```

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of review.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 26153]]

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

Previous CNORs

    We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent CNOR 
addressing species domestic to the United States was published on 
November 16, 2020 (85 FR 73164). The most recent CNOR addressing 
foreign species was published on August 9, 2021 (86 FR 43470). CNORs 
published since 1994 are available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs 
published prior to 1994, please contact the Branch of Domestic Listing 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a 
listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). 
Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, 
depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and 
taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority 
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 
priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires 
the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking 
system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize 
based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the 
threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence receive the highest listing priority. All candidate species 
face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats 
is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of 
sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction or make 
them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 
future. However, for species with higher magnitude threats, the threats 
have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected 
to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are 
imminent) than for species with lower-magnitude threats. Because we do 
not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be 
expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that 
contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We 
therefore consider information such as: (1) The number of populations 
or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; 
(2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking 
into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and 
its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect 
the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood 
of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the 
severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or 
are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines 
in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be 
permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts 
reduce the severity of the threat(s).
    As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on 
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or 
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as 
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that 
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for 
listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or 
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats 
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPSs).
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of 
high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable 
entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 
(i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS 
would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system 
provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for 
preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN 
we assign to a species, each species included in this document as a 
candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient 
information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at: 
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a 
particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species 
assessment and listing priority assignment form for each candidate 
contains the LPN chart and a more-detailed explanation--including 
citations to, and more-detailed analyses of, the best scientific and 
commercial data available--for our determination of the magnitude and 
immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.

Summary of This CNOR

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

[[Page 26154]]

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

Petition Findings

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

[[Page 26155]]

have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.
    In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and 
threats to, the 27 candidates for which we have received a petition to 
list and the 4 listed species for which we have received a petition to 
reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned 
action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate 
issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for 
each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues 
to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, for six 
of these candidate species, we are currently engaged in a thorough 
review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a 
proposed listing rule; as a result of this review, we may conclude that 
listing is no longer warranted. For the North Cascades grizzly bear 
ecosystem population, we are engaged in a thorough review of all 
available data to determine the appropriate status for this entity (see 
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). For the 
remaining candidates and two listed species--delta smelt, and northern 
spotted owl, which are candidates for reclassification from threatened 
to endangered--we are providing updated species assessment forms and a 
summary of those assessments in this document (see Petitions to 
Reclassify Species Already Listed, below). Additional information that 
is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessment forms 
and our decision file for each species.
    The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed 
below, during the period from October 1, 2020, through September 30, 
2021. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing 
each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-
precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are 
making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. 
We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, 
including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to 
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to 
emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described 
above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify and propose species for 
listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)--either on 
our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for 
the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

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

Preclusion

    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal because there 
are competing demands for those resources and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work 
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of a proposal 
is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) the amount of 
resources available for completing the listing-related function, (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and 
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of 
the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its 
workload.
Available Resources
    The resources available for listing-related actions are determined 
through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and 
for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on 
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This 
spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from 
depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for 
other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available 
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and 
final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of 
species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on 
petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a 
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition 
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required 
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition 
findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical 
habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and 
program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
    For more than two decades, the size and cost of the workload in 
these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding 
available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing 
and critical habitat actions under the Act. As we cannot exceed the 
spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work 
on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority 
actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis 
to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed 
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide 
basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to 
complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts 
have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after 
completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide. 
Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying 
for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved 
settlement agreements--set the framework within which we make our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    For FY 2021, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 
(Pub. L. 116-260, December 27, 2020), Congress appropriated $20,767,000 
for all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding 
Congress will appropriate in future years is uncertain.
Costs of Listing Actions
    The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be 
extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and 
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; requesting 
peer and partner review on our analyses that support listing decisions 
and incorporating those comments, as appropriate; writing and 
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public 
comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from 
those

[[Page 26156]]

comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can 
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those 
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more 
costly. Our practice of proposing to designate critical habitat 
concurrently with listing domestic species requires additional 
coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the 
designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work. 
Completing all of the outstanding listing and critical habitat actions 
has for so long required more funding than is available within the 
spending cap that the Service has developed several ways to prioritize 
its workload actions and to identify the work it can complete with the 
available funding for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
Prioritizing Listing Actions
    The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four 
types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) 
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical 
habitat designations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential 
litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management 
functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat 
actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing 
actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines.
    In previous years, the Service received many new petitions, 
including multiple petitions to list numerous species--in one example, 
a single petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis 
that petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a 
time through the petition process significantly increased the number of 
actions within the third category of our workload--actions that have 
absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In 
addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program 
funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and 
complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016 
added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we 
are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent 
effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in 
petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-
species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was 
compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those 
petitions. The number of petitions awaiting status reviews and 
accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of 
this backlog. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds 
of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90 
days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at 
the beginning of FY 2021 we had 408 12-month petition findings yet to 
be initiated and completed.
    To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month 
petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology 
(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016), after providing the public 
with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81 
FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign each 12-
month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is 
critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the 
status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform 
key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation 
efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status 
of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited. 
As a general matter, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a 
higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with 
a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions--for 
example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching 
it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may 
also consider whether there are any special circumstances whereby an 
action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. For example, one 
limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when 
the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such 
that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully 
occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic 
distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us 
to balance workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress 
first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the 
Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than 
the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. 
Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our 
listing process.
    After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied 
that methodology to develop a multi-year workplans for domestic and 
foreign species for completing the outstanding status assessments and 
accompanying 12-month findings, along with other outstanding work such 
as designating critical habitat and acting on the status of candidate 
species.

Domestic Species Workplan

    The purpose of the National Listing Workplan (Workplan) is to 
provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the 
Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings for domestic 
species while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new 
information changes the priorities. In January 2021, the Service 
released its updated Workplan for addressing the Act's domestic listing 
and critical habitat decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The updated 
Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all domestic 
species on the candidate list and conducting 265 status reviews and 
accompanying 12-month findings by FY 2025 for domestic species that 
have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. The 
National Listing Workplan is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-workplan.html.

Foreign Species Workplan

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

[[Page 26157]]

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

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

Expeditious Progress

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

[[Page 26158]]

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

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

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

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

[[Page 26159]]

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

[[Page 26160]]

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

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

[[Page 26161]]

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

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

[[Page 26162]]

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

    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in 
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we 
have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the 
requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to 
workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline 
processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related 
actions together for publication. For example, in FY 2021, we published 
a single proposed delisting rule for 23 species due to extinction (86 
FR 54298). Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the 
Act, these efforts also contribute toward our expeditious progress in 
adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

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

Birds

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

[[Page 26163]]

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

[[Page 26164]]

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

[[Page 26165]]

Okinawa Woodpecker
    The Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii; syn. Sapheopipo 
noguchii) is a relatively large woodpecker found on Okinawa Island, 
Japan, and one of the world's rarest woodpeckers. The species prefers 
subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests that are undisturbed and 
mature. Okinawa woodpecker's main breeding areas occur in the forested 
areas in the northern part of the island, and in well-forested coastal 
areas of Yambaru, an area of approximately 300 km\2\, or 116 mi\2\. 
Most of the older forests that support the species are within the 
Jungle Warfare Training Center (formerly known as the Northern Training 
Area or Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S. Marine Corps installation on 
Okinawa Island.
    The primary threat to the Okinawa woodpecker is deforestation in 
the Yambaru region. As of the mid 1990s, only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of 
suitable habitat was available for the Okinawa woodpecker, with most of 
it part of the Jungle Warfare Training Center that is relatively 
undisturbed. This situation makes it vulnerable to extinction from 
disease and natural disasters such as typhoons. Additionally, the 
species is vulnerable to introduced predators such as feral dogs and 
cats, Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), and Japanese weasel 
(Mustela itatsi).
    The Japanese Government established Yambaru National Park in 2016. 
In July 2021, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) added Amami-Oshima Island, Tokunoshima Island, 
the northern part of the main Okinawa Island (which contains Yambaru 
National Park), and Iriomote Island to the list of natural World 
Heritage sites. The species is listed as critically endangered in the 
Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and protected from acquisition 
and transfer under Japan's wildlife-protection system. Okinawa 
woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known 
to be in international trade.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Okinawa woodpecker 
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, 
we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. Threats to the species 
are high in magnitude due to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. 
The population is very small and is likely declining. Although new 
protected areas have been established that will likely benefit the 
Okinawa woodpecker, it is not yet clear that these areas will be fully 
protected from logging and other anthropogenic development and 
nonnative predators. Even though threats from logging have been 
reduced, it will take many years for secondary and clear-cut forest 
habitat to mature such that it is suitable for the woodpecker. The 
threats to the species are ongoing, imminent, and high in magnitude due 
to its restricted range, small population size, past habitat loss, and 
endemism. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to 
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Orange-Fronted Parakeet
    The orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi) is the rarest 
parakeet in New Zealand, and the three remaining naturally occurring 
colonies are restricted to a small area on South Island. Beginning in 
2005, captive-bred orange-fronted parakeets were translocated to four 
predator-free islands and bred successfully. The population size of the 
orange-fronted parakeet is approximately 350 individuals, with the 
offshore population around 100 individuals and the mainland population 
around 250 individuals. In 2019, the orange-fronted parakeet had one of 
its best breeding seasons in decades, with more than three times as 
many nests compared to previous years, and produced at least 150 wild-
born chicks, almost doubling the population. We do not have information 
on the current size of the population after the 2019 breeding season.
    The primary threats affecting the species on the mainland are 
predation by nonnative mammals, as well as habitat destruction because 
of deforestation. Habitat loss and degradation has historically 
affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. The orange-
fronted parakeet nests in beech forests (Nothofagus spp.), and removal 
of mature trees with nest cavities has increased competition with other 
native parakeets for nest sites.
    The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) initiated a 
captive-breeding program and established small, self-sustaining 
populations on four predator-free islands. The species was uplisted 
from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC in 2016; 
it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act, and is listed as 
critically endangered on the IUCN's Red List. The orange-fronted 
parakeet is included in Appendix II to CITES.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the orange-fronted 
parakeet was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to 
the orange-fronted parakeet, we have determined that no change in LPN 
for the species is warranted. The current population is small, and the 
species' distribution is limited. Nonnative predators and loss of 
suitable habitat continue to threaten the species. The NZDOC is 
actively aiding the recovery of the species. Therefore, an LPN of 8 
remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
Sira Curassow
    The Sira curassow (Pauxi keopckeae) is a large game bird that is 
similar in size and coloration to the southern helmeted curassow, but 
their ranges are separated by approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,243 
miles), and the Sira curassow has a shorter and rounder pale-blue 
casque that is flattened against the head. The Sira curassow is known 
only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru, which is an isolated 
mountain outcrop of the Peruvian Andes. The Sira curassow inhabits 
cloud-forest habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs on high 
mountains in the tropics) at elevations of at least 1,100-1,450 m 
(3,609-4,757 ft). Most of the species' range is in El Sira Communal 
Reserve and is limited and declining. The population is estimated at 
fewer than 250 adults.
    Primary threats to the species are hunting by local indigenous 
communities and habitat loss and degradation because of subsistence 
agriculture, forest clearing, road building, and associated rural 
development. Although the Sira curassow is legally protected in a large 
portion of its range within the El Sira Communal Reserve, illegal 
hunting and deforestation continues.
    The species is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red 
List. Sira curassow is not known to be in international trade, and is 
not included in the Appendices to CITES. The Sira curassow is also not 
included in the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the Sira curassow was 
assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we 
have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. It faces 
threats that are high in magnitude based on its very small estimated 
population and limited range. The protected area where the species 
occurs continues to face pressure from hunting and habitat loss, and 
the very small population and its habitat will likely continue to 
decline in the future. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect 
imminent threats of high magnitude.

[[Page 26166]]

Southern Helmeted Curassow
    The southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis), also known as the 
helmeted or horned curassow, is a game bird with a distinctive pale-
blue, horn-like appendage (called a ``casque'') above its bill. The 
southern helmeted curassow only occurs in central Bolivia on the 
eastern slope of the Andes, where it has been found in the neighboring 
Ambor[oacute] and Carrasco National Parks. The southern helmeted 
curassow strongly resembles the Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae) from 
Peru, although their ranges are separated by more than 1,000 kilometers 
(621 miles). Casque shape and size are a good distinguishing feature. 
The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, foothill and 
lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at altitudes between 
450 and 1,500 m (1,476 and 4,921 ft). The estimated extent of the 
resident/breeding area is 10,700 km\2\ (4,131 mi\2\) and declining. 
Population size is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 mature 
individuals, the equivalent of 1,500 to 7,500 individuals.
    Primary threats to the species are hunting and habitat loss. 
Although the national parks have been important for the preservation of 
the species, financial and human resources needed to protect park 
resources are limited. Within the parks, there are human settlements 
and ongoing encroachment, including illegal logging operations and 
forest clearing for farming. Rural development and road building limit 
the species' ability to disperse. Range reductions due to effects from 
climate change are also predicted for the southern helmeted curassow, 
when warming temperatures may cause the species to shift its 
distribution upslope and outside of protected national parks.
    The southern helmeted curassow is classified as critically 
endangered on the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been noted 
internationally, and the species is not included in the Appendices to 
CITES. The species is listed on Annex D of the European Union Wildlife 
Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex D require the importer to 
complete an import-notification form.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the southern helmeted 
curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to 
the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. 
The species faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its 
small, limited range. The few protected areas where it exists continue 
to face pressure from hunting and from habitat loss and destruction, 
and the population will likely continue to decline. Therefore, an LPN 
of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high 
magnitude.
Takahe
    Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri) is the largest extant rail in the 
world. The species is flightless, native to New Zealand's South Island, 
and present on North Island and some offshore islands because of 
reintroduction and conservation efforts. The takah[emacr] was once 
widespread in the forest and grassland ecosystems of the South Island 
of New Zealand. Since the mid-1990s, the species was present in a 
relatively small area of the Murchison and Stuart Mountains, inhabiting 
approximately 650 km\2\ (251 mi\2\). New Zealand classified 530 km\2\ 
(205 mi\2\) as a ``special area'' with restricted access. The 
population of takah[emacr] remains very small; it is estimated to be 50 
to 250 adults and decreasing.
    Primary threats to the takah[emacr] include hunting, competition 
from nonnative species, and predators such as weasels and the weka 
(Gallirallus australis hectori), a flightless woodhen that is endemic 
to New Zealand. Currently, weasel predation appears to be the most 
significant of these threats. Weasel trapping is ongoing and is an 
effective tool to increase takah[emacr]'s breeding success; however, 
the threat of weasel predation continues.
    New Zealand considers the takah[emacr] a nationally vulnerable 
species, and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The 
takah[emacr] is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species 
is not known to be in international trade, and the species is not 
included in the Appendices to CITES. The NZDOC is actively managing 
populations through conservation efforts that include captive-rearing 
and reintroductions, predator control, management of grassland 
habitats, and research. Population numbers appear to be slowly 
increasing due to intensive management of these populations
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the takah[emacr] was 
assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the 
takah[emacr], we have determined that no change in LPN for the species 
is warranted. The takah[emacr] has a small population size and limited 
range. The NZDOC is actively managing threats to aid in the recovery of 
the species. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent 
threats of moderate magnitude.
Yellow-Browed Toucanet
    The yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae) is a rare 
bird of the toucan family that occurs in the Andes Mountains of north-
central Peru. The species currently occupies three small locations in 
humid montane forests on the eastern slope of the Andes in north-
central Peru at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft) above sea 
level. The population status is not well known because of the 
inaccessibility of its habitat, but is estimated at 600 to 1,500 mature 
individuals.
    Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining 
are the primary threat. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation 
for agriculture have been widespread in the region. Population declines 
resulting from habitat loss are assumed. Given the inherent threats to 
small populations (e.g., loss of genetic diversity via genetic drift, 
stochastic environmental events), continued habitat loss and 
degradation will exacerbate the risk to the species.
    Part of the species' range is within protected national parks, with 
R[iacute]o Abiseo National Park a target for World Wide Fund for 
Nature's top Andean conservation priorities. The yellow-browed toucanet 
is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not 
included in the Appendices to CITES and is not known to be in 
international trade.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), the yellow-browed 
toucanet was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available 
information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The 
estimated population is small within a restricted range. The magnitude 
of threats to the habitat remains high, and its population is likely 
declining. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to 
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Fish

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

[[Page 26167]]

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

Clams

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

Insects

Fluminense Swallowtail
    The Fluminense swallowtail (Parides ascanius) butterfly is a black, 
white, and red swallowtail. The species may be confused with the 
Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous 
harrisianus), but the Harris' mimic swallowtail has a red streak on the 
underside of its wings. Fluminense swallowtail is endemic to sand 
forests (or ``restingas'') of the Atlantic Forest in coastal Brazil. 
The species currently occupies an estimated 116 km\2\ (45 mi\2\) in 
sparse habitat fragments across the swampy coastal forests in the State 
of Rio de Janeiro. Fluminense swallowtail occupies at least eight sites 
between which there is movement of individuals. A study at Biological 
Reserve of Po[ccedil]o das Antas estimated that the subpopulation 
ranged from about 10 to 50 individuals. The best available information 
does not provide estimates for butterfly numbers in the remaining 
subpopulations.
    Habitat loss caused by road and building construction is the main 
threat affecting Fluminense swallowtail. Sea-level rise may result in 
further habitat loss as humans continue to develop suitable habitat 
further inland as they relocate to avoid coastal flooding. Eighty-eight 
to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests 
within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely 
degraded because of human activities. Additionally, illegal collection 
is likely occurring and ongoing. The species is located near urban 
areas and is easy to capture. The impact of illegal collection is 
difficult to assess, but removal of individuals from the remaining 
populations with decreasing habitat could contribute to local 
extirpations.
    While several of the populations occur in protected areas 
(including the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, Tr[ecirc]s 
Picos State Park, and Guapia[ccedil]u Ecological Reserve), only one of 
the subpopulations occurs within a highly protected area (Po[ccedil]o 
das Antas Biological Reserve). The majority of the remaining 
populations are on smaller, fragmented parcels with limited or no 
protections. Between 2001 and 2006, biological corridors were planned 
or created to connect existing protected areas to 13 privately 
protected forests by restoring habitat to assist the habitat 
connectivity for the species, but this effort has not yet been 
evaluated. Management plans for the Restinga National Park of 
Jurubatiba and Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve address 
conservation of Fluminense swallowtail.
    Fluminense swallowtail was the first invertebrate to officially be 
noted on the list of Brazilian animals threatened with extinction in 
1973. The species is categorized by Brazil as endangered, and has been 
classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List since 1983. Fluminense 
swallowtail is not included in the Appendices to CITES. However, the 
European Commission listed the species on Annex B of the European Union 
Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require a permit 
for import.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), Fluminense swallowtail 
was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the stressors to this 
species, we have determined that no change to the LPN is warranted. The 
overall number of subpopulations recorded for the species has declined 
from previous records of fewer than 20 colonies to approximately 8 to 
12, and the species continues to decline. Despite the conservation 
measures in place, the species continues to face stressors (e.g., 
habitat loss and destruction, and illegal collection and trade). 
Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of 
high magnitude.

[[Page 26168]]

Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (Parides hahneli) is a large black 
and yellow butterfly endemic to Brazil. The species is known to occur 
in six locations in central Brazil in the states of Amazonas and 
Par[aacute]. However, the species is very rare, and there is little 
recent data to confirm that the species still occurs in these areas. 
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail occurs in remote regions along the 
tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in sandy 
riparian areas with dense scrub vegetation or forest. The species 
likely feeds on only one larval host plant species. Although the host 
plant species has not been identified, it is suspected to be in the 
genus Aristolochia. Population size and trends are not known for this 
species.
    Loss of habitat from deforestation is the primary threat to the 
species. The States of Par[aacute] and Amazonas experienced high rates 
of deforestation over the past 30 years, with deforestation continuing 
within the range of the species. The butterfly has been collected for 
commercial trade and may also be reared for trade. Locations in the 
wild have deliberately been kept secret given the high value of this 
butterfly to collectors.
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is listed as endangered on the State 
of Par[aacute]'s list of threatened species, but it is not listed by 
the State of Amazonas or by Brazil. The species is classified as data 
deficient on the IUCN Red List, and is not included in the Appendices 
to CITES. The species is listed on Annex B of the European Union 
Wildlife Trade Regulations; therefore, a permit is required for import 
of the species.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to 
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, we have determined that no change in 
the LPN is warranted. The species has a small endemic population, and 
its highly specialized habitat is limited and habitat alteration and 
destruction are ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas and is likely to 
continue. Potential impacts from collection are unknown but, in 
combination with habitat loss, could contribute to local extirpations. 
Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of 
high magnitude.
Harris' Mimic Swallowtail
    Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous 
harrisianus) is a medium-sized black, white, and red swallowtail. This 
butterfly is a mimic (looks like other species); lower portions of the 
hindwing have large red spots that mimic the rose-red markings on the 
Fluminense swallowtail, a toxic butterfly that most predators avoid. 
Harris' mimic swallowtail occupies coastal habitats of the Atlantic 
forest, specifically restinga habitats (sandy, coastal forest) with 
lowland swamps and sandy flats above the tidal margins of the coast. 
Harris' mimic swallowtail historically occurred in southern Espirito 
Santo State and along the coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 
Records indicated that the butterfly occupied five sites in the State 
of Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within protected areas, and the other 
sites appear to be under municipal conservation with uncertain 
protected status. The best-studied site at Barra de S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable and viable size for nearly two 
decades, but since 2004 limited information exists on its status. The 
best available data do not indicate recent population numbers in any of 
the other colonies or locations.
    Habitat destruction has been the main threat and is ongoing. 
Eighty-eight to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical 
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely 
degraded as the result of human activities. Remaining tracts of the 
subspecies' habitat are severely fragmented, and coastal Atlantic 
Forest ecoregions are at risk from proposed development, climate 
change, wildfire, and sea-level rise. Additionally, specimens of 
Harris' mimic swallowtail are routinely advertised online, ranging from 
$1,000 to $2,200 (U.S. dollars), indicating that illegal collection and 
trade may be occurring. The effect of illegal collection to Harris' 
mimic swallowtail likely contributes to population decline and local 
extirpations.
    Harris' mimic swallowtail benefits from the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve, which was established to protect the golden lion 
tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia). The Reserve's purpose is solely for 
protection, research, and environmental education and its management 
plan has an objective to identify possible occurrences of the 
butterfly. Harris' mimic swallowtail is categorized on the list of 
Brazilian fauna threatened with extinction. The subspecies is not 
currently on the IUCN Red list, although it was identified as a 
threatened or extinct subspecies in the family Papilionidae in the 1994 
IUCN Red List. The subspecies is not included in the Appendices to 
CITES, and is not regulated on the annexes to European Union Wildlife 
Trade Regulations.
    In our August 9, 2021, CNOR (86 FR 43470), Harris' mimic 
swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 3. Threats are high in magnitude and 
imminent because the butterfly only occurs in a few small, fragmented 
colonies, habitat loss and degradation is ongoing, and the potential 
for catastrophic events such as fire remains. Additionally, although 
the subspecies is protected by Brazilian law and several of the 
colonies are located within protected areas, the high price advertised 
online for specimens indicates demand for the subspecies, likely from 
illegal collection. Despite the conservation measures in place, the 
species continues to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and 
destruction, and illegal collection and trade). Therefore, an LPN of 3 
remains valid to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail (Protographium (syn. Eurytides) 
marcellinus) is a small, blue-green and black butterfly endemic to 
Jamaica. This butterfly is regarded as Jamaica's most endangered 
butterfly. The Jamaican kite swallowtail is restricted to limestone 
forests; breeding populations only occur in rare, dense stands of its 
only known larval host plant, black lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). 
Five known sites have supported colonies of the Jamaican kite 
swallowtail. Two of the sites may be extirpated, the status of one site 
is uncertain, and two sites are viable with strong numbers in some 
years. There is no known estimate of population size, and numbers of 
mature adults are low in most years; however, occasionally there are 
strong flight seasons in which adult densities are relatively higher.
    The primary threat to the Jamaican kite swallowtail is habitat loss 
and fragmentation. Forests were cleared for agriculture and timber 
extraction, and more recently for sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish 
pots, or charcoal. Additional threats include mining for limestone 
(used for roadbuilding) and bauxite (for aluminum production, an 
important economic activity), and human-caused fires from slash-and-
burn agriculture and charcoal-making. Only around 8 percent of the 
total land area of Jamaica is natural forest with minimal human 
disturbance. Collection and trade of the species occurred in the past. 
Currently, this threat may be negligible because of heavy fines under 
the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. Predation from native predators, 
including spiders, the Jamaican tody (Todus todus), and praying mantis 
(Mantis religiosa), may be adversely affecting the Jamaican kite 
swallowtail, especially in the smaller

[[Page 26169]]

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

[[Page 26170]]

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

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

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

Longfin Smelt

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

Candidates in Review

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

[[Page 26171]]

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

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed

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

Two Populations of Grizzly Bear

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

[[Page 26172]]

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

Delta Smelt

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

Pariette Cactus

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

[[Page 26173]]

Northern Spotted Owl

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

Current Notice of Review

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

[[Page 26174]]

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

Request for Information

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

[[Page 26175]]

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

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

Public Availability of Comments

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

Authority

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

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

                            Table 5--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
         [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
----------------------------   Scientific name            Family              Common name      Historical range
    Category       Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE..............  .........  Neotamias minimus   Sciuridae..............  Chipmunk,           U.S.A. (NM).
                              atristriatus.                                Pe[ntilde]asco
                                                                           least.
PT..............  .........  Rangifer tarandus   Cervidae...............  Caribou, Dolphin-   Canada.
                              groenlandicus x                              Union.
                              pearyi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26176]]

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

[[Page 26177]]

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

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

[[Page 26178]]

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

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