Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the Northern Spotted Owl, 81144-81152 [2020-27198]
Download as PDF
81144
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Community
No.
State and location
Region VII
Iowa:
Aplington, City of, Butler County ...............................
190335
Aredale, City of, Butler County .................................
190035
Butler County, Unincorporated Areas .......................
190850
Clarksville, City of, Butler County .............................
190336
Dumont, City of, Butler County .................................
190036
Greene, City of, Butler County ..................................
190037
New Hartford, City of, Butler County ........................
190038
Parkersburg, City of, Butler County ..........................
190337
Sheldon, City of, O’Brien County ..............................
190216
Shell Rock, City of, Butler County ............................
190338
Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale
of flood insurance in community
September 3, 2010, Emerg; September 16,
2011, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
November 3, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1986,
Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
July 5, 1994, Emerg; November 6, 2000, Reg;
December 17, 2020, Susp.
October 28, 1985, Emerg; September 6, 1989,
Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
July 21, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg;
December 17, 2020, Susp.
July 8, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1982, Reg;
December 17, 2020, Susp.
November 6, 1974, Emerg; September 29,
1986, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
N/A, Emerg; February 21, 2014, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
July 25, 1975, Emerg; September 18, 1985,
Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp.
October 1, 1991, Emerg; May 1, 1992, Reg;
December 17, 2020, Susp.
Current effective
map date
Date certain
Federal assistance
no longer available
in SFHAs
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
......do ...................
Do.
*......do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
Katherine B. Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration—FEMA Resilience,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
ask the public to submit to us any new
information relevant to the status of the
subspecies or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding in this document
was made on December 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: A detailed description of
the basis for this finding is available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061.
Supporting information used to
prepare this finding is available by
contacting the appropriate person as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
[FR Doc. 2020–27340 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the
Northern Spotted Owl
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a
thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that reclassification of the
northern spotted owl from a threatened
species to an endangered species is
warranted but precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. We will develop a proposed
rule to reclassify the northern spotted
owl as our priorities allow. However, we
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
Paul
Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office, telephone: 503–
231–6179, email: paul_henson@fws.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
AGENCY:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding on whether or not a
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition that
we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a
finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
warranted but precluded. ‘‘Warranted
but precluded’’ means that (a) the
petitioned action is warranted, but the
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether species are
endangered or threatened species, and
(b) expeditious progress is being made
to add qualified species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) and to remove from
the Lists species for which the
protections of the Act are no longer
necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that, when we find that a
petitioned action is warranted but
precluded, we treat the petition as
though it is resubmitted on the date of
such finding, that is, requiring that a
subsequent finding be made within 12
months of that date. We must publish
these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations at
part 424 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth procedures for adding species
to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Lists. The
Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as
any species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)),
and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species
that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may
be determined to be an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and
the effects of the threats—in light of
those actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether the
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina) meets the definition of an
‘‘endangered species,’’ we considered
and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the subspecies. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information. This evaluation may
include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and tribal
governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities;
and other members of the public.
The species assessment for the
northern spotted owl contains more
detailed biological information, a
thorough analysis of the listing factors,
and an explanation of why we
determined that this subspecies meets
the definition of an endangered species.
This supporting information can be
found on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061. The
following is an informational summary
of the finding in this document.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 26, 1990, we published in the
Federal Register (55 FR 26114) a final
rule listing the northern spotted owl as
a threatened species. On August 21,
2012, we received a petition dated
August 15, 2012, from the
Environmental Protection Information
Center (EPIC) requesting that the
northern spotted owl be listed as an
endangered species pursuant to the Act.
On April 10, 2015, we published a 90day finding (80 FR 19259), in which we
announced that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that
reclassification may be warranted for
the northern spotted owl and that our
status review will also constitute our 5year review for the northern spotted
owl.
Summary of Finding
The northern spotted owl is the
largest of three subspecies of spotted
owls, and inhabits structurally complex
forests from southwestern British
Columbia through Washington and
Oregon, and into northern California.
The northern spotted owl is relatively
long-lived, has a long reproductive life
span, invests significantly in parental
care, and exhibits high adult
survivorship relative to other North
American owls. The historical range of
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81145
the northern spotted owl included most
mature forests or stands throughout the
Pacific Northwest, from southwestern
British Columbia to as far south as
Marin County, California. The current
range of the northern spotted owl is
smaller than the historical range, as the
northern spotted owl is extirpated or
very uncommon in certain areas such as
southwestern Washington and British
Columbia.
Habitat loss was the primary factor
leading to the listing of the northern
spotted owl as a threatened species, and
it continues to be a stressor on the
subspecies due to the lag effects of past
habitat loss, continued timber harvest,
wildfire, and a minor amount from
insect and forest disease outbreaks. The
most recent rangewide northern spotted
owl demographic study (Dugger et al.
2016, entire) found that nonnative
barred owls are currently the stressor
with the largest negative impact on
northern spotted owls through
competition of resources. The study also
found a significant rate of decline in
northern spotted owl populations (3.8
percent per year for all study areas
combined but as high as 8.4 percent per
year in one study area in Washington),
and the rate of decline has increased
noticeably since the 2011 5-year Review
for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS
2011b, p. 3). Populations of northern
spotted owls in several long-term
demographic monitoring areas have
declined more than 70 percent since the
early 1990s, and the extinction risk for
northern spotted owl populations has
increased, particularly in Washington
and Oregon.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the northern
spotted owl, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. On nonFederal lands, State regulatory
mechanisms have not prevented the
continued decline of nesting/roosting
and foraging habitat; the amount of
northern spotted owl habitat on these
lands has decreased considerably over
the past two decades, including in
geographic areas where Federal lands
are lacking. On Federal lands, the
Northwest Forest Plan has reduced
habitat loss and allowed for the
development of new northern spotted
owl habitat; however, the combined
effects of climate change, high-severity
wildfire, and past management practices
are changing forest ecosystem processes
and dynamics, and the expansion of
barred owl populations is altering the
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
81146
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
capacity of intact habitat to support
northern spotted owls.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the factors
affecting the northern spotted owl, we
find that the stressors acting on the
subspecies and its habitat, particularly
rangewide competition from the
nonnative barred owl and high-severity
wildfire, are of such imminence,
intensity, and magnitude to indicate
that the northern spotted owl is now in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range. Our status review indicates that
the northern spotted owl meets the
definition of an endangered species.
Therefore, in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act, we find that
listing the northern spotted owl as an
endangered species is warranted
throughout all of its range. However,
work on a reclassification for the
northern spotted owl has been, and
continues to be, precluded by work on
higher-priority actions—which includes
listing actions with statutory, courtordered, or court-approved deadlines
and final listing determinations. This
work includes all the actions listed in
the National Listing Workplan
discussed below under Preclusion and
in the tables below under Expeditious
Progress, as well as other actions at
various stages of completion, such as
90-day findings for new petitions.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
remaining (after completing court-
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mandated actions) for listing activities
nationwide. Therefore, the funds that
remain within the listing cap—after
paying for work needed to comply with
court orders or court-approved
settlement agreements—set the
framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and
expeditious progress.
For FY 2019, through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2019, (Pub. L. 116–6, February 15,
2019), Congress appropriated the
Service $18,318,000 under a
consolidated cap for all domestic and
foreign listing work, including status
assessments, listings, domestic critical
habitat determinations, and related
activities. For FY 2020, through the
Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116–94, December 20,
2019), Congress appropriated
$20,318,000 for all domestic and foreign
listing work. The amount of funding
Congress will appropriate in future
years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer-review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information from
those comments into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex
actions generally are more costly. Our
practice of proposing to designate
critical habitat concurrent with listing
species requires additional coordination
and an analysis of the economic impacts
of the designation, and thus adds to the
complexity and cost of our work. Since
completing all of the work for
outstanding listing and critical habitat
actions has for so long required more
funding than has been available within
the spending cap, the Service has
developed several ways to determine
the relative priorities of the actions
within its workload to identify the work
it can complete with the funding it has
available for listing and critical habitat
actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service’s Listing Program
workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service
prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
with court orders and court-approved
settlement agreements requiring that
petition findings or listing or critical
habitat determinations be completed by
a specific date; (2) essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing
program-management functions; (3)
section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical
habitat actions with absolute statutory
deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing
actions that do not have absolute
statutory deadlines.
In previous years, the Service
received many new petitions, including
multiple petitions to list numerous
species—a single petition even sought to
list 404 domestic species. The emphasis
that petitioners placed on seeking listing
for hundreds of species at a time
through the petition process
significantly increased the number of
actions within the third category of our
workload—actions that have absolute
statutory deadlines for making findings
on those petitions. In addition, the
necessity of dedicating all of the Listing
Program funding towards determining
the status of 251 candidate species and
complying with other court-ordered
requirements between 2011 and 2016
added to the number of petition findings
awaiting action. Because we are not able
to work on all of these at once, the
Service’s most recent effort to prioritize
its workload focuses on addressing the
backlog in petition findings that has
resulted from the influx of large multispecies petitions and the 5-year period
in which the Service was compelled to
suspend making 12-month findings for
most of those petitions. The number of
petitions that are awaiting status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings illustrates the considerable
extent of this backlog: As a result of the
outstanding petitions to list hundreds of
species, and our efforts to make initial
petition findings within 90 days of
receiving the petition to the maximum
extent practicable, at the beginning of
FY 2020 we had 422 12-month petition
findings for domestic species yet to be
initiated and completed.
To determine the relative priorities of
the outstanding 12-month petition
findings, the Service developed a
prioritization methodology
(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27,
2016), after providing the public with
notice and an opportunity to comment
on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229;
January 15, 2016). Under the
methodology, we assign each 12-month
finding to one of five priority bins: (1)
The species is critically imperiled; (2)
strong data are already available about
the status of the species; (3) new science
is underway that would inform key
uncertainties about the status of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 exceptions—for example, we
may schedule a lower-priority finding
earlier if batching it with a higherpriority finding would generate
efficiencies. We may also consider
where there are any special
circumstances that affect the timing for
completion of an action. One
circumstance that might result in
divergence from priority order is when
the current highest priorities are
clustered in a geographic area, such that
the field office where the highestpriority work is clustered has reached
capacity; in such a circumstance, other
field offices would continue to work on
their highest-priority actions even if
those actions are relatively lower in
priority than the previously mentioned
at-capacity field office. In other words,
we recognize that the geographic
distribution of our scientific expertise
will in some cases require us to balance
workload across geographic areas. This
approach also results in efficiencies
from having listing work completed by
biologists in the field office who have
the scientific expertise on the
ecosystems, species, and threats within
that geographic area. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81147
conducting 267 status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings by FY
2023 for domestic species that have
been petitioned for Federal protections
under the Act. As we implement our
Workplan and work on proposed rules
for the highest-priority species, we
increase efficiency by preparing multispecies proposals when appropriate,
and these may include species with
lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as one of the highest-priority species.
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.
Based on our listing priority system,
we are assigning an LPN of 3 to this
reclassification of the northern spotted
owl. This priority number indicates the
magnitude of threat is high and those
threats are imminent. As explained
above, proposed rules to reclassify
threatened species to endangered
species status are a lower priority than
listing currently unprotected species, so
listing a candidate species with a higher
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
81148
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
LPN number would generally be a
higher priority action than
reclassification of an already listed
species such as the northern spotted
owl. As such, we will continue to
monitor the threats to the northern
spotted owl and the subspecies’ status
on an annual basis, and should the
magnitude or the imminence of the
threats change, we will revisit our
assessment of the LPN.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that
the Service released in 2019 outlined
work for domestic species over the
period from 2019 to 2023. Tables 1 and
2 under Expeditious Progress, below,
identify the higher-priority listing
actions that we completed through FY
2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as
those we have been working on in FY
2020 but have not yet completed. For
FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan
includes 74 12-month findings or
proposed listing actions that are at
various stages of completion at the time
of this finding. In addition to the actions
scheduled in the National Listing
Workplan, the overall Listing Program
workload also includes the development
and revision of listing regulations that
are required by new court orders or
settlement agreements, or to address the
repercussions of any new court
decisions, as well as proposed and final
critical habitat designations or revisions
for species that have already been listed.
The Service’s highest priorities for
spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY
2020 are actions included in the
Workplan and actions required to
address court decisions. As described in
‘‘Prioritizing Listing Actions,’’ above,
reclassification of the northern spotted
owl is a lower-priority action than these
types of work. Therefore, these higherpriority actions precluded reclassifying
the owl in FY 2019, and the Service
anticipates that they will continue to
preclude work on reclassifying the owl
in FY 2020 and the near future.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists. Please note that in the Code
of Federal Regulations, the ‘‘Lists’’ are
grouped as one list of endangered and
threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h))
and one list of endangered and
threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).
However, the ‘‘Lists’’ referred to in the
Act mean one list of endangered species
(wildlife and plants) and one list of
threatened species (wildlife and plants).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 the species. In
addition, we published proposed rules
to list an additional 20 species
(including concurrent proposed critical
habitat designations for 13 species and
concurrent protective regulations under
the Act’s section 4(d) for 14 species).
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;
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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
81149
downlisting and delisting actions for
domestic species.
TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020
[As of September 30, 2020]
Publication
date
Title
Action(s)
10/9/2018 .......
Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct
Population Segment of the Pacific Marten.
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.
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.
Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section
4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.
83 FR 50574–50582
Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section
4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month
Finding.
Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section
4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month
Finding.
Final Listing—Endangered ................................
83 FR 50582–50610
12-Month Petition Findings ................................
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 12Month Petition Findings.
84 FR 23644–23691
Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month
Petition Finding.
12-Month Petition Findings ................................
84 FR 40006–40019
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 ..................................
84 FR 60371–60372
Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d)
Rule.
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
10/9/2018 .......
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 .....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
Federal Register citation
15DER1
83 FR 50560–50574
83 FR 50610–50630
83 FR 51570–51609
83 FR 58747–58754
84 FR 41694–41699
81150
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued
[As of September 30, 2020]
Publication
date
Title
Action(s)
7/16/2020 .......
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 YellowBilled Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S.
Population of Northwestern Moose**.
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.
90-Day Petition Finding .....................................
85 FR 43203–43204
90-Day Petition Findings ...................................
12-Month Petition Findings ................................
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
Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section 4(d)
Rule and Critical Habitat.
85 FR 58224–58250
Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section
4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.
85 FR 58192–58222
Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section
4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition Findings.
85 FR 61384–61458
Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section (4)
Rule and Critical Habitat.
85 FR 61460–61498
7/22/2020 .......
7/23/2020 .......
8/26/2020 .......
9/1/2020 .........
9/16/2020 .......
9/17/2020 .......
9/17/2020 .......
9/29/2020 .......
9/29/2020 .......
Federal Register citation
85 FR 54339–54342
* 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 .................................................................................
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 ............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
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.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
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.
15DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81151
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—Continued
Species
Action
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 ....................................................................................
12-month finding.
Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding.
Proposed listing determination or not warranted 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.
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)
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.
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 ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
Federal Register
citation
81152
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY
2019 AND FY 2020—Continued
[As of September 30, 2020]
Publication
date
Title
Action(s)
9/30/2020 ........
Reclassficiation of beach layia (Layia carnosa) 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.
Proposed Rule—Downlisting .........
85 FR 61684–61700
Proposed Rule—Downlisting .........
85 FR 61700–61717
9/30/2020 ........
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
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.
The northern spotted owl will remain
listed as a threatened species, and we
will continue to evaluate this subspecies
as new information becomes available.
Continuing review will determine if a
change in status is warranted, including
the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
Under 50 CFR 17.31(a), threatened
wildlife added to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife on or prior to
September 26, 2019, are provided all
provisions of 50 CFR 17.21 for
endangered wildlife, except 50 CFR
17.21(c)(5). The northern spotted owl
was granted the protections of an
endangered species at the time it was
listed as a threatened species in 1990
(55 FR 26114–26194). Therefore, we
conclude that reclassification will not
provide any additional protections for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
the species as it already receives the
protections of the provisions of 50 CFR
17.21 for endangered wildlife.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the
northern spotted owl species status
report and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above). A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the northern spotted
owl species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
New Information
We intend that any proposed
reclassification for the northern spotted
owl will be as accurate as possible.
Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments
from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party
concerning this finding. We request that
you submit any new information
concerning the taxonomy of, biology of,
ecology of, status of, or threats to the
northern spotted owl to the person
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor this subspecies and
make appropriate decisions about its
conservation and status. We encourage
local agencies and stakeholders to
continue cooperative monitoring and
conservation efforts.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment
Team.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–27198 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Register
citation
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No.: 201209–0334]
RIN 0648–BK05
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Omnibus Framework
Adjustment To Modify the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s Risk
Policy
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS approves and
implements changes to the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s Risk
Policy. This action is intended to adjust
the Council’s risk policy by accepting a
higher level of risk for stocks at or above
biomass targets. These adjustments
could lead to increases in catch limits
for healthy fisheries managed by the
Council.
SUMMARY:
Effective December 15, 2020.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council developed an
environmental assessment (EA) for this
action that describes and analyzes these
measures and other considered
alternatives. Copies of the Risk Policy
Omnibus Framework Adjustment,
including the EA and information on
the economic impacts of this
rulemaking, are available upon request
from Dr. Christopher M. Moore,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Suite 201,
800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
These documents are also accessible via
the internet at https://www.mafmc.org.
Copies of the small entity compliance
guide are available from Michael
Pentony, Regional Administrator,
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2298, or
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\15DER1.SGM
15DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81144-81152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27198]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for the Northern Spotted Owl
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
reclassification of the northern spotted owl from a threatened species
to an endangered species is warranted but precluded by higher priority
actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. We will develop a proposed rule to reclassify the northern
spotted owl as our priorities allow. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information relevant to the status of the
subspecies or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding in this document was made on December 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: A detailed description of the basis for this finding is
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061.
Supporting information used to prepare this finding is available by
contacting the appropriate person as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this finding to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone: 503-231-6179, email:
[email protected]. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month
finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded.
``Warranted but precluded'' means that (a) the petitioned action is
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b)
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to
remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that, when
we find that a petitioned action is warranted but precluded, we treat
the petition as though it is resubmitted on the date of such finding,
that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made within 12 months
of that date. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under
[[Page 81145]]
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) meets the definition of an
``endangered species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats to the subspecies. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment for the northern spotted owl contains more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, and an explanation of why we determined that this subspecies
meets the definition of an endangered species. This supporting
information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under docket number FWS-R1-ES-2014-0061. The following is an
informational summary of the finding in this document.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 26, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR
26114) a final rule listing the northern spotted owl as a threatened
species. On August 21, 2012, we received a petition dated August 15,
2012, from the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
requesting that the northern spotted owl be listed as an endangered
species pursuant to the Act. On April 10, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding (80 FR 19259), in which we announced that the petition
presented substantial information indicating that reclassification may
be warranted for the northern spotted owl and that our status review
will also constitute our 5-year review for the northern spotted owl.
Summary of Finding
The northern spotted owl is the largest of three subspecies of
spotted owls, and inhabits structurally complex forests from
southwestern British Columbia through Washington and Oregon, and into
northern California. The northern spotted owl is relatively long-lived,
has a long reproductive life span, invests significantly in parental
care, and exhibits high adult survivorship relative to other North
American owls. The historical range of the northern spotted owl
included most mature forests or stands throughout the Pacific
Northwest, from southwestern British Columbia to as far south as Marin
County, California. The current range of the northern spotted owl is
smaller than the historical range, as the northern spotted owl is
extirpated or very uncommon in certain areas such as southwestern
Washington and British Columbia.
Habitat loss was the primary factor leading to the listing of the
northern spotted owl as a threatened species, and it continues to be a
stressor on the subspecies due to the lag effects of past habitat loss,
continued timber harvest, wildfire, and a minor amount from insect and
forest disease outbreaks. The most recent rangewide northern spotted
owl demographic study (Dugger et al. 2016, entire) found that nonnative
barred owls are currently the stressor with the largest negative impact
on northern spotted owls through competition of resources. The study
also found a significant rate of decline in northern spotted owl
populations (3.8 percent per year for all study areas combined but as
high as 8.4 percent per year in one study area in Washington), and the
rate of decline has increased noticeably since the 2011 5-year Review
for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011b, p. 3). Populations of
northern spotted owls in several long-term demographic monitoring areas
have declined more than 70 percent since the early 1990s, and the
extinction risk for northern spotted owl populations has increased,
particularly in Washington and Oregon.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the northern spotted owl, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. On non-Federal lands,
State regulatory mechanisms have not prevented the continued decline of
nesting/roosting and foraging habitat; the amount of northern spotted
owl habitat on these lands has decreased considerably over the past two
decades, including in geographic areas where Federal lands are lacking.
On Federal lands, the Northwest Forest Plan has reduced habitat loss
and allowed for the development of new northern spotted owl habitat;
however, the combined effects of climate change, high-severity
wildfire, and past management practices are changing forest ecosystem
processes and dynamics, and the expansion of barred owl populations is
altering the
[[Page 81146]]
capacity of intact habitat to support northern spotted owls.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the factors affecting the northern spotted
owl, we find that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its
habitat, particularly rangewide competition from the nonnative barred
owl and high-severity wildfire, are of such imminence, intensity, and
magnitude to indicate that the northern spotted owl is now in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Our status review indicates
that the northern spotted owl meets the definition of an endangered
species. Therefore, in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we find that listing the northern spotted owl as an endangered
species is warranted throughout all of its range. However, work on a
reclassification for the northern spotted owl has been, and continues
to be, precluded by work on higher-priority actions--which includes
listing actions with statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved
deadlines and final listing determinations. This work includes all the
actions listed in the National Listing Workplan discussed below under
Preclusion and in the tables below under Expeditious Progress, as well
as other actions at various stages of completion, such as 90-day
findings for new petitions.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove
species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY),
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) The
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2)
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of
the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its
workload.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from
depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and
final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of
species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical
habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
For more than two decades the size and cost of the workload in
these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding
available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing
and critical habitat actions under the Act. Since we cannot exceed the
spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work
on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide
basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to
complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after
completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide.
Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying
for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved
settlement agreements--set the framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2019, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019,
(Pub. L. 116-6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service
$18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign
listing work, including status assessments, listings, domestic critical
habitat determinations, and related activities. For FY 2020, through
the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94,
December 20, 2019), Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for all domestic
and foreign listing work. The amount of funding Congress will
appropriate in future years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating
relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number
of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. Our practice of proposing to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing species requires
additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work.
Since completing all of the work for outstanding listing and critical
habitat actions has for so long required more funding than has been
available within the spending cap, the Service has developed several
ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its
workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has
available for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four
types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1)
Compliance
[[Page 81147]]
with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring
that petition findings or listing or critical habitat determinations be
completed by a specific date; (2) essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; (3) section 4
(of the Act) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute
statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have
absolute statutory deadlines.
In previous years, the Service received many new petitions,
including multiple petitions to list numerous species--a single
petition even sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that
petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time
through the petition process significantly increased the number of
actions within the third category of our workload--actions that have
absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In
addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program
funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and
complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016
added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we
are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent
effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in
petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-
species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was
compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those
petitions. The number of petitions that are awaiting status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of
this backlog: As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds
of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90
days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at
the beginning of FY 2020 we had 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 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 that affect the
timing for completion of an action. One circumstance that might result
in divergence from priority order is when the current highest
priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that the field
office where the highest-priority work is clustered has reached
capacity; in such a circumstance, other field offices would continue to
work on their highest-priority actions even if those actions are
relatively lower in priority than the previously mentioned at-capacity
field office. In other words, we recognize that the geographic
distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us
to balance workload across geographic areas. This approach also results
in efficiencies from having listing work completed by biologists in the
field office who have the scientific expertise on the ecosystems,
species, and threats within that geographic area. 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.
Based on our listing priority system, we are assigning an LPN of 3
to this reclassification of the northern spotted owl. This priority
number indicates the magnitude of threat is high and those threats are
imminent. As explained above, proposed rules to reclassify threatened
species to endangered species status are a lower priority than listing
currently unprotected species, so listing a candidate species with a
higher
[[Page 81148]]
LPN number would generally be a higher priority action than
reclassification of an already listed species such as the northern
spotted owl. As such, we will continue to monitor the threats to the
northern spotted owl and the subspecies' status on an annual basis, and
should the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will
revisit our assessment of the LPN.
Listing Program Workload
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2019
outlined work for domestic species over the period from 2019 to 2023.
Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher-
priority listing actions that we completed through FY 2020 (September
30, 2020), as well as those we have been working on in FY 2020 but have
not yet completed. For FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan includes
74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various
stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the
actions scheduled in the National Listing Workplan, the overall Listing
Program workload also includes the development and revision of listing
regulations that are required by new court orders or settlement
agreements, or to address the repercussions of any new court decisions,
as well as proposed and final critical habitat designations or
revisions for species that have already been listed. The Service's
highest priorities for spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY 2020 are
actions included in the Workplan and actions required to address court
decisions. As described in ``Prioritizing Listing Actions,'' above,
reclassification of the northern spotted owl is a lower-priority action
than these types of work. Therefore, these higher-priority actions
precluded reclassifying the owl in FY 2019, and the Service anticipates
that they will continue to preclude work on reclassifying the owl in FY
2020 and the near future.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note
that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the ``Lists'' are grouped as
one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and
one list of endangered and threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).
However, the ``Lists'' referred to in the Act mean one list of
endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened
species (wildlife and plants). Therefore, under the Act, expeditious
progress includes actions to reclassify species--that is, either remove
them from the list of threatened species and add them to the list of
endangered species, or remove them from the list of endangered species
and add them to the list of threatened species.
As with our ``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether
expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources
available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed
earlier, the FY 2020 appropriations law included a spending cap of
$20,318,000 for listing activities, and the FY 2019 appropriations law
included a spending cap of $18,318,000 for listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work
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 the
species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional
20 species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations
for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's
section 4(d) for 14 species).
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;
[[Page 81149]]
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, 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50574-50582
Status for Coastal Threatened with
Distinct Population Section 4(d) Rule
Segment of the and 12-Month
Pacific Marten. Petition Finding.
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50560-50574
Status for Black- Threatened with
Capped Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule
Section 4(d) Rule. and 12-Month
Petition Finding.
10/9/2018................ 12-Month Petition Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50610-50630
Finding and Threatened with
Threatened Species Section 4(d) Rule
Status for Eastern and 12-Month
Black Rail With a Petition Finding.
Section 4(d) Rule.
10/9/2018................ Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 50582-50610
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule and Section 4(d) Rule
Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat
Designation for and 12-Month Finding.
Slenderclaw Crayfish.
10/11/2018............... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 83 FR 51570-51609
Status With Section Threatened with
4(d) Rule and Section 4(d) Rule
Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat
Designation for and 12-Month Finding.
Atlantic Pigtoe.
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 and 12-
Endangered Species Month Petition
Status for the Finding.
Missouri Distinct
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 Endangered and 12-
Franklin's Bumble Month Petition
Bee. 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 Findings.
Listing 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 Finding.
Spotted 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, Section 4(d) Rule
and Threatened and 12-Month
Species Status for Petition Findings.
Bartram's Stonecrop
With Section 4(d)
Rule.
12/19/2019............... Five Species Not 12-Month Petition 84 FR 69707-69712
Warranted for Findings.
Listing as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
12/19/2019............... 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 84 FR 69713-69715
Two Species. Findings.
01/08/2020............... Threatened Species Proposed Listing-- 85 FR 1018-1050
Status for the Threatened with
Hermes Copper Section 4(d) Rule
Butterfly With 4(d) and Critical Habitat.
Rule and 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.
[[Page 81150]]
7/16/2020................ 90-Day Finding for 90-Day Petition 85 FR 43203-43204
the Dunes Sagebrush Finding.
Lizard.
7/22/2020................ 90-Day Findings for 90-Day Petition 85 FR 44265-44267
Two Species. Findings.
7/23/2020................ Four Species Not 12-Month Petition 85 FR 44478-44483
Warranted for Findings.
Listing as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/26/2020................ Endangered Species Proposed Listing- 85 FR 52516-52540
Status for Marron Endangered with
Bacora and Critical Habitat and
Designation of 12-Month Petition
Critical Habitat. Finding.
9/1/2020................. Two Species Not 12-Month Petition 85 FR 54339-54342
Warranted for Findings.
Listing as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
9/16/2020................ Findings on a 12-Month Petition 85 FR 57816-57818
Petition To Delist Finding.
the Distinct
Population Segment
of the Western
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
and a Petition To
List the U.S.
Population of
Northwestern Moose**.
9/17/2020................ Threatened Species Proposed Listing- 85 FR 58224-58250
Status for Chapin Threatened With
Mesa milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule
Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.
with 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
Francis River and Critical Habitat.
Crayfish and With
Section 4(d) Rule
with Designation of
Critical Habitat.
9/29/2020................ Threatened Species Proposed Listings- 85 FR 61384-61458
Status for longsolid Threatened With
and round hickorynut Section 4(d) Rule
mussel and Section and Critical
4(d) Rule With Habitat; 12-Month
Designation of Petition Findings.
Critical Habitat,
Not Warranted 12-
Month Finding for
purple Lilliput.
9/29/2020................ Threatened Species Proposed Listing- 85 FR 61460-61498
Status for Wright's Threatened With
Marsh Thistle and Section (4) Rule and
Section 4(d) Rule Critical Habitat.
With Designation of
Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 90-day finding batches may include findings regarding both domestic and foreign species. The total number of
90-day findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to domestic species only.
** Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of
12-month findings reported in this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to listing petitions only.
Table 2--Domestic Listing Actions Funded and Initiated in Previous FYs
and in FY 2020 That Are Not Yet Complete as of September 30, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
northern spotted owl................... 12-month finding.
false spike............................ 12-month finding.
Guadalupe fatmucket.................... 12-month finding.
Guadalupe orb.......................... 12-month finding.
Texas fatmucket........................ Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Texas fawnsfoot........................ Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Texas pimpleback....................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
South Llano Springs moss............... 12-month finding.
peppered chub.......................... 12-month finding.
whitebark pine......................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Key ringneck snake..................... 12-month finding.
Rimrock crowned snake.................. 12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla cryptica............ 12-month finding.
Euphilotes ancilla purpura............. 12-month finding.
Hamlin Valley pyrg..................... 12-month finding.
longitudinal gland pyrg................ 12-month finding.
sub-globose snake pyrg................. 12-month finding.
Louisiana pigtoe....................... 12-month finding.
Texas heelsplitter..................... 12-month finding.
triangle pigtoe........................ 12-month finding.
prostrate milkweed..................... 12-month finding.
alligator snapping turtle.............. 12-month finding.
Black Creek crayfish................... 12-month finding.
bracted twistflower.................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Canoe Creek clubshell.................. 12-month finding.
Clear Lake hitch....................... 12-month finding.
Doll's daisy........................... 12-month finding.
frecklebelly madtom.................... 12-month finding.
longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta Proposed listing determination
DPS). or not warranted finding.
magnificent Ramshorn................... Proposed listing determination
or not warranted finding.
Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan..... 12-month finding.
[[Page 81151]]
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-- 84 FR 6110-6126
Chub From the List of Delisting.
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
03/15/2019................ Removing the Gray Wolf Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 9648-9687
(Canis lupus) From the Delisting.
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
05/03/2019................ Reclassifying the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 19013-19029
American Burying Downlisting.
Beetle From Endangered
to Threatened on the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
With a 4(d) Rule.
08/27/2019................ Removing Trifolium Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 44832-44841
stoloniferum (Running Delisting.
Buffalo Clover) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
09/13/2019................ Removing the Foskett Final Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 48290-48308
Speckled Dace From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
10/03/2019................ Removal of the Monito Final Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 52791-52800
Gecko (Sphaerodactylus
micropithecus) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
10/07/2019................ Removal of Howellia Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 53380-53397
aquatilis (Water Delisting.
Howellia) From the
List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
10/09/2019................ Removing the Kirtland's Final Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 54436-54463
Warbler From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
10/24/2019................ Removal of the Interior Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 56977-56991
Least Tern From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
11/05/2019................ Removing Oenothera Final Rule--Delisting.. 84 FR 59570-59588
coloradensis (Colorado
Butterfly Plant) From
the Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019................ Removing Bradshaw's Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65067-65080
Lomatium From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
11/26/2019................ Removal of the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65098-65112
Nashville Crayfish Delisting.
From the Federal List
of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
11/26/2019................ Reclassification of the Proposed Rule-- 84 FR 65080-65098
Endangered June Sucker Downlisting.
to Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
12/19/2019................ Reclassifying the Final Rule--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-- 85 FR 487-492
Ambersnail From the Delisting.
List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
01/22/2020................ Reclassification of the Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 3586-3601
Humpback Chub From Downlisting.
Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
03/10/2020................ Removing Lepanthes Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 13844-13856
eltoroensis From the Delisting.
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
04/27/2020................ Removing Arenaria Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 23302-23315
cumberlandensis Delisting.
(Cumberland Sandwort)
From the Federal List
of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
06/01/2020................ Removing San Benito Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 33060-33078
Evening-Primrose Delisting.
(Camissonia
benitensis) From the
Federal List of
Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
06/11/2020................ Removing the Borax Lake Final Rule--Delisting.. 85 FR 35574-35594
Chub From the List of
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
7/24/2020................. Reclassification of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 44821-44835
Morro Shoulderband Downlisting.
Snail (Helminthoglypta
walkeriana) From
Endangered to
Threatened With a 4(d)
Rule.
8/19/2020................. Reclassification of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 50991-51006
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Downlisting.
From Endangered To
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
[[Page 81152]]
9/30/2020................. Reclassficiation of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 61684-61700
beach layia (Layia Downlisting.
carnosa) From
Endangered To
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
9/30/2020................. Reclassification of Proposed Rule-- 85 FR 61700-61717
Virgin Islands Tree Downlisting.
Boa From Endangered to
Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded,
the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted
on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is published. If the
petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species
becomes a ``candidate'' and is reviewed annually in the ``candidate
notice of review'' (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 determinations, or preparing not-warranted 12-month findings.
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we
have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the
requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to
workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related
actions together for publication. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward
our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to
and from the Lists.
The northern spotted owl will remain listed as a threatened
species, and we will continue to evaluate this subspecies as new
information becomes available. Continuing review will determine if a
change in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
Under 50 CFR 17.31(a), threatened wildlife added to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on or prior to September 26, 2019,
are provided all provisions of 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife,
except 50 CFR 17.21(c)(5). The northern spotted owl was granted the
protections of an endangered species at the time it was listed as a
threatened species in 1990 (55 FR 26114-26194). Therefore, we conclude
that reclassification will not provide any additional protections for
the species as it already receives the protections of the provisions of
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in
the northern spotted owl species status report and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above). A detailed discussion of the basis
for this finding can be found in the northern spotted owl species
assessment and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We intend that any proposed reclassification for the northern
spotted owl will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will
continue to accept additional information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning this finding. We request that you
submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of,
ecology of, status of, or threats to the northern spotted owl to the
person specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information will help us monitor this subspecies
and make appropriate decisions about its conservation and status. We
encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative
monitoring and conservation efforts.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-27198 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P