 90-Day Petition 83 FR 30091-30094
Three Species. Findings (2 domestic
species for listing
and 1 domestic
species for
delisting).
7/31/2018................... Endangered Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 36755-36773
Status for Five Sri Endangered.
Lankan Tarantulas.
8/13/2018................... Threatened Species Final Listing-- 83 FR 39894-39916
Status for the Threatened.
Hyacinth Macaw.
9/5/2018.................... Reclassifying the Proposed 80 FR 45073-45087
Golden Conure From Reclassification--Thr
Endangered to eatened.
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 90-day and 12-month finding batches include findings regarding delisting or downlisting of domestic species,
which are funded through the Recovery account, as well as findings regarding foreign species, which are funded
through the account for foreign species. To make the sources of funding more clear, and ensure that the number
of species reported in the titles of batched findings matches the numbers we report in this CNOR for domestic
listing and foreign species, we identify the number of foreign and domestic species and the requested action
(listing or delisting) in each batch.
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FYs 2017 and 2018, but did
not complete in FY 2017 or 2018. For these species, we completed the
first step, and
[[Page 54742]]
worked on the second step necessary for adding species to the Lists.
These actions are listed below.
Actions funded in previous FYs and in FYs 2017 and 2018 but not
completed during that time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapin Mesa milkvetch........................ Proposed listing
determination
Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle).... Proposed listing
determination.
Hermes copper butterfly...................... Proposed listing
determination.
Marron bacora................................ Proposed listing
determination.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth................ Proposed listing
determination.
Red-crowned parrot........................... Proposed listing
determination.
Sierra Nevada red fox........................ Proposed listing
determination.
Texas fatmucket.............................. Proposed listing
determination.
Texas fawnsfoot.............................. Proposed listing
determination.
Texas pimpleback............................. Proposed listing
determination.
Whitebark pine............................... Proposed listing
determination.
Northern spotted owl......................... 12-month finding.
Lesser prairie chicken....................... 12-month finding.
Carolina madtom.............................. 12-month finding.
Neuse River waterdog......................... 12-month finding.
Franklin's bumblebee......................... 12-month finding.
False spike.................................. 12-month finding.
Bartram stonecrop............................ 12-month finding.
Beardless chinch weed........................ 12-month finding.
Chihuahua scurfpea........................... 12-month finding.
Donrichardsonia macroneuron (unnamed moss)... 12-month finding.
Peppered chub................................ 12-month finding.
Eastern hellbender........................... 12-month finding.
Big Cypress epidendrum....................... 12-month finding.
Cape Sable orchid............................ 12-month finding.
Clam-shell orchid............................ 12-month finding.
Longsolid.................................... 12-month finding.
Purple lilliput.............................. 12-month finding.
Round hickorynut............................. 12-month finding.
Ashy darter.................................. 12-month finding.
Barrens darter............................... 12-month finding.
Redlips darter............................... 12-month finding.
Arkansas mudalia............................. 12-month finding.
Brook floater................................ 12-month finding.
Elk River crayfish........................... 12-month finding.
Seaside alder................................ 12-month finding.
Yellow banded bumble bee..................... 12-month finding.
Joshua tree.................................. 12-month finding.
Panamint alligator lizard.................... 12-month finding.
Tricolored blackbird......................... 12-month finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for 20
candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did
not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted
petition findings for the 16 candidate species for which we are
preparing either proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 12-
month findings. However, in the course of preparing the proposed
listing determinations or 12-month not-warranted findings for those
species, we have continued to monitor new information about their
status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section
4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant
risk to the well-being of any of these candidate species; see summaries
below regarding publication of these findings (these species will
remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is
published). Because the majority of these petitioned species were
already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list
them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our
Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of
these species through our Candidate Conservation Program.
During FYs 2017 and 2018, we also funded work on resubmitted
petition findings for petitions to uplist four listed species (two
grizzly bear populations, Delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus
(Pariette cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and
made a warranted-but-precluded finding.
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add
qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the
requirements of the relevant law and regulations and constraints
relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways
to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale and have been
batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add
qualified species to the Lists.
Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species
Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we
published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made
warranted-
[[Page 54743]]
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.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Because we have determined that each candidate species is
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of
potentially significant portions of the range. Where the best available
information allows the Services to determine a status for the species
rangewide, that determination should be given conclusive weight because
a rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the
species' degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the
Act. Under this reading, we should first consider whether the species
warrants listing ``throughout all'' of its range and proceed to conduct
a ``significant portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a
species does not qualify for listing as either an endangered or a
threatened species according to the ``throughout all'' language. We
note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not
address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the
opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that each candidate species below, for
which we are making a resubmitted 12-month finding, warrants listing
throughout all of its range in accordance with sections 3(6), 3(20),
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Birds
Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis)--The southern helmeted
curassow is a game bird with a distinctive pale-blue horn-like
appendage, or casque, above its bill. The southern helmeted curassow is
known only from central Bolivia on the eastern slope of the Andes,
where large portions of its habitat are in National Parks. The species
inhabits dense, humid, foothill and lower montane forest and adjacent
evergreen forest at altitudes between 450 and 1,500 meters (m) (1,476
to 4,921 feet (ft)).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to
be between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals and is declining. Hunting is
believed to be the primary threat to the species, followed by habitat
loss and degradation. Although the National Parks have been important
for the preservation of the species, financial and human resources
needed to protect park resources are limited. Within the Parks, there
are human settlements and ongoing encroachment, including illegal
logging operations and forest clearing for farming. Rural development
and road building limit the species' ability to disperse. Range
reductions due to effects from climate change are also predicted for
the southern helmeted curassow, when warming temperatures may cause the
species to shift its distribution upslope and outside of protected
National Parks.
The southern helmeted curassow is classified as critically
endangered on the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been noted
internationally, and the species is not listed in any appendices of
CITES. The species was listed in Annex B of the European Union (EU)
Wildlife Trade Regulations that are directly applicable in all EU
Member States. In 1997, the southern helmeted curassow was listed with
all species in the genus Pauxi. In 2008, it was moved from Annex B to
Annex D (i.e., a lower level of protection) because it was one of the
species that ``are not subject to levels of international trade that
might be incompatible with their survival, but warrant monitoring of
trade levels.'' The species continues to be listed on Annex D.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the southern helmeted curassow was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we
have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. The southern
helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude based on its small, limited range.
The few locations where it is believed to exist continue to face
pressure from hunting and habitat loss and destruction, and the
population will likely continue to decline. Because the species is
experiencing ongoing significant population declines and habitat loss,
we have made no change to the LPN of 2, which reflects imminent threats
of high magnitude.
Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae)--The Sira curassow is a game bird
that is known only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru. Size and
coloration are similar to the southern helmeted curassow, but the Sira
curassow has a shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a horn-like bony
appendage above the bill) that is flattened against the head. The Sira
curassow inhabits cloud-forest habitat (a type of rainforest that
occurs on high mountains in the tropics) at elevations from 1,100 to
1,450 m (3,609 to 4,757 ft) and above.
Although historical population data are lacking, the population is
currently estimated at fewer than 250 mature individuals and is
declining. The primary cause of the decline is ongoing hunting by local
indigenous communities. Additionally, the Sira curassow's range within
the Cerros del Sira region is limited (550 square kilometers (km\2\)
(212 square miles (mi\2\)) and declining. Its habitat is being degraded
by subsistence agriculture, forest clearing, road building, and
associated rural development. Although the Sira curassow is legally
protected in a large portion of its range in El Sira Communal Reserve,
illegal hunting still occurs there. The species is classified as
critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. It is not threatened by
international trade, and it is not listed in any appendices of CITES or
the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the sira curassow was assigned an
LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have
determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Sira curassow
does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude based on its small estimated population and limited range.
The few locations where it is believed to exist continue to face
pressure from hunting and habitat loss. The best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that the population decline will
continue in the future. Because the species is experiencing significant
population declines due to both hunting and habitat loss and
degradation, we have made no change to the LPN of 2, which reflects
imminent threats of high magnitude.
Bogot[aacute] rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)--The Bogot[aacute] rail is
found in the East Andes of Colombia, South America. It is a medium-
sized nonmigratory rail largely restricted to areas at elevations from
2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft) in and surrounding Bogot[aacute],
Columbia, on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau. This region
formerly supported vast marshes and swamps, but few lakes with suitable
habitat for the rail remain. The species is secretive, and wetland
habitats most frequently used by rail are fringed by dense vegetation-
rich shallows. The current population size of the Bogot[aacute] rail is
estimated between 1,000 and 2,499 mature individuals and is thought to
be declining. The primary threat to
[[Page 54744]]
the rail is habitat loss and degradation. Approximately 8 million
people live in the City of Bogot[aacute], and 11 million in the larger
metro area. The wetlands have experienced a 97 percent loss in
historical extent with few suitably vegetated marshes remaining.
Additionally, road building may result in further colonization and
human interference, including introduction of nonnative species in
previously stable wetland environments. The Bogot[aacute] rail is
listed as endangered at the global and national level by IUCN. Trade
does not appear to be of concern at the international level, and the
species is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Bogot[aacute] rail was assigned
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have
determined that no change in the LPN for the species is needed. The
Bogot[aacute] rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the species'
habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of
widespread habitat loss and degradation. Although portions of the
Bogot[aacute] rail's range occur in protected areas, most of the
savanna wetlands are unprotected. The population is small and is
believed to be declining. The factors affecting the species are
ongoing, and are, therefore, imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 2 to
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri)--The takahe is a large flightless
bird in the rail family. The takahe was once widespread in the forest
and grassland ecosystems on the South Island of New Zealand. It was
thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered in the Murchison
Mountains on the South Island in 1948. In addition to its native range
on the mainland, the takahe has been introduced to offshore islands and
mainland sanctuaries.
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe
population consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the minimum total
population now rests at 306 individuals. Several factors have
historically led to the species' decline, including hunting,
competition from introduced herbivores (animals that feed on plants),
and predators such as weasels and the weka, a flightless woodhen that
is endemic to New Zealand. Currently, weasel predation appears to be
the most significant of these threats. Weasel trapping is an effective
tool at slowly increasing survival and reproductive output of takahe;
however, control efforts do not completely eliminate the threat.
Takahe is a long-lived bird, potentially living between 14 and 20
years, and has a low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of one
to three eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison Mountains (cold winters
and high snowfall) may also be a limiting factor to the takahe. The
population of takahe remains very small and has low genetic diversity
relative to other species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation
(NZDOC) is currently attempting to manage further loss of genetic
diversity through translocations. Additionally, NZDOC has implemented a
captive-breeding and release program to supplement the mainland
population and has established several reserve populations on islands
and fenced mainland sites; these actions are having a positive effect
on population growth. The takahe is listed as endangered on the IUCN
Red List, and New Zealand considers it a nationally critical species.
It is not listed in any appendices of CITES as international trade is
not a concern.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the takahe was assigned an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that
no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of
threats to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not
represent a monotypic genus. The species is subject to predation by
nonnative animals, particularly the introduced weasel. Although it has
a small population, has limited suitable habitat, and may experience
inbreeding depression, because the NZDOC is actively involved in
measures to aid the recovery of the species, we find the threats are
moderate in magnitude. Despite conservation efforts, the threats are
ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Lack of suitable habitat and
predation, combined with the takahe's small population size and
naturally low reproductive rate, are threats to this species that are
moderate in magnitude. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent
threats of moderate magnitude.
Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis)--The Chatham
oystercatcher is native to the Chatham Island group located 860 km (534
mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The species breeds along the
coastline of four islands in the chain: Chatham, Pitt, South East, and
Mangere. The Chatham oystercatcher is found mainly along rocky shores,
including wide volcanic rock platforms and occasionally on sandy or
gravelly beaches.
The Chatham oystercatcher is the rarest oystercatcher in the world,
with a recent population estimate of 300 to 320 individuals. The
species has experienced a three-fold increase in its population since
the first reliable census was conducted in 1987. Most of this increase
occurred during a period of intensive management, especially predator
control, from 1998 through 2004. The Chatham oystercatcher is listed as
nationally critical by the NZDOC. It is classified as endangered on the
IUCN Red List and is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
Predation of eggs and chicks, and to a lesser extent of adults, is
thought to be the main impediment to the Chatham oystercatcher
population. Although the Mangere and South East nature reserves are
free of all mammalian predators, nonnative mammalian predators inhabit
Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are the most common predator on
eggs. Other documented predators include gulls (Larus spp.), the native
brown skua (Catharacta antarctica), weka, and domestic dogs. Nest
destruction and disturbance by humans and livestock are also noted
threats. Habitat loss and degradation has occurred from introductions
of nonnative Marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) in the early 1900s to
revegetate destabilized dunes. The dense marram grass is unsuitable for
Chatham oystercatcher nesting. Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher
is forced to nest closer to shore, where nests are vulnerable to tides
and storm surges; up to 50 percent of eggs are lost in some years.
Rising sea levels associated with climate change will likely affect
future nesting success. Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher may be
at risk from loss of genetic diversity given its small population size.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Chatham oystercatcher was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined no change in the LPN for the species is warranted.
The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The
current population estimate is very small, and the species has a
limited range, but NZDOC has taken measures to recover and maintain the
species, and the population appears to have stabilized. However, the
species continues to face moderate threats, from predation, trampling,
nest disturbance, storm surges, and habitat loss due to nonnative
Marram grass, that are affecting nesting success and survival of the
Chatham oystercatcher. These threats are ongoing and, thus, are
imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
Orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi)--The orange-fronted
parakeet was once well
[[Page 54745]]
distributed on the South Island of mainland New Zealand and a few
offshore islands. It is now considered the rarest parakeet in New
Zealand. The three remaining naturally occurring populations are all
within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius of one another in fragmented beech tree
forests (Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys. Orange-fronted
parakeets have also been captive-bred and released onto four predator-
free islands where breeding has been confirmed.
The species' range contracted when its population was severely
reduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s for unknown reasons. From
1999 to 2000, the mainland population crashed from perhaps 500 to 700
birds to a rough estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result of ship rat
(Rattus rattus) eruptions. Information on current population status is
mixed. In 2013, the total population was estimated between 290 and 690
individuals (130 to 270 on the mainland, and 160 to 420 on the
islands). More recently, there are indications that both the offshore
and mainland populations have declined to around 100 and 250 birds,
respectively, but these are rough estimates.
The most prominent factors affecting the species on the mainland
are predation by nonnative mammals such as weasels and rats (Rattus
spp.), as well as habitat destruction. Habitat loss and degradation has
affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. In addition,
silviculture (care and cultivation) of beech forests in the past had
removed mature trees with nest cavities needed by the parakeet. The
species' habitat is also degraded by introduced herbivores that alter
forest structure in a way that reduces the available feeding habitat
for the parakeet. Additionally, the parakeet competes with two other
native parakeets for nest sites and food and with nonnative wasps and
finches for food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and feather disease virus is
a potential threat to this species. The disease was discovered in wild
native birds in New Zealand in 2008 (e.g., the red-fronted parakeet,
Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae), although it has not been documented in
the orange-fronted parakeet. Infected birds generally follow one of
three paths: They develop immunity, die within a couple of weeks, or
become chronically infected. Chronic infections result in feather loss
and deformities of beak and feathers.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the orange-fronted parakeet was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors affecting the
species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted
because NZDOC is actively managing for the species. The orange-fronted
parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species'
available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is limited, there
appears to have been some success with translocations to offshore
islands, and translocations are continuing. The species faces threats
(e.g., predation, habitat degradation, and competition for food and
suitable nesting habitat) that are moderate in magnitude because the
NZDOC continues to take measures to aid the recovery of the species. We
find that the threats to this species are ongoing and imminent; thus,
the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus)--The helmeted woodpecker
is a fairly small woodpecker native to regions of southern Brazil,
eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina. The helmeted woodpecker
is non-migratory, occurring in subpopulations in suitable habitat
within its range. Characteristic habitat is large tracts of well-
preserved southern Atlantic Forest in both lowland and montane areas
from sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species is
believed to prefer mature (old-growth) trees in tropical and
subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous-
coniferous forests.
The helmeted woodpecker is one of the rarest woodpeckers in the
Americas. Its population is believed to have declined sharply between
1945 and 2000, in conjunction with the clearing of mature forest
habitat, and is currently estimated at 400-8,900 individuals. Although
forest clearing has recently slowed, and the species occurs in at least
17 protected areas throughout its range, habitat degradation continues
and the population is still believed to be declining. The principal
threat to the helmeted woodpecker is loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of its Atlantic Forest habitat. Competition for nest
cavities is also likely a limiting factor. The helmeted woodpecker is
listed as endangered in Brazil and as vulnerable by the IUCN. It is not
listed in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the helmeted woodpecker was assigned
an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that
no change in the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is warranted. The
helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude
of threats to the species is moderate because the species' range is
fairly large. The threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon
which the species depends is still being altered and degraded. An LPN
of 8 continues to be accurate for this species.
Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii, syn. Sapheopipo
noguchii)--The Okinawa woodpecker is a relatively large woodpecker
found on Okinawa Island, Japan. The species prefers subtropical
evergreen broadleaf forests that are undisturbed and mature. It
currently occurs within the forested areas in the northern part of the
island, generally in the Yambaru forest, and in some undisturbed forest
in coastal areas. Most of the older forests that support the species
are within the Jungle Warfare Training Center (formerly known as the
Northern Training Area or Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S. Marine
Corps installation on Okinawa Island.
Deforestation in the Yambaru region has been cited as the main
cause of the Okinawa woodpecker's reduced habitat and population. As of
the mid 1990s, only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of suitable habitat was
available for this species. While most of the activities associated
with habitat loss appear to have ceased, the Okinawa woodpecker still
suffers from limited suitable habitat and a small population size. This
situation makes it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural
disasters such as typhoons. In addition, the species is vulnerable to
introduced predators such as feral dogs and cats, Javan mongoose
(Herpestes javanicus), and weasels (Mustela itatsi).
In 2016, the Japanese Government designated Yambaru National Park
and nominated ``the northern part of Okinawa Island'' (including
Yambaru National Park) as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre. The species is listed as
critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. It is legally protected in
Japan. It is not listed in any appendices of CITES and is not known to
be in trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Okinawa woodpecker was assigned
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that
no change in the LPN is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker does not
represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in
magnitude due to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. The population
is very small and is believed to still be 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 from
nonnative predators. Even though threats from logging have been
reduced, it will take
[[Page 54746]]
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. The LPN for
this species remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae)--The yellow-
browed toucanet has a small range on the eastern slope of the Andes of
north-central Peru at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft). The
toucanet occurs in humid montane forests. The population status is not
well known because of the inaccessibility of its habitat, but is
estimated at 600-1,500 mature individuals. The species currently
occupies three known locations within a small range. Habitat loss and
destruction from deforestation for agriculture has been widespread in
the region and is suspected to be the main threat, although
deforestation appears to have occurred mainly below the altitudinal
range of this toucanet. Gold mining and manufacturing also are common
in the region. The yellow-browed toucanet is described as scarce
wherever found, and ongoing population declines resulting from habitat
loss are assumed. It is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List
and is not listed in any CITES appendices.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the yellow-browed toucanet was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we
find that no change in the LPN is warranted at this time. The yellow-
browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. The estimated
population is small with just three known locations within a restricted
range. The magnitude of threats to the habitat remains high, and its
population is likely declining. The LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent
threats of high magnitude.
Brasilia tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis)--The Brasilia tapaculo
is a small, secretive, ground-dwelling bird with limited flight
ability. The tapaculo is found in gallery-forest habitat that is a
smaller habitat component occurring within the wider tropical savanna
or ``Cerrado'' of the Central Goi[aacute]s Plateau of Brazil. Gallery
forests are narrow fringes of thick streamside vegetation that occur on
the edges of rivers and streams at elevations of approximately 800-
1,000 m (2,625-3,281 ft). The Brasilia tapaculo is described as
``rare,'' but the population size is unknown. Despite a lack of data on
population trends, declines are suspected to be occurring, due to the
continued decline in area and quality of the tapaculo's gallery forest
habitat. Effects from climate change may also be negatively altering
the Cerrado and the tapaculo's specialized gallery forest habitat
within the Cerrado by reducing the amount of available habitat for the
species. Results from one climate change modeling study predicted that
the Brasilia tapaculo could lose all its range and protected habitat by
2060. The species is currently known to occur in six protected areas
and has been found on private land next to protected areas. These
protected areas are limited in extent and size, with few larger than
25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)). In the early 2000s, only 1.2
percent of the Cerrado was in protected areas; however, more recent
estimates are 6.5 percent.
The primary threat to the species is ongoing loss, fragmentation,
and degradation of its habitat, which is expected to limit the
availability and extent of suitable habitat for the tapaculo. The
Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened
tropical savanna in the world. Land in the Cerrado is currently being
converted for intensive grazing and mechanized agriculture, including
soybean and rice plantations. The tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat has
been less affected by clearing for agriculture than the surrounding
Cerrado. However, effects to gallery forest arise from wetland drainage
and the diversion of water for irrigation and from annual burning of
adjacent grasslands.
The IUCN recently changed the status of the species from near
threatened to endangered, identifying the species' small and fragmented
range as justification for the change in status. The Brazilian Red List
assessed the species as endangered, noting severe fragmentation and
continuing decline in area and quality of habitat. It is not threatened
by international trade and is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, we assigned the Brasilia tapaculo an
LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we have
determined that no change in the LPN is warranted at this time. The
Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the
species are moderate in magnitude and are imminent. The species has a
fairly wide geographic range, but is endemic to the Cerrado and
strongly associated with gallery forests, a very small component of the
Cerrado. Conversion of the Cerrado is ongoing. The populations
currently appear to be found only in or next to a handful of protected
areas, and most of these areas are small. The species is reported as
rare, even in protected areas. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for
this species.
Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris)--The Ghizo white-eye is a
small passerine (perching) bird described as ``warbler-like.'' It is
endemic to the small island of Ghizo in the Solomon Islands in the
South Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. The total range of the
Ghizo white-eye is estimated to be less than 35 km\2\ (13.5 mi\2\), of
which less than 1 km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) is the old-growth forest that the
species seems to prefer.
Little information is available about this species and its habitat.
It is locally common in old-growth forest patches and less common
elsewhere. The species has been observed in a variety of habitats on
the island, but it is unknown whether sustainable populations can exist
outside of forested habitats. The population is estimated to be between
250 and 1,000 mature individuals and is suspected to be declining due
to habitat degradation, particularly since a tsunami hit the island in
2007. Habitat loss appears to be the main threat. As of 2012, the human
population on the island was 7,177 and growing rapidly, and there has
been prolific growth in informal human settlements and temporary
housing on Ghizo, which may be adversely affecting the Ghizo white-eye
and its habitat. Areas around Ghizo Town, which previously supported
the species, have been further degraded since the town was devastated
by the 2007 tsunami, and habitat was found less likely able to support
the species in 2012. The species is also affected by conversion of
forested areas to agricultural uses. The old-growth forest on Ghizo is
still under pressure from clearance for local use as timber and
firewood, and for clearing for gardens, as are the areas of secondary
growth, which are already suspected to be suboptimal habitat for this
species.
The population of this species is believed to be declining and,
given its fragmented habitat in combination with small population
sizes, may be at greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects.
The IUCN Red List classifies this species as endangered. It is not
listed in any appendices of CITES, and this species is not in
international trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Ghizo white-eye was assigned an
LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no
change in the LPN is warranted. The Ghizo white-eye does not represent
a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to
declining suitable
[[Page 54747]]
habitat and its small, declining population size. The best information
available indicates that forest clearing is occurring at a pace that is
rapidly denuding its habitat; secondary-growth forest continues to be
converted to agricultural purposes. Further, the human population on
the small island is likely contributing to the reduction in old-growth
forest for local uses such as timber and clearing for gardens. These
threats to the species are ongoing, high in magnitude, and imminent.
Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the
LPN remains a 2 for this species.
Black-backed tanager (Tangara peruviana)--The black-backed tanager
is endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest region of southeastern
Brazil. It is currently found in the coastal states of Espirito Santo,
Rio de Janeiro, S[atilde]o Paulo, Paran[agrave], Santa Catarina, and
Rio Grande do Sul. The species is generally restricted to the sand-
forest ``restinga'' habitat, which is a coastal component habitat of
the greater Atlantic Forest complex. Restingas are herbaceous, shrubby,
coastal sand-dune habitats. The black-backed tanager is primarily found
in undisturbed vegetated habitat but has also been observed in
secondary (or second-growth) forests. It has also been observed
visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. The
black-backed tanager is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate
seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the black-backed tanager is
generally not considered rare. The population estimate is between 2,500
to 9,999 mature individuals. Populations currently appear to be small,
fragmented, and declining.
The primary factor affecting this species is habitat loss and
destruction due to urban expansion and beachfront development, and this
type of development will continue in the future. Additional habitat
loss from sea-level rise associated with global climate change may be
compounded by an increased demand by humans to use remaining land for
housing and infrastructure. In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of its habitat, the remaining tracts of its habitat are
severely fragmented. The black-backed tanager's remaining suitable
habitat in the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Paran[aacute] have largely
been destroyed, and habitat loss and degradation will likely increase
in the future. Although small portions of this species' range occur in
six protected areas, protections appear limited. The black-backed
tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is also
listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is not listed in any appendices of
CITES although it has infrequently been illegally sold in the pet
trade.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the black-backed tanager was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we
have determined that no change in the LPN for this species is warranted
at this time. The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic
genus. We find that the threat from habitat loss is moderate in
magnitude due to the species' fairly large range, its existence in
protected areas, and an indication of some flexibility in its diet and
habitat suitability. Threats are imminent because the species is at
risk due to ongoing and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront
and related development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this
species.
Lord Howe Island pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)--The
Lord Howe Island pied currawong is a fairly large, crow-like bird,
endemic to Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, Australia. Lord Howe
Island is a small island northeast of Sydney, Australia, with 28
smaller islets and rocks. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong occurs
throughout the island but is most numerous in the mountainous areas on
the southern end. It has also been recorded to a limited extent on the
Admiralty Islands, located 1 km (0.6 mi) north of Lord Howe Island. The
Lord Howe Island pied currawong breeds in rainforests and palm forests,
particularly along streams. Approximately 75 percent of Lord Howe
Island, plus all outlying islets and rocks within the Lord Howe Island
group, is protected under the Permanent Park Preserve, which has
similar status to that of a national park.
The best current population estimate in 2005 and 2006 indicated
that there were approximately 200 individuals. The Lord Howe Island
pied currawong exists as a small, isolated population, which makes it
vulnerable to stochastic events. The potential for the introduction of
other nonnative predators to this island ecosystem has also been
identified as an issue for this subspecies. In addition to its small
population size, direct persecution (via shootings) by humans in
retaliation for predation on domestic and endemic birds has been
documented. The incidence of shootings has declined since the 1970s,
when conservation efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but occasional
shootings were still occurring as recently as 2006.
Because the Lord Howe pied currawong often preys on small rodents,
it may be subject to nontarget poisoning during ongoing rat-baiting
programs, and especially during an extensive rodent eradication effort
planned for this year. Project impact evaluations for the eradication
effort determined that the currawong was at significant risk from
secondary poisoning, and this action is expected to result in the
temporary disruption of one breeding cycle. To ensure the currawong's
safety, project evaluators determined that approximately 50-60 percent
of the wild population would need to be held in captive management
during the eradication effort. A pilot study that housed wild
currawongs in aviaries in anticipation of this eradication effort has
shown promise for protecting the subspecies. Another potential threat
to the currawong is rising global temperatures associated with climate
change that may affect the cloud layer on the island's mountaintops--
resulting in drying of the forest where the currawong gets about half
of its food and possibly creating a food shortage for the subspecies.
The subspecies' status is not addressed by IUCN; however, based on
IUCN criteria, it has been assessed as endangered nationally in
Australia. In addition, the New South Wales Threatened Species
Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as
vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and its small population
size. It is not listed in any appendices of CITES, and trade is not an
issue for this subspecies.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Lord Howe Island pied currawong
was assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating the threats to the Lord
Howe Island pied currawong, we have determined that no change in the
LPN is warranted. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude due to a combination of factors including its small
population size and risks from nontarget poisoning from rodent control.
Additionally, aspects of the rodent eradication project also carry some
risk, including those associated with trapping, holding, and a missed
breeding cycle. If the rodent eradication program is successful,
effects from nontarget poisoning and any predation by rodents on
currawong eggs will cease to be stressors for the currawong.
Despite conservation efforts, the population of the Lord Howe
Island pied currawong has remained around 100 to 200 individuals,
probably because of limited suitable nesting habitat. Species with
small population sizes such as the Lord Howe pied currawong may be at
greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects of factors
affecting this subspecies.
[[Page 54748]]
However, because significant conservation efforts for the currawong
have been implemented, and the subspecies is being closely managed and
monitored, we find that the threats are nonimminent. Thus, based on the
best information available, the LPN remains at 6 to reflect nonimminent
threats of high magnitude.
Reptiles
Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus)--The
following summary is based on information in our files. The gopher
tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a
total length up to 15 in (38 cm) and typically inhabits the sandhills,
pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine flatwoods associated with the longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A fossorial animal, the gopher
tortoise is usually found in areas with well-drained, deep, sandy
soils; an open tree canopy; and a diverse, abundant, herbaceous
groundcover.
The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South Carolina
south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern Georgia,
Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme southeastern
Louisiana. The eastern population of the gopher tortoise in South
Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and
Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate species; the gopher tortoise is
federally listed as threatened in the western portion of its range,
which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers),
Mississippi, and Louisiana.
The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is fragmentation,
destruction, and modification of its habitat (either deliberately or
from inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to
incompatible silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization,
shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient
fire management), and establishment and spread of invasive species.
Other threats include disease, predation (mainly on nests and young
tortoises), and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, specifically those
needed to protect and enhance relocated tortoise populations in
perpetuity. The magnitude of threats to the eastern range of the gopher
tortoise is considered moderate to low, since populations extend over a
broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in some
areas. However, since the species is currently being affected by a
number of threats including destruction and modification of its
habitat, disease, predation, exotics, and inadequate regulatory
mechanisms, the threat is imminent. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 8
for this species.
Snails
Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the
family Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., coiling in one plane),
relatively thin shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35
millimeters (mm) and heights exceeding 20 mm. The great width of its
shell, in relation to the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all
ages. The shell is brown colored (often with leopard-like spots) and
fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to still or slow-flowing aquatic
habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is believed to be a southeastern
North Carolina endemic. The species is known from only four sites in
the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina. Although the
complete historical range of the species is unknown, the species and
the fact that it was not reported until 1903 suggest that the species
may have always been rare and localized.
Salinity and pH are major factors limiting the distribution of the
magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers freshwater bodies with
circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of 6.8-7.5). While members
of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, it is currently unknown
whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize their eggs, mate with
other individuals of the species, or both. Like other members of the
Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is believed to be
primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic plants, algae, and
detritus. While several factors have likely contributed to the possible
extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in the wild, the primary
factors include loss of habitat associated with the extirpation of
beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th century, increased
salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as increased input of
nutrients and other pollutants. The magnificent ramshorn appears to be
extirpated from the wild due to habitat loss and degradation resulting
from a variety of human-induced and natural factors. The only known
surviving individuals of the species are presently being held and
propagated at a private residence and a lab at North Carolina State
University's Veterinary School; the population at the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission's Watha State Fish Hatchery was recently
lost.
While efforts have been made to restore habitat for the magnificent
ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the
species, all of the sites continue to be affected and/or threatened by
the same factors (i.e., salt water intrusion and other water quality
degradation, nuisance aquatic plant control, storms, sea-level rise,
etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the
wild. Currently, only two captive populations exist: A captive
population of the species comprised of approximately 1,000+ adults and
one with approximately 300+ adults. Although captive populations of the
species have been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event,
such as a severe storm, disease, or predator infestation, affecting
this captive population could result in the near extinction of the
species. The threats are high in magnitude and ongoing; therefore, we
assign this species an LPN of 2.
Insects (Butterflies)
Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides lysithous harrisianus)--Harris'
mimic swallowtail is a subspecies that inhabits the restinga (sand
forest) habitats within the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil. It
historically occurred in southern Espirito Santo State and along the
coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Recent records indicated
that there were just three sites occupied by the butterfly in the State
of Rio de Janeiro; however, preliminary results from an ongoing study
indicate that there are two newly discovered colonies within the City
of Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within protected National Parks, and
the other sites appear to be under municipal conservation with
uncertain protected status. These two new colonies in the City of Rio
de Janeiro are located in small patches of vegetation and are possibly
at risk of extirpation (disappearing from a specific geographic area
within its range). The best-studied colony at Barra de S[atilde]o
Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable and viable size for nearly two
decades; however, there is limited information on its status since
2004. We could not find recent population numbers for the subspecies in
any of the other colonies.
Habitat destruction has been the main threat and is ongoing. Based
on a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as the result of human activities. In
addition to the overall loss and degradation of its habitat, the
remaining tracts of its habitat are severely fragmented. Fire, either
wildfire or human-caused, is a stressor for Harris' mimic swallowtail
due to its potential to
[[Page 54749]]
destroy the few remaining, occupied habitats. Sea-level rise may also
affect this coastal subspecies, and habitat loss from sea-level rise
may be compounded by an increased demand by humans to use remaining
land for housing and infrastructure.
Another factor affecting this butterfly is collection. Although
Harris' mimic swallowtail is categorized as endangered on the list of
Brazilian fauna threatened with extinction, and collection and trade of
the subspecies is prohibited, it has been offered for sale on the
internet. Specimens of Harris' mimic swallowtail are routinely
advertised online ranging from $1,000 to $2,200 U.S. dollars (USD),
indicating that illegal collection and trade may be occurring and
demand for this butterfly is high. Harris' mimic swallowtail is not
currently on the IUCN Red list, although it was identified as a
``threatened and extinct subspecies'' in the family Papilionidae in the
1994 IUCN Red List. The subspecies has not been formally considered for
listing in the appendices to CITES. It is also not regulated on the
annexes to EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, Harris' mimic swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the threats to this
subspecies, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted.
Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies that is not within a
monotypic genus. Threats are high in magnitude due to the existence of
only a few small, fragmented colonies, and the potential for
catastrophic events such as fire. Additionally, although the subspecies
is protected by Brazilian law and several of the colonies are located
within protected areas, the high price advertised online for specimens
indicates that there is demand for the subspecies, likely from illegal
collection. Because the population is very small and limited to
approximately five known colonies, we find the threats are of high
magnitude. Based on the best information available, the LPN remains a 3
to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Fluminense swallowtail (Parides ascanius)--Like Harris' mimic
swallowtail (above), the fluminense swallowtail also inhabits the
restinga (sand forest) habitats of the coastal Atlantic Forest of
Brazil within the State of Rio de Janeiro. There are at least eight
confirmed subpopulations of fluminense swallowtail, and several other
small, likely ephemeral, subpopulations are currently being studied
(i.e., 8-12 estimated subpopulations). Thus, the overall number of
subpopulations reported for the species has declined from ``fewer than
20 colonies'' in 1994, to 8 to 12 in 2017. The body of science on the
species indicates a continual decline of subpopulations as well as a
decrease in the numbers of individuals within each subpopulation.
Genetic analysis of eight of the remaining subpopulations is consistent
with metapopulation dynamics (a group of separate subpopulations that
has some level of mixing) with low genetic diversity and trending
towards increased isolation of these populations from urban
development. The butterfly is described as seasonally common, with
sightings of up to 50 individuals at one colony in a single morning. A
study at Biological Reserve of Po[ccedil]o das Antas estimated that the
subpopulation ranged from 10 to 50 individuals. We could not find
estimates for butterfly numbers in the remaining subpopulations.
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the principal
threats to this species. The species occupies highly specialized
habitat and requires large areas to maintain a viable colony. Based on
a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as a result of human activities. Habitat
loss and destruction is caused primarily by road and building
construction, drainage of swamps, and vegetation suppression, and the
remaining tracts are severely fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or
human-caused, is a stressor for the fluminense swallowtail and has the
potential to destroy the few remaining, occupied habitats. This coastal
butterfly may also be affected by habitat loss from sea-level rise,
which may be compounded by human use of the remaining land for
infrastructure and housing.
Only one of the subpopulations is presently found within a large
protected area (Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve), and the
majority of the remaining populations are on smaller, fragmented
parcels with limited or no protections and are vulnerable to
extirpation.
Illegal collection of the fluminense swallowtail is likely
occurring and ongoing. The species is located near urban areas and is
easy to capture. Recently, multiple specimens of fluminense swallowtail
have been advertised online with costs ranging from $220 to $700 USD.
The impact of illegal collection to the fluminense swallowtail is
difficult to assess, but removal of individuals from the remaining
small, fragmented populations could, in combination with other
stressors, contribute to local extirpations.
The fluminense swallowtail butterfly was the first invertebrate to
be officially noted on the list of Brazilian animals threatened with
extinction in 1973. It has been classified as vulnerable by the IUCN
Red List since 1983. The species is currently categorized by Brazil as
endangered. It has not been formally considered for listing in the
appendices to CITES. However, it is listed on Annex B of the EU
Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require a permit
for import.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the fluminense swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the stressors to this species,
we have determined that no change to the LPN is warranted. The
fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The
overall number of subpopulations recorded for the species has declined
from previous records of ``fewer than 20 colonies'' to approximately 8
to 12. Only one of these known subpopulations is presently found within
a large protected area, and the majority of the remaining
subpopulations are on small, fragmented parcels with limited or no
protections and are vulnerable to extirpation. Despite the conservation
measures in place, the species continues to face stressors (e.g.,
habitat loss and destruction, and illegal collection and trade) that
are high in magnitude. The threats are ongoing and, therefore,
imminent. The LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (Parides hahneli)--Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail is a large black and yellow butterfly endemic to
Brazil. It is known from three remote locations along the tributaries
of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the states of Amazonas
and Par[aacute]. Its preferred habitat is on old sand strips (stranded
beaches) that are overgrown with dense scrub vegetation or forest.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is described as very scarce and
extremely localized in association with its specialized habitat and its
larval host plant. Population size and trends are not known for this
species. However, habitat alteration and destruction are ongoing in
Par[aacute] and Amazonas where this species is found, and researchers
are concerned that this destruction is taking place before the
butterfly can be better studied and its ecological needs can be better
understood.
In the 2015 Global Forest Resources Assessment of 234 countries and
territories, Brazil reported the greatest
[[Page 54750]]
loss of primary forest from 1990 to 2015, and the states of Par[aacute]
and Amazonas (where the butterfly is found) experienced high rates of
deforestation in the last decade. Habitat loss and destruction are
occurring (e.g., high rates of deforestation, dam construction,
waterway crop transport, and clearing for agriculture and cattle
grazing) and will likely continue in the future.
Collection (see Harris' mimic swallowtail discussion, above) is
also a potential threat for Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. The species
has been collected for commercial trade and may be reared for trade.
Locations in the wild have been kept secret given the high value of
this butterfly to collectors. Over the past 2 years, multiple specimens
of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail were noted for sale or sold from
locations in the United States for $70 to $500 USD and from Germany
(approximately $166 USD).
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is classified as data deficient as
of 2018 on the IUCN Red List. The species is listed as endangered on
the State of Par[aacute]'s list of threatened species, but it is not
listed by the State of Amazonas or by Brazil. Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail is not listed in any appendices of CITES. However, it is
listed on Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed
on Annex B require a permit for import.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, we have determined that no change in
the LPN is warranted. This swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude and imminence due to
its small endemic population and limited and decreasing availability of
its highly specialized habitat. Habitat alteration and destruction are
ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas where the butterfly is found and
are likely to continue. These threats are high in magnitude due to the
species' highly localized and specialized habitat requirements.
Potential impacts from collection are unknown but could, in combination
with other stressors, contribute to local extirpations. Based on a
reevaluation of the threats, the LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent
threats of high magnitude.
Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium marcellinus, syn.
Eurytides marcellinus)--The Jamaican kite swallowtail is a small blue-
green and black butterfly and is regarded as Jamaica's most endangered
butterfly. Breeding populations of the Jamaican kite swallowtail are
found only where there are dense stands of the host plant (Oxandra
lanceolata), and these stands are rare. There is no known estimate of
population size, but subpopulations are known from five sites. Two of
the sites may be recently extirpated, one is thought to be tenuous, and
two are viable with strong numbers in some years.
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are considered the
primary factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail. Historical
habitat loss and destruction occurred when forests were cleared for
agriculture and timber extraction. More recent habitat destruction is
occurring primarily from sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish pots, or
charcoal. Charcoal-making also carries the risk of fire, which destroys
pupae in the leaf litter. Additionally, mining for limestone and
bauxite also pose threats to remaining forested tracts.
The two strongest subpopulations of the Jamaican kite swallowtail
occur in protected areas (i.e., the Portland Bight Protected Area and
the Forest Reserve in the Cockpit Country), although habitat
destruction within these areas continues to be a problem. Additionally,
Jamaica's Forest Act of 1996 and Forest Regulations Act of 2001 have
increased the power of Jamaican authorities to protect the species'
habitat; the Jamaican kite swallowtail is included in Jamaica's
National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. This
strategy established specific plans for protecting sites that support
two subpopulations of the swallowtail. Although these projects were
identified as high priorities, to date they have not been initiated due
to funding and capacity constraints. Therefore, conservation management
continues to be lacking for this species.
Although the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act of 1994 carries steep
fines and penalties, illegal collection of the Jamaican kite
swallowtail appears to be occurring. Three specimens of the Jamaican
kite swallowtail were noted for sale on the internet as recently as
2017, for as much as 100 Euros ($120 USD), and one specimen sold in
2015 for 150 Euros ($178 USD). Specimens of the Homerus swallowtail
(Papilio homerus, another rare Jamaican butterfly) have also been
illegally traded, indicating that there is a market for Jamaican
butterflies despite heavy fines.
Predation from native predators, including spiders, the Jamaican
tody (Todus todus), and praying mantis, may be adversely affecting the
few remaining Jamaican kite swallowtail populations, especially in the
smaller subpopulations. In years where large numbers of spiders were
observed, very few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae survived.
Additionally, this species may be at greater risk of extinction due to
small fragmented subpopulations and synergistic effects of the factors
noted above. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been
categorized on IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but it is marked ``needs
updating.'' This species is not listed in any of the appendices of
CITES or the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, although some level of
illegal trade is likely occurring.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors affecting the
Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have determined that no change in LPN is
warranted. The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. The Jamaican kite swallowtail is known from only five small
subpopulations, and as few as two of these subpopulations may presently
be viable. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve
native swallowtail habitat, plans for conservation of vital areas for
the butterfly have not been implemented. Based on our reevaluation of
the threats to this species, the LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent
threats of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis)--The Kaiser-i-
Hind swallowtail is a large, ornate, green-black-and-orange butterfly
native to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar,
Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam. The species occurs in the foothills of
the Himalayan Mountains and other mountainous regions at altitudes of
1,500 to 3,050 m (4,921 to 10,000 ft) above sea level, in undisturbed
(primary) broad-leaved evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests.
Although it has a relatively large range, it is restricted to higher
elevations and occurs only locally within this range. Adults fly up to
open hilltops above the forests to mate, where males will often defend
mating territories. Larval host-plants are limited to Magnolia and
Daphne species, and in some regions the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is
strictly monophagous, only using a single species of Magnolia as a host
plant. Despite the species' widespread distribution, populations are
described as being very local and never abundant. Even early accounts
of the species described it as being a very rare occurrence.
Habitat destruction is believed to negatively affect this species,
which prefers undisturbed, high-altitude forests. In China and India,
the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail populations are
[[Page 54751]]
affected by habitat modification and destruction due to commercial and
illegal logging. 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. The Forest Ministry in Nepal considers habitat
destruction to be a critical threat to all biodiversity, including the
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail. Comprehensive information on the rate of
degradation of Himalayan forests containing the Kaiser-i-Hind butterfly
is not available, but habitat loss is consistently reported as one of
the primary ongoing threats to the species there.
Collection for commercial trade is also regarded as a threat to the
species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been
collected and traded despite various prohibitions. Although it is
difficult to assess the potential impacts from collection, it is
possible that collection in combination with other stressors could
contribute to local extirpations of small populations. 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 listed in CITES
appendix II since 1987. Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is
listed on annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted. The
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats
from habitat destruction and illegal collection are moderate in
magnitude due to the species' wide distribution and to various
protections in place within each country. We find that the threats are
imminent due to ongoing habitat destruction and high market value for
specimens. Based on our reassessment of the threats, we have retained
an LPN of 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Candidates in Review
For several candidates, we continue to find that listing is
warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on thorough reviews of all available data
regarding these species and expect to publish either proposed listing
rules or 12-month not-warranted findings prior to making the next
annual resubmitted petition 12-month findings for these species. In the
course of preparing proposed listing rules or not-warranted petition
findings, we are continuing 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 ESA in the case of an emergency posing a
significant risk to any of these species. These species are the
following: Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristriatus),
Sierra Nevada red fox--Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes necator), red
tree vole--north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus), Berry Cave
salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus), Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis
bracteata), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), Texas pimpleback
(Quadrula petrina), Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes), Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita), rattlesnake-master borer
moth (Papaipema eryngii), Astragalus microcymbus (skiff milkvetch),
Astragalus schmolliae (Chapin Mesa milkvetch), Cirsium wrightii
(Wright's marsh thistle), Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine), Solanum
conocarpum (marron bacora), and Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted
twistflower).
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed
We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on four
petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered
status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are two
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus). Because these species are already listed under the ESA, they
are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1.
However, this notice and associated species assessment forms or 5-year
review documents also constitute the findings for the resubmitted
petitions to reclassify these species. Our updated assessments for
these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to
endangered status for two grizzly bear ecosystem populations, delta
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are all 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 the
grizzly bear populations, delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are
currently listed as threatened, and therefore already receive certain
protections under the ESA. Those protections are set forth in our
regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by
reference, 50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR 17.71, and, by
reference, 50 CFR 17.61 (Sclerocactus brevispinus). 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 or a
delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. Also, it is unlawful for
any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to
possession Sclerocactus brevispinus from an area under Federal
jurisdiction, subject to applicable exceptions. Other protections that
apply to these threatened species even before we complete proposed and
final reclassification rules include those under section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA, 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.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), North Cascades ecosystem
population (Region 6)--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 Cascade ecosystem warrant a change to
endangered status. We have continued to find that these petitions are
warranted but precluded through our annual CNOR process. On January 13,
2017, in partnership with the National Park Service, we made available
for public comment a draft North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear
Restoration Plan (plan) and draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
to determine how to restore the grizzly bear to the North Cascades
ecosystem (82 FR 4416). The comment period on this draft plan and EIS
closed on March 14, 2017 and reopened again on August 2, 2019. The
final restoration plan and EIS are expected to take up to 2 years to
complete as we evaluate a variety of alternatives, including population
restoration. This ecosystem does not contain a verified population
(only three confirmed observations of individuals in the last 20
years), and is isolated from
[[Page 54752]]
other populations in British Columbia and the United States.
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), very small population size, and population fragmentation
resulting in genetic isolation. However, we acknowledge the possibility
that there is no longer a population present in the ecosystem. The
threats are high in magnitude, because the limiting factors for grizzly
bears in this recovery zone are human-caused mortality and extremely
small population size. The 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 ESA and its implementing regulations.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem
population (Region 6)--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 an August 29, 2011, 5-year status review, we
determined that grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem warranted a
change to endangered status. 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. This
decision was challenged in court (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Ryan
Zinke et al. (Case No. 9:16-cv-00021-DLC)), and on August 22, 2017, the
court ruled against the Service. The court reinstated the previous
finding that uplisting the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of grizzly
bears was warranted but precluded, with an LPN of 3 for the uplisting
based on high-magnitude threats that are ongoing, thus imminent, and,
therefore, we are reevaluating its status. 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 ESA and its implementing regulations.
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (Region 8)--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. Delta smelt
abundance, as indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl 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 primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by
State and Federal water export facilities, summer and fall increases in
salinity and water clarity resulting from decreases in freshwater flow
into the estuary, and effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the
form of ammonium may also be a significant threat to the survival of
the delta smelt. Additional potential threats are predation by striped
and largemouth bass and inland silversides, contaminants, and small
population size. Existing regulatory mechanisms have not proven
adequate to halt the decline of delta smelt since 1993, when we listed
the delta smelt as a threatened species (58 FR 12854; March 5, 1993).
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), considered
irreversible. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 2 for this species.
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus) (Region 6)--Pariette
cactus is restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation
in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to
one population with an overall range of approximately 16 miles by 5
miles in extent. The species' entire population 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 species
may be illegally collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use.
Recreational off-road vehicle use and livestock trampling are
additional threats. The species is currently federally listed as
threatened (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, September 15,
2009). The threats are of a high magnitude, because any one of the
threats has the potential to severely affect the survival of this
species, a narrow endemic with a highly limited range and distribution.
Threats are ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. Thus, we assigned an
LPN of 2 to this species for uplisting. 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 the Pariette cactus.
Furthermore, proposed rules to reclassify threatened species to
endangered are generally a lower priority than listing currently
unprotected species (i.e., candidate species), as species currently
listed as threatened are already afforded the protection of the ESA and
the implementing regulations.
We continue to find that reclassification of this species to
endangered is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of
this notice. (See 72 FR 53211, September 18, 2007, and the species
assessment form (see ADDRESSES) for additional information on why
reclassification to endangered is warranted but precluded.) However, we
are working on a thorough review of all available data and expect to
publish a 5-year status review and draft recovery plan prior to making
the
[[Page 54753]]
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of
preparing a 5-year status review and draft recovery plan, we are
continuing to monitor new information about this species' status.
Current Notice of Review
We gather data on plants and animals 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
notice 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 State
Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies,
knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource
interests, and comments received in response to previous notices of
review.
Tables 1 and 2, 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. Several species that have not yet been
formally described in the scientific literature are included; such
species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics),
followed by ``sp.'' or ``ssp.'' We incorporate standardized common
names in these notices as they become available. We sort plants by
scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the
inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact
that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently
proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice 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 State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other
parties to consider these species in environmental planning.
In Table 1, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species
are those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list
as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the
proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity
of appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other
higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for
which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition
to list. Our analysis for this notice 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).
The third column, ``Lead Region,'' identifies the Regional Office
to which you should direct information, comments, or questions
regarding domestic species (see addresses under Request for
Information, below). For species foreign to the United States, you
should direct information, comments, or questions to the office of the
Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family
designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The
seventh 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. Many species
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in Table 2 of this notice are those we included either as
proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNORs (published
December 2, 2016, at 81 FR 87246 for domestic species and October 17,
2016, at 81 FR 71457 for foreign species) that are no longer proposed
species or candidates for listing. Since December 2, 2016, for domestic
species and October 17, 2016, for foreign species, we listed 17
species, withdrew 4 species from proposed status, and removed 8 species
from the candidate list by making not-warranted findings or withdrawing
proposed rules. 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).
F--Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
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 ESA'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.
[[Page 54754]]
The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common
name, and historical range include information as previously described
for Table 1.
Request for Information
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this notice 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 for domestic species 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 ESA is appropriate).
For domestic species, submit information, materials, or comments
regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region
identified as having the lead responsibility for that species. The
regional addresses follow:
Pacific Northwest. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American
Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Regional
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal
Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6158).
Southwest. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW, Room
4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248-6920).
Midwest. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-
1458 (612/713-5334).
Southeast. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta,
GA 30345 (404/679-4156).
Northeast. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589 (413/253-8615).
Mountain-Prairie. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director (TE), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486 (303/236-7400).
Alaska. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 (907/786-3505).
Pacific Southwest. California and Nevada. Regional Director (TE),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606,
Sacramento, CA 95825 (916/414-6464).
We will provide information we receive to the Region 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 Regional Office.
For species foreign to the United States, submit information,
materials, or comments regarding a particular species to the office of
the Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
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 notice is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 24, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Table 1--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
------------------------------- Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Category Priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 6 Southwest........... Tamias minimus Sciuridae........... Chipmunk, Pe[ntilde]asco U.S.A. (NM).
atristriatus. least.
PT................ .......... Pacific Southwest... Pekania pennanti........ Mustelidae.......... Fisher (West Coast DPS). U.S.A (CA, OR, WA).
C *............... 3 Pacific Southwest... Vulpes vulpes necator... Canidae............. Fox, Sierra Nevada red U.S.A. (CA, OR).
(Sierra Nevada DPS).
PT................ .......... Pacific Southwest... Martes caurina ssp. Mustelidae.......... Marten, Humboldt........ U.S.A. (CA).
humboldtensis.
C *............... 9 Pacific............. Arborimus longicaudus... Cricetidae.......... Vole, red tree (north U.S.A. (OR).
Oregon coast DPS).
PT................ 6 Mountain-Prairie.... Gulo gulo luscus........ Mustelidae.......... Wolverine, North U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT,
American (Contiguous OR, UT, WA, WY).
U.S. DPS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 2 .................... Pauxi koepckeae......... Cracidae............ Curassow, Sira.......... Peru.
C *............... 2 .................... Pauxi unicornis......... Cracidae............ Curassow, southern Bolivia.
helmeted.
[[Page 54755]]
C *............... 6 .................... Strepera graculina Cracticidae......... Currawong, Lord Howe Lord Howe Island, New
crissalis. Island pied. South Wales.
C *............... 8 .................... Haematopus chathamensis. Haematopodidae...... Oystercatcher, Chatham.. Chatham Islands, New
Zealand.
C *............... 8 .................... Cyanoramphus malherbi... Psittacidae......... Parakeet, orange-fronted New Zealand.
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Pterodroma hasitata..... Procellariidae...... Petrel, black-capped.... U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC).
C *............... 2 .................... Rallus semiplumbeus..... Rallidae............ Rail, Bogot[aacute]..... Colombia.
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Laterallus jamaicensis Rallidae............ Rail, eastern black..... U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT,
ssp. jamaicensis. DE, FL, 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).
PT................ .......... Pacific Southwest... Centrocercus Phasianidae......... Sage-Grouse, Greater (Bi- U.S.A (CA, NV).
urophasianus. State DPS).
C *............... 8 .................... Porphyrio hochstetteri.. Rallidae............ Takahe.................. New Zealand.
C *............... 8 .................... Tangara peruviana....... Thraupidae.......... Tanager, black-backed... Brazil.
C *............... 8 .................... Scytalopus novacapitalis Rhinocryptidae...... Tapaculo, Brasilia...... Brazil.
C *............... 2 .................... Aulacorhynchus huallagae Ramphastidae........ Toucanet, yellow-browed. Peru.
C *............... 2 .................... Zosterops luteirostris.. Zosteropidae........ White-eye, Ghizo........ Solomon Islands.
C *............... 8 .................... Dryocopus galeatus...... Picidae............. Woodpecker, helmeted.... Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay.
C *............... 2 .................... Dendrocopos noguchii.... Picidae............. Woodpecker, Okinawa..... Okinawa Island, Japan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 8 Southeast........... Gopherus polyphemus..... Testudinidae........ Tortoise, gopher U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA,
(eastern population). MS, SC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE................ .......... Midwest............. Cryptobranchus Cryptobranchidae.... Hellbender, eastern U.S.A. (MO).
alleganiensis (Missouri DPS).
alleganiensis.
C *............... 8 Southeast........... Gyrinophilus Plethodontidae...... Salamander, Berry Cave.. U.S.A. (TN).
gulolineatus.
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Necturus lewisi......... Proteidae........... Waterdog, Neuse River... U.S.A. (NC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE................ .......... Southeast........... Noturus furiosus........ Ictaluridae......... Madtom, Carolina........ U.S.A. (NC).
C *............... 6 Pacific Southwest... Spirinchus thaleichthys. Osmeridae........... Smelt, longfin (San U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA),
Francisco Bay-Delta Canada.
DPS).
PE................ N/A .................... Acipenser dabryanus..... Acipenseridae....... Sturgeon, Yangtze....... China.
PE................ .......... Southeast........... Fundulus julisia........ Fundulidae.......... Topminnow, Barrens...... U.S.A. (TN).
PSAT.............. N/A Pacific............. Salvelinus malma........ Salmonidae.......... Trout, Dolly Varden..... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada,
East Asia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 8 .................... Mulinia modesta......... Mactridae........... Clam, Colorado delta.... Mexico.
C *............... 2 Southwest........... Lampsilis bracteata..... Unionidae........... Fatmucket, Texas........ U.S.A. (TX).
C *............... 2 Southwest........... Truncilla macrodon...... Unionidae........... Fawnsfoot, Texas........ U.S.A. (TX).
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Fusconaia masoni........ Unionidae........... Pigtoe, Atlantic........ U.S.A. (GA, NC, VA).
C *............... 2 Southwest........... Quadrula petrina........ Unionidae........... Pimpleback, Texas....... U.S.A. (TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 2 Southeast........... Planorbella magnifica... Planorbidae......... Ramshorn, magnificent... U.S.A. (NC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 5 Pacific Southwest... Lycaena hermes.......... Lycaenidae.......... Butterfly, Hermes copper U.S.A. (CA).
PE................ 3 Pacific............. Euchloe ausonides Pieridae............ Butterfly, Island marble U.S.A. (WA).
insulanus.
C *............... 2 Southeast........... Atlantea tulita......... Nymphalidae......... Butterfly, Puerto Rican U.S.A. (PR).
harlequin.
C *............... 8 Midwest............. Papaipema eryngii....... Noctuidae........... Moth, rattlesnake-master U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC,
borer. OK).
PT................ 5 Mountain-Prairie.... Lednia tumana........... Nemouridae.......... Stonefly, meltwater U.S.A. (MT).
lednian.
PT................ .......... Mountain-Prairie.... Zapada glacier.......... Nemouridae.......... Stonefly, western U.S.A. (MT).
glacier.
C *............... 2 .................... Parides ascanius........ Papilionidae........ Swallowtail, fluminense. Brazil.
C *............... 2 .................... Parides hahneli......... Papilionidae........ Swallowtail, Hahnel's Brazil.
Amazonian.
C *............... 3 .................... Mimoides ( = Eurytides Papilionidae........ Swallowtail, Harris' Brazil.
or Graphium) lysithous mimic.
harrisianus.
C *............... 2 .................... Protographium ( = Papilionidae........ Swallowtail, Jamaican Jamaica.
Eurytides or Graphium kite.
or Neographium or
Protesilaus)
marcellinus.
[[Page 54756]]
C *............... 8 .................... Teinopalpus imperialis.. Papilionidae........ Swallowtail, Kaiser-i- Bhutan, China, India,
Hind. Laos, Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crustaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Procambarus econfinae... Cambaridae.......... Crayfish, Panama City... U.S.A. (FL).
PT................ .......... Southeast........... Cambarus cracens........ Cambaridae.......... Crayfish, slenderclaw... U.S.A. (AL).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *............... 8 Mountain-Prairie.... Astragalus microcymbus.. Fabaceae............ Milkvetch, skiff........ U.S.A. (CO).
C *............... 8 Mountain-Prairie.... Astragalus schmolliae... Fabaceae............ Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa.. U.S.A. (CO).
C *............... 8 Southwest........... Cirsium wrightii........ Asteraceae.......... Thistle, Wright's marsh. U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico.
C *............... 8 Mountain-Prairie.... Pinus albicaulis........ Pinaceae............ Pine, whitebark......... U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV,
OR, WA, WY), Canada
(AB, BC).
C *............... 2 Southeast........... Solanum conocarpum...... Solanaceae.......... Bacora, marron.......... U.S.A. (PR).
C *............... 8 Southwest........... Streptanthus bracteatus. Brassicaceae........ Twistflower, bracted.... U.S.A. (TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--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
------------------------------- Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range
Code Expl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc................ A Alaska.............. Odobenus rosmarus Odobenidae.......... Walrus, Pacific......... U.S.A. (AK), Russia.
divergens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T................. L Pacific............. Drepanis coccinea....... Fringillidae........ Iiwi (honeycreeper)..... U.S.A. (HI).
E................. L .................... Ara macao ssp. Psittacidae......... Macaw, scarlet.......... Belize, Costa Rica,
cyanopterus. Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama.
T................. L .................... Ara macao ssp. macao.... Psittacidae......... Macaw, scarlet (northern Colombia, Costa Rica,
DPS). Panama.
SAT............... L .................... Ara macao ssp. macao.... Psittacidae......... Macaw, scarlet (southern Bolivia, Brazil,
DPS). Colombia, Ecuador,
French Guiana, Guyana,
Peru, Suriname,
Venezuela.
Rc................ A .................... Eunymphicus uvaeensis... Psittacidae......... Parakeet, Uvea.......... Uvea, New Caledonia.
Rc................ A Southwest........... Amazona viridigenalis... Psittacidae......... Parrot, red-crowned..... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T................. L Midwest............. Sistrurus catenatus..... Viperidae........... Massasauga ( = U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI,
rattlesnake), eastern. MN, MO, NY, OH, PA,
WI), Canada.
E................. L Southwest........... Kinosternon sonoriense Kinosternidae....... Turtle, Sonoyta mud..... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
longifemorale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc................ A Southeast........... Notophthalmus Salamandridae....... Newt, striped........... U.S.A. (FL, GA).
perstriatus.
E................. L Southeast........... Necturus alabamensis.... Proteidae........... Waterdog, black warrior U.S.A. (AL).
( = Sipsey Fork).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rp................ N Southwest........... Gila nigra.............. Cyprinidae.......... Chub, headwater......... U.S.A (AZ, NM).
Rp................ N Southwest........... Gila robusta............ Cyprinidae.......... Chub, roundtail (Lower U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT,
Colorado River Basin WY).
DPS).
E................. L Northeast........... Crystallaria cincotta... Percidae............ Darter, diamond......... U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV).
T................. L Southeast........... Percina aurora.......... Percidae............ Darter, pearl........... U.S.A. (LA, MS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E................. L Southwest........... Popenaias popei......... Unionidae........... Hornshell, Texas........ U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico.
Rc................ N Southwest........... Quadrula aurea.......... Unionidae........... Orb, golden............. U.S.A. (TX).
Rc................ N Southwest........... Quadrula houstonensis... Unionidae........... Pimpleback, smooth...... U.S.A. (TX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54757]]
Insects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E................. L Midwest............. Bombus affinis.......... Apidae.............. Bee, rusty patched U.S.A. (CT, DE, DC, GA,
bumble. IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MD,
MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ,
NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI,
SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV,
WI), Canada (Ontario,
Quebec).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc................ N Mountain-Prairie.... Arsapnia ( = Capnia) Capniidae........... Snowfly, Arapahoe....... U.S.A. (CO).
arapahoe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crustaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rp................ I Northeast........... Stygobromus kenki....... Crangonyctidae...... Amphipod, Kenk's........ U.S.A. (DC, MD, VA).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc................ A Mountain-Prairie.... Boechera ( = Arabis) Brassicaceae........ Rockcress, Fremont U.S.A. (WY).
pusilla. County or small.
T................. L Southeast........... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae....... Sandmat, pineland....... U.S.A. (FL).
pinetorum.
Rp................ A Pacific Southwest... Chorizanthe parryi var. Polygonaceae........ Spineflower, San U.S.A. (CA).
fernandina. Fernando Valley.
E................. L Southeast........... Dalea carthagenensis Fabaceae............ Prairie-clover, Florida. U.S.A. (FL).
var. floridana.
T................. L Southeast........... Digitaria pauciflora.... Poaceae............. Crabgrass, Florida U.S.A. (FL).
pineland.
Rc................ A Mountain-Prairie.... Eriogonum soredium...... Polygonaceae........ Buckwheat, Frisco....... U.S.A. (UT).
E................. L Southwest........... Festuca ligulata........ Poaceae............. Fescue, Guadalupe....... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.
Rc................ A Mountain-Prairie.... Lepidium ostleri........ Brassicaceae........ Peppergrass, Ostler's... U.S.A. (UT).
E................. L Pacific............. Sicyos macrophyllus..... Cucurbitaceae....... Anunu................... U.S.A. (HI).
T................. L Southeast........... Sideroxylon reclinatum Sapotaceae.......... Bully, Everglades....... U.S.A. (FL).
ssp. austrofloridense.
Rc................ A Mountain-Prairie.... Trifolium friscanum..... Fabaceae............ Clover, Frisco.......... U.S.A. (UT).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-21478 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
