Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81813 

requiring carriage, awarding damages to 

any person denied carriage, or any 

combination of such sanctions. Such 

order shall set forth a timetable for 

compliance. Such order issued by the 

Commission or Commission staff shall 

be effective upon release. See 

§§ 1.102(b) and 1.103 of this chapter. 

The effective date of such order issued 

by the Administrative Law Judge is set 

forth in § 1.276(d) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–26259 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2020–0103; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the 

Monarch Butterfly 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the monarch butterfly (Danaus 

plexippus plexippus) as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. After a 

thorough review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the monarch 

butterfly as an endangered or threatened 

species is warranted but precluded by 

higher priority actions to amend the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. We will develop a 

proposed rule to list the monarch 

butterfly as our priorities allow. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information relevant to the 

status of the species or its habitat at any 

time. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on December 17, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: A detailed description of 

the basis for this finding is available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number FWS–R3–ES–2020–0103. 

Supporting information used to 

prepare this finding is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, by 

contacting the person specified under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the person 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Hosler, Regional Listing 

Coordinator, Ecological Services, Great 

Lakes Region, telephone: 517–351–6326, 

email: monarch@fws.gov. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

we are required to make a finding 

whether or not a petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months after 

receiving any petition that we have 

determined contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted (‘‘12-month finding’’). 

We must make a finding that the 

petitioned action is (1) not warranted, 

(2) warranted, or (3) warranted but 

precluded. ‘‘Warranted but precluded’’ 

means that (a) the petitioned action is 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are endangered or threatened 

species, and (b) expeditious progress is 

being made to add qualified species to 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to 

remove from the Lists species for which 

the protections of the Act are no longer 

necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 

requires that, when we find that a 

petitioned action is warranted but 

precluded, we treat the petition as 

though it is resubmitted on the date of 

such finding, that is, requiring that a 

subsequent finding be made within 12 

months of that date. We must publish 

these 12-month findings in the Federal 

Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists (found 

in 50 CFR part 17). The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

81814 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the 

monarch butterfly meets the definition 

of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered 

and thoroughly evaluated the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information. This evaluation may 

include information from recognized 

experts; Federal, State, and Tribal 

governments; academic institutions; 

foreign governments; private entities; 

and other members of the public. 

The species assessment form for the 

monarch butterfly contains more 

detailed biological information, a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors, 

and an explanation of why we 

determined that this species meets the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. This supporting 

information can be found on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number FWS–R3–ES– 

2020–0103. The following is an 

informational summary of the finding in 

this document. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 26, 2014, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD), Center for Food Safety 

(CFS), Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation, and Dr. Lincoln Brower, 

requesting that we list the monarch 

butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) 

as a threatened species under the Act. 

On December 31, 2014, we published a 

90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information, indicating that 

listing the monarch butterfly may be 

warranted (79 FR 78775). On March 10, 

2016, the CFS and CBD filed a 

complaint against the Service for not 

issuing a finding on the petition within 

the statutory timeframe, and on July 5, 

2016, we entered a stipulated settlement 

agreement with CFS and CBD to submit 

the 12-month finding to the Federal 

Register by June 30, 2019. On May 24, 

2019, the court granted an extension of 

this deadline to December 15, 2020. 

Summary of Finding 

The petition that the Service received 

in 2014 was for listing a subspecies of 

the monarch butterfly (Danaus 

plexippus plexippus) (Center for 

Biological Diversity et al., 2014, p. 4). 

The petition also requested a 

determination of whether any new 

North American subspecies of Danaus 

plexippus should be listed. After careful 

examination of the literature and 

consultation with experts, there is no 

clearly agreed upon definition of 

potential subspecies of Danaus 

plexippus or where the geographic 

borders between these subspecies might 

exist. Given these findings, we 

examined the entire range of Danaus 

plexippus. 

Monarch butterflies in eastern and 

western North America represent the 

ancestral origin for the species 

worldwide. They exhibit long-distance 

migration and overwinter as adults at 

forested locations in Mexico and 

California. These overwintering sites 

provide protection from the elements 

(for example, rain, wind, hail, and 

excessive radiation) and moderate 

temperatures, as well as nectar and 

clean water sources located nearby. 

Adult monarch butterflies feed on 

nectar from a wide variety of flowers. 

Reproduction is dependent on the 

presence of milkweed, the sole food 

source for larvae. Monarch butterflies 

are found in 90 countries, islands, or 

island groups. Monarch butterflies have 

become naturalized at most of these 

locations outside of North America 

since 1840. The populations outside of 

eastern and western North America 

(including southern Florida) do not 

exhibit long-distance migratory 

behavior. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the monarch 

butterfly, and we evaluated all relevant 

factors under the five listing factors, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these stressors. The primary threats to 

the monarch’s biological status include 

loss and degradation of habitat from 

conversion of grasslands to agriculture, 

widespread use of herbicides, logging/ 

thinning at overwintering sites in 

Mexico, senescence and incompatible 

management of overwintering sites in 

California, urban development, and 

drought (Factor A); exposure to 

insecticides (Factor E); and effects of 

climate change (Factor E). Conservation 

efforts are addressing some of the 

threats from loss of milkweed and 

nectar resources across eastern and 

western North America and 

management at overwintering sites in 

California; however, these efforts and 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not sufficient to protect 

the species from all of the threats. We 

found no evidence that the monarch 

butterfly is currently impacted at the 

population level by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes (Factor B) or 

predation or disease (Factor C), nor did 

we find information to suggest that the 

species will be impacted by these 

factors in the future. 

Based on the past annual censuses, 

the eastern and western North American 

migratory populations have been 

generally declining over the last 20 

years. The monarch butterfly is also 

known from 29 populations that are 

outside of the 2 migratory North 

American populations. At least 1 

monarch butterfly has been observed in 

25 of these populations since 2000, and 

these are considered extant. Monarch 

butterfly presence within the remaining 

four populations has not been 

confirmed since 2000, but they are 

presumed extant. We know little about 

population sizes or trends of most of the 

populations outside of the eastern and 

western North American populations 

(except for Australia, which has an 

estimate of just over 1 million monarch 

butterflies). We do not have information 

related to the threats acting on the 

populations outside of eastern and 

western North America; however, we 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81815 

determined that 15 of the 29 

populations, including the Australian 

population, are classified as being ‘‘at 

risk’’ due to sea-level rise or increasing 

temperatures, resulting from climate 

change. 

The North American migratory 

populations are the largest relative to 

the other rangewide populations, 

accounting for more than 90 percent of 

the worldwide number of monarch 

butterflies. For the two North American 

migratory populations, we estimated the 

probability of the population abundance 

reaching the point at which extinction 

is inevitable (pE) for each population. In 

its current condition, the eastern North 

American population has a pE less than 

10 percent over the next 10 years. The 

western North American population has 

a much higher risk of extinction due to 

current threats, with a pE of 60–68 

percent over the next 10 years. Looking 

across the range of future conditions 

that we can reasonably determine, the 

pE for the eastern population is 

estimated to be 24 percent to 46 percent 

in 30 years, and the pE for the western 

population is estimated to be 92 percent 

to 95 percent in 30 years. These pE 

estimates incorporate the primary 

factors that influence the populations’ 

resiliency, including availability of 

milkweed and nectar resources (losses 

as well as gains from conservation 

efforts), loss and degradation of 

overwintering habitat, insecticides, and 

effects of climate change. Additionally, 

at the current and projected population 

numbers, both the eastern and western 

populations become more vulnerable to 

catastrophic events (for example, 

extreme storms at the overwintering 

habitat). Also, under different climate 

change scenarios, the number of days 

and the area in which monarch 

butterflies will be exposed to unsuitably 

high temperatures will increase 

markedly. The potential loss of the 

North American migratory populations 

from these identified threats would 

substantially reduce the species’ 

resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy. 

To alleviate threats to the monarch 

butterfly, numerous conservation efforts 

have been developed and/or 

implemented since the species was 

petitioned in 2014, and these were 

considered in our assessment of the 

status of the species. Protection, 

restoration, enhancement and creation 

of habitat is a central aspect of recent 

monarch butterfly conservation 

strategies. In the breeding and migratory 

grounds, these habitat conservation 

strategies include the enhancement and 

creation of milkweed and nectar 

sources. Improved management at 

overwintering sites in California has 

been targeted to improve the status of 

western North American monarch 

butterflies. Major overarching 

landscape-level conservation plans and 

efforts include the Mid-America 

Monarch Conservation Strategy 

developed by the Midwest Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(MAFWA) and the Western Monarch 

Butterfly Conservation Plan developed 

by the Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). In early 

2020, the Nationwide Candidate 

Conservation Agreement for Monarch 

Butterfly on Energy and Transportation 

Lands (CCAA/CCA) was finalized and 

will contribute to meeting the MAFWA 

Strategy and WAFWA Plan goals. Under 

this agreement, energy and 

transportation entities will provide 

habitat for the species along energy and 

transportation rights-of-way corridors 

across the country, including a 100 foot 

extension of the right-of-way onto 

private agricultural lands. Participants 

will carry out conservation measures to 

reduce or remove threats to the species 

and create and maintain habitat 

annually. In exchange for implementing 

voluntary conservation efforts and 

meeting specific requirements and 

criteria, those businesses and 

organizations enrolled in the CCAA will 

receive assurance from the Service that 

they will not have to implement 

additional conservation measures 

should the species be listed. The goal of 

the CCAA, which participants may 

continue to join until a final listing rule 

is published, is enrollment of up to 26 

million acres of land in the agreement, 

providing over 300 million additional 

stems of milkweed. 

Many conservation efforts 

implemented under Federal, Tribal, 

State, or other programs, such as the 

Farm Service Agency’s Conservation 

Reserve Program, the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP), Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program and 

Conservation Stewardship Program, and 

the Service’s Partners For Fish and 

Wildlife Program, are expected to 

contribute to the overarching habitat 

and population goals of the MAFWA 

Strategy and WAFWA Plan. Smaller 

conservation efforts implemented by 

local governments, non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), private 

businesses, and interested individuals 

will also play an important role in 

reaching habitat and population goals 

established in the MAFWA Strategy and 

WAFWA Plan. The Service developed 

the Monarch Conservation Database 

(MCD) to capture information about 

monarch butterfly conservation plans 

and efforts to inform the listing 

decision. As of June 1, 2020, there are 

48,812 complete monarch butterfly 

conservation effort records in the MCD 

that have a status of completed, 

implemented, or planned since 2014, 

and 113 monarch butterfly conservation 

plans. Among the efforts included in the 

MCD are those provided by NRCS from 

EQIP, their program designed to provide 

financial and technical assistance to 

agricultural producers to address 

natural resource concerns. Across the 10 

states that NRCS targeted for monarch 

butterfly conservation efforts through 

EQIP (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Texas, and Wisconsin), efforts on 16,952 

acres have already been implemented 

and NCRS anticipates conservation on 

an additional 31,322 acres through 

ongoing enrollment (see https://

www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/ 

mcd.html). In addition to conservation 

of the breeding and migratory habitats, 

land managers in California are 

developing and implementing grove 

management strategies within the 

western population’s overwintering 

sites as well. 

The monarch butterfly species 

assessment form and the Monarch 

Species Status Assessment report 

(Service 2020) provide additional 

details on the status of the monarch 

butterfly and the conservation efforts 

listed here (see ADDRESSES, above). 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list the 

monarch butterfly under the Act is 

warranted. We will make a 

determination on the status of the 

species as threatened or endangered 

when we complete a proposed listing 

determination. When we complete a 

proposed listing determination, we will 

examine whether the species may be 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

of its range or whether the species may 

be endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range. 

However, an immediate proposal of a 

regulation implementing this action is 

precluded by work on higher priority 

listing actions and final listing 

determinations. This work includes all 

the actions listed in the National Listing 

Workplan discussed below under 

Preclusion and in the tables below 

under Expeditious Progress, as well as 

other actions at various stages of 

completion, such as 90-day findings for 

new petitions. 

81816 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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 courtmandated actions within the cap, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

remaining (after completing courtmandated actions) for listing activities 

nationwide. Therefore, the funds that 

remain within the listing cap—after 

paying for work needed to comply with 

court orders or court-approved 

settlement agreements—set the 

framework within which we make our 

determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

For FY 2019, through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2019 (Pub. L. 116–6, February 15, 2019), 

Congress appropriated the Service 

$18,318,000 under a consolidated cap 

for all domestic and foreign listing 

work, including status assessments, 

listings, domestic critical habitat 

determinations, and related activities. 

For FY 2020, through the Further 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 

(Pub. L. 116–94, December 20, 2019), 

Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for 

all domestic and foreign listing work. 

The amount of funding Congress will 

appropriate in future years is uncertain. 

Costs of Listing Actions 

The work involved in preparing 

various listing documents can be 

extensive, and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer-review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information from 

those comments into final rules. The 

number of listing actions that we can 

undertake in a given year also is 

influenced by the complexity of those 

listing actions; that is, more complex 

actions generally are more costly. Our 

practice of proposing to designate 

critical habitat concurrent with listing 

species requires additional coordination 

and an analysis of the economic impacts 

of the designation, and thus adds to the 

complexity and cost of our work. Since 

completing all of the work for 

outstanding listing and critical habitat 

actions has for so long required more 

funding than has been available within 

the spending cap, the Service has 

developed several ways to determine 

the relative priorities of the actions 

within its workload to identify the work 

it can complete with the funding it has 

available for listing and critical habitat 

actions each year. 

Prioritizing Listing Actions 

The Service’s Listing Program 

workload is broadly composed of four 

types of actions, which the Service 

prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance 

with court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing or critical 

habitat determinations be completed by 

a specific date; (2) essential 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81817 

multispecies petitions and the 5-year 

period in which the Service was 

compelled to suspend making 12-month 

findings for most of those petitions. The 

number of petitions that are awaiting 

status reviews and accompanying 12- 

month findings illustrates the 

considerable extent of this backlog. As 

a result of the outstanding petitions to 

list hundreds of species and our efforts 

to make initial petition findings within 

90 days of receiving the petition to the 

maximum extent practicable, at the 

beginning of FY 2020, we had 422 12- 

month petition findings for domestic 

species yet to be initiated and 

completed. 

To determine the relative priorities of 

the outstanding 12-month petition 

findings, the Service developed a 

prioritization methodology 

(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 

2016) after providing the public with 

notice and an opportunity to comment 

on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; 

January 15, 2016). Under the 

methodology, we assign each 12-month 

finding to one of five priority bins: (1) 

The species is critically imperiled; (2) 

strong data are already available about 

the status of the species; (3) new science 

is underway that would inform key 

uncertainties about the status of the 

species; (4) conservation efforts are in 

development or underway and likely to 

address the status of the species; or (5) 

the available data on the species are 

limited. As a general rule, 12-month 

findings with a lower bin number have 

a higher priority than, and are 

scheduled before, 12-month findings 

with a higher bin number. However, we 

make some limited exceptions—for 

example, we may schedule a lower 

priority finding earlier if batching it 

with a higher priority finding would 

generate efficiencies. We may also 

consider where there are any special 

circumstances whereby an action 

should be bumped up (or down) in 

scheduling. One limitation that might 

result in divergence from priority order 

is when the current highest priorities 

are clustered in a geographic area, such 

that our scientific expertise at the field 

office level is fully occupied with their 

existing workload. We recognize that 

the geographic distribution of our 

scientific expertise will in some cases 

require us to balance workload across 

geographic areas. Since before Congress 

first established the spending cap for the 

Listing Program in 1998, the Listing 

Program workload has required 

considerably more resources than the 

amount of funds Congress has allowed 

for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is 

important that we be as efficient as 

possible in our listing process. 

In 2016, we assigned the 12-month 

finding for monarch butterfly to bin 4 

due to the many conservation efforts 

underway to address threats facing the 

species. We determined that these 

efforts were likely to reduce threats from 

loss of breeding habitat for the eastern 

and western North American 

populations and overwintering habitat 

for the western North American 

population. However, due to the 

stipulated settlement agreement, we are 

completing the 12-month finding for 

monarch butterfly before other higher 

priority actions. 

After finalizing the prioritization 

methodology, we then applied that 

methodology to develop a multiyear 

National Listing Workplan (Workplan) 

for completing the outstanding status 

assessments and accompanying 12- 

month findings. The purpose of the 

Workplan is to provide transparency 

and predictability to the public about 

when the Service anticipates completing 

specific 12-month findings while 

allowing for flexibility to update the 

Workplan when new information 

changes the priorities. In May 2019, the 

Service released its updated Workplan 

for addressing the Act’s domestic listing 

and critical habitat decisions over the 

subsequent 5 years. The updated 

Workplan identified the Service’s 

schedule for addressing all domestic 

species on the candidate list and 

conducting 267 status reviews and 

accompanying 12-month findings by FY 

2023 for domestic species that have 

been petitioned for Federal protections 

under the Act. As we implement our 

Workplan and work on proposed rules 

for the highest priority species, we 

increase efficiency by preparing 

multispecies proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as one of the highest priority 

species. 

Overall, 161 species on the Workplan 

(64 percent) have a higher bin number 

than the monarch butterfly. Current 

funding levels would not be sufficient to 

complete all of those 12-month findings 

in FY 2020, and listing appropriations 

for FY 2021 are not determined yet. The 

National Listing Workplan is available 

online at https://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered/what-we-do/listingworkplan.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. 

Based on our listing priority system, 

we are assigning an LPN of 8 for the 

monarch butterfly. This priority number 

indicates the magnitude of threats is 

moderate to low and those threats are 

imminent. The priority number also 

reflects that we are evaluating monarch 

butterflies at the species level. We will 

continue to monitor the threats to the 

monarch butterfly and the species’ 

status on an annual basis, and should 

the magnitude or the imminence of the 

threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

Listing Program Workload 

The National Listing Workplan that 

the Service released in 2019 outlined 

work for domestic species over the 

period from 2019 to 2023. Tables 1 and 

2 under Expeditious Progress, below, 

identify the higher priority listing 

actions that we completed through FY 

2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as 

those we have been working on in FY 

2020 but have not yet completed. For 

FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan 

includes 74 12-month findings or 

proposed listing actions that are at 

various stages of completion at the time 

of this finding. In addition to the actions 

scheduled in the National Listing 

Workplan, the overall Listing Program 

workload also includes the development 

and revision of listing regulations that 

are required by new court orders or 

settlement agreements, or to address the 

repercussions of any new court 

decisions, as well as proposed and final 

critical habitat designations or revisions 

for species that have already been listed. 

The Service’s highest priorities for 

spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY 

2020 are actions included in the 

Workplan and actions required to 

address court decisions. As described in 

81818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Prioritizing Listing Actions,’’ above, 

listing of the monarch butterfly is a 

lower priority action than these types of 

work. Therefore, these higher priority 

actions precluded immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action in FY 2020, and the 

Service anticipates that they will 

continue to preclude work on listing the 

monarch butterfly in FY 2021 and the 

near future. 

Expeditious Progress 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists. Please note that, in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, the ‘‘Lists’’ are 

grouped as one list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) 

and one list of endangered and 

threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). 

However, the ‘‘Lists’’ referred to in the 

Act mean one list of endangered species 

(wildlife and plants) and one list of 

threatened species (wildlife and plants). 

Therefore, under the Act, expeditious 

progress includes actions to reclassify 

species—that is, either remove them 

from the list of threatened species and 

add them to the list of endangered 

species, or remove them from the list of 

endangered species and add them to the 

list of threatened species. 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the 

evaluation of whether expeditious 

progress is being made is a function of 

the resources available and the 

competing demands for those funds. As 

discussed earlier, the FY 2020 

appropriations law included a spending 

cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, 

and the FY 2019 appropriations law 

included a spending cap of $18,318,000 

for listing activities. 

As discussed below, given the limited 

resources available for listing, the 

competing demands for those funds, 

and the completed work cataloged in 

the tables below, we find that we are 

making expeditious progress in adding 

qualified species to the Lists. 

The work of the Service’s domestic 

listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 

(as of September 30, 2020) includes all 

three of the steps necessary for adding 

species to the Lists: (1) Identifying 

species that may warrant listing (90-day 

petition findings); (2) undertaking an 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific data about those species and 

the threats they face to determine 

whether or not listing is warranted (a 

status review and accompanying 12- 

month finding); and (3) adding qualified 

species to the Lists (by publishing 

proposed and final listing rules). We 

explain in more detail how we are 

making expeditious progress in all three 

of the steps necessary for adding 

qualified species to the Lists 

(identifying, evaluating, and adding 

species). Subsequent to discussing our 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the List, we explain our 

expeditious progress in removing from 

the Lists species that no longer require 

the protections of the Act. 

First, we are making expeditious 

progress in identifying species that may 

warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 

(as of September 30, 2020), we 

completed 90-day findings on petitions 

to list 14 species. 

Second, we are making expeditious 

progress in evaluating the best scientific 

and commercial data available about 

species and threats they face (status 

reviews) to determine whether or not 

listing is warranted. In FY 2019 and FY 

2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we 

completed 12-month findings for 69 

species. In addition, we funded and 

worked on the development of 12- 

month findings for 34 species and 

proposed listing determinations for 9 

candidates. Although we did not 

complete those actions during FY 2019 

or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 

we made expeditious progress towards 

doing so by initiating and making 

progress on the status reviews to 

determine whether adding the species to 

the Lists is warranted. 

Third, we are making expeditious 

progress in adding qualified species to 

the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as 

of September 30, 2020), we published 

final listing rules for 7 species, 

including final critical habitat 

designations for 1 of those species and 

final protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act for 2 of the 

species. In addition, we published 

proposed rules to list an additional 20 

species (including concurrent proposed 

critical habitat designations for 13 

species and concurrent protective 

regulations under the Act’s section 4(d) 

for 14 species). 

As required by the Act, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the Lists that no 

longer require the protections of the Act. 

Specifically, we are making expeditious 

progress in removing (delisting) 

domestic species, as well as 

reclassifying endangered species to 

threatened species status (downlisting). 

This work is being completed under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resources available for recovery actions, 

which are funded through the recovery 

line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. Because 

recovery actions are funded separately 

from listing actions, they do not factor 

into our assessment of preclusion; that 

is, work on recovery actions does not 

preclude the availability of resources for 

completing new listing work. However, 

work on recovery actions does count 

towards our assessment of making 

expeditious progress because the Act 

states that expeditious progress includes 

both adding qualified species to, and 

removing qualified species from, the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. During FY 2019 

and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 

we finalized downlisting of 1 species, 

finalized delisting rules for 7 species, 

proposed downlisting of 7 species, and 

proposed delisting of 11 species. The 

rate at which the Service has completed 

delisting and downlisting actions in FY 

2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 

2020) is higher than any point in the 

history of the Act. 

The tables below catalog the Service’s 

progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of 

September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our 

evaluation of making expeditious 

progress. Table 1 includes completed 

and published domestic listing actions; 

Table 2 includes domestic listing 

actions funded and initiated in previous 

fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are not 

yet complete as of September 30, 2020; 

and Table 3 includes completed and 

published proposed and final 

downlisting and delisting actions for 

domestic species. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81819 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 

[As of September 30] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct 

Population Segment of the Pacific Marten.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50574–50582. 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped 

Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50560–50574. 

10/9/2018 ....... 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Species Status for Eastern Black Rail With a Section 4(d) Rule.Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50610–50630. 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for 

Slenderclaw Crayfish.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding.

83 FR 50582–50610. 

10/11/2018 ..... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding.

83 FR 51570–51609. 

11/21/2018 ..... Endangered Species Status for the Candy Darter Final Listing—Endangered ................................... 83 FR 58747–58754. 

12/19/2018 ..... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 83 FR 65127–65134. 

12/28/2018 ..... Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter ..... Final Listing—Threatened .................................... 83 FR 67131–67140. 

4/4/2019 ......... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 84 FR 13237–13242. 

4/4/2019 ......... 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population 

Segment of Eastern Hellbender.

Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

84 FR 13223–13237. 

4/26/2019 ....... 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic 

species and 1 foreign species) *.

90-Day Petition Findings ...................................... 84 FR 17768–17771. 

5/22/2019 ....... 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.

Proposed Listings—Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat; Endangered Status with Critical Habitat and 12- 

Month Petition Findings.

84 FR 23644–23691. 

8/13/2019 ....... Endangered Species Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee.Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

84 FR 40006–40019. 

8/15/2019 ....... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 84 FR 41694–41699. 

8/15/2019 ....... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ..................... 90-Day Petition Findings ...................................... 84 FR 41691–41694. 

9/6/2019 ......... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ..................... 90-Day Petition Findings ...................................... 84 FR 46927–46931. 

10/07/2019 ..... Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 84 FR 53336–53343. 

10/21/2019 ..... Endangered Species Status for Barrens 

Topminnow.

Final Listing—Endangered ................................... 84 FR 56131–56136. 

11/08/2019 ..... 12-Month Finding for the California Spotted Owl 12-Month Petition Finding .................................... 84 FR 60371–60372. 

11/21/2019 ..... Threatened Species Status for Meltwater 

Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly 

With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 84 FR 64210–64227. 

12/06/2019 ..... Endangered Species Status for Beardless 

Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat, and Threatened Species Status for Bartram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listings—Endangered with Critical 

Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 

and 12-Month Petition Findings.

84 FR 67060–67104. 

12/19/2019 ..... Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 84 FR 69707–69712. 

12/19/2019 ..... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................ 90-Day Petition Findings ...................................... 84 FR 69713–69715. 

01/08/2020 ..... Threatened Species Status for the Hermes Copper Butterfly With 4(d) Rule and Designation of 

Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 1018–1050. 

01/08/2020 ..... Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox.

Proposed Listing—Endangered ........................... 85 FR 862–872. 

05/05/2020 ..... Endangered Status for the Island Marble Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat.Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat ... 85 FR 26786–26820. 

05/15/2020 ..... Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra 

Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher.

Final Listing—Endangered ................................... 85 FR 29532–29589. 

7/16/2020 ....... 90-Day Finding for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard 90-Day Petition Finding ........................................ 85 FR 43203–43204. 

7/22/2020 ....... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................ 90-Day Petition Findings ...................................... 85 FR 44265–44267. 

7/23/2020 ....... Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 85 FR 44478–44483. 

8/26/2020 ....... Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora 

and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical 

Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.

85 FR 52516–52540. 

9/1/2020 ......... Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings .................................. 85 FR 54339–54342. 

81820 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued 

[As of September 30] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

9/16/2020 ....... Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed 

Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose **.

12-Month Petition Finding .................................... 85 FR 57816–57818. 

9/17/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 58224–58250. 

9/17/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and With 

Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listings—Threatened With Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 58192–58222. 

9/29/2020 ....... 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.

Proposed Listings—Threatened With Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition Findings.

85 FR 61384–61458. 

9/29/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Wright’s Marsh 

Thistle and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation 

of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened With Section (4) 

Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 61460–61498. 

* 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 DPS) ......................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

magnificent Ramshorn .............................................................................. Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................ 12-month finding. 

Ocmulgee skullcap ................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Penasco least chipmunk .......................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly ................................................................. Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Puget oregonian snail ............................................................................... 12-month finding. 

relict dace ................................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................ 12-month finding. 

sickle darter .............................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

southern elktoe ......................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................... 12-month finding. 

tidewater amphipod .................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81821 

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 

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 Milkvetch (Astragalus 

desereticus) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 83 FR 52775–52786. 

02/26/2019 ................... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 6110–6126. 

03/15/2019 ................... Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 9648–9687. 

05/03/2019 ................... Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle 

From Endangered to Threatened on the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 84 FR 19013–19029. 

08/27/2019 ................... Removing Trifolium stoloniferum (Running 

Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 44832–44841. 

09/13/2019 ................... Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 84 FR 48290–48308. 

10/03/2019 ................... Removal of the Monito Gecko 

(Sphaerodactylus micropithecus) From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 84 FR 52791–52800. 

10/07/2019 ................... Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water 

Howellia) From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 53380–53397. 

10/09/2019 ................... Removing the Kirtland’s Warbler From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 84 FR 54436–54463. 

10/24/2019 ................... Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 56977–56991. 

11/05/2019 ................... Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado 

Butterfly Plant) From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 84 FR 59570–59588. 

11/26/2019 ................... Removing Bradshaw’s Lomatium (Lomatium 

bradshawii) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 65067–65080. 

11/26/2019 ................... Reclassification of the Endangered June 

Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) 

Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 84 FR 65080–65098. 

11/26/2019 ................... Removal of the Nashville Crayfish From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 84 FR 65098–65112. 

12/19/2019 ................... Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 

4(d) Rule.

Final Rule—Downlisting .................................. 84 FR 69918–69947. 

01/02/2020 ................... Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 85 FR 164–189. 

01/06/2020 ................... Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 487–492. 

01/22/2020 ................... Reclassification of the Humpback Chub From 

Endangered to Threatened With a Section 

4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 3586–3601 

03/10/2020 ................... Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 13844–13856. 

81822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 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) Federal Register 

Citation 

4/27/2020 ..................... Removing Arenaria .........................................

cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 23302–23315. 

06/01/2020 ................... Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose 

(Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 33060–33078. 

06/11/2020 ................... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 85 FR 35574–35594. 

07/24/2020 ................... Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail 

(Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 44821–44835. 

08/19/2020 ................... Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat 

From Endangered to Threatened With a 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 50991–51006. 

9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassification of Layia carnosa (Beach 

Layia) From Endangered To Threatened 

Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61684–61700. 

9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Boa 

From Endangered To Threatened With a 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61700–61717. 

When a petitioned action is found to 

be warranted but precluded, the Service 

is required by the Act to treat the 

petition as resubmitted on an annual 

basis until a proposal or withdrawal is 

published. If the petitioned species is 

not already listed under the Act, the 

species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is 

reviewed annually in the Candidate 

Notice of Review. The number of 

candidate species remaining in FY 2020 

is the lowest it has been since 1975. For 

these species, we are working on 

developing a species status assessment, 

preparing proposed listing 

determinations, or preparing 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 monarch butterfly will be added 

to the candidate list, and we will 

continue to evaluate this species as new 

information becomes available. 

Continuing review will determine if a 

change in status is warranted, including 

the need to make prompt use of 

emergency listing procedures. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the 

monarch butterfly species assessment 

form and other supporting documents 

(see ADDRESSES, above). 

New Information 

We intend that any proposed listing 

rule for the monarch butterfly will be as 

accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 

continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

finding. We request that you submit any 

new information concerning the 

taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, 

status of, threats to, or conservation 

actions for the monarch butterfly to the 

person specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor this species and 

make appropriate decisions about its 

conservation and status. We encourage 

all stakeholders to continue cooperative 

monitoring and conservation efforts. 

References Cited 

The list of the references cited in the 

petition finding is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number FWS–R3–ES– 

2020–0103 and upon request from the 

person specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Aurelia Skipwith, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27523 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 201123–0313; RTID 0648– 

XE804] 

Revisions to Hatchery Programs 

Included as Part of Pacific Salmon and 

Steelhead Species Listed Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce updates 

to the descriptions of Pacific salmon 

and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.)