Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 73164-73179 [2020-24198]

Download as PDF 73164 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0003; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic 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: Notification of review. AGENCY: In this document, known as a Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of domestic plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of domestic species that are candidates for listing is 11. 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 adds the Sonoran desert tortoise back to the candidate list as a result of an August 3, 2020, courtapproved settlement agreement. DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this document at any time. ADDRESSES: This document is available on the internet at http:// www.regulations.gov and http:// www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ cnor.html. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species’ range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review on our website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_ public/reports/candidate-speciesreport). Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on this CNOR to the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the address of the Regional Director in the appropriate office listed under Request for Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caitlin Snyder, 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). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 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 Act, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.11 (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status— either on our own initiative, or in PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted, but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the species to our list of candidates. We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the Act, as well as additional species that may require the Act’s protections; and (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate Office listed under Request for Information, below, or visit our website at: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. Previous Candidate Notices of Review We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was published on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our website at http:// www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the 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 Act (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 E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 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 CNOR as a candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_ Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species assessment 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. Summary of This CNOR Since publication of the previous CNOR on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk. We are not identifying any new candidates, changing the listing priority number of any existing candidates, or removing any candidates through this CNOR. We are putting the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) back on the candidate list as a result of a court-approved settlement agreement. In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list species, on PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 73165 proposed rules to list species under the Act, and on final listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details). Combined with other findings and determinations published separately from this CNOR, 11 species are now candidates awaiting preparation of a proposed listing rule or ‘‘not-warranted’’ finding. Table 1 identifies these 11 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 CNOR and includes six species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes three species for which we published a final listing rule and three candidate species for which we published separate not-warranted findings and removed them from candidate status. Petition Findings The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary’s own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). The second method provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) in some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding that the Act requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service’s compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing. First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 73166 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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, in which case we must promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register; (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we must promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or (3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists. 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. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 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 Act 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 Act, 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 Act requires us to ‘‘implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species’’ for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding and to ‘‘make prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR, the accompanying species assessment forms, and the process by which the Service generates and reviews those documents together constitute the Service’s system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act. A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that we must consider in making and describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (see below). Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species. In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 11 candidates for which we have received a petition to list and the 4 listed species for which we have received a petition to reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, for all of these candidate species, we are currently engaged in a thorough review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a proposed listing rule; as a result of this review, we may conclude that listing is no longer warranted. For the two grizzly bear ecosystem populations, we are engaged in a thorough review of all available data to determine the appropriate status for those entities (see Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). For the remaining two listed species—delta smelt and Pariette cactus, which are candidates for reclassification from threatened to endangered—we are providing updated species assessment E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules forms and a summary of those assessments in this CNOR (see Petitions to Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species. The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Preclusion and Expeditious Progress To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). Preclusion A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) The amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 regulation, and (3) the Service’s workload, along with the Service’s prioritization of the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its workload. Available Resources The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). For more than two decades the size and cost of the workload in these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing and critical habitat actions under the Act. Since we cannot exceed the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to complete courtmandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 73167 remaining (after completing courtmandated actions) for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap—after paying for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress. For FY 2019, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, (Pub. L. 116–6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service $18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign listing work, including status assessments, listing determinations, domestic critical habitat designations, and related activities. For FY 2020, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116– 94, December 20, 2019), Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding Congress will appropriate in future years is uncertain. Costs of Listing Actions The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. Our practice of proposing to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing species requires additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work. Since completing all of the work for outstanding listing and critical habitat actions has for so long required more funding than has been available within the spending cap, the Service has developed several ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has available for listing and critical habitat actions each year. Prioritizing Listing Actions The Service’s Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 73168 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical habitat designations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines. In previous years, the Service received many new petitions, including multiple petitions to list numerous species, e.g., a single petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time through the petition process significantly increased the number of actions within the third category of our workload—actions that have absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016 added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service’s most recent effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multispecies petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was not making 12-month findings for most of those petitions. The number of petitions that are awaiting status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of this backlog; as a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at the beginning of FY 2020 we had 422 12-month petition findings for domestic species yet to be initiated and completed. To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology (methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016), after providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign each 12-month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the status of the species; (3) new science VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 is underway that would inform key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited. As a general rule, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions—for example, we may schedule a lowerpriority finding earlier if batching it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an action should be bumped up (or down) in scheduling. One limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied that methodology to develop a multi-year National Listing Workplan (Workplan) for completing the outstanding status assessments and accompanying 12month findings. The purpose of the Workplan is provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the priorities. In May 2019, the Service released its updated Workplan for addressing the Act’s domestic listing and critical habitat decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The updated Workplan identified the Service’s schedule for addressing all domestic species on the candidate list and conducting 267 status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings by FY 2023 for domestic species that have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. As we implement our Workplan and work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we increase efficiency by preparing multispecies proposals when appropriate, PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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. An additional way in which we determine relative priorities of outstanding actions in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, which apply primarily to candidate species, we assign each candidate a listing priority number (LPN) of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined for efficiency with work on a proposed rule for other highpriority species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species status to endangered species status are generally lower in priority because, as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered species status if we can combine this with higherpriority work. Listing Program Workload The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2019 outlined work for domestic species over the period from 2019 to 2023. Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher-priority listing actions that we completed through FY 2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as those we have been working on in FY 2020 but have not yet completed. For FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan includes 74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the actions scheduled in the National Listing Workplan, the overall Listing Program workload also includes the development E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules and revision of listing regulations that are required by new court orders or settlement agreements, or to address the repercussions of any new court decisions, as well as proposed and final critical habitat designations or revisions for species that have already been listed. The Service’s highest priorities for spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY 2020 are actions included in the Workplan and actions required to address court decisions. Expeditious Progress As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the ‘‘Lists’’ are grouped as one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and one list of endangered and threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). However, the ‘‘Lists’’ referred to in the Act mean one list of endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened species (wildlife and plants). Therefore, under the Act, expeditious progress includes actions to reclassify species—that is, either remove them from the list of threatened species and add them to the list of endangered species, or remove them from the list of endangered species and add them to the list of threatened species. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of whether expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed earlier, the FY 2020 appropriations law included a spending cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, and the FY 2019 appropriations law included a spending cap of $18,318,000 for listing activities. As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists. The work of the Service’s domestic listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing (90-day petition findings); (2) undertaking an evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species and the threats they face to determine whether or not listing is warranted (a status review and accompanying 12month finding); and (3) adding qualified species to the Lists (by publishing proposed and final listing rules). We explain in more detail how we are making expeditious progress in all three of the steps necessary for adding qualified species to the Lists (identifying, evaluating, and adding species). Subsequent to discussing our expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists, we explain our expeditious progress in removing from the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the Act. First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species that may warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 14 species. Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 12-month findings for 69 species. In addition, we funded and worked on the development of 12month findings for 34 species and proposed listing determinations for 9 candidates. Although we did not complete those actions during FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we made expeditious progress towards doing so by initiating and making progress on the status reviews to determine whether adding the species to the Lists is warranted. Third, we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we published final listing rules for 7 species, including final critical habitat designations for 1 of those species and final protective regulations under the Act’s section 4(d) for 2 of those species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional 20 species 73169 (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act’s section 4(d) for 14 species). The Act also requires that we make expeditious progress in removing species from the Lists that no longer require the protections of the Act. Specifically, we are making expeditious progress in removing (delisting) domestic species, as well as reclassifying endangered species to threatened species status (downlisting). This work is being completed under the Recovery program in light of the resources available for recovery actions, which are funded through the recovery line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. Because recovery actions are funded separately from listing actions, they do not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to, and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. During FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we finalized downlisting of 1 species, finalized delisting rules for 7 species, proposed downlisting of 7 species, and proposed delisting of 11 species. The rate at which the Service has completed delisting and downlisting actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) is higher than any point in the history of the Act. The tables below catalog the Service’s progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our evaluation of making expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published domestic listing actions; Table 2 includes domestic listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are not yet complete as of September 30, 2020; and Table 3 includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and delisting actions for domestic species. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 [As of September 30] Federal Register Citation Publication date Title Action(s) 10/9/2018 .......... Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct Population Segment of the Pacific Marten. Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 83 FR 50574–50582 73170 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued [As of September 30] Title Action(s) 10/9/2018 .......... Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule. 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Species Status for Eastern Black Rail With a Section 4(d) Rule. Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Slenderclaw Crayfish. Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe. Endangered Species Status for the Candy Darter 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species. Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species. 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender. 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic species and 1 foreign species)*. Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat. Endangered Species Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee. 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species. 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...................... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...................... Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Endangered Species Status for Barrens Topminnow. 12-Month Finding for the California Spotted Owl Threatened Species Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With a Section 4(d) Rule. Endangered Species Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat, and Threatened Species Status for Bartram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule. Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. 90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................ Threatened Species Status for the Hermes Copper Butterfly With 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat. Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. Endangered Status for the Island Marble Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat. Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher. 90-Day Finding for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard 90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................ Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora and Designation of Critical Habitat. Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose**. Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. 10/9/2018 .......... 10/9/2018 .......... 10/11/2018 ........ 11/21/2018 ........ 12/19/2018 ........ 12/28/2018 ........ 4/4/2019 ............ 4/4/2019 ............ 4/26/2019 .......... 5/22/2019 .......... 8/13/2019 .......... 8/15/2019 .......... 8/15/2019 .......... 9/6/2019 ............ 10/07/2019 ........ 10/21/2019 ........ 11/08/2019 ........ 11/21/2019 ........ 12/06/2019 ........ 12/19/2019 ........ 12/19/2019 ........ 01/08/2020 ........ 01/08/2020 ........ 05/05/2020 ........ 05/15/2020 ........ 7/16/2020 .......... 7/22/2020 .......... 7/23/2020 .......... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register Citation Publication date 8/26/2020 .......... 9/1/2020 ............ 9/16/2020 .......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 83 FR 50560–50574 83 FR 50610–50630 Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 50582–50610 Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding. Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 51570–51609 Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding. Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 83 FR 58747–58754 83 FR 65127–65134 Final Listing—Threatened ..................................... 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 83 FR 67131–67140 84 FR 13237–13242 Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month Petition Finding. 84 FR 13223–13237 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 84 FR 17768–17771 Proposed Listings—Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat; Endangered Status with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Findings. Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month Petition Finding. 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 23644–23691 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 41691–41694 84 FR 46927–46931 84 FR 53336–53343 Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 84 FR 56131–56136 12-Month Petition Finding ..................................... Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 84 FR 60371–60372 84 FR 64210–64227 Proposed Listings—Endangered with Critical Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Findings. 84 FR 67060–67104 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 69707–69712 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat. 84 FR 69713–69715 85 FR 1018–1050 Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................ 85 FR 862–872 Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat ... 85 FR 26786–26820 Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 85 FR 29532–29589 90-Day Petition Finding ........................................ 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 85 FR 43203–43204 85 FR 44265–44267 85 FR 44478–44483 Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding. 12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 85 FR 52516–52540 12-Month Petition Finding ..................................... 85 FR 57816–57818 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 84 FR 40006–40019 84 FR 41694–41699 85 FR 54339–54342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 73171 TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued [As of September 30] Federal Register Citation Publication date Title Action(s) 9/17/2020 .......... Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat. Threatened Species Status for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and With Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat. Threatened Species Status for longsolid and round hickorynut mussel and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat, Not Warranted 12-Month Finding for purple Lilliput. Threatened Species Status for Wright’s Marsh Thistle and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat. Proposed Listing—Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat. 85 FR 58224–58250 Proposed Listings—Threatened 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat. 85 FR 58192–58222 9/17/2020 .......... 9/29/2020 .......... 9/29/2020 .......... With Section Proposed Listings—Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition Findings. Proposed Listing—Threatened With Section (4) Rule and Critical Habitat. * 90-day finding batches may include findings regarding both domestic and foreign species. The total number of 90-day findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to domestic species only. ** Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of 12-month findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to listing petitions only. TABLE 2—DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED AND INITIATED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FY 2020 THAT ARE NOT YET COMPLETE [As of September 30, 2020] jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Species Action northern spotted owl ................................................................................................. false spike ................................................................................................................. Guadalupe fatmucket ................................................................................................ Guadalupe orb .......................................................................................................... Texas fatmucket ....................................................................................................... Texas fawnsfoot ........................................................................................................ Texas pimpleback ..................................................................................................... South Llano Springs moss ....................................................................................... peppered chub .......................................................................................................... whitebark pine ........................................................................................................... Key ringneck snake .................................................................................................. Rimrock crowned snake ........................................................................................... Euphilotes ancilla cryptica ........................................................................................ Euphilotes ancilla purpura ........................................................................................ Hamlin Valley pyrg .................................................................................................... longitudinal gland pyrg .............................................................................................. sub-globose snake pyrg ........................................................................................... Louisiana pigtoe ........................................................................................................ Texas heelsplitter ...................................................................................................... triangle pigtoe ........................................................................................................... prostrate milkweed .................................................................................................... alligator snapping turtle ............................................................................................ Black Creek crayfish ................................................................................................. bracted twistflower .................................................................................................... Canoe Creek clubshell ............................................................................................. Clear Lake hitch ........................................................................................................ Doll’s daisy ................................................................................................................ frecklebelly madtom .................................................................................................. longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS) ......................................................... magnificent Ramshorn .............................................................................................. Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................................ Ocmulgee skullcap ................................................................................................... Penasco least chipmunk ........................................................................................... Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly ................................................................................. Puget oregonian snail ............................................................................................... relict dace ................................................................................................................. Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................................. sickle darter .............................................................................................................. southern elktoe ......................................................................................................... southern white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................................... tidewater amphipod .................................................................................................. tufted puffin ............................................................................................................... western spadefoot .................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 12-month finding. Proposed listing determination Proposed listing determination Proposed listing determination 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 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. Proposed listing determination 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 12-month finding. Proposed listing determination Proposed listing determination 12-month finding. 12-month finding. 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. E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. or not warranted finding. 73172 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 [As of September 30, 2020] Title Action(s) 10/18/2018 ........ Removing Deseret Milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule. Removing Trifolium stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removal of the Monito Gecko (Sphaerodactylus micropithecus) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing the Kirtland’s Warbler From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing Bradshaw’s Lomatium From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removal of the Nashville Crayfish From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Reclassification of the Humpback Chub From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose (Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule. Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Reclassification of Virgin Islands Tree Boa From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Reclassficiation of beach layia (Layia carnosa) From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 83 FR 52775–52786 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 6110–6126 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 9648–9687 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... 84 FR 19013–19029 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 44832–44841 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 84 FR 48290–48308 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 84 FR 52791–52800 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 53380–53397 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 84 FR 54436–54463 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 56977–56991 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 84 FR 59570–59588 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 65067–65080 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 84 FR 65098–65112 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... 84 FR 65080–65098 Final Rule—Downlisting ............................ 84 FR 69918–69947 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 85 FR 164–189 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 85 FR 487–492 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... 85 FR 3586–3601 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 85 FR 13844–13856 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 85 FR 23302–23315 Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 85 FR 33060–33078 Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 85 FR 35574–35594 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... 85 FR 44821–44835 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... 85 FR 50991–51006 02/26/2019 ........ 03/15/2019 ........ 05/03/2019 ........ 08/27/2019 ........ 09/13/2019 ........ 10/03/2019 ........ 10/07/2019 ........ 10/09/2019 ........ 10/24/2019 ........ 11/05/2019 ........ 11/26/2019 ........ 11/26/2019 ........ 11/26/2019 ........ 12/19/2019 ........ 01/02/2020 ........ 01/06/2020 ........ 01/22/2020 ........ 03/10/2020 ........ 04/27/2020 ........ 06/01/2020 ........ 06/11/2020 ........ 7/24/2020 .......... 8/19/2020 .......... 9/30/2020 .......... 9/30/2020 .......... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register Citation Publication date When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded, the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... Proposed Rule—Downlisting .................... published. If the petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is reviewed annually in the ‘‘candidate notice of review’’ (CNOR). The number PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of candidate species remaining in FY 2020 is the lowest it has been since 1975. For these species, we are working on developing a species status assessment, preparing proposed listing E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules determinations, or preparing notwarranted 12-month findings. Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related actions together for publication. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species For all 11 candidates, we continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. However, we are working on thorough reviews of all available data regarding 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 8 of these species. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or notwarranted 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 Act in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to any of these species. Below are updated summaries for the four petitioned candidates for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warrantedbut-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. Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus (gopher tortoise, eastern population)—The gopher tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a total length up to 15 inches (38 centimeters) 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 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 gopher tortoise is currently federally listed as a threatened distinct population segment in the western portion of its range, which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and Louisiana. We were petitioned to list the species in the remaining eastern portion of the range (South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers)). In our 12-month finding on that petition, we determined that the gopher tortoise warrants listing range wide. Thus, we consider the eastern population of the gopher tortoise, which is not yet listed, to be a candidate species. Currently, we are working on the species status assessment for the entire range of the species; that assessment will provide the science that we will use to make final decision regarding the status of the species, including the eastern population. The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is fragmentation, destruction, and modification of its habitat, 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 into the future. The magnitude of threats to the eastern range of the gopher tortoise is considered to be low to moderate, because populations extend over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in some areas. However, the species is currently being impacted by a number of threats, including destruction and modification of its habitat, predation, exotics, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, because the magnitude of threats is low to moderate, the threats are imminent, and we are evaluating just the eastern population of the species, we have assigned a listing priority number of 8 to this species. Longfin smelt Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS—The following summary is based on our PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 73173 information contained in our files and the April 2, 2012, 12-month finding published in the Federal Register (77 FR 19756). In our 12-month finding, we determined that the San Francisco BayDelta distinct vertebrate population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) of the longfin smelt warranted listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act, but that listing was precluded by higher priority listing actions. Longfin smelt measure 9–11 cm (3.5–4.3 in) in length. Longfin smelt are considered pelagic (open water) and anadromous (fish that migrate up rivers from the sea to spawn) within the BayDelta, although anadromy in longfin smelt is not fully understood and certain populations in other parts of the species’ range complete their entire life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-yearold fish before dying. In the San Francisco Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn primarily in freshwater in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River, in South Bay tributaries such as Alviso Creek and Coyote Creek, and in North Bay tributaries such as the Napa River and Petaluma River. Longfin smelt numbers in the San Francisco Bay-Delta have declined significantly since the 1980s, with marked declines from 2002 to 2016. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest recorded in the 40year history of surveys done by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The primary threats to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt are reduced freshwater flows, competition from introduced species, climate change, and potential contaminants. Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with longfin smelt abundance (i.e., longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-spring flows are lower). Reductions in food availability and disruptions of the BayDelta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite clam (Corbula amurensis) and ammonium released into the system have also likely attributed to declines in the species’ abundance within the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The threats remain high in magnitude, as they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its range. The State of California has listed the longfin smelt under the California Endangered Species Act, and a new permit for operation of the State Water Project has been issued, which includes protections for longfin smelt, including winter-spring outflow requirements. In E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 73174 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board has 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 climate change is a gradual process, the current year-round temperatures in the San Francisco Estuary may not yet be high enough to be an immediate stressor for the species, but could impact the species in the future. In addition, upgrades to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the largest discharger of the contaminant ammonium in the Delta, are expected to occur in 2021–2023 and would result in significant reductions in ammonium release, thus negating the imminence of contaminants as a stressor for the species. Competition against introduced species is an ongoing threat for the species, but this stressor alone is unlikely to serve as the primary driver that would warrant listing. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 6 to this population. Magnificent ramshorn The magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica) 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 35mm and heights exceeding 20mm. The great width of its shell, in relation to the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all ages. The shell is tan/ brown colored 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; it is known from only four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina. It now appears to be extirpated from the wild. The complete historical range of the species is unknown, although the size of the species and the fact that it was not reported until 1903 indicate 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 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, a lab at NC State University’s Veterinary School, and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s Conservation Aquaculture Center in Marion, NC. 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., saltwater intrusion and other waterquality degradation, nuisance-aquaticplant control, storms, sea-level rise, etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the wild. Currently, only three captive populations exist; a captive population of the species comprised of approximately 2000+ adults, one with approximately 300+ adults, and one with approximately 20 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. Because the threats are of high magnitude and imminence, we assigned an LPN of 2 to the species. Sonoran Desert Tortoise The Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) occurs in central and southeast Arizona and in northeast Sonora, Mexico. Adult tortoises can reach 15 inches long and mainly occur on rocky, steep slopes and bajadas (lower mountain slopes) and in paloverde-mixed cacti associations at elevations between 900 to 4,200 feet. Until 2011, the Sonoran desert tortoise was considered to be a population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 however, the Sonoran desert tortoise was identified as a unique species (Gopherus morafkai) in 2011. In 2008, we were petitioned to list as an endangered or threatened DPS of desert tortoise what is now recognized as the Sonoran desert tortoise. We published a substantial 90-day finding on the petition on August 28, 2009 (74 FR 44335). On December 14, 2010, we found the species warranted for listing but precluded by higher priority actions, and the entity was added to our list of candidate species (75 FR 78094). After completing a species status assessment, we subsequently published a 12-month petition finding on October 6, 2015, determining that the Sonoran desert tortoise was not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened under the Act (80 FR 60321). The petitioners filed a complaint on September 5, 2019, challenging our 2015 not-warranted finding for the Sonoran desert tortoise and alleging violations of the ESA. We reached a settlement agreement with the petitioners, which was approved by the Court on August 3, 2020, to reconsider our not-warranted finding and to develop a new 12-month finding as to whether the Sonoran desert tortoise warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. As a result of that agreement, we are withdrawing our 2015 12-month finding and have returned the Sonoran desert tortoise back to the candidate list. We agreed to submit to the Federal Register a new 12month petition finding on the status of the Sonoran desert tortoise within 18 months of the court order—by February 3, 2022. We are beginning a revised status review now and are requesting any new information, regarding the species’ distribution and abundance, its habitat, conservation efforts or threats, be provided to the Service for consideration in the species status assessment. Correction From Previous CNOR (84 FR 54732) On October 10, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 54732) the CNOR for FY 2017 and FY 2018, in which we erroneously included Berry Cave salamander as a candidate under review. On October 7, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 53336) a 12-month finding that the Berry Cave salamander is not warranted for listing under the Act, which removed the species from our candidate list. Candidates in Review The Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita), whitebark pine (Pinus E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 albicaulis), bracted twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus), Penasco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristriatus), Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteate), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), and Texas pimpleback (Cyclonaias petrina) are candidates for which we have initiated the analysis regarding the threats to the species and status of the species, but the proposed listing rule or not-warranted finding for these species was not yet completed as of September 30, 2020. We have funded these actions and intend to complete our classification decision in the near future. 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 Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus). Because these species are already listed under the Act, they are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1. We are currently assessing the best scientific and commercial data available pertaining to the status of the grizzly and its populations for a comprehensive 5-year review, which we plan to complete and post no later than March 31, 2021 per a stipulated settlement agreement in Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, No. 19–cv– 00109–DLC (D. Mont. Dec. 6, 2019). We published the notice of initiation of the status review in the Federal Register on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2143). In order to ensure that our resubmitted-petition finding for this species is based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we plan to complete the finding after we have completed the comprehensive 5-year review. This CNOR and associated species assessment forms also constitute the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify the delta smelt and the Pariette cactus. Our updated assessments for these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered status for delta smelt and Pariette cactus are currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above). One of the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to have higher priority is that the delta smelt and Pariette cactus are currently listed as threatened, and therefore already receive certain protections VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 under the Act. For the delta smelt, those protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21; for Pariette cactus, the protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.71 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.61. 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 delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. Also, it is unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to possession Pariette cactus 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 Act, whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the April 7, 2010, 12-month finding published in the Federal Register (75 FR 17667); see that 12-month finding for additional information on why reclassification to endangered is warranted but precluded. In our 12-month finding, we determined that a change in status of the delta smelt from threatened to endangered was warranted, although precluded by other high-priority listing actions. The primary rationale for reclassifying delta smelt from threatened to endangered was the significant decline in species abundance that have occurred since 2001, and the continuing downward trend in delta smelt abundance indices supports that finding. Fourteen of the last 15 years have seen fall abundances that have been the lowest ever recorded. 2015 to 2019 results from all four of the surveys analyzed in this review have been the lowest ever recorded for the delta smelt. Delta smelt abundance in fall was exceptionally low between 2004 and 2010, increased during the wet year of 2011, and decreased again to very low levels at present. The latest 2018 and 2019 fall surveys did not detect a single delta smelt, resulting in an abundance index of 0, and the latest 2019 spring survey resulted in an abundance index of 0.4, all of which are the lowest on record. The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by State and Federal water export facilities; reduction of suitable habitat through summer and fall increases in salinity PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 73175 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, climate change, and small population size. We have identified a number of existing regulatory mechanisms that provide protective measures that affect the stressors acting on the delta smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservations efforts, the stressors continue to act on the species such that it is warranted for uplisting under the ESA. As a result of our analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available, we have retained the recommendation of reclassifying 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. We note that an LPN of 2 does not mean that uplisting the species to endangered is a high priority for the Service. Since the delta smelt’s current classification as threatened already provides the species the protections afforded by the Act (as set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21), reclassifying the species to endangered status will not substantively increase protections for the delta smelt, but rather more accurately classify the species given its current status. Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus)—Pariette cactus is restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is known from several subpopulations that comprise a single metapopulation with an overall range of approximately 20 miles by 14 miles in extent. The species’ entire range is within a developed and expanding oil and gas field. The location of the species’ habitat exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site construction in connection with oil and gas development. The species may be illegally collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. Recreational off-road vehicle use and E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 73176 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 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 Act 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 document. (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 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. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Current Candidate Notice of Review We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This CNOR 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 comments received in response to previous CNORs. Tables 4, 5, and 6, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by common names under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ sign. 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 documents 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 4 lists all candidate species, plus species currently proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that in this CNOR 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 5, the ‘‘category’’ column on the left side of the table identifies the status of each species according to the following codes: PE—Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category, as well as PT and PSAT (below), does not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule. PT—Species proposed for listing as threatened. 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 12month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. Our analysis for this CNOR 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 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 we use to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Following the scientific name (third column) and the family designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas listed. Species in Table 6 of this CNOR are those domestic species that we included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published October 10, 2019, at 84 FR 54732) that are no longer proposed species or candidates for listing. Since October 10, 2019, we listed three species and removed three species from the candidate list by making notwarranted 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. E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 CNOR. N—Species that are not listable entities based on the Act’s definition of ‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic understanding. U—Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not candidates for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species. X—Species we believe to be extinct. The columns describing scientific name, family, common name, and historical range include information as previously described for Table 1. Request for Information We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this CNOR. We request you submit any further information on the species named in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in any information: (1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species; (2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status; (3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent; 73177 (4) Documenting threats to any of the included species; (5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species; (6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species; (7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and (8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges. We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate). Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director identified as having the lead responsibility for the species in the table below. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 4—CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING Species Regional director Address Telephone Atlantic pigtoe, Black-capped petrel, eastern black rail, gopher tortoise (eastern population), Neuse River waterdog, Carolina madtom, longsolid, magnificent ramshorn, Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly, Panama City crayfish, round hickorynut, slenderclaw crayfish, marron bacora. Eastern hellbender (Missouri DPS) ...................... Leo Miranda-Castro ....... Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345. 404–679–4156 Charlie Wooley .............. 612–713–5334 North American wolverine (Contiguous U.S. DPS), Chapin Mesa milkvetch, whitebark pine. Noreen Walsh ................ Pen˜asco least chipmunk, Texas fatmucket, Texas fawnsfoot, Texas pimpleback, Wright’s marsh thistle, bracted twistflower, Sonoran desert tortoise. Dolly Varden trout, Franklin’s bumble bee ........... Amy Lueders .................. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437–1458. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225–0486. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW, Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102. 503–231–6158 Sierra Nevada red fox (Sierra Nevada DPS), Humboldt marten, longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS), Hermes copper butterfly. Paul Souza .................... Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825. We will provide information we receive to the office having lead responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission, and information and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate office. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:36 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 Robyn Thorson .............. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 303–236–7400 505–248–6920 916–414–6464 Authority This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Signed: lllllllllllllllll Aurelia Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2 73178 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS) [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] Status Scientific name Category Family Common name Historical range Priority MAMMALS C* ........... PE .......... 6 3 Tamias minimus atristriatus ...... Vulpes vulpes necator .............. Sciuridae ........... Canidae ............ PT .......... ................ Mustelidae ........ PT .......... 6 Martes caurina ssp. humboldtensis. Gulo gulo luscus ....................... Mustelidae ........ Chipmunk, Pen˜asco least ......... Fox, Sierra Nevada red (Sierra Nevada DPS). Marten, Humboldt ..................... U.S.A. (NM). U.S.A. (CA, OR). Wolverine, North American (Contiguous U.S. DPS). U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY). Petrel, black-capped ................. Rail, eastern black .................... U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC). 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). Tortoise, gopher (eastern population). Tortoise, Sonoran desert .......... U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC). U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. U.S.A. (CA). BIRDS PT .......... PT .......... ................ ................ Pterodroma hasitata .................. Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis. Procellariidae .... Rallidae ............ REPTILES C* ........... 8 Gopherus polyphemus .............. Testudinidae ..... C* ........... 5 Gopherus morafkai ................... Testudinidae ..... AMPHIBIANS PE .......... ................ PT .......... ................ Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis. Necturus lewisi .......................... Cryptobranchidae. Proteidae .......... Hellbender, eastern (Missouri DPS). Waterdog, Neuse River ............ U.S.A. (MO). Madtom, Carolina ...................... Smelt, longfin (San Francisco Bay–Delta DPS). Trout, Dolly Varden ................... U.S.A. (NC). U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA), Canada. U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada, East Asia. U.S.A. (TX). U.S.A. (TX). U.S.A. (AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MS, NY, OH, PA, TN, WV), Canada. U.S.A. (GA, NC, VA). U.S.A. (TX). U.S.A. (AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MS, MO, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV). U.S.A. (NC). FISHES PE .......... C* ........... ................ 6 Noturus furiosus ........................ Spirinchus thaleichthys ............. Ictaluridae ......... Osmeridae ........ PSAT ...... N/A Salvelinus malma ...................... Salmonidae ...... CLAMS C* ........... C* ........... PT .......... 2 2 ................ Lampsilis bracteata ................... Truncilla macrodon ................... Obovaria subrotunda ................ Unionidae ......... Unionidae ......... Unionidae ......... Fatmucket, Texas ..................... Fawnsfoot, Texas ...................... Hickorynut, round ...................... PT .......... C* ........... PT .......... ................ 2 ................ Fusconaia masoni ..................... Quadrula petrina ....................... Fusconaia subrotunda .............. Unionidae ......... Unionidae ......... Unionidae ......... Pigtoe, Atlantic .......................... Pimpleback, Texas .................... Longsolid ................................... SNAILS C* ........... 2 Planorbella magnifica ................ Planorbidae ...... Ramshorn, magnificent ............. U.S.A. (NC). Bumble bee, Franklin’s ............. Butterfly, Hermes copper .......... Butterfly, Puerto Rico harlequin U.S.A (CA, OR). U.S.A. (CA). U.S.A. (PR). jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 INSECTS PE .......... PT .......... C* ........... 1 5 2 Bombus franklini ....................... Lycaena hermes ....................... Atlantea tulita ............................ Apidae .............. Lycaenidae ....... Nymphalidae ..... CRUSTACEANS PT .......... PT .......... ................ ................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 Procambarus econfinae ............ Cambarus cracens .................... 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Cambaridae ...... Cambaridae ...... Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Crayfish, Panama City .............. Crayfish, slenderclaw ................ Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (AL). 16NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules 73179 TABLE 5—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] Status Scientific name Category Family Common name Historical range Priority FLOWERING PLANTS PT .......... PT .......... C* ........... 8 8 8 Astragalus schmolliae ............... Cirsium wrightii .......................... Pinus albicaulis ......................... Fabaceae ......... Asteraceae ....... Pinaceae ........... Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa ............ Thistle, Wright’s marsh ............. Pine, whitebark ......................... PE .......... C* ........... 2 8 Solanum conocarpum ............... Streptanthus bracteatus ............ Solanaceae ...... Brassicaceae .... Bacora, marron ......................... Twistflower, bracted .................. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. WA, U.S.A. U.S.A. (CO). (AZ, NM), Mexico. (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WY), Canada (AB, BC). (PR). (TX). TABLE 6—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] Status Scientific name Code Family Common name Historical range Expl. MAMMALS Rc ........... 9 Arborimus longicaudus ............. Cricetidae ......... Vole, red tree (north Oregon coast DPS). U.S.A. (OR) AMPHIBIANS Rc ........... A Gyrinophilus gulolineatus .......... Plethodontidae .. Salamander, Berry Cave .......... U.S.A. (TN) Topminnow, Barrens ................. U.S.A. (TN) Stonefly, meltwater lednian ....... Stonefly, western glacier ........... U.S.A. (MT) U.S.A. (MT) FISHES E ............. L Fundulus julisia ......................... Fundulidae ........ INSECTS T ............. T ............. L L Lednia tumana .......................... Zapada glacier .......................... Nemouridae ...... Nemouridae ...... FLOWERING PLANTS Rc ........... 8 Astragalus microcymbus ........... Fabaceae ......... Milkvetch, skiff ........................... U.S.A. (CO) [FR Doc. 2020–24198 Filed 11–13–20; 8:45 am] jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 4333–15–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\16NOP2.SGM 16NOP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 221 (Monday, November 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73164-73179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24198]



[[Page 73163]]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 221

November 16, 2020

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic 
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. 85 , No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 73164]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2020-0003; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, known as a Candidate Notice of Review 
(CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an 
updated list of domestic plant and animal species that we regard as 
candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. This document also includes our findings on 
resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the 
period October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Combined with other 
decisions for individual species that were published separately from 
this CNOR in the past year, the current number of domestic species that 
are candidates for listing is 11. 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 adds the Sonoran desert tortoise back to the 
candidate list as a result of an August 3, 2020, court-approved 
settlement agreement.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caitlin Snyder, 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).
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call 
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

Previous Candidate Notices of Review

    We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was 
published on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732). CNORs published since 1994 
are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please 
contact the 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 Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines 
for such a priority-ranking system. As explained below, in using this 
system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), 
then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic 
status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion

[[Page 73165]]

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 CNOR as a 
candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient 
information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at: 
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a 
particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species 
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a more-
detailed explanation--including citations to, and more-detailed 
analyses of, the best scientific and commercial data available--for our 
determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and 
assignment of the LPN.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the previous CNOR on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 
54732), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and 
reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also 
evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly 
species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). 
This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts 
on those species at greatest risk.
    We are not identifying any new candidates, changing the listing 
priority number of any existing candidates, or removing any candidates 
through this CNOR. We are putting the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus 
morafkai) back on the candidate list as a result of a court-approved 
settlement agreement.
    In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the 
last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list 
species, on proposed rules to list species under the Act, and on final 
listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have 
been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on 
others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 
below, for details).
    Combined with other findings and determinations published 
separately from this CNOR, 11 species are now candidates awaiting 
preparation of a proposed listing rule or ``not-warranted'' finding. 
Table 1 identifies these 11 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 
CNOR and includes six species identified in the previous CNOR as either 
proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in 
those categories. This includes three species for which we published a 
final listing rule and three candidate species for which we published 
separate not-warranted findings and removed them from candidate status.

Petition Findings

    The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own 
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of 
section 4(a)(1). The second method provides a mechanism for the public 
to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in 
the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of 
the petition process: (1) in some instances (in particular, for 
petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as 
candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition 
finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a 
warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a 
``resubmitted'' petition finding that the Act requires the Service to 
make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the 
statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which 
listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need 
emergency listing.
    First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some 
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a 
petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the 
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day 
finding''). If we make a

[[Page 73166]]

positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of 
the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make, within 12 
months of the receipt of the petition, one of the following three 
possible findings (a ``12-month finding''):
    (1) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case we must 
promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register;
    (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we must 
promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned 
action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) 
and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether 
or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
    (3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate 
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) 
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the 
Lists. 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 Act requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as 
one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make 
a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year 
in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, until we publish a 
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We 
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To 
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month 
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition 
findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings, 
although all previous findings are part of the administrative record 
for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or 
incorporate them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining 
why the finding has changed.
    Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the 
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to ``implement 
a system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which 
we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have 
implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are 
actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We 
review all new information on candidate species as it becomes 
available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects 
monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species 
for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that 
emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt 
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the 
Act. For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami 
blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue 
to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or 
not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR, the 
accompanying species assessment forms, and the process by which the 
Service generates and reviews those documents together constitute the 
Service's system for monitoring and making annual findings on the 
status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 
4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and 
specificity of information that we must consider in making and 
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published 
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in 
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate 
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For 
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of 
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at 
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide 
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be 
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a 
nationwide basis (see below). Our preclusion determinations are further 
based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, 
and we explain the priority system and why the work we have 
accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.
    In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and 
threats to, the 11 candidates for which we have received a petition to 
list and the 4 listed species for which we have received a petition to 
reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned 
action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate 
issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for 
each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues 
to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, for all 
of these candidate species, we are currently engaged in a thorough 
review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a 
proposed listing rule; as a result of this review, we may conclude that 
listing is no longer warranted. For the two grizzly bear ecosystem 
populations, we are engaged in a thorough review of all available data 
to determine the appropriate status for those entities (see Petitions 
To Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). For the remaining two 
listed species--delta smelt and Pariette cactus, which are candidates 
for reclassification from threatened to endangered--we are providing 
updated species assessment

[[Page 73167]]

forms and a summary of those assessments in this CNOR (see Petitions to 
Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). Additional information that 
is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and 
our administrative record for each species.
    The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed 
below, during the period from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 
2020. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing 
each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-
precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are 
making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. 
We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, 
including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to 
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to 
emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described 
above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify and propose species for 
listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)--either on 
our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for 
the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but 
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is 
endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being 
made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove 
species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

Preclusion

    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there 
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work 
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a 
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) The 
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and 
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of 
the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its 
workload.
Available Resources
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for 
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on 
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This 
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from 
depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for 
other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available 
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and 
final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of 
species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on 
petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a 
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition 
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required 
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition 
findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical 
habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and 
program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
    For more than two decades the size and cost of the workload in 
these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding 
available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing 
and critical habitat actions under the Act. Since we cannot exceed the 
spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work 
on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority 
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis 
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed 
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide 
basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to 
complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts 
have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after 
completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide. 
Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying 
for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved 
settlement agreements--set the framework within which we make our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    For FY 2019, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, 
(Pub. L. 116-6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service 
$18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign 
listing work, including status assessments, listing determinations, 
domestic critical habitat designations, and related activities. For FY 
2020, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. 
L. 116-94, December 20, 2019), Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for 
all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding Congress 
will appropriate in future years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
    The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be 
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and 
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and 
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public 
comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating 
relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number 
of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is 
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more 
complex actions generally are more costly. Our practice of proposing to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing species requires 
additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the 
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work. 
Since completing all of the work for outstanding listing and critical 
habitat actions has for so long required more funding than has been 
available within the spending cap, the Service has developed several 
ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its 
workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has 
available for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
    The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four 
types of actions, which the Service

[[Page 73168]]

prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-
approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or 
listing determinations or critical habitat designations be completed by 
a specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and 
listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) 
listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; 
and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory 
deadlines.
    In previous years, the Service received many new petitions, 
including multiple petitions to list numerous species, e.g., a single 
petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that 
petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time 
through the petition process significantly increased the number of 
actions within the third category of our workload--actions that have 
absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In 
addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program 
funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and 
complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016 
added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we 
are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent 
effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in 
petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-
species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was not 
making 12-month findings for most of those petitions. The number of 
petitions that are awaiting status reviews and accompanying 12-month 
findings illustrates the considerable extent of this backlog; as a 
result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds of species, and 
our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90 days of 
receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at the 
beginning of FY 2020 we had 422 12-month petition findings for domestic 
species yet to be initiated and completed.
    To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month 
petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology 
(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016), after providing the public 
with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81 
FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign each 12-
month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is 
critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the 
status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform 
key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation 
efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status 
of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited. 
As a general rule, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a 
higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with 
a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions--for 
example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching 
it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may 
also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an 
action should be bumped up (or down) in scheduling. One limitation that 
might result in divergence from priority order is when the current 
highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our 
scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with 
their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution 
of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance 
workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress first 
established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the 
Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than 
the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. 
Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our 
listing process.
    After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied 
that methodology to develop a multi-year National Listing Workplan 
(Workplan) for completing the outstanding status assessments and 
accompanying 12-month findings. The purpose of the Workplan is provide 
transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service 
anticipates completing specific 12-month findings while allowing for 
flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the 
priorities. In May 2019, the Service released its updated Workplan for 
addressing the Act's domestic listing and critical habitat decisions 
over the subsequent 5 years. The updated Workplan identified the 
Service's schedule for addressing all domestic species on the candidate 
list and conducting 267 status reviews and accompanying 12-month 
findings by FY 2023 for domestic species that have been petitioned for 
Federal protections under the Act. As we implement our Workplan and 
work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we increase 
efficiency by preparing 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.
    An additional way in which we determine relative priorities of 
outstanding actions in the section 4 program is application of the 
listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under 
those guidelines, which apply primarily to candidate species, we assign 
each candidate a listing priority number (LPN) of 1 to 12, depending on 
the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of 
threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species 
(in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole 
member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or 
distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN 
would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, 
unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can 
be combined for efficiency with work on a proposed rule for other high-
priority species.
    Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species 
status to endangered species status are generally lower in priority 
because, as listed species, they are already afforded the protections 
of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency 
reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 
species to endangered species status if we can combine this with 
higher-priority work.
Listing Program Workload
    The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2019 
outlined work for domestic species over the period from 2019 to 2023. 
Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher-
priority listing actions that we completed through FY 2020 (September 
30, 2020), as well as those we have been working on in FY 2020 but have 
not yet completed. For FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan includes 
74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various 
stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the 
actions scheduled in the National Listing Workplan, the overall Listing 
Program workload also includes the development

[[Page 73169]]

and revision of listing regulations that are required by new court 
orders or settlement agreements, or to address the repercussions of any 
new court decisions, as well as proposed and final critical habitat 
designations or revisions for species that have already been listed. 
The Service's highest priorities for spending its funding in FY 2019 
and FY 2020 are actions included in the Workplan and actions required 
to address court decisions.

Expeditious Progress

    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note 
that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the ``Lists'' are grouped as 
one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and 
one list of endangered and threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). 
However, the ``Lists'' referred to in the Act mean one list of 
endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened 
species (wildlife and plants). Therefore, under the Act, expeditious 
progress includes actions to reclassify species--that is, either remove 
them from the list of threatened species and add them to the list of 
endangered species, or remove them from the list of endangered species 
and add them to the list of threatened species.
    As with our ``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether 
expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources 
available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed 
earlier, the FY 2020 appropriations law included a spending cap of 
$20,318,000 for listing activities, and the FY 2019 appropriations law 
included a spending cap of $18,318,000 for listing activities.
    As discussed below, given the limited resources available for 
listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work 
catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious 
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists.
    The work of the Service's domestic listing program in FY 2019 and 
FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) includes all three of the steps 
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that 
may warrant listing (90-day petition findings); (2) undertaking an 
evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species 
and the threats they face to determine whether or not listing is 
warranted (a status review and accompanying 12-month finding); and (3) 
adding qualified species to the Lists (by publishing proposed and final 
listing rules). We explain in more detail how we are making expeditious 
progress in all three of the steps necessary for adding qualified 
species to the Lists (identifying, evaluating, and adding species). 
Subsequent to discussing our expeditious progress in adding qualified 
species to the Lists, we explain our expeditious progress in removing 
from the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the 
Act.
    First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species 
that may warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 
2020), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 14 species.
    Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best 
scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they 
face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted. 
In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 12-
month findings for 69 species. In addition, we funded and worked on the 
development of 12-month findings for 34 species and proposed listing 
determinations for 9 candidates. Although we did not complete those 
actions during FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we made 
expeditious progress towards doing so by initiating and making progress 
on the status reviews to determine whether adding the species to the 
Lists is warranted.
    Third, we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified 
species to the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 
2020), we published final listing rules for 7 species, including final 
critical habitat designations for 1 of those species and final 
protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 2 of those 
species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional 
20 species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations 
for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's 
section 4(d) for 14 species).
    The Act also requires that we make expeditious progress in removing 
species from the Lists that no longer require the protections of the 
Act. Specifically, we are making expeditious progress in removing 
(delisting) domestic species, as well as reclassifying endangered 
species to threatened species status (downlisting). This work is being 
completed under the Recovery program in light of the resources 
available for recovery actions, which are funded through the recovery 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. Because 
recovery actions are funded separately from listing actions, they do 
not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery 
actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing 
new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards 
our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states 
that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to, 
and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. During FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of 
September 30, 2020), we finalized downlisting of 1 species, finalized 
delisting rules for 7 species, proposed downlisting of 7 species, and 
proposed delisting of 11 species. The rate at which the Service has 
completed delisting and downlisting actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as 
of September 30, 2020) is higher than any point in the history of the 
Act.
    The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2019 and FY 
2020 (as of September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our evaluation of 
making expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published 
domestic listing actions; Table 2 includes domestic listing actions 
funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are 
not yet complete as of September 30, 2020; and Table 3 includes 
completed and published proposed and final downlisting and delisting 
actions for domestic species.

                       Table 1--Completed Domestic Listing Actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020
                                              [As of September 30]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Publication date                 Title                  Action(s)            Federal Register  Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/9/2018...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      83 FR 50574-50582
                               Status for Coastal       Threatened with
                               Distinct Population      Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Segment of the Pacific   12-Month Petition
                               Marten.                  Finding.

[[Page 73170]]

 
10/9/2018...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      83 FR 50560-50574
                               Status for Black-        Threatened with
                               Capped Petrel With a     Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Section 4(d) Rule.       12-Month Petition
                                                        Finding.
10/9/2018...................  12-Month Petition        Proposed Listing--      83 FR 50610-50630
                               Finding and Threatened   Threatened with
                               Species Status for       Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Eastern Black Rail       12-Month Petition
                               With a Section 4(d)      Finding.
                               Rule.
10/9/2018...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      83 FR 50582-50610
                               Status With Section      Threatened with
                               4(d) Rule and Critical   Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Habitat Designation      Critical Habitat and
                               for Slenderclaw          12-Month Finding.
                               Crayfish.
10/11/2018..................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      83 FR 51570-51609
                               Status With Section      Threatened with
                               4(d) Rule and Critical   Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Habitat Designation      Critical Habitat and
                               for Atlantic Pigtoe.     12-Month Finding.
11/21/2018..................  Endangered Species       Final Listing--         83 FR 58747-58754
                               Status for the Candy     Endangered.
                               Darter.
12/19/2018..................  12-Month Findings on     12-Month Petition       83 FR 65127-65134
                               Petitions to List 13     Findings.
                               Species as Endangered
                               or Threatened Species.
12/28/2018..................  Threatened Species       Final Listing--         83 FR 67131-67140
                               Status for Trispot       Threatened.
                               Darter.
4/4/2019....................  12-Month Findings on     12-Month Petition       84 FR 13237-13242
                               Petitions to List        Findings.
                               Eight Species as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
4/4/2019....................  12-Month Petition        Proposed Listing--      84 FR 13223-13237
                               Finding and Endangered   Endangered and 12-
                               Species Status for the   Month Petition
                               Missouri Distinct        Finding.
                               Population Segment of
                               Eastern Hellbender.
4/26/2019...................  90-Day Findings for      90-Day Petition         84 FR 17768-17771
                               Four Species (3          Findings.
                               domestic species and 1
                               foreign species)*.
5/22/2019...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listings--     84 FR 23644-23691
                               Status with Section      Threatened Status
                               4(d) Rule for Neuse      with Section 4(d)
                               River Waterdog and       Rule with Critical
                               Endangered Species       Habitat; Endangered
                               Status for Carolina      Status with Critical
                               Madtom and Proposed      Habitat and 12-Month
                               Designations of          Petition Findings.
                               Critical Habitat.
8/13/2019...................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listing--      84 FR 40006-40019
                               Status for Franklin's    Endangered and 12-
                               Bumble Bee.              Month Petition
                                                        Finding.
8/15/2019...................  12-Month Findings on     12-Month Petition       84 FR 41694-41699
                               Petitions to List        Findings.
                               Eight Species as
                               Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
8/15/2019...................  90-Day Findings for      90-Day Petition         84 FR 41691-41694
                               Three Species.           Findings.
9/6/2019....................  90-Day Findings for      90-Day Petition         84 FR 46927-46931
                               Three Species.           Findings.
10/07/2019..................  Twelve Species Not       12-Month Petition       84 FR 53336-53343
                               Warranted for Listing    Findings.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
10/21/2019..................  Endangered Species       Final Listing--         84 FR 56131-56136
                               Status for Barrens       Endangered.
                               Topminnow.
11/08/2019..................  12-Month Finding for     12-Month Petition       84 FR 60371-60372
                               the California Spotted   Finding.
                               Owl.
11/21/2019..................  Threatened Species       Final Listing--         84 FR 64210-64227
                               Status for Meltwater     Threatened with
                               Lednian Stonefly and     Section 4(d) Rule.
                               Western Glacier
                               Stonefly With a
                               Section 4(d) Rule.
12/06/2019..................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listings--     84 FR 67060-67104
                               Status for Beardless     Endangered with
                               Chinchweed With          Critical Habitat;
                               Designation of           Threatened with
                               Critical Habitat, and    Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Threatened Species       12-Month Petition
                               Status for Bartram's     Findings.
                               Stonecrop With Section
                               4(d) Rule.
12/19/2019..................  Five Species Not         12-Month Petition       84 FR 69707-69712
                               Warranted for Listing    Findings.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
12/19/2019..................  90-Day Findings for Two  90-Day Petition         84 FR 69713-69715
                               Species.                 Findings.
01/08/2020..................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      85 FR 1018-1050
                               Status for the Hermes    Threatened with
                               Copper Butterfly With    Section 4(d) Rule and
                               4(d) Rule and            Critical Habitat.
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
01/08/2020..................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing--      85 FR 862-872
                               the Sierra Nevada        Endangered.
                               Distinct Population
                               Segment of the Sierra
                               Nevada Red Fox.
05/05/2020..................  Endangered Status for    Final Listing--         85 FR 26786-26820
                               the Island Marble        Endangered with
                               Butterfly and            Critical Habitat.
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
05/15/2020..................  Endangered Species       Final Listing--         85 FR 29532-29589
                               Status for Southern      Endangered.
                               Sierra Nevada Distinct
                               Population Segment of
                               Fisher.
7/16/2020...................  90-Day Finding for the   90-Day Petition         85 FR 43203-43204
                               Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.  Finding.
7/22/2020...................  90-Day Findings for Two  90-Day Petition         85 FR 44265-44267
                               Species.                 Findings.
7/23/2020...................  Four Species Not         12-Month Petition       85 FR 44478-44483
                               Warranted for Listing    Findings.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
8/26/2020...................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listing--      85 FR 52516-52540
                               Status for Marron        Endangered with
                               Bacora and Designation   Critical Habitat and
                               of Critical Habitat.     12-Month Petition
                                                        Finding.
9/1/2020....................  Two Species Not          12-Month Petition       85 FR 54339-54342
                               Warranted for Listing    Findings.
                               as Endangered or
                               Threatened Species.
9/16/2020...................  Findings on a Petition   12-Month Petition       85 FR 57816-57818
                               To Delist the Distinct   Finding.
                               Population Segment of
                               the Western Yellow-
                               Billed Cuckoo and a
                               Petition To List the
                               U.S. Population of
                               Northwestern Moose**.

[[Page 73171]]

 
9/17/2020...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      85 FR 58224-58250
                               Status for Chapin Mesa   Threatened With
                               milkvetch and Section    Section 4(d) Rule and
                               4(d) Rule with           Critical Habitat.
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
9/17/2020...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listings--     85 FR 58192-58222
                               Status for Big Creek     Threatened With
                               crayfish and St.         Section 4(d) Rule and
                               Francis River Crayfish   Critical Habitat.
                               and With Section 4(d)
                               Rule with Designation
                               of Critical Habitat.
9/29/2020...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listings--     .................................
                               Status for longsolid     Threatened With
                               and round hickorynut     Section 4(d) Rule and
                               mussel and Section       Critical Habitat; 12-
                               4(d) Rule With           Month Petition
                               Designation of           Findings.
                               Critical Habitat, Not
                               Warranted 12-Month
                               Finding for purple
                               Lilliput.
9/29/2020...................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing--      .................................
                               Status for Wright's      Threatened With
                               Marsh Thistle and        Section (4) Rule and
                               Section 4(d) Rule With   Critical Habitat.
                               Designation of
                               Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 90-day finding batches may include findings regarding both domestic and foreign species. The total number of
  90-day findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to domestic species only.
** Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of
  12-month findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to listing petitions only.


 Table 2--Domestic Listing Actions Funded and Initiated in Previous FYs and in FY 2020 That Are Not Yet Complete
                                           [As of September 30, 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                                                   Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
northern spotted owl.............  12-month finding.
false spike......................  12-month finding.
Guadalupe fatmucket..............  12-month finding.
Guadalupe orb....................  12-month finding.
Texas fatmucket..................  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Texas fawnsfoot..................  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Texas pimpleback.................  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
South Llano Springs moss.........  12-month finding.
peppered chub....................  12-month finding.
whitebark pine...................  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Key ringneck snake...............  12-month finding.
Rimrock crowned snake............  12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla cryptica......  12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla purpura.......  12-month finding.
Hamlin Valley pyrg...............  12-month finding.
longitudinal gland pyrg..........  12-month finding.
sub-globose snake pyrg...........  12-month finding.
Louisiana pigtoe.................  12-month finding.
Texas heelsplitter...............  12-month finding.
triangle pigtoe..................  12-month finding.
prostrate milkweed...............  12-month finding.
alligator snapping turtle........  12-month finding.
Black Creek crayfish.............  12-month finding.
bracted twistflower..............  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Canoe Creek clubshell............  12-month finding.
Clear Lake hitch.................  12-month finding.
Doll's daisy.....................  12-month finding.
frecklebelly madtom..............  12-month finding.
longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
 Delta DPS).
magnificent Ramshorn.............  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Mt. Rainier white-tailed           12-month finding.
 ptarmigan.
Ocmulgee skullcap................  12-month finding.
Penasco least chipmunk...........  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly..  Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Puget oregonian snail............  12-month finding.
relict dace......................  12-month finding.
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower......  12-month finding.
sickle darter....................  12-month finding.
southern elktoe..................  12-month finding.
southern white-tailed ptarmigan..  12-month finding.
tidewater amphipod...............  12-month finding.
tufted puffin....................  12-month finding.
western spadefoot................  12-month finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73172]]


                  Table 3--Completed Domestic Recovery Actions (Proposed and Final Downlistings and Delistings) in FY 2019 and FY 2020
                                                               [As of September 30, 2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Publication date                  Title                                    Action(s)                               Federal Register  Citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/18/2018...................  Removing Deseret          Final Rule--Delisting......................................  83 FR 52775-52786
                                Milkvetch (Astragalus
                                desereticus) From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
02/26/2019...................  Removing the Borax Lake   Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 6110-6126
                                Chub From the List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
03/15/2019...................  Removing the Gray Wolf    Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 9648-9687
                                (Canis lupus) From the
                                List of Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
05/03/2019...................  Reclassifying the         Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  84 FR 19013-19029
                                American Burying Beetle
                                From Endangered to
                                Threatened on the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife
                                With a 4(d) Rule.
08/27/2019...................  Removing Trifolium        Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 44832-44841
                                stoloniferum (Running
                                Buffalo Clover) From
                                the Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
09/13/2019...................  Removing the Foskett      Final Rule--Delisting......................................  84 FR 48290-48308
                                Speckled Dace From the
                                List of Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
10/03/2019...................  Removal of the Monito     Final Rule--Delisting......................................  84 FR 52791-52800
                                Gecko (Sphaerodactylus
                                micropithecus) From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
10/07/2019...................  Removal of Howellia       Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 53380-53397
                                aquatilis (Water
                                Howellia) From the List
                                of Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
10/09/2019...................  Removing the Kirtland's   Final Rule--Delisting......................................  84 FR 54436-54463
                                Warbler From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
10/24/2019...................  Removal of the Interior   Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 56977-56991
                                Least Tern From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
11/05/2019...................  Removing Oenothera        Final Rule--Delisting......................................  84 FR 59570-59588
                                coloradensis (Colorado
                                Butterfly Plant) From
                                the Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019...................  Removing Bradshaw's       Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 65067-65080
                                Lomatium From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019...................  Removal of the Nashville  Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  84 FR 65098-65112
                                Crayfish From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
11/26/2019...................  Reclassification of the   Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  84 FR 65080-65098
                                Endangered June Sucker
                                to Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
12/19/2019...................  Reclassifying the         Final Rule--Downlisting....................................  84 FR 69918-69947
                                Hawaiian Goose From
                                Endangered to
                                Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
01/02/2020...................  Removing the Hawaiian     Final Rule--Delisting......................................  85 FR 164-189
                                Hawk From the Federal
                                List of Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
01/06/2020...................  Removing the Kanab        Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  85 FR 487-492
                                Ambersnail From the
                                List of Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
01/22/2020...................  Reclassification of the   Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  85 FR 3586-3601
                                Humpback Chub From
                                Endangered to
                                Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
03/10/2020...................  Removing Lepanthes        Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  85 FR 13844-13856
                                eltoroensis From the
                                Federal List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
04/27/2020...................  Removing Arenaria         Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  85 FR 23302-23315
                                cumberlandensis
                                (Cumberland Sandwort)
                                From the Federal List
                                of Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
06/01/2020...................  Removing San Benito       Proposed Rule--Delisting...................................  85 FR 33060-33078
                                Evening-Primrose
                                (Camissonia benitensis)
                                From the Federal List
                                of Endangered and
                                Threatened Plants.
06/11/2020...................  Removing the Borax Lake   Final Rule--Delisting......................................  85 FR 35574-35594
                                Chub From the List of
                                Endangered and
                                Threatened Wildlife.
7/24/2020....................  Reclassification of       Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  85 FR 44821-44835
                                Morro Shoulderband
                                Snail (Helminthoglypta
                                walkeriana) From
                                Endangered to
                                Threatened With a 4(d)
                                Rule.
8/19/2020....................  Reclassification of       Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  85 FR 50991-51006
                                Stephens' Kangaroo Rat
                                From Endangered To
                                Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020....................  Reclassification of       Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  ..................................
                                Virgin Islands Tree Boa
                                From Endangered To
                                Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020....................  Reclassficiation of       Proposed Rule--Downlisting.................................  ..................................
                                beach layia (Layia
                                carnosa) From
                                Endangered To
                                Threatened With a
                                Section 4(d) Rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded, 
the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted 
on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is published. If the 
petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species 
becomes a ``candidate'' and is reviewed annually in the ``candidate 
notice of review'' (CNOR). The number of candidate species remaining in 
FY 2020 is the lowest it has been since 1975. For these species, we are 
working on developing a species status assessment, preparing proposed 
listing

[[Page 73173]]

determinations, or preparing not-warranted 12-month findings.
    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in 
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we 
have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the 
requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to 
workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline 
processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related 
actions together for publication. Given our limited budget for 
implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward 
our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to 
and from the Lists.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

    For all 11 candidates, we continue to find that listing is 
warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. 
However, we are working on thorough reviews of all available data 
regarding 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 8 of 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 Act in the case of an emergency posing a 
significant risk to any of these species.
    Below are updated summaries for the four petitioned candidates for 
which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which 
we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year 
as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded 
finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month 
findings on the petitions for these species.

Gopher tortoise

    Gopherus polyphemus (gopher tortoise, eastern population)--The 
gopher tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that 
reaches a total length up to 15 inches (38 centimeters) 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 gopher tortoise is currently federally listed as a threatened 
distinct population segment in the western portion of its range, which 
includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), 
Mississippi, and Louisiana. We were petitioned to list the species in 
the remaining eastern portion of the range (South Carolina, Florida, 
Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers)). In our 
12-month finding on that petition, we determined that the gopher 
tortoise warrants listing range wide. Thus, we consider the eastern 
population of the gopher tortoise, which is not yet listed, to be a 
candidate species. Currently, we are working on the species status 
assessment for the entire range of the species; that assessment will 
provide the science that we will use to make final decision regarding 
the status of the species, including the eastern population.
    The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is fragmentation, 
destruction, and modification of its habitat, 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 into the future. The magnitude of threats to the 
eastern range of the gopher tortoise is considered to be low to 
moderate, because populations extend over a broad geographic area and 
conservation measures are in place in some areas. However, the species 
is currently being impacted by a number of threats, including 
destruction and modification of its habitat, predation, exotics, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, because the magnitude of 
threats is low to moderate, the threats are imminent, and we are 
evaluating just the eastern population of the species, we have assigned 
a listing priority number of 8 to this species.

Longfin smelt

    Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS--The 
following summary is based on our information contained in our files 
and the April 2, 2012, 12-month finding published in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 19756). In our 12-month finding, we determined that the 
San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct vertebrate population segment (Bay-
Delta DPS) of the longfin smelt warranted listing as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act, but that listing was precluded by 
higher priority listing actions. Longfin smelt measure 9-11 cm (3.5-4.3 
in) in length. Longfin smelt are considered pelagic (open water) and 
anadromous (fish that migrate up rivers from the sea to spawn) within 
the Bay-Delta, although anadromy in longfin smelt is not fully 
understood and certain populations in other parts of the species' range 
complete their entire life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. 
Longfin smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although 
some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before dying. In 
the San Francisco Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn 
primarily in freshwater in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River 
and San Joaquin River, in South Bay tributaries such as Alviso Creek 
and Coyote Creek, and in North Bay tributaries such as the Napa River 
and Petaluma River.
    Longfin smelt numbers in the San Francisco Bay-Delta have declined 
significantly since the 1980s, with marked declines from 2002 to 2016. 
Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest recorded in 
the 40-year history of surveys done by the California Department of 
Fish and Wildlife.
    The primary threats to the Bay-Delta DPS of longfin smelt are 
reduced freshwater flows, competition from introduced species, climate 
change, and potential contaminants. Freshwater flows, especially 
winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with longfin smelt 
abundance (i.e., longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-spring 
flows are lower). Reductions in food availability and disruptions of 
the Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative 
overbite clam (Corbula amurensis) and ammonium released into the system 
have also likely attributed to declines in the species' abundance 
within the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The threats remain high in 
magnitude, as they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its 
range.
    The State of California has listed the longfin smelt under the 
California Endangered Species Act, and a new permit for operation of 
the State Water Project has been issued, which includes protections for 
longfin smelt, including winter-spring outflow requirements. In

[[Page 73174]]

addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board has 
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 non-imminent.
    As climate change is a gradual process, the current year-round 
temperatures in the San Francisco Estuary may not yet be high enough to 
be an immediate stressor for the species, but could impact the species 
in the future. In addition, upgrades to the Sacramento Regional 
Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the largest discharger of the 
contaminant ammonium in the Delta, are expected to occur in 2021-2023 
and would result in significant reductions in ammonium release, thus 
negating the imminence of contaminants as a stressor for the species. 
Competition against introduced species is an ongoing threat for the 
species, but this stressor alone is unlikely to serve as the primary 
driver that would warrant listing. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 6 
to this population.

Magnificent ramshorn

    The magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica) 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 35mm 
and heights exceeding 20mm. The great width of its shell, in relation 
to the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all ages. The shell is 
tan/brown colored 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; it is known from only four sites in the lower Cape 
Fear River Basin in North Carolina. It now appears to be extirpated 
from the wild. The complete historical range of the species is unknown, 
although the size of the species and the fact that it was not reported 
until 1903 indicate 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, a lab at NC State 
University's Veterinary School, and the NC Wildlife Resources 
Commission's Conservation Aquaculture Center in Marion, NC. 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., saltwater 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 three captive populations exist; a captive population 
of the species comprised of approximately 2000+ adults, one with 
approximately 300+ adults, and one with approximately 20 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. Because the threats are of high 
magnitude and imminence, we assigned an LPN of 2 to the species.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise

    The Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) occurs in central 
and southeast Arizona and in northeast Sonora, Mexico. Adult tortoises 
can reach 15 inches long and mainly occur on rocky, steep slopes and 
bajadas (lower mountain slopes) and in paloverde-mixed cacti 
associations at elevations between 900 to 4,200 feet. Until 2011, the 
Sonoran desert tortoise was considered to be a population of the desert 
tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); however, the Sonoran desert tortoise was 
identified as a unique species (Gopherus morafkai) in 2011. In 2008, we 
were petitioned to list as an endangered or threatened DPS of desert 
tortoise what is now recognized as the Sonoran desert tortoise. We 
published a substantial 90-day finding on the petition on August 28, 
2009 (74 FR 44335). On December 14, 2010, we found the species 
warranted for listing but precluded by higher priority actions, and the 
entity was added to our list of candidate species (75 FR 78094). After 
completing a species status assessment, we subsequently published a 12-
month petition finding on October 6, 2015, determining that the Sonoran 
desert tortoise was not warranted for listing as endangered or 
threatened under the Act (80 FR 60321).
    The petitioners filed a complaint on September 5, 2019, challenging 
our 2015 not-warranted finding for the Sonoran desert tortoise and 
alleging violations of the ESA. We reached a settlement agreement with 
the petitioners, which was approved by the Court on August 3, 2020, to 
reconsider our not-warranted finding and to develop a new 12-month 
finding as to whether the Sonoran desert tortoise warrants listing as 
an endangered or threatened species. As a result of that agreement, we 
are withdrawing our 2015 12-month finding and have returned the Sonoran 
desert tortoise back to the candidate list. We agreed to submit to the 
Federal Register a new 12-month petition finding on the status of the 
Sonoran desert tortoise within 18 months of the court order--by 
February 3, 2022. We are beginning a revised status review now and are 
requesting any new information, regarding the species' distribution and 
abundance, its habitat, conservation efforts or threats, be provided to 
the Service for consideration in the species status assessment.

Correction From Previous CNOR (84 FR 54732)

    On October 10, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 
54732) the CNOR for FY 2017 and FY 2018, in which we erroneously 
included Berry Cave salamander as a candidate under review. On October 
7, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 53336) a 12-month 
finding that the Berry Cave salamander is not warranted for listing 
under the Act, which removed the species from our candidate list.

Candidates in Review

    The Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita), whitebark 
pine (Pinus

[[Page 73175]]

albicaulis), bracted twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus), Penasco 
least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristriatus), Texas fatmucket 
(Lampsilis bracteate), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), and Texas 
pimpleback (Cyclonaias petrina) are candidates for which we have 
initiated the analysis regarding the threats to the species and status 
of the species, but the proposed listing rule or not-warranted finding 
for these species was not yet completed as of September 30, 2020. We 
have funded these actions and intend to complete our classification 
decision in the near future.

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 Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus 
brevispinus). Because these species are already listed under the Act, 
they are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1.
    We are currently assessing the best scientific and commercial data 
available pertaining to the status of the grizzly and its populations 
for a comprehensive 5-year review, which we plan to complete and post 
no later than March 31, 2021 per a stipulated settlement agreement in 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, No. 19-cv-00109-DLC (D. 
Mont. Dec. 6, 2019). We published the notice of initiation of the 
status review in the Federal Register on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2143). 
In order to ensure that our resubmitted-petition finding for this 
species is based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
we plan to complete the finding after we have completed the 
comprehensive 5-year review.
    This CNOR and associated species assessment forms also constitute 
the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify the delta 
smelt and the Pariette cactus. Our updated assessments for these 
species are provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered 
status for delta smelt and Pariette cactus are currently warranted but 
precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned 
Candidate Species, above). One of the primary reasons that the work 
identified above is considered to have higher priority is that the 
delta smelt and Pariette cactus are currently listed as threatened, and 
therefore already receive certain protections under the Act. For the 
delta smelt, those protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 
CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21; for Pariette cactus, the 
protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.71 and, by 
reference, 50 CFR 17.61. 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 delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. Also, 
it is unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove 
or reduce to possession Pariette cactus 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 
Act, whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species.
    Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the April 7, 2010, 12-
month finding published in the Federal Register (75 FR 17667); see that 
12-month finding for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded. In our 12-month finding, we 
determined that a change in status of the delta smelt from threatened 
to endangered was warranted, although precluded by other high-priority 
listing actions. The primary rationale for reclassifying delta smelt 
from threatened to endangered was the significant decline in species 
abundance that have occurred since 2001, and the continuing downward 
trend in delta smelt abundance indices supports that finding. Fourteen 
of the last 15 years have seen fall abundances that have been the 
lowest ever recorded. 2015 to 2019 results from all four of the surveys 
analyzed in this review have been the lowest ever recorded for the 
delta smelt. Delta smelt abundance in fall was exceptionally low 
between 2004 and 2010, increased during the wet year of 2011, and 
decreased again to very low levels at present. The latest 2018 and 2019 
fall surveys did not detect a single delta smelt, resulting in an 
abundance index of 0, and the latest 2019 spring survey resulted in an 
abundance index of 0.4, all of which are the lowest on record.
    The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by 
State and Federal water export facilities; reduction of suitable 
habitat through 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, climate change, and small 
population size. We have identified a number of existing regulatory 
mechanisms that provide protective measures that affect the stressors 
acting on the delta smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms 
and other conservations efforts, the stressors continue to act on the 
species such that it is warranted for uplisting under the ESA.
    As a result of our analysis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, we have retained the recommendation of reclassifying 
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.
    We note that an LPN of 2 does not mean that uplisting the species 
to endangered is a high priority for the Service. Since the delta 
smelt's current classification as threatened already provides the 
species the protections afforded by the Act (as set forth in our 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21), 
reclassifying the species to endangered status will not substantively 
increase protections for the delta smelt, but rather more accurately 
classify the species given its current status.
    Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus)--Pariette cactus is 
restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the 
Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is known from several 
subpopulations that comprise a single metapopulation with an overall 
range of approximately 20 miles by 14 miles in extent. The species' 
entire range is within a developed and expanding oil and gas field. The 
location of the species' habitat exposes it to destruction from road, 
pipeline, and well-site construction in connection with oil and gas 
development. The species may be illegally collected as a specimen plant 
for horticultural use. Recreational off-road vehicle use and

[[Page 73176]]

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 Act 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 document. (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 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 Candidate Notice of Review

    We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States 
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This CNOR 
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 CNORs.
    Tables 4, 5, and 6, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by 
common names under the major group headings, and list plants 
alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and 
varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and 
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms 
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. 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 documents 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 4 lists all candidate species, plus species currently 
proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that in this CNOR 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 5, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table 
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:

    PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category, 
as well as PT and PSAT (below), does not include species for which 
we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule.
    PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
    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 CNOR included making new 
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-
but-precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made 
a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted 
petition by the code ``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for 
Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for additional information).

    The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate 
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our 
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We 
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as 
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing 
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21, 
1983).
    Following the scientific name (third column) and the family 
designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The 
sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or 
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the 
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the 
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by 
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species 
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
    Species in Table 6 of this CNOR are those domestic species that we 
included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous 
CNOR (published October 10, 2019, at 84 FR 54732) that are no longer 
proposed species or candidates for listing. Since October 10, 2019, we 
listed three species and removed three 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.

[[Page 73177]]

    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 CNOR.
    N--Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's 
definition of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
    U--Species that are not subject to the degree of threats 
sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore 
are not candidates for listing, due, in part or totally, to 
conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the 
species.
    X--Species we believe to be extinct.

    The columns describing scientific name, family, common name, and 
historical range include information as previously described for Table 
1.

Request for Information

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

                           Table 4--Candidate Species and Species Proposed for Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                          Regional director                  Address            Telephone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic pigtoe, Black-capped        Leo Miranda-Castro..................  Regional Director,       404-679-4156
 petrel, eastern black rail, gopher                                         U.S. Fish and
 tortoise (eastern population),                                             Wildlife Service,
 Neuse River waterdog, Carolina                                             1875 Century
 madtom, longsolid, magnificent                                             Boulevard, Suite
 ramshorn, Puerto Rico harlequin                                            200, Atlanta, GA
 butterfly, Panama City crayfish,                                           30345.
 round hickorynut, slenderclaw
 crayfish, marron bacora.
Eastern hellbender (Missouri DPS)..  Charlie Wooley......................  Regional Director,       612-713-5334
                                                                            U.S. Fish and
                                                                            Wildlife Service,
                                                                            5600 American Blvd.
                                                                            West, Suite 990,
                                                                            Bloomington, MN
                                                                            55437-1458.
North American wolverine             Noreen Walsh........................  Regional Director,       303-236-7400
 (Contiguous U.S. DPS), Chapin Mesa                                         U.S. Fish and
 milkvetch, whitebark pine.                                                 Wildlife Service,
                                                                            P.O. Box 25486,
                                                                            Denver Federal
                                                                            Center, Denver, CO
                                                                            80225-0486.
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk,       Amy Lueders.........................  Regional Director,       505-248-6920
 Texas fatmucket, Texas fawnsfoot,                                          U.S. Fish and
 Texas pimpleback, Wright's marsh                                           Wildlife Service,
 thistle, bracted twistflower,                                              500 Gold Avenue SW,
 Sonoran desert tortoise.                                                   Room 4012,
                                                                            Albuquerque, NM
                                                                            87102.
Dolly Varden trout, Franklin's       Robyn Thorson.......................  Regional Director,       503-231-6158
 bumble bee.                                                                U.S. Fish and
                                                                            Wildlife Service,
                                                                            Eastside Federal
                                                                            Complex, 911 N.E.
                                                                            11th Avenue,
                                                                            Portland, OR 97232-
                                                                            4181.
Sierra Nevada red fox (Sierra        Paul Souza..........................  Regional Director,       916-414-6464
 Nevada DPS), Humboldt marten,                                              U.S. Fish and
 longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-                                          Wildlife Service,
 Delta DPS), Hermes copper                                                  2800 Cottage Way,
 butterfly.                                                                 Suite W2606,
                                                                            Sacramento, CA 95825.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Public Availability of Comments

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

Authority

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

Signed:----------------------------------------------------------------

Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[[Page 73178]]



                            Table 5--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
         [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
----------------------------   Scientific name            Family              Common name      Historical range
    Category       Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*..............          6  Tamias minimus      Sciuridae..............  Chipmunk,           U.S.A. (NM).
                              atristriatus.                                Pe[ntilde]asco
                                                                           least.
PE..............          3  Vulpes vulpes       Canidae................  Fox, Sierra Nevada  U.S.A. (CA, OR).
                              necator.                                     red (Sierra
                                                                           Nevada DPS).
PT..............  .........  Martes caurina      Mustelidae.............  Marten, Humboldt..  U.S.A. (CA).
                              ssp.
                              humboldtensis.
PT..............          6  Gulo gulo luscus..  Mustelidae.............  Wolverine, North    U.S.A. (CA, CO,
                                                                           American            ID, MT, OR, UT,
                                                                           (Contiguous U.S.    WA, WY).
                                                                           DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT..............  .........  Pterodroma          Procellariidae.........  Petrel, black-      U.S.A. (GA, NC,
                              hasitata.                                    capped.             SC).
PT..............  .........  Laterallus          Rallidae...............  Rail, eastern       U.S.A. (AL, AK,
                              jamaicensis ssp.                             black.              CO, CT, DE, FL,
                              jamaicensis.                                                     GA, IL, IN, IA,
                                                                                               KN, KT, LA, MD,
                                                                                               MA, MI, MN, MS,
                                                                                               MO, NE, NH, NJ,
                                                                                               NM, NY, NC, OH,
                                                                                               OK, PA, PR, RI,
                                                                                               SC, TN, TX, VT,
                                                                                               VA, VI, WV, WI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*..............          8  Gopherus            Testudinidae...........  Tortoise, gopher    U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                              polyphemus.                                  (eastern            GA, LA, MS, SC).
                                                                           population).
C*..............          5  Gopherus morafkai.  Testudinidae...........  Tortoise, Sonoran   U.S.A. (AZ),
                                                                           desert.             Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE..............  .........  Cryptobranchus      Cryptobranchidae.......  Hellbender,         U.S.A. (MO).
                              alleganiensis                                eastern (Missouri
                              alleganiensis.                               DPS).
PT..............  .........  Necturus lewisi...  Proteidae..............  Waterdog, Neuse     U.S.A. (NC).
                                                                           River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE..............  .........  Noturus furiosus..  Ictaluridae............  Madtom, Carolina..  U.S.A. (NC).
C*..............          6  Spirinchus          Osmeridae..............  Smelt, longfin      U.S.A. (AK, CA,
                              thaleichthys.                                (San Francisco      OR, WA), Canada.
                                                                           Bay-Delta DPS).
PSAT............        N/A  Salvelinus malma..  Salmonidae.............  Trout, Dolly        U.S.A. (AK, WA),
                                                                           Varden.             Canada, East
                                                                                               Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*..............          2  Lampsilis           Unionidae..............  Fatmucket, Texas..  U.S.A. (TX).
                              bracteata.
C*..............          2  Truncilla macrodon  Unionidae..............  Fawnsfoot, Texas..  U.S.A. (TX).
PT..............  .........  Obovaria            Unionidae..............  Hickorynut, round.  U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                              subrotunda.                                                      IL, IN, KY, MI,
                                                                                               MS, NY, OH, PA,
                                                                                               TN, WV), Canada.
PT..............  .........  Fusconaia masoni..  Unionidae..............  Pigtoe, Atlantic..  U.S.A. (GA, NC,
                                                                                               VA).
C*..............          2  Quadrula petrina..  Unionidae..............  Pimpleback, Texas.  U.S.A. (TX).
PT..............  .........  Fusconaia           Unionidae..............  Longsolid.........  U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                              subrotunda.                                                      IL, IN, KY, MS,
                                                                                               MO, NY, NC, OH,
                                                                                               PA, SC, TN, VA,
                                                                                               WV).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*..............          2  Planorbella         Planorbidae............  Ramshorn,           U.S.A. (NC).
                              magnifica.                                   magnificent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE..............          1  Bombus franklini..  Apidae.................  Bumble bee,         U.S.A (CA, OR).
                                                                           Franklin's.
PT..............          5  Lycaena hermes....  Lycaenidae.............  Butterfly, Hermes   U.S.A. (CA).
                                                                           copper.
C*..............          2  Atlantea tulita...  Nymphalidae............  Butterfly, Puerto   U.S.A. (PR).
                                                                           Rico harlequin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT..............  .........  Procambarus         Cambaridae.............  Crayfish, Panama    U.S.A. (FL).
                              econfinae.                                   City.
PT..............  .........  Cambarus cracens..  Cambaridae.............  Crayfish,           U.S.A. (AL).
                                                                           slenderclaw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 73179]]

 
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT..............          8  Astragalus          Fabaceae...............  Milkvetch, Chapin   U.S.A. (CO).
                              schmolliae.                                  Mesa.
PT..............          8  Cirsium wrightii..  Asteraceae.............  Thistle, Wright's   U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
                                                                           marsh.              Mexico.
C*..............          8  Pinus albicaulis..  Pinaceae...............  Pine, whitebark...  U.S.A. (CA, ID,
                                                                                               MT, NV, OR, WA,
                                                                                               WY), Canada (AB,
                                                                                               BC).
PE..............          2  Solanum conocarpum  Solanaceae.............  Bacora, marron....  U.S.A. (PR).
C*..............          8  Streptanthus        Brassicaceae...........  Twistflower,        U.S.A. (TX).
                              bracteatus.                                  bracted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 6--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
         [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
----------------------------   Scientific name            Family              Common name      Historical range
      Code          Expl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc..............          9  Arborimus           Cricetidae.............  Vole, red tree      U.S.A. (OR)
                              longicaudus.                                 (north Oregon
                                                                           coast DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc..............          A  Gyrinophilus        Plethodontidae.........  Salamander, Berry   U.S.A. (TN)
                              gulolineatus.                                Cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E...............          L  Fundulus julisia..  Fundulidae.............  Topminnow, Barrens  U.S.A. (TN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T...............          L  Lednia tumana.....  Nemouridae.............  Stonefly,           U.S.A. (MT)
                                                                           meltwater lednian.
T...............          L  Zapada glacier....  Nemouridae.............  Stonefly, western   U.S.A. (MT)
                                                                           glacier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc..............          8  Astragalus          Fabaceae...............  Milkvetch, skiff..  U.S.A. (CO)
                              microcymbus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-24198 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P