26152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

authorization. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rulemaking. If we receive 

adverse comment, we will withdraw the 

direct final authorization and it will not 

take effect. We would then address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

action and base any further decision on 

the authorization of the state program 

changes after considering all comments 

received during the comment period. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: April 25, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09429 Filed 5–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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-speciesreport). 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-ofcontact 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 priorityranking system. As explained below, in 

using this system, we first categorize 

based on the magnitude of the threat(s), 

then by the immediacy of the threat(s), 

and finally by taxonomic status. 

Under this priority-ranking system, 

magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ 

or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion 

helps ensure that the species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence receive the highest listing 

priority. All candidate species face 

threats to their continued existence, so 

the magnitude of threats is in relative 

terms. For all candidate species, the 

threats are of sufficiently high 

magnitude to put them in danger of 

extinction or make them likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. However, for species 

with higher magnitude threats, the 

threats have a greater likelihood of 

bringing about extinction or are 

expected to bring about extinction on a 

shorter timescale (once the threats are 

imminent) than for species with lowermagnitude threats. Because we do not 

routinely quantify how likely or how 

soon extinction would be expected to 

occur absent listing, we must evaluate 

factors that contribute to the likelihood 

and time scale for extinction. We 

therefore consider information such as: 

(1) The number of populations or extent 

of range of the species affected by the 

threat(s), or both; (2) the biological 

significance of the affected 

population(s), taking into consideration 

the life-history characteristics of the 

species and its current abundance and 

distribution; (3) whether the threats 

affect the species in only a portion of its 

range, and, if so, the likelihood of 

persistence of the species in the 

unaffected portions; (4) the severity of 

the effects and the rapidity with which 

they have caused or are likely to cause 

mortality to individuals and 

accompanying declines in population 

levels; (5) whether the effects are likely 

to be permanent; and (6) the extent to 

which any ongoing conservation efforts 

reduce the severity of the threat(s). 

As used in our priority-ranking 

system, immediacy of threat is 

categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or 

‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when 

the threats will begin. If a threat is 

currently occurring or likely to occur in 

the very near future, we classify the 

threat as imminent. Determining the 

immediacy of threats helps ensure that 

species facing actual, identifiable threats 

are given priority for listing proposals 

over species for which threats are only 

potential or species that are intrinsically 

vulnerable to certain types of threats but 

are not known to be presently facing 

such threats. 

Our priority-ranking system has three 

categories for taxonomic status: Species 

that are the sole members of a genus; 

full species (in genera that have more 

than one species); and subspecies and 

distinct population segments of 

vertebrate species (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 moredetailed explanation—including 

citations to, and more-detailed analyses 

of, the best scientific and commercial 

data available—for our determination of 

the magnitude and immediacy of 

threat(s) and assignment of the LPN. 

Summary of This CNOR 

Since publication of the previous 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-butprecluded 12-month findings. 

Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to 

list a species that we have already 

identified as a candidate, we review the 

status of the newly petitioned candidate 

species and 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-butprecluded finding on a petition, we treat 

the petition as one that is resubmitted 

on the date of the finding. Thus, we 

must make a 12-month petition finding 

for each such species at least once a year 

in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of 

the Act, until we publish a proposal to 

list the species or make a final notwarranted finding. We make these 

annual resubmitted petition findings 

through the CNOR. To the extent these 

annual findings differ from the initial 

12-month warranted-but-precluded 

finding or any of the resubmitted 

petition findings in previous CNORs, 

they supersede the earlier findings, 

although all previous findings are part 

of the administrative record for the new 

finding, and in the new finding, we may 

rely upon them or incorporate them by 

reference as appropriate, in addition to 

explaining why the finding has 

changed. 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 nonlisted species only, and we explain the 

priority system and why the work we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 listingrelated 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 listingrelated 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 courtmandated actions within the cap, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

remaining (after completing courtmandated actions) for listing activities 

nationwide. Therefore, the funds that 

remain within the listing cap—after 

paying for work needed to comply with 

court orders or court-approved 

settlement agreements—set the 

framework within which we make our 

determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

For FY 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26156 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 programmanagement functions; (3) section 4 (of 

the Act) listing and critical habitat 

actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing 

actions that do not have absolute 

statutory deadlines. 

In previous years, the Service 

received many new petitions, including 

multiple petitions to list numerous 

species—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 courtordered 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 lowerpriority 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 multiyear 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 highestpriority species. The Foreign Species 

Workplan is available online at: https:// 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26158 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

$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 Status for Coastal Distinct 

Population Segment of the Pacific Marten With 

a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 85 FR 63806–63831 

10/8/2020 .......... Threatened Species Status for Eastern Black 

Rail With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 85 FR 63764–63803 

10/13/2020 ........ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly and 

Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition 

Finding.

85 FR 64908–64937 

11/3/2020 .......... Endangered Species Status for the Canoe Creek 

Clubshell and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.85 FR 69540–69563 

11/12/2020 ........ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for Sickle Darter.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

85 FR 71859–71873 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26159 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN LISTING ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL LISTING AND UPLISTING RULES) 

IN FY 2021 AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2021—Continued 

Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register 

citation 

11/16/2020 ........ Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions.

CNOR and 12-Month Petition Findings ................ 85 FR 73164–73179 

11/19/2020 ........ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for the Upper Coosa River Distinct Population Segment of Frecklebelly Madtom and 

Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

85 FR 74050–74088 

12/1/2020 .......... Endangered Species Status for the Peppered 

Chub and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.85 FR 77108–77138 

12/2/2020 .......... Threatened Species Status for Pinus albicaulis 

(Whitebark Pine) With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule.

85 FR 77408–77424 

12/3/2020 .......... Eleven Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species *.12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 85 FR 78029–78038 

12/15/2020 ........ 12-Month Finding for the Northern Spotted Owl .. 12-Month Petition Finding ..................................... 85 FR 81144–81152 

12/17/2020 ........ 12-Month Finding for the Monarch Butterfly ......... 12-Month Petition Finding ..................................... 85 FR 81813–81822 

3/4/2021 ............ Endangered Species Status for Arizona Eryngo 

and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat.86 FR 12563–12591 

3/9/2021 ............ Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern 

Hellbender.

Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 86 FR 13465–13475 

3/24/2021 .......... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...................... 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 15637–15639 

4/7/2021 ............ 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle.Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

86 FR 18014–18034 

4/13/2021 .......... Threatened Species Status for Streaked Horned 

Lark With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 19186–19207 

4/26/2021 .......... Listing the Yangtze Sturgeon as an Endangered 

Species.

Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 86 FR 21950–21961 

5/5/2021 ............ Three Salamander Species Not Warranted for 

Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.

12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 86 FR 23869–23872 

5/11/2021 .......... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...................... 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 25833–25836 

5/11/2021 .......... Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species *.12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 86 FR 25806–25808 

6/1/2021 ............ Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status With 

Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct 

Population Segment and Endangered Status 

for the Southern Distinct Population Segment.

Proposed Listing—Endangered; Threatened with 

a Section 4(d) Rule.

86 FR 29432–29482 

6/4/2021 ............ Finding on a Petition To List the Tiehm’s Buckwheat as Threatened or Endangered.12-Month Petition Finding ..................................... 86 FR 29975–29977 

6/9/2021 ............ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for Neuse River Waterdog, Endangered 

Species Status for Carolina Madtom, and Designations of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 

and Critical Habitat; Endangered and Critical 

Habitat.

86 FR 30688–30751 

6/15/2021 .......... Threatened Species Status for Mount Rainier 

White-Tailed Ptarmigan With a Section 4(d) 

Rule.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with a Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 31668–31692 

6/15/2021 .......... Endangered Status for the Beardless 

Chinchweed and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat ... 86 FR 31830–31868 

6/17/2021 .......... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ........................ 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 32241–32243 

7/15/2021 .......... Designation of Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot 

(Calidris canutus rufa).

Proposed Critical Habitat ...................................... 86 FR 37410–37668 

7/27/2021 .......... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...................... 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 40186–40189 

8/3/2021 ............ Endangered Species Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox.

Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 86 FR 41743–41758 

8/4/2021 ............ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for Emperor Penguin.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule.

86 FR 41917–41934 

8/9/2021 ............ Review of Foreign Species That Are Candidates 

for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions.

CNOR and 12-Month Petition Findings ................ 86 FR 43470–43490 

8/24/2021 .......... Endangered Species Status for Franklin’s Bumble Bee.Final Listing—Endangered .................................... 86 FR 47221–47238 

8/25/2021 .......... Endangered Species Status for Amur Sturgeon .. Proposed Listing—Endangered ............................ 86 FR 47457–47468 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26160 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN LISTING ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL LISTING AND UPLISTING RULES) 

IN FY 2021 AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2021—Continued 

Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register 

citation 

8/26/2021 .......... Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Endangered Species Status With Critical Habitat for Guadalupe Fatmucket, Texas 

Fatmucket, Guadalupe Orb, Texas 

Pimpleback, and False Spike, and Threatened 

Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and 

Critical Habitat for Texas Fawnsfoot.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and 

Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Findings.

86 FR 47916–48011 

8/31/2021 .......... Threatened Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the 

Dolphin and Union Caribou and 12-Month 

Finding for the Peary Caribou.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule and 12-Month Petition Findings.

86 FR 48619–48649 

8/31/2021 .......... Threatened Species Status for Bartram’s 

Stonecrop With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 86 FR 48545–48569 

9/7/2021 ............ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Revise Critical 

Habitat for the Jaguar.

90-Day Petition Finding ........................................ 86 FR 49985–49989 

9/7/2021 ............ Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule for Pyramid Pigtoe.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule.

86 FR 49989–50011 

9/8/2021 ............ Endangered Species Status for Slenderclaw 

Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat ... 86 FR 50264–50287 

9/17/2021 .......... 90-Day Finding for Two Petitions To List the 

Gray Wolf in the Western United States.

90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 51857–51859 

9/27/2021 .......... 17 Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species *.12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 86 FR 53255–53261 

9/28/2021 .......... Endangered Species Status for the Pen ̃asco 

Least Chipmunk and Designation of Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.86 FR 53583–53609 

9/28/2021 .......... Endangered Status for South Llano Springs 

Moss and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.86 FR 53609–53627 

9/29/2021 .......... 90-Day Findings for Five Species ........................ 90-Day Petition Findings ....................................... 86 FR 53937–53941 

9/29/2021 .......... Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species *.12-Month Petition Findings ................................... 86 FR 53933–53937 

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

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26161 

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—Continued 

Species Action 

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 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker From 

Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

85 FR 63474–63499 

10/15/2020 ........ Reclassification of the American Burying Beetle From 

Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Rule—Downlisting with Section 4(d) 

Rule.

85 FR 65241–65261 

10/21/2020 ........ Reclassification of Eugenia woodburyana as Threatened 

and Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

85 FR 66906–66925 

11/3/2020 .......... Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting and 90-Day Petition 

Finding.

85 FR 69778–69895 

1/4/2021 ............ Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Rule—Downlisting with Section 4(d) 

Rule.

86 FR 192–212 

1/13/2021 .......... Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 2564–2581 

1/15/2021 .......... Reclassifying Furbish’s Lousewort (Pedicularis 

furbishiae) From Endangered to Threatened Status 

With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 3976–3986 

3/8/2021 ............ Removing Bradshaw’s Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 13200–13215 

3/25/2021 .......... Reclassification of the Hawaiian Stilt From Endangered 

to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 15855–15876 

4/26/2021 .......... Removal of the Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 21994–22005 

5/5/2021 ............ Removing Five Species From San Clemente Island 

From the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 23882–23913 

6/16/2021 .......... Removal of Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 31972–31986 

6/16/2021 .......... Removing the Water Howellia From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 31955–31972 

6/23/2021 .......... Reclassifying the Fender’s Blue Butterfly From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 32859–32878 

6/24/2021 .......... Reclassifying Smooth Coneflower as Threatened With 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 33159–33176 

6/24/2021 .......... Removal of Chrysopsis floridana (Florida Golden Aster) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 33177–33191 

6/24/2021 .......... Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 33137–33142 

6/30/2021 .......... Removing Golden Paintbrush From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 34695–34711 

7/7/2021 ............ Reclassification of the Razorback Sucker From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 35708–35728 

7/14/2021 .......... Reclassification of the Palo de Rosa From Endangered 

to Threatened With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting with Section 

4(d) Rule.

86 FR 37091–37113 

7/30/2021 .......... Removing Adiantum vivesii From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 40996–41000 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26162 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND

DELISTINGS) IN FY 2021 AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2021—Continued 

Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register 

citation 

8/6/2021 ............ Removing Trifolium Stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 43102–43117 

8/16/2021 .......... Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cumberland 

Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ................................ 86 FR 45685–45698 

9/1/2021 ............ Removing the Snail Darter From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

86 FR 48953–48968 

9/30/2021 .......... Removal of 23 Extinct Species From the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 54298–54338 

9/30/2021 .......... Removing the Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver From the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ......................... 86 FR 54145–54148 

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 notwarranted findings prior to making the 

next annual CNOR. In the course of 

preparing proposed listing rules or notwarranted 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 warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings within 

the past year as having been resubmitted 

on the date of the warranted-butprecluded finding. We are making 

continued warranted-but-precluded 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, Sa ̃o Paulo, Parana`, 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 km2

(122,008 mi2) 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 

Parana ́ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26163 

Bogota ́ Rail 

The Bogota ́ 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 pa ́ramo (high-elevation habitats 

above tree line) marshes surrounding 

Bogota ́, Colombia, on the Ubate ́-Bogota ́

Plateau. The Bogota ́ 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 km2 (4,324 

mi2) and shrinking. 

The primary threat to the rail is 

habitat loss and degradation of 

wetlands. Suitable habitat for the Bogota ́

rail occurs around the most populated 

area in Colombia with approximately 11 

million people in the greater Bogota ́

metropolitan area. Wetlands in the area 

only cover approximately 3 percent of 

their historical extent. Although 

portions of the Bogota ́ 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 Bogota ́ 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 Bogota ́ rail was assigned an 

LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats 

to this species, we have determined that 

no change in the LPN for the species is 

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. 

Brası ́lia Tapaculo 

The Brası ́lia tapaculo (Scytalopus 

novacapitalis) is a small, gray, grounddwelling 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 Brası ́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 Brası ́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 Brası ́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 Brası ́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 Brası ́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 Brası ́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 threefold 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26164 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 oldgrowth 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. Sealevel 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 wellforested coastal areas of Yambaru, an 

area of approximately 300 km2, or 116 

mi2. 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 km2 (15 mi2) 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 oldgrowth 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26166 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, hornlike 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 

Amboro ́ 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 km2

(4,131 mi2) 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 takahe ̄ was 

once widespread in the forest and 

grassland ecosystems of the South 

Island of New Zealand. Since the mid1990s, the species was present in a 

relatively small area of the Murchison 

and Stuart Mountains, inhabiting 

approximately 650 km2 (251 mi2). New 

Zealand classified 530 km2 (205 mi2) as 

a ‘‘special area’’ with restricted access. 

The population of takahe ̄ remains very 

small; it is estimated to be 50 to 250 

adults and decreasing. 

Primary threats to the takahe ̄ 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 takahe ̄’s breeding 

success; however, the threat of weasel 

predation continues. 

New Zealand considers the takahe ̄ a 

nationally vulnerable species, and it is 

protected under New Zealand’s Wildlife 

Act. The takahe ̄ 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 takahe ̄ was assigned an LPN 

of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the 

takahe ̄, we have determined that no 

change in LPN for the species is 

warranted. The takahe ̄ 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 Rı ́o 

Abiseo National Park a target for World 

Wide Fund for Nature’s top Andean 

conservation priorities. The yellowbrowed 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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, lightcolored 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 km2 (45 mi2) 

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 Poc ̧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. Sealevel 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 

Poc ̧o das Antas Biological Reserve, Treˆs 

Picos State Park, and Guapiac ̧u 

Ecological Reserve), only one of the 

subpopulations occurs within a highly 

protected area (Poc ̧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 Poc ̧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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26168 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 Para ́. 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 Para ́ 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 

Para ́’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 Para ́ 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 beststudied site at Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃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 Poc ̧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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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-iHind 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 Kaiseri-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26170 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 climatechange 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 BayDelta, 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 BayDelta 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 BayDelta food web caused by establishment 

of the nonnative overbite clam (Corbula 

amurensis) and ammonium released 

into the system have also likely 

attributed to declines in the species’ 

abundance within the San Francisco 

Bay-Delta. 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 BayDelta 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-thanaverage 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26171 

for information on the status of and 

threats to the Sonoran Desert tortoise. 

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already 

Listed 

We previously made warranted-butprecluded 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 CabinetYaak 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 courtapproved 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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; Gutie ́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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-butprecluded’’ findings. We identify the 

species for which we made a continued 

warranted-but-precluded finding on a 

resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ 

in the category column (see Findings for 

Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for 

additional information). 

The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the 

LPN for each candidate species, which 

we use to determine the most 

appropriate use of our available 

resources. The lowest numbers have the 

highest priority. We assign LPNs based 

on the immediacy and magnitude of 

threats, as well as on taxonomic status. 

We published a complete description of 

our listing priority system in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 43098; 

September 21, 1983). 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26175 

TABLE 4—CONTACTS FOR CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING

Species Contact name Address and telephone 

Dolly varden trout, Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, and northern 

spotted owl.

Robyn Thorson .............. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 

NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– 

4181; telephone: 503–231–6158. 

Arizona eryngo, false spike, Guadalupe fatmucket, Guadalupe orb, 

lesser prairie-chicken (northern and southern DPSs), peppered 

chub, South Llano Springs moss, Texas fatmucket, Texas 

fawnsfoot, Texas pimpleback, Wright’s marsh thistle, roundtail 

chub, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, bracted twistflower, Pen ̃asco 

least chipmunk, and Sonoran desert tortoise.

Amy Lueders .................. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW, Room 

4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102; telephone: 

505–248–6920. 

Big Creek crayfish, round hickorynut, St. Francis River crayfish, and 

monarch butterfly.

Charlie Wooley .............. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437–1458; telephone: 612–713–5334. 

Atlantic pigtoe *, black-capped petrel, Canoe Creek clubshell, 

frecklebelly madtom (Upper Coosa River DPS), longsolid, marron 

bacora, Panama City crayfish *, pink pigtoe, Puerto Rico harlequin 

butterfly, sickle darter, Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, gopher 

tortoise, and magnificent ramshorn.

Leo Miranda-Castro ....... Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 

200, Atlanta, GA 30345; telephone: 404– 

679–4156. 

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, Pariette cactus, and whitebark 

pine.

Matt Hogan .................... Acting Regional Director, 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 *, Tiehm’s buckwheat, and 

longfin smelt.

Paul Souza .................... Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone: 916– 

414–6464. 

Amur sturgeon, Dolphin-Union caribou, emperor penguin, Egyptian 

tortoise, Sira curassow, southern helmeted curassow, Lord Howe 

Island pied currawong, Chatham oystercatcher, orange-fronted 

parakeet, Bogota rail, Takahe ̄, black-backed tanager, Brası ́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.

Gary Frazer .................... Assistant Director, Ecological Services, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; 

telephone: 202–208–4646. 

* 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 atristriatus Sciuridae ........... Chipmunk, Pen ̃asco least ......... U.S.A. (NM). 

PT .......... ................ Rangifer tarandus 

groenlandicus x pearyi.

Cervidae ........... Caribou, Dolphin-Union ............. Canada. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I 
26176 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

BIRDS 

PT .......... ................ Lagopus leucura rainierensis .... Phasianidae ...... Ptarmigan, Mt. Rainier whitetailed.U.S.A. (WA), Canada (BC). 

PT .......... ................ Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... Phasianidae ...... Prairie-chicken, lesser (northern 

DPS).

U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK, TX). 

PE .......... ................ Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ...... Phasianidae ...... Prairie-chicken, lesser (southern DPS).U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK, TX). 

PT .......... ................ Pterodroma hasitata .................. Procellariidae .... Petrel, black-capped ................. Dominican Republic, Haiti, 

U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC). 

PT .......... ................ Aptenodytes forsteri .................. Spheniscidae .... Penguin, emperor ..................... Antarctica. 

C * .......... 2 Pauxi koepckeae ....................... Cracidae ........... Curassow, Sira .......................... Peru. 

C * .......... 2 Pauxi unicornis .......................... Cracidae ........... Curassow, southern helmeted .. Bolivia. 

C * .......... 6 Strepera graculina crissalis ....... Cracticidae ........ Currawong, Lord Howe Island 

pied.

Lord Howe Island, New South 

Wales. 

C * .......... 8 Haematopus chathamensis ...... Haematopodidae.Oystercatcher, Chatham ........... Chatham Islands, New Zealand. 

C * .......... 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi ........... Psittacidae ........ Parakeet, orange-fronted .......... New Zealand. 

C * .......... 2 Rallus semiplumbeus ................ Rallidae ............ Rail, Bogota .............................. Colombia. 

C * .......... 8 Porphyrio hochstetteri ............... Rallidae ............ Takahe ̄ ...................................... New Zealand. 

C * .......... 8 Tangara peruviana .................... Thraupidae ....... Tanager, black-backed ............. Brazil. 

C * .......... 2 Scytalopus novacapitalis ........... Rhinocryptidae .. Tapaculo, Brasilia ..................... Brazil. 

C * .......... 2 Aulacorhynchus huallagae ........ Ramphastidae .. Toucanet, yellow-browed .......... Peru. 

C * .......... 2 Zosterops luteirostris ................. Zosteropidae ..... White-eye, Gizo ........................ Solomon Islands. 

C * .......... 8 Celeus galeatus ........................ Picidae .............. Woodpecker, helmeted ............. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay. 

C * .......... 2 Dendrocopos noguchii .............. Picidae .............. Woodpecker, Okinawa .............. Okinawa Island, Japan. 

REPTILES 

PT .......... ................ Macrochelys suwanniensis ....... Chelydridae ...... Turtle, Suwannee alligator 

snapping.

U.S.A. (GA, FL). 

PT .......... ................ Testudo kleinmanni ................... Testudinidae ..... Tortoise, Egyptian ..................... Egypt, Libya, Israel. 

C * .......... 5 Gopherus morafkai ................... Testudinidae ..... Tortoise, Sonoran desert .......... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. 

C * .......... 8 Gopherus polyphemus .............. Testudinidae ..... Tortoise, gopher (eastern population).U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, 

SC). 

FISHES 

PE .......... ................ Acipenser schrenckii ................. Acipenseridae ... Sturgeon, Amur ......................... China, Russia. 

PSAT ...... ................ Salvelinus malma ...................... Salmonidae ...... Trout, Dolly Varden ................... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada, East 

Asia. 

PE .......... ................ Macrhybopsis tetranema ........... Cyprinidae ........ Chub, peppered ........................ U.S.A. (CO, KS, NM, OK, TX). 

PT .......... ................ Noturus munitus ........................ Ictaluridae ......... Madtom, frecklebelly (Upper 

Coosa River DPS).

U.S.A. (AL, GA, LA, MS, TN). 

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 clarkii virginalis Salmonidae ...... Trout, Rio Grande cutthroat ...... U.S.A. (CO, NM, TX). 

C * .......... 3 Spirinchus thaleichthys ............. Osmeridae ........ Smelt, longfin (San Francisco 

Bay-Delta DPS).

U.S.A. (CA). 

CLAMS 

PE .......... ................ Pleurobema athearni ................. Unionidae ......... Clubshell, Canoe Creek ............ U.S.A. (AL). 

PE .......... ................ Fusconaia mitchelli ................... Unionidae ......... Spike, false ............................... U.S.A. (TX). 

PE .......... ................ Lampsilis bergmanni ................. Unionidae ......... Fatmucket, Guadalupe .............. U.S.A. (TX). 

PE .......... ................ Cyclonaias necki ....................... Unionidae ......... Orb, Guadalupe ........................ U.S.A. (TX). 

PE .......... ................ Lampsilis bracteata ................... Unionidae ......... Fatmucket, Texas ..................... U.S.A. (TX). 

PT .......... ................ Truncilla macrodon ................... Unionidae ......... Fawnsfoot, Texas ...................... U.S.A. (TX). 

PE .......... ................ Cyclonaias petrina .................... Unionidae ......... Pimpleback, Texas .................... U.S.A. (TX). 

PT .......... ................ Obovaria subrotunda ................ Unionidae ......... Hickorynut, round ...................... U.S.A. (AL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, 

MS, NY, OH, PA, TN, WV), 

Canada. 

PT .......... ................ Fusconaia subrotunda .............. Unionidae ......... Longsolid ................................... U.S.A. (AL, GA, 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 Delta ............... Mexico. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26177 

TABLE 5—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

SNAILS 

C * .......... 2 Planorbella magnifica ................ Planorbidae ...... Ramshorn, magnificent ............. U.S.A. (NC). 

INSECTS 

PT .......... ................ Atlantea tulita ............................ Nymphalidae ..... Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly U.S.A. (PR). 

C ............ 8 Danaus plexippus ..................... Nymphalidae ..... Butterfly, monarch ..................... U.S.A. + 90 Countries. 

C * .......... 2 Parides ascaniusAscanius ........ Papilionidae ...... Butterfly, Fluminense swallowtail.Brazil. 

C * .......... 2 Parides hahneli ......................... Papilionidae ...... Butterfly, Hahnel’s Amazonian 

swallowtail.

Brazil. 

C * .......... 3 Mimoides (= Eurytides) 

lysithous harrisianus.

Papilionidae ...... Butterfly, Harris’ mimic swallowtail.Brazil. 

C * .......... 2 (Protographium (= Eurytides) 

marcellinus).

Papilionidae ...... Butterfly, Jamaican kite swallowtail.Jamaica. 

C * .......... 8 Teinopalpus imperialis .............. Papilionidae ...... Butterfly, Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail.Bhutan, China, India, Loas, 

Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, 

Vietnam. 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

PE .......... ................ Eryngium sparganophyllum ...... Apiaceae .......... Eryngo, Arizona ........................ U.S.A. (AZ). 

PT .......... ................ Cirsium wrightii .......................... Asteraceae ....... Thistle, Wright’s marsh ............. U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. 

PE .......... ................ Solanum conocarpum ............... Solanaceae ...... Bacora, marron ......................... U.S.A. (PR). 

PT .......... ................ Astragalus schmolliae ............... Fabaceae ......... Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa ............ U.S.A. (CO). 

C * .......... 8 Streptanthus bracteatus ............ Brassicaceae .... Bracted twistflower .................... U.S.A. (TX). 

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 macroneuron ...... Brachytheciaceae.Moss, South Llano Springs ....... U.S.A. (TX). 

TABLE 6—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

MAMMALS 

E ............. L Vulpes vulpes necator .............. Canidae ............ Fox, Sierra Nevada red (Sierra 

Nevada DPS).

U.S.A. (CA, OR). 

T ............. L Martes caurina .......................... Mustelidae ........ Marten, Pacific (coastal DPS) ... U.S.A. (CA). 

Rp .......... N Gulo gulo luscus ....................... Mustelidae ........ Wolverine, North American 

(Contiguous U.S. DPS).

U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR, 

UT, WA, WY). 

BIRDS 

T ............. L Laterallus jamaicensis 

jamaicensis.

Rallidae ............ Rail, eastern black .................... U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT, DE, 

FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KN, KT, 

LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, 

MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, 

NC, OH, OK, PA, PR, RI, SC, 

TN, TX, VT, VA, VI, WV, WI). 

AMPHIBIANS 

E ............. L Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

alleganiensis.

Cryptobranchidae.Hellbender, eastern (Missouri 

DPS).

U.S.A. (MO). 

T ............. L Necturus lewisi .......................... Proteidae .......... Waterdog, Neuse River ............ U.S.A. (NC). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I 

I I 

I 

I I 
26178 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

FISHES 

E ............. L Noturus furiosus ........................ Ictaluridae ......... Madtom, Carolina ...................... U.S.A. (NC). 

E ............. L Acipenser dabryanus ................ Acipenseridae ... Sturgeon, Yangtze .................... China. 

CLAMS 

T ............. L Fusconaia masoni ..................... Unionidae ......... Pigtoe, Atlantic .......................... U.S.A. (GA, NC, VA). 

INSECTS 

E ............. L Bombus franklini ....................... Apidae .............. Bumble bee, Franklin’s ............. U.S.A. (CA, OR). 

T ............. L Lycaena hermes ....................... Lycaenidae ....... Butterfly, Hermes copper .......... U.S.A. (CA). 

CRUSTACEANS 

E ............. L Cambarus cracens .................... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, slenderclaw ................ U.S.A. (AL). 

T ............. L Procambarus econfinae ............ Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Panama City .............. U.S.A. (FL). 

[FR Doc. 2022–09376 Filed 5–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 220427–0107] 

RIN 0648–BL22 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Catch 

Limits for Red Grouper 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

management measures described in a 

framework action under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) 

as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council). 

If implemented, this proposed rule 

would increase commercial and 

recreational catch levels for red grouper 

in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). The 

purposes of this proposed rule are to 

prevent overfishing of red grouper and 

to achieve optimum yield (OY). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by May 18, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2022–0029’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov and enter ‘‘NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0029’’ in the Search box. 

Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

• Mail: Submit all written comments 

to Dan Luers, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments—enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous. 

Electronic copies of the framework 

action may be obtained from the 

Southeast Regional Office website at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

modification-gulf-mexico-red-groupercatch-limits. The framework action 

includes an environmental assessment, 

a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory 

impact review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Luers, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 

telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

daniel.luers@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and 

the Council manage the Gulf reef fish 

fishery, which includes red grouper, 

under the FMP. The Council prepared 

the FMP and NMFS implements the 

FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 

622 under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Background 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

NMFS and regional fishery management 

councils to prevent overfishing and 

achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY 

from federally managed fish stocks. 

These mandates are intended to ensure 

fishery resources are managed for the 

greatest overall benefit to the nation, 

particularly with respect to providing 

food production and recreational 

opportunities, and protecting marine 

ecosystems. 

All weights described in this 

proposed rule are in gutted weight. 

Red grouper in the Gulf exclusive 

economic zone are found primarily in 

offshore areas of the eastern Gulf with 

hard bottom, that is, bottom structure 

with relief that attracts fish. Red grouper 

is managed as a single stock with 

commercial and recreational annual 

catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch 

targets (ACTs). Since 2009, the stock 

ACL has been allocated 76 percent to 

the commercial sector and 24 percent to 

the recreational sector as set in 

Amendment 30B to the FMP (74 FR 

17603, April 16, 2009). However, on 

March 9, 2022, NMFS approved 

Amendment 53 to the FMP, which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I