54732 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INFORMATION or at the Branch of information to monitor changes in the Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA (see status or LPN of candidate and and Wildlife Service address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION to manage candidates as we prepare CONTACT), or on our website (http:// listing documents and future revisions 50 CFR Part 17 ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ to the notice of review. We also request [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; candidate-species-report). Please submit information on additional species to FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] any new information, materials, consider including as candidates as we comments, or questions of a general prepare future updates of this notice. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife nature on this notice to the appropriate Candidate Notice of Review and ; Review of Domestic and address listed under FOR FURTHER Foreign Species That Are Candidates INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any Background for Listing as Endangered or new information, materials, comments, The Act of 1973, Threatened; Annual Notification of or questions pertaining to a particular as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; species to the address of the Endangered seq.), requires that we identify species Annual Description of Progress on Species Coordinator in the appropriate of wildlife and plants that are Listing Actions Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY endangered or threatened based solely INFORMATION. Species-specific AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, on the best scientific and commercial Interior. information and materials we receive data available. As defined in section 3 will be available for public inspection ACTION: Notice of review. of the ESA, an endangered species is by appointment, during normal business any species that is in danger of SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of hours, at the appropriate Regional Office extinction throughout all or a significant review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and listed below under Request for portion of its range, and a threatened Wildlife Service (Service), present an Information in SUPPLEMENTARY species is any species that is likely to updated list of and species INFORMATION. General information we become an endangered species within that we regard as candidates for or have receive will be available at the Branch the foreseeable future throughout all or proposed for addition to the Lists of of Domestic Listing, Falls Church, VA a significant portion of its range. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (see address under FOR FURTHER Through the Federal rulemaking and Plants under the Endangered INFORMATION CONTACT). process, we add species that meet these Species Act of 1973, as amended. For species foreign to the United definitions to the List of Endangered Identification of candidate species can States: Please submit any new and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR assist environmental planning efforts by information, materials, comments, or 17.11 or the List of Endangered and providing advance notice of potential questions of a general nature on this Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As listings, and by allowing landowners notice or pertaining to a specific species part of this program, we maintain a list and resource managers to alleviate to the appropriate address listed under of species that we regard as candidates threats and thereby possibly remove the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. for listing. A candidate species is one need to list species as endangered or Species-specific information and for which we have on file sufficient threatened. Even if we subsequently list materials we receive will be available information on biological vulnerability a candidate species, the early notice for public inspection by appointment, and threats to support a proposal for provided here could result in more during normal business hours, at the listing as endangered or threatened, but options for species management and appropriate address listed under FOR for which preparation and publication recovery by prompting earlier candidate FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. General of a proposal is precluded by higher- conservation measures to alleviate information we receive will be available priority listing actions. We may identify threats to the species. This document at the Branch of Delisting and Foreign a species as a candidate for listing after also includes our findings on Species, Falls Church, VA (see address we have conducted an evaluation of its resubmitted petitions and describes our under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION status—either on our own initiative, or progress in revising the Lists of CONTACT). in response to a petition we have Endangered and Threatened Wildlife FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: received. If we have made a finding on and Plants (Lists) during the period For domestic species: Chief, Branch of a petition to list a species, and have October 1, 2016, through September 30, Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife found that listing is warranted, but 2018. Moreover, we request any Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, precluded by other higher priority additional status information that may Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 listing actions, we will add the species be available for the candidate species (telephone 703–358–1796). to our list of candidates. identified in this CNOR. For species foreign to the United We maintain this list of candidates for DATES: We will accept information on States: Chief, Branch of Delisting and a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the any of the species in this notice at any Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife public that these species are facing time. Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, threats to their survival; (2) to provide ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 advance knowledge of potential listings the internet at http:// (telephone 703–358–1735). that could affect decisions of www.regulations.gov and http:// Persons who use a environmental planners and developers; www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ telecommunications device for the deaf (3) to provide information that may cnor.html. may call the Federal Information Relay stimulate and guide conservation efforts For domestic species: Species Service at 800–877–8339. that will remove or reduce threats to assessment forms with information and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We these species and possibly make listing references on a particular candidate request additional status information unnecessary; (4) to request input from species’ range, status, needs, and that may be available for any of the interested parties to help us identify listing priority assignment are available candidate species identified in this those candidate species that may not for review at the appropriate Regional CNOR (see Request for Information, require protection under the ESA, as Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY below). We will consider this well as additional species that may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54733

require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to threats to their continued existence, so the listable entity is assigned an LPN of request necessary information for setting the magnitude of threats is in relative 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status priorities for preparing listing proposals. terms. For all candidate species, the (i.e., a species that is the only member We encourage collaborative threats are of sufficiently high of its genus would be assigned to the conservation efforts for candidate magnitude to put them in danger of LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, species and offer technical and financial extinction or make them likely to and a subspecies or DPS would be assistance to facilitate such efforts. For become in danger of extinction in the assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the additional information regarding such foreseeable future. However, for species LPN ranking system provides a basis for assistance, please contact the with higher-magnitude threats, the making decisions about the relative appropriate Office listed under Request threats have a greater likelihood of priority for preparing a proposed rule to for Information, below, or visit our bringing about extinction or are list a given species. No matter which website, http://www.fws.gov/ expected to bring about extinction on a LPN we assign to a species, each species endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. shorter timescale (once the threats are included in this notice as a candidate is Publication of this notice has been imminent) than for species with lower- one for which we have concluded that delayed due to efforts to resolve magnitude threats. Because we do not we have sufficient information to outstanding issues. As a result, many of routinely quantify how likely or how prepare a proposed rule for listing the candidate forms reflect that our soon extinction would be expected to because it is in danger of extinction or formal analysis was conducted in fall of occur absent listing, we must evaluate likely to become endangered within the 2017, as shown by the date as of which factors that contribute to the likelihood foreseeable future throughout all or a the information is current on each form. and time scale for extinction. We significant portion of its range. However, we were able to update a therefore consider information such as: For more information on the process small subset of the candidate forms (1) The number of populations or extent and standards used in assigning LPNs, recently to reflect additional of range of the species affected by the a copy of the 1983 guidance is available information we have obtained on those threat(s), or both; (2) the biological on our website at: http://www.fws.gov/ species. We intend to publish an significance of the affected endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_ updated combined CNOR for population(s), taking into consideration Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the and plants that will update all of the the life-history characteristics of the LPN assigned to a particular species is candidate forms, including our findings species and its current abundance and summarized in this CNOR, and the on resubmitted petitions and a distribution; (3) whether the threats species assessment for each candidate description of our progress on listing affect the species in only a portion of its contains the LPN chart and a more- actions, in the near future in the Federal range, and, if so, the likelihood of detailed explanation—including Register. persistence of the species in the citations to, and more-detailed analyses of, the best scientific and commercial Previous Notices of Review unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which data available—for our determination of We have been publishing CNORs they have caused or are likely to cause the magnitude and immediacy of since 1975. The most recent was mortality to individuals and threat(s) and assignment of the LPN. published on December 2, 2016 (81 FR accompanying declines in population To the extent this revised notice 87246). CNORs published since 1994 levels; (5) whether the effects are likely differs from any previous animal, plant, are available on our website, http:// to be permanent; and (6) the extent to and combined CNORs or previous 12- www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ which any ongoing conservation efforts month warranted-but-precluded petition cnor.html. For copies of CNORs reduce the severity of the threat(s). findings for those candidate species that published prior to 1994, please contact As used in our priority-ranking were petitioned for listing, this notice the Branch of Domestic Listing (see FOR system, immediacy of threat is supersedes them. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or Summary of This CNOR On September 21, 1983, we published ‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when guidance for assigning an LPN for each the threats will begin. If a threat is Since publication of the previous candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using currently occurring or likely to occur in CNORs for species foreign to the United this guidance, we assign each candidate the very near future, we classify the States on October 17, 2016 (81 FR an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the threat as imminent. Determining the 71457) and for domestic species on magnitude of threats, immediacy of immediacy of threats helps ensure that December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87246), we threats, and taxonomic status; the lower species facing actual, identifiable threats reviewed the available information on the LPN, the higher the listing priority are given priority for listing proposals candidate species to ensure that a (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 over species for which threats are only proposed listing is justified for each would have the highest listing priority). potential or species that are intrinsically species, and reevaluated the relative Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. vulnerable to certain types of threats but LPN assigned to each species. We also 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to are not known to be presently facing evaluated the need to emergency list establish guidelines for such a priority- such threats. any of these species, particularly species ranking system. As explained below, in Our priority-ranking system has three with higher priorities (i.e., species with using this system, we first categorize categories for taxonomic status: Species LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and based on the magnitude of the threat(s), that are the sole members of a genus; reevaluation ensures that we focus then by the immediacy of the threat(s), full species (in genera that have more conservation efforts on those species at and finally by taxonomic status. than one species); and subspecies and greatest risk. Under this priority-ranking system, distinct population segments of In addition to reviewing candidate magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ vertebrate species (DPS). species since publication of the last or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion The result of the ranking system is CNORs, we have worked on findings in helps ensure that the species facing the that we assign each candidate a listing response to petitions to list species, on greatest threats to their continued priority number of 1 to 12. For example, proposed rules to list species under the existence receive the highest listing if the threats are of high magnitude, ESA, and on final listing priority. All candidate species face with immediacy classified as imminent, determinations. Some of these findings

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54734 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

and determinations have been the species in other areas in the Gulf of the clam associated with the effects of completed and published in the Federal California. climate change include marine Register. while work on others is still Information on the population transgression, increased intensity and under way (see Preclusion and numbers and trends for the species is frequency of storms, and further Expeditious Progress, below, for limited. The subpopulation in the invasion by nonnative species. details). Colorado River delta and upper Gulf of However, studies of climate change and Combined with other findings and California has experienced at least a 90 its effects to species in the Gulf of determinations published separately percent decline, and one post-dam California are limited. from this CNOR, 41 species are now study indicated that the species In the previous CNOR (81 FR 71457; candidates awaiting preparation of rules comprised 0.77 percent of the overall October 17, 2016), the Colorado delta proposing their listing. Table 1 living intertidal shelly macrofauna clam was assigned an LPN of 2. After identifies these 41 species, along with (including mollusk, echinoderm, and reevaluating the status of and threats to the 17 species currently proposed for brachiopod) in this area. We could not the Colorado delta clam, we have listing (including 1 species proposed for find information regarding numbers of determined that a change in the LPN for listing due to similarity in appearance). the Colorado delta clam in the species is warranted. With the Table 2 lists the changes for species subpopulations elsewhere in the Gulf of recent confirmation that the clam is identified in the previous CNORs, and California because benthic surveys of Mulinia modesta, we now recognize that includes 29 species identified in the the near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna it has a broader distribution into the previous CNORs as either proposed for in this area appear to be lacking. northern and central portions of the listing or classified as candidates that However, the area of potentially suitable Gulf of California and is capable of are no longer in those categories. This habitat available to the clam is greater living in full seawater. Therefore, our includes 17 species for which we than we previously believed. The review of the best information available species has not been assessed for the published a final listing rule, 8 indicates that the Colorado delta clam International Union for the exists across a greater range in the Gulf candidate species for which we Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red of California than we previously published separate not-warranted List. It is not commercially harvested or believed. However, we lack information findings and removed them from threatened by international trade, and it about the distribution and viability of candidate status, and 4 species for is not listed in any appendices of the populations of the clam outside of the which we published a withdrawal of a Convention on International Trade in Colorado delta region. Despite the proposed rule. Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and conservation measures in place New Candidates Flora (CITES). (primarily two large protected areas), Although the specific causes for the the species continues to face habitat loss We are not identifying any new dramatic decline of the clam in the and degradation in the Colorado delta candidate species through this notice. Colorado delta and upper Gulf of region due to dams and diversions on Listing Priority Changes in Candidates California region have not definitively the Colorado River. Because this threat been identified, several researchers have appears to be affecting the clam in We reviewed the LPNs for all indicated that it was a consequence of upper Gulf of California, and not in the candidate species and are changing the decrease in the Colorado River’s inflow remainder of its range, it is moderate in LPN for the Colorado delta clam to the estuary since completion of the magnitude. The threat of habitat loss (Mulinia modesta) and longfin smelt dams, and there is strong circumstantial and degradation in the Colorado delta (Spirinchus thaleichthys) for the reasons evidence for this assertion. region is ongoing and, therefore, discussed below. Environmental changes to the estuary imminent. Thus, we have changed the Colorado delta clam—The Colorado associated with the decrease in river LPN from a 2 to an 8 to reflect imminent delta clam is a relatively large, estuarine inflow include increased salinity, threats of moderate magnitude. bivalve that was once very abundant at decreased sediment load, decreased Longfin smelt, Bay-Delta DPS—The the head of the Gulf of California in the input of naturally derived nutrients, and following summary is based on Colorado River estuary in prior elimination of the spring/summer flood. information contained in our files and to the construction of dams on the Dams and diversions along the Colorado the 12-month finding published in the Colorado River. In our previous CNOR River have greatly affected the estuarine Federal Register on April 2, 2012 (77 FR (81 FR 71457; October 17, 2016), we environment of the Colorado delta and 19756). In our 12-month finding, we reported that the Colorado delta clam have likely caused the localized decline determined that the longfin smelt San was endemic to the upper Gulf of in abundance of the clam in this region. Francisco Bay-Delta distinct vertebrate California within the Colorado River However, we have no reason to believe population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) estuary. However, experts have recently that dams and diversions are a stressor warranted listing as an endangered or confirmed that Mulinia coloradoensis is for the Colorado delta clam elsewhere threatened species under the Act, but actually a junior (part of the within its range in the northern and that listing was precluded by higher broader taxon) of M. modesta. central portions of the Gulf of priority listing actions. In our previous Recognizing that the clam is M. California. CNOR (81 FR 87246; December 2, 2016), modesta, we now also recognize that the Stressors for the clam throughout its the longfin smelt was assigned an LPN clam has a broader distribution into the range may arise from other natural or of 3. Longfin smelt measure 9–11 northern and central portions of the manmade factors affecting the clam’s centimeters (cm) (3.5–4.3 inches (in)) in Gulf of California. Therefore, the species continued existence, such as pollution- length. Longfin smelt are considered is more widespread than we previously related problems and effects from pelagic and anadromous, although believed, and it is capable of living in climate change. One example of a anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly salinities ranging from brackish pollution-related problem is a 2003 understood and certain populations in (mixture of salt and fresh water) to full harmful algal bloom that caused fish other parts of the species’ range are not seawater. Because this species is not and bivalve mortalities along 94 square anadromous and complete their entire restricted to the Colorado delta, it is kilometers (km2) (36 square miles (mi2)) life cycle in freshwater lakes and likely that there are subpopulations of of the coastline. Potential stressors to streams. Longfin smelt usually live for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54735

2 years, spawn, and then die, although Candidate Removals population trend is increasing. This some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3- Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus species was listed on Appendix I of year-old fish before dying. In the San uvaeensis)—We have evaluated the CITES in July 2000. An Appendix I Francisco Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are threats to the Uvea parakeet and have listing includes species threatened with believed to spawn primarily in considered factors that, individually extinction whose trade is permitted only freshwater in the lower reaches of the and in combination, currently or under exceptional circumstances, which Sacramento River and San Joaquin potentially could pose a risk to the generally precludes commercial trade. Historically, the primary stressor to River. species and its habitat. After a review of Longfin smelt numbers in the San the Uvea parakeet was the capture of the best scientific and commercial data Francisco Bay-Delta have declined juveniles for the pet trade. Although available, we conclude that listing this significantly since the 1980s. New Caledonian law has protected the species is not warranted because it is Abundance indices derived from the Uvea parakeet from trade since 1935, not in danger of extinction throughout Fall Midwater Trawl, Bay Study harvest and export were common until all or a significant portion of its range, Midwater Trawl, and Bay Study Otter recent decades. Capture and trade likely Trawl all show marked declines in Bay- or likely to become so within the increased in the second half of the 20th Delta longfin smelt populations from foreseeable future. Therefore, we no century. Between September 1992 and 2002 to 2016. Longfin smelt abundance longer consider the Uvea parakeet to be February 1993, it appears that more than over the last decade is the lowest a candidate species for listing. We will 50 young parakeets were illegally recorded in the 40-year history of the continue to monitor the status of this captured and most were then illegally Fall Midwater Trawl monitoring surveys species and to accept additional exported. Additionally, capture of of the California Department of Fish and information and comments concerning young parakeets involves cutting nest Wildlife (formerly the California this finding. We will reconsider our cavities open to extract nestlings, which Department of Fish and Game). determination in the event that we destroys the cavities and makes them The primary threats to the Bay-Delta gather new information that indicates unsuitable for future nesting. DPS of longfin smelt are reduced that the threats are of a considerably In 1993, a nongovernmental freshwater flows, competition from greater magnitude or imminence than organization, the Association for the introduced species, and potential identified through assessments of Protection of the Uvea Parakeet contaminants. Freshwater flows, information contained in our files, as (Association), was formed to help especially winter-spring flows, are summarized below. recover the species. The Association significantly correlated with longfin The Uvea parakeet is a relatively was established with mostly local smelt abundance (i.e., longfin smelt large, green parakeet found on the small members to increase the chances that abundance is lower when winter-spring atoll of Uvea, located approximately Uvea parakeet conservation would be flows are lower). Reductions in food 1,500 kilometers (km) (932 miles (mi)) accepted by the Island community. The availability and disruptions of the Bay- east of Australia in the Loyalty Association initiated long-term Delta food web caused by establishment Archipelago, New Caledonia (a territory monitoring and ecological studies and of the nonnative overbite clam (Corbula of France). The entire island of Uvea is prepared two recovery plans (1997– amurensis) and ammonium considered an ‘‘Important Area’’ by 2002 and 2003–2008). Capture of Uvea concentrations have also likely BirdLife International, which works parakeets is now restricted, and the attributed to declines in the species’ with communities to combine species is monitored using local guides abundance within the San Francisco conservation with sustainable as part of its recovery plan. As part of Bay-Delta. The threats remain high in livelihoods. Additionally, in 2008, Uvea this effort, these local guides are paid to magnitude, as they pose a significant Island became part of the ‘‘Lagoons of spread conservation messages and risk to the DPS throughout its range. New Caledonia’’ a United Nations protect parakeet nests; since 2006, the While Delta outflow is the Educational, Scientific and Cultural number of guides increased to 10. With predominant driver of the DPS’s Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage the establishment of a community-based abundance, the best available Site. effort to protect the parakeet, it appears information indicates that high winter- Uvea parakeets were introduced to the that nest poaching is no longer spring flows have occurred in recent adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a occurring such that it significantly and the current water years. second population) in 1925 and 1963, affects the species. Additionally, the State of California has but these introductions failed. The Other potential threats to the parakeet listed the longfin smelt under the species occupies both the north and include: (1) Habitat loss and California Endangered Species Act, and south ends of Uvea Island. The species degradation, particularly as it negatively is preparing a new permit for operation primarily uses older (old-growth) forest affects nesting sites and may impede of the State Water Project that will be and nests in the cavities of species dispersal; (2) competition and issued by the end of the year. The living Syzygium and Mimusops trees. predation from nonnative species such California State Water Resources Their exclusive use of tree cavities for as the honey bee (Apis mellifera Control Board just adopted new flow nesting may be a limiting factor. In ligustica), which competes with the objectives for the Lower San Joaquin 1977, the Uvea parakeet population was Uvea parakeet for tree cavities, and the River and will be addressing Delta flow estimated to be between 500 to 800 potential introduction of the nonnative objectives this year. Through these individuals. The most recent estimate of ship rat (Rattus rattus), which preys on processes, we anticipate the State will the Uvea parakeet population is 1,730 forest (although we are not aware take action to reduce the threats birds with a 95-percent confidence of any indication at this time that such particularly around outflow, and is interval of 963 to 3,203 individuals. an invasion has already occurred, if an poised to do so in the near term. The Uvea parakeet is listed as invasion were to occur in the future, it Therefore, the threat is not operative in ‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List. could very quickly affect the parakeet); the immediate future, and thus is More recently, IUCN downlisted the (3) the potential for Psittacine and nonimminent. As such, we are Uvea parakeet to vulnerable, noting that feather disease; and (4) effects from identifying an LPN of 6 for this decline in forest quality may not be climate change, which may negatively population. affecting the species, and because the alter the Uvea parakeet’s habitat in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54736 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

future if they lead to loss of forest petition finding that the ESA requires Therefore, all candidate species habitat or important food sources, and the Service to make each year; and (3) identified through our own initiative the parakeet is unable to adapt. it documents the Service’s compliance already have received the equivalent of Overall, the increase in the with the statutory requirement to substantial 90-day and warranted-but- population is attributed to the reduction monitor the status of species for which precluded 12-month findings. in nest poaching, and it appears that the listing is warranted but precluded, and Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to community-based efforts to protect the to ascertain if they need emergency list a species that we have already parakeet have been successful. The listing. identified as a candidate, we review the population has increased significantly First, the CNOR serves as an initial status of the newly petitioned candidate from 1998 to 2008 despite the threats petition finding in some instances. species and through this CNOR publish noted above. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., In our previous CNOR (81 FR 71457; when we receive a petition to list a substantial 90-day and warranted-but- October 17, 2016), we assigned the Uvea species, we must determine within 90 precluded 12-month findings) in parakeet an LPN of 8. After reevaluating days, to the maximum extent response to the petitions to list these the available information, including practicable, whether the petition candidate species. We publish these new information that has become presents substantial information findings as part of the first CNOR available since our previous CNOR, we indicating that listing may be warranted following receipt of the petition. We find that this species no longer warrants (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a have identified the candidate species for listing. Although it is an island endemic positive 90-day finding, we must which we received petitions and made that is restricted in range, the primary promptly commence a status review of a continued warranted-but-precluded threat to the species—poaching and the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we finding on a resubmitted petition by the trade—has been removed, and the must then make, within 12 months of code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on population has responded and the receipt of the petition, one of the the left side of Table 1, below. expanded. Although we identified a following three possible findings (a ‘‘12- Second, the CNOR serves as a number of other potential threats to the month finding’’): ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section species (e.g., habitat loss and (1) The petitioned action is not 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that degradation, competition and predation warranted, and promptly publish the when we make a warranted-but- from nonnative species, disease, future finding in the Federal Register; precluded finding on a petition, we treat effects from climate change), the (2) The petitioned action is warranted the petition as one that is resubmitted population has rebounded despite these (in which case we are required to on the date of the finding. Thus, we stressors and is increasing. Recent promptly publish a proposed regulation must make a 12-month petition finding population trend data support these to implement the petitioned action; for each such species at least once a year findings and have lead to the once we publish a proposed rule for a in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of Interantional Union for Conservation of species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA, until we publish a proposal to Nature’s decision to downlist the the ESA govern further procedures, list the species or make a final not- species on its Red List from regardless of whether or not we issued warranted finding. We make these ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘vulnerable’’ in 2017. the proposal in response to a petition); annual resubmitted petition findings Additionally, New Caledonia and its or through the CNOR. To the extent these conservation partners remain active in (3) The petitioned action is warranted, annual findings differ from the initial conservation efforts, and the designation but (a) the immediate proposal of a 12-month warranted-but-precluded of Uvea Island as both an ‘‘Important regulation and final promulgation of a finding or any of the resubmitted Bird Area’’ and a UNESCO World regulation implementing the petitioned petition findings in previous CNORs, Heritage Site bode well for future action is precluded by pending they supersede the earlier findings, conservation of the species and its proposals to determine whether any although all previous findings are part habitat. Therefore, we have determined species is endangered or threatened, and of the administrative record for the new that this species no longer warrants (b) expeditious progress is being made finding, and in the new finding, we may listing, and we are removing it from the to add qualified species to the Lists. We rely upon them or incorporate them by candidate list. refer to this third option as a reference as appropriate, in addition to ‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding,’’ and Petition Findings explaining why the finding has after making such a finding, we must changed. The ESA provides two mechanisms promptly publish it in the Federal Third, through undertaking the for considering species for listing. One Register. analysis required to complete the method allows the Secretary, on the We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to CNOR, the Service determines if any Secretary’s own initiative, to identify mean those species for which the candidate species needs emergency species for listing under the standards of Service has on file sufficient listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA section 4(a)(1). The second method information on biological vulnerability requires us to ‘‘implement a system to provides a mechanism for the public to and threats to support issuance of a monitor effectively the status of all petition us to add a species to the Lists. proposed rule to list, but for which species’’ for which we have made a As described further in the paragraphs issuance of the proposed rule is warranted-but-precluded 12-month that follow, the CNOR serves several precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the purposes as part of the petition process: 1996). The standard for making a [emergency listing] authority [under (1) In some instances (in particular, for species a candidate through our own section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant petitions to list species that the Service initiative is identical to the standard for risk to the well being of any such has already identified as candidates on making a warranted-but-precluded 12- species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role its own initiative), it serves as the initial month petition finding on a petition to in the monitoring system that we have petition finding; (2) for candidate list, and we add all petitioned species implemented for all candidate species species for which the Service has made for which we have made a warranted- by providing notice that we are actively a warranted-but-precluded petition but-precluded 12-month finding to the seeking information regarding the status finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ candidate list. of those species. We review all new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54737

information on candidate species as it listing actions. Additional information Preclusion and Expeditious Progress becomes available, prepare an annual that is the basis for this finding is found To make a finding that a particular species assessment form that reflects in the species assessments and our action is warranted but precluded, the monitoring results and other new administrative record for each species. Service must make two determinations: information, and identify any species Our review included updating the (1) That the immediate proposal and for which emergency listing may be status of, and threats to, petitioned timely promulgation of a final appropriate. If we determine that candidate or listed species for which we regulation is precluded by pending emergency listing is appropriate for any published findings, under section proposals to determine whether any candidate, we will make prompt use of 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous species is threatened or endangered; and the emergency listing authority under CNOR. We have incorporated new (2) that expeditious progress is being section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. For example, information we gathered since the prior made to add qualified species to either on August 10, 2011, we emergency finding and, as a result of this review, of the lists and to remove species from listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). 49542). We have been reviewing and we are making continued warranted- but-precluded 12-month findings on the will continue to review, at least Preclusion petitions for these species. However, for annually, the status of every candidate, A listing proposal is precluded if the whether or not we have received a some of these species, we are currently Service does not have sufficient petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and engaged in a thorough review of all resources available to complete the accompanying species assessment forms available data to determine whether to proposal, because there are competing constitute the Service’s system for proceed with a proposed listing rule; as demands for those resources, and the monitoring and making annual findings a result of this review we may conclude relative priority of those competing on the status of petitioned species under that listing is no longer warranted. demands is higher. Thus, in any given sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) The immediate publication of fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate of the ESA. proposed rules to list these species was whether it will be possible to undertake A number of court decisions have precluded by our work on higher- elaborated on the nature and specificity work on a proposed listing regulation or priority listing actions, listed below, whether promulgation of such a of information that we must consider in during the period from October 1, 2016, making and describing the petition proposal is precluded by higher-priority through September 30, 2017. Below we listing actions—(1) The amount of findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that describe the actions that continue to published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR resources available for completing the preclude the immediate proposal and listing function, (2) the estimated cost of 57804), describes these court decisions final promulgation of a regulation in further detail. As with previous completing the proposed listing implementing each of the petitioned regulation, and (3) the Service’s CNORs, we continue to incorporate actions for which we have made a information of the nature and specificity workload, along with the Service’s warranted-but-precluded finding, and prioritization of the proposed listing required by the courts. For example, we we describe the expeditious progress we include a description of the reasons why regulation in relation to other actions in are making to add qualified species to, its workload. the listing of every petitioned candidate and remove species from, the Lists. We species is both warranted and precluded will continue to monitor the status of all Available Resources at this time. We make our candidate species, including petitioned The resources available for listing determinations of preclusion on a species, as new information becomes nationwide basis to ensure that the actions are determined through the available to determine if a change in annual Congressional appropriations species most in need of listing will be status is warranted, including the need addressed first and also because we process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal to emergency list a species under year since then, Congress has placed a allocate our listing budget on a section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. nationwide basis (see below). Regional statutory cap on funds that may be priorities can also be discerned from In addition to identifying petitioned expended for the Listing Program Table 1, below, which includes the lead candidate species in Table 1 below, we (spending cap). This spending cap was region and the LPN for each species. also present brief summaries of why designed to prevent the listing function Our preclusion determinations are each of these candidates warrants from depleting funds needed for other further based upon our budget for listing listing. More complete information, functions under the ESA (for example, activities for unlisted species only, and including references, is found in the recovery functions, such as removing we explain the priority system and why species assessment forms. You may species from the Lists), or for other the work we have accomplished has obtain a copy of these forms from the Service programs (see House Report precluded action on listing candidate Regional Office having the lead for the 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, species. domestic species, from the appropriate July 1, 1997). The funds within the In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed office listed under FOR FURTHER spending cap are available to support the current status of, and threats to, the INFORMATION CONTACT for species foreign work involving the following listing 41 candidates for which we have to the United States, or from the Fish actions: Proposed and final rules to add received a petition to list and the 4 and Wildlife Service’s internet website: species to the Lists or to change the listed species for which we have http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ status of species from threatened to received a petition to reclassify from candidate-species-report. As described endangered; 90-day and 12-month threatened to endangered, where we above, under section 4 of the ESA, we findings on petitions to add species to found the petitioned action to be identify and propose species for listing the Lists or to change the status of a warranted but precluded. We find that based on the factors identified in section species from threatened to endangered; the immediate issuance of a proposed 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings rule and timely promulgation of a final through the mechanism that section 4 on prior warranted-but-precluded rule for each of these species has been, provides for the public to petition us to petition findings as required under for the preceding months, and continues add species to the Lists of Endangered section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical to be, precluded by higher-priority or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. habitat petition findings; proposed rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54738 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

designating critical habitat or final amount of money remaining (after of the designation, and thus adds to the critical habitat determinations; and completing court-mandated actions) for complexity and cost of our work. In the litigation-related, administrative, and listing activities nationwide. Therefore, past, we estimated that the median cost program-management functions the funds that remain within the listing for preparing and publishing a 90-day (including preparing and allocating cap—after paying for work needed to finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month budgets, responding to Congressional comply with court orders or court- finding, $68,875. We estimated that the and public inquiries, and conducting approved settlement agreements median costs for preparing and public outreach regarding listing and requiring critical habitat actions for publishing a proposed listing rule with critical habitat). already-listed species, listing actions for proposed critical habitat is $240,000; We cannot spend more for the Listing foreign species, and petition findings, and for a final listing determination Program than the amount of funds respectively—set the framework within with a final critical habitat within the spending cap without which we make our determinations of determination, $205,000. violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 preclusion and expeditious progress. U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, from From FY 2012 through FY 2017, Prioritizing Listing Actions FY 2002 through FY 2017, the Service’s Congress had put in place two The Service’s Listing Program listing budget included a subcap for additional subcaps within the listing workload is broadly composed of four critical habitat designations for already- cap: One for listing actions for foreign types of actions, which the Service listed species to ensure that some funds species and one for petition findings. As prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance within the listing cap are available for with the critical habitat subcap, if the with court orders and court-approved completing Listing Program actions Service did not need to use all of the settlement agreements requiring that other than critical habitat designations funds within either subcap, we were petition findings or listing or critical for already-listed species. (‘‘The critical able to use the remaining funds for habitat determinations be completed by habitat designation subcap will ensure completing proposed or final listing a specific date; (2) essential litigation- that some funding is available to determinations. related, administrative, and listing address other listing activities.’’ House For FY 2017, Congress passed a program-management functions; (3) Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st Consolidated Appropriations Act of section 4 (of the ESA) listing and critical Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 2017 (Pub. L. 115–31), included an habitat actions with absolute statutory each year until FY 2006, the Service had overall listing spending cap of deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing to use virtually all of the funds within $20,515,000, and the subcaps of no actions that do not have absolute the critical habitat subcap to address more than $4,569,000 to be used for statutory deadlines. court-mandated designations of critical critical habitat determinations; no more In previous years, the Service habitat, and consequently none of the than $1,501,000 to be used for listing received many new petitions and a funds within the critical habitat subcap actions for foreign species; and no more single petition to list 404 domestic were available for other listing than $1,498,000 to be used to make 90- species, significantly increasing the activities. In some FYs between 2006 day or 12-month findings on petitions. number of actions within the third and 2017, we have not needed to use all In FY 2018, through the Consolidated category of our workload—actions that of the funds within the critical habitat Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. have absolute statutory deadlines. As a subcap to comply with court orders, and 115–141), the use of subcaps was result of the outstanding petitions to list we therefore could use the remaining discontinued, and Congress hundreds of species, and our efforts to funds within the subcap towards appropriated the Service $18,818,000 make initial petition findings within 90 additional proposed listing under a consolidated cap for all days of receiving the petition to the determinations for high-priority domestic and foreign listing work, maximum extent practicable, at the end candidate species. In other FYs, while including status assessments, listings, of FY 2018, we had more than 446 12- we did not need to use all of the funds domestic critical habitat determinations, month petition findings for domestic within the critical habitat subcap to and related activities. species yet to be initiated and completed. Because we are not able to comply with court orders requiring Costs of Listing Actions critical habitat actions, we did not apply work on all of these at once, we any of the remaining funds towards The work involved in preparing prioritized status reviews and additional proposed listing various listing documents can be accompanying 12-month findings (81 determinations, and instead applied the extensive, and may include, but is not FR 49248; July 27, 2016) and developed remaining funds towards completing limited to: Gathering and assessing the a multi-year workplan for completing critical habitat determinations best scientific and commercial data them. For foreign species, we currently concurrently with proposed listing available and conducting analyses used have 17 pending 12-month petition determinations. This allowed us to as the basis for our decisions; writing findings yet to be initiated and combine the proposed listing and publishing documents; and completed. determination and proposed critical obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating An additional way in which we habitat designation into one rule, public comments and peer-review prioritize work in the section 4 program thereby being more efficient in our comments on proposed rules and is application of the listing priority work. incorporating relevant information from guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, We make our determinations of those comments into final rules. The 1983). Under those guidelines, we preclusion on a nationwide basis to number of listing actions that we can assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, ensure that the species most in need of undertake in a given year also is depending on the magnitude of threats listing will be addressed first, and influenced by the complexity of those (high or moderate to low), immediacy of because we allocate our listing budget listing actions; that is, more complex threats (imminent or nonimminent), and on a nationwide basis. Through the actions generally are more costly. Our taxonomic status of the species (in order listing cap and the amount of funds practice of proposing to designate of priority: Monotypic genus (a species needed to complete court-mandated critical habitat concurrent with listing that is the sole member of a genus), a actions within the cap, Congress and the species requires additional coordination species, or a part of a species courts have in effect determined the and an analysis of the economic impacts (subspecies or distinct population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54739

segment)). The lower the listing priority precluded. In addition, available staff well as those we worked on but did not number, the higher the listing priority resources are also a factor in complete in FY 2017 or 2018. (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 determining which high-priority foreign Expeditious Progress would have the highest listing priority). species are provided with funding. The A species with a higher LPN would Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species As explained above, a determination generally be precluded from listing by may, depending on available staff that listing is warranted but precluded species with lower LPNs, unless work resources, work on foreign candidate must also demonstrate that expeditious on a proposed rule for the species with species with an LPN of 2 or 3 and, when progress is being made to add and the higher LPN can be combined with appropriate, species with a lower remove qualified species to and from work on a proposed rule for other high- priority if they overlap geographically or the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ priority species. have the same threats as the species finding, the evaluation of whether Finally, proposed rules for with higher priority. expeditious progress is being made is a reclassification of threatened species to function of the resources available and endangered species are generally lower Listing Program Workload the competing demands for those funds. in priority, because as listed species, The National Listing Workplan that As discussed earlier, the FY 2017 they are already afforded the protections the Service released in 2016 outlined appropriations law included a spending of the ESA and implementing work for domestic species over the cap of $20,515,000 for listing activities; regulations. However, for efficiency period from 2017 to 2023. Through FY within that amount, Congress prohibited reasons, we may choose to work on a 2017, commitments set forth as part of the Service from spending more than proposed rule to reclassify a species to a settlement agreement in a case before $1,501,000 on listing determinations for endangered if we can combine this with the U.S. District Court for the District of foreign species. The FY 2018 work that is subject to a court order or Columbia (Endangered Species Act appropriations law included a spending court-approved deadline. Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10– cap of $18,818,000 for listing activities. As discussed below, given the limited Since before Congress first established 377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL resources available for listing, we find the spending cap for the Listing Program Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D.D.C. in 1998, the Listing Program workload that we are making expeditious progress May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement in adding qualified species to the Lists. has required considerably more Agreement’’)) greatly affected our resources than the amount of funds (Although we do not discuss it in detail preclusion analysis. First, the Service Congress has allowed for the Listing here, we are also making expeditious was limited in the extent to which it Program. Therefore, it is important that progress in removing domestic species could undertake additional actions we be as efficient as possible in our from the list under the Recovery within the Listing Program through FY listing process. program, as well as reclassifying On September 1, 2016, the Service 2017 because complying with the endangered species as threatened, in released its National Listing Workplan requirements of the MDL Settlement light of the resources available for for addressing ESA domestic listing and Agreement exhausted a large portion of delisting domestic species, which is critical habitat decisions over the the funds within the spending cap for funded through the recovery line item subsequent 7 years. At the close of FY the listing program. Second, because the in the budget of the Endangered Species 2018, the workplan identified the settlement was court-approved, it was Program. During FYs 2017 and 2018, we Service’s schedule for addressing all the Service’s highest priority finalized delisting rules for 8 species domestic species on the candidate list (compliance with a court order) for FY and downlisting rules for 5 species (in and conducting 251 status reviews (also 2016 to fulfill the requirements of those addition to completing numerous referred to as 12-month findings) by FY settlement agreements. Included within recovery planning activities).) 2023 for domestic species that have the settlement agreements was a Below, we provide tables cataloguing been petitioned for Federal protections requirement to complete—by the end of the work of the Service’s domestic and under the ESA. The petitioned species FY 2016—proposed listings or not- foreign species listing programs in FYs are prioritized using our final warranted findings for the remaining 2017 and 2018. This work includes all prioritization methodology (81 FR candidate species that were included in three of the steps necessary for adding 49248; July 27, 2016). As we implement the 2010 CNOR, as well as to make final species to the Lists: (1) Identifying our listing work plan and work on determinations on any of the proposed species that may warrant listing; (2) proposed rules for the highest-priority listings within the statutory timeframe. undertaking the evaluation of the best species, we increase efficiency by Therefore, one of the Service’s highest available scientific data about those preparing multi-species proposals when priorities was to make steady progress species and the threats they face in appropriate, and these may include towards completing the remaining final preparation for a proposed or final species with lower priority if they listing determinations for the 2010 determination; and (3) adding species to overlap geographically or have the same candidate species by the end of 2017, the Lists by publishing proposed and threats as one of the highest-priority taking into consideration the availability final listing rules that include a species. The National Listing Workplan of staff resources. In FY 2018, the summary of the data on which the rule is available online at: https:// Service fulfilled the commitments set is based and show the relationship of www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ forth as part of the MDL Settlement that data to the rule. As the tables below listing-workplan.html. Agreement. demonstrate, during FYs 2017 and 2018, For foreign species, the Service has 17 Based on these prioritization factors, the Service completed the following pending 12-month petition findings that we continue to find that proposals to list number of actions within category 1: 90- are subject to statutory deadlines. the petitioned candidate species day findings for 13 species; within Because these actions are subject to included in Table 1 are all precluded by category 2: 12-month findings for 42 statutory deadlines, and, thus, are higher-priority listing actions. We species; and within category 3: higher priority than work on proposed provide tables under Expeditious Proposed listing rules for 21 species listing determinations for the 19 foreign Progress, below, identifying the higher- (including concurrent proposed critical candidate species, publication of priority listing actions that we habitat designations for 3 species), and proposed rules for these 19 species is completed in FYs 2017 and 2018, as final listing rules for 28 species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54740 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(including concurrent final critical Third, we are making expeditious 2011. That agreement required, among habitat determinations for 3 species). progress in listing qualified species. In other things, that for all 251 domestic After taking into consideration the FYs 2017 and 2018, we resolved the species that were included as limited resources available for these status of 28 species that we determined, candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the accounts, the competing demands for or had previously determined, qualified Service submit to the Federal Register those funds, and the completed work for listing, delisting, or downlisting. proposed listing rules or not-warranted catalogued in the tables below, we find Moreover, for 24 of those species, the findings by the end of FY 2016, and for that we are making expeditious progress resolution was to finalize the listing any proposed listing rules, the Service in all three of the steps necessary for proposal (22 species), some with complete final listing determinations adding qualified species to the Lists concurrent designations of critical within the statutory time frame. By the (identifying, evaluating, and adding/ habitat for domestic species, or the end of FY 2018, the Service had removing species). delisting proposal. For four species, we completed proposed listing rules or not- First, we are making expeditious published withdrawals of the proposed warranted findings for all 251 of the progress in identifying species that may rules. We also proposed to list an domestic candidate species in the 2010 qualify for listing. In FYs 2017 and additional 21 qualified species and to CNOR, as well as final listing 2018, we completed 90-day findings on downlist an additional 2 species. determinations for all of the proposed petitions to list 13 species and 12-month Our accomplishments in FYs 2017 listings rules among them—thus findings for petitions to list 42 species. and 2018 should also be considered in completing all requirements specified Second, we are making expeditious the broader context of our commitment under the MDL Settlement Agreement. progress in working towards adding to reduce the number of candidate By completing both the requirements candidate species to the Lists. In FYs species for which we have not made under the MDL Settlement Agreement 2017 and 2018, we funded and worked final determinations whether to list. On and numerous other listing actions on the development of 12-month May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the included in the Service’s current findings for 29 species and proposed MDL Litigation a settlement agreement workplan, the Service is making listing determinations for 11 candidates. that put in place an ambitious schedule expeditious progress to add qualified Although we did not complete those for completing proposed and final species to the Lists. actions during FY 2017 or FY 2018, we listing determinations at least through The Service’s progress in FYs 2017 made expeditious progress towards FY 2016; the court approved that and 2018 included completing and doing so. settlement agreement on September 9, publishing the following actions:

FY 2017–2018 COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING AND FOREIGN ACTIONS

Publication date Title * Actions FR pages

10/4/2016 ...... Proposed Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 81 FR 68379–68397 Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Gla- cier Stonefly. 10/5/2016 ...... Threatened Species Status for Kentucky Arrow Final Listing—Threatened ...... 81 FR 68963–68985 Darter with 4(d) Rule. 10/5/2016 ...... Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Final Listing—Endangered ...... 81 FR 68985–69007 Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana). 10/6/2016 ...... Threatened Species Status for Suwannee Final Listing—Threatened ...... 81 FR 69417–69425 Moccasinshell. 10/6/2016 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 10 Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings (10 domestic species) 81 FR 69425–69442 cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 10/6/2016 ...... Proposed Threatened Species Status for Lou- Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 81 FR 69454–69475 isiana Pinesnake. 10/6/2016 ...... Endangered Species Status for Black Warrior Proposed Listing—Endangered ...... 81 FR 69500–69508 Waterdog. 10/11/2016 ...... Proposed Threatened Species Status for Proposed Listing—Threatened or Endangered .... 81 FR 70282–70308 Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat) and Endangered Species Status for carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie- Clover). 11/28/2016 ...... Threatened Species Status for Hyacinth Macaw Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 81 FR 85488–85507 11/30/2016 ...... 90-Day Findings on Three Petitions ...... 90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for 81 FR 86315–86318 listing and 1 foreign species). 12/14/2016 ...... Endangered Species Status for Five Sri Lankan Proposed Listing—Endangered ...... 81 FR 90297–90314 Tarantulas. 1/11/2017 ...... Endangered Species Status for Rusty Patched Final Listing—Endangered ...... 82 FR 3186–3209 Bumble Bee. 4/5/2017 ...... Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance ...... Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 82 FR 16559–16569 4/5/2017 ...... Removal of the Scarlet-Chested and the Final Delisting ...... 82 FR 16522–16540 Turquoise Parrot From the Federal List of En- dangered and Threatened Wildlife. 4/7/2017 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ...... 82 FR 16981–16988 Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54741

FY 2017–2018 COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING AND FOREIGN ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title * Actions FR pages

4/19/2017 ...... 90-Day Findings on Two Petitions ...... 90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for 82 FR 18409–18411 listing). 9/7/2017 ...... Endangered Species Status for Guadalupe Fes- Final Listing—Endangered; Final Critical Habitat 82 FR 42245–42260 cue; Designation of Critical Habitat for Guada- lupe Fescue. 9/20/2017 ...... Endangered Species Status for Sonoyta Mud Final Listing—Endangered ...... 82 FR 43897–43907 Turtle. 9/20/2017 ...... Threatened Species Status for Pearl Darter ...... Final Listing—Threatened ...... 82 FR 43885–43896 9/20/2017 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Iiwi ...... Final Listing—Threatened ...... 82 FR 43873–43885 9/29/2017 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Kenk’s Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ...... 82 FR 45551–45574 Amphipod. 10/4/2017 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Candy Darter Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 82 FR 46197–46205 10/4/2017 ...... 12 Month Findings on Petitions To List the Holi- 12-Month Petition Findings; Proposed Listing— 82 FR 46183–46197 day Darter, Trispot Darter, and Bridled Darter; Threatened. Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter. 10/5/2017 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 25 Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings (25 domestic species) 82 FR 46618–46645 cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 10/6/2017 ...... Endangered Species Status for Dalea Final Listing—Endangered and Threatened ...... 82 FR 46691–46715 carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie- clover), and Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat). 12/6/2017 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Four Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings (4 domestic species) 82 FR 57562–57565 cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 12/20/2017 ...... 90-Day Findings for Five Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings (5 domestic species for 82 FR 60362–60366 listing). 12/27/2017 ...... Endangered Species Status of the Yangtze Stur- Proposed Listing—Endangered ...... 83 FR 61230–61241 geon. 12/29/2017 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List a Species 12-Month Petition Findings Finding (1 domestic 80 FR 61725–61727 (Beaverpond Marstonia) and Remove a Spe- species for listing and 1 domestic species for cies (Southwestern Willow Flycatcher) From delisting). the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threat- ened Wildlife and Plants. 1/3/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for the City Proposed Listing—Threatened ...... 83 FR 330–341 Crayfish. 1/3/2018 ...... Endangered Species Status for Black Warrior Final Listing—Endangered; Final Critical Habitat 83 FR 257–284 Waterdog and Designation of Critical Habitat. 1/4/2018 ...... Endangered Species Status for Barrens Proposed Listing—Endangered ...... 83 FR 490–498 Topminnow. 1/16/2018 ...... Taxonomical Update for Orangutan ...... Direct Final Rule ...... 83 FR 2085–2087 2/9/2018 ...... Endangered Species Status for Texas Hornshell Final Listing—Endangered ...... 83 FR 5720–5735 3/15/2018 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List Withdrawal of Proposed Listing ...... 83 FR 11453–11474 Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fer- nando Valley Spineflower). 4/3/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance ...... Final Listing—Threatened ...... 83 FR 14189–14198 4/6/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for Louisiana Final Listing—Threatened ...... 83 FR 14958–14982 Pinesnake. 4/6/2018 ...... Section 4(d) Rule for Louisiana Pinesnake ...... Proposed Section 4(d) Rule ...... 83 FR 14836–14841 4/12/2018 ...... Endangered Status for the Island Marble But- Proposed Listing—Endangered; Proposed Crit- 83 FR 15900–15936 terfly and Designation of Critical Habitat. ical Habitat. 4/17/2018 ...... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings (1 foreign species for 83 FR 16819–16822 listing and 1 domestic species for delisting). 6/27/2018 ...... 90-day Findings for Three Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings (2 domestic species for 83 FR 30091–30094 listing and 1 domestic species for delisting). 7/31/2018 ...... Endangered Species Status for Five Sri Lankan Final Listing—Endangered ...... 83 FR 36755–36773 Tarantulas. 8/13/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Hyacinth Final Listing—Threatened ...... 83 FR 39894–39916 Macaw. 9/5/2018 ...... Reclassifying the Golden Conure From Endan- Proposed Reclassification—Threatened ...... 80 FR 45073–45087 gered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. * 90-day and 12-month finding batches include findings regarding delisting or downlisting of domestic species, which are funded through the Recovery account, as well as findings regarding foreign species, which are funded through the account for foreign species. To make the sources of funding more clear, and ensure that the number of species reported in the titles of batched findings matches the numbers we report in this CNOR for domestic listing and foreign species, we identify the number of foreign and domestic species and the requested action (listing or delisting) in each batch.

Our expeditious progress also funded in previous fiscal years and in complete in FY 2017 or 2018. For these included work on listing actions that we FYs 2017 and 2018, but did not species, we completed the first step, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54742 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

worked on the second step necessary for adding species to the Lists. These actions are listed below.

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FYS 2017 AND 2018 BUT NOT COMPLETED DURING THAT TIME

Species Action

Chapin Mesa milkvetch ...... Proposed listing determination Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) ...... Proposed listing determination. Hermes copper butterfly ...... Proposed listing determination. Marron bacora ...... Proposed listing determination. Rattlesnake-master borer moth ...... Proposed listing determination. Red-crowned parrot ...... Proposed listing determination. Sierra Nevada red fox ...... Proposed listing determination. Texas fatmucket ...... Proposed listing determination. Texas fawnsfoot ...... Proposed listing determination. Texas pimpleback ...... Proposed listing determination. Whitebark pine ...... Proposed listing determination. Northern spotted owl ...... 12-month finding. Lesser prairie chicken ...... 12-month finding. Carolina ...... 12-month finding. Neuse River waterdog ...... 12-month finding. Franklin’s bumblebee ...... 12-month finding. False spike ...... 12-month finding. Bartram stonecrop ...... 12-month finding. Beardless chinch weed ...... 12-month finding. Chihuahua scurfpea ...... 12-month finding. Donrichardsonia macroneuron (unnamed moss) ...... 12-month finding. Peppered chub ...... 12-month finding. Eastern hellbender ...... 12-month finding. Big Cypress epidendrum ...... 12-month finding. Cape Sable orchid ...... 12-month finding. Clam-shell orchid ...... 12-month finding. Longsolid ...... 12-month finding. Purple lilliput ...... 12-month finding. Round hickorynut ...... 12-month finding. Ashy darter ...... 12-month finding. Barrens darter ...... 12-month finding. Redlips darter ...... 12-month finding. Arkansas mudalia ...... 12-month finding. Brook floater ...... 12-month finding. Elk River crayfish ...... 12-month finding. Seaside alder ...... 12-month finding. Yellow banded bumble bee ...... 12-month finding. Joshua tree ...... 12-month finding. Panamint alligator lizard ...... 12-month finding. Tricolored blackbird ...... 12-month finding.

We also funded work on resubmitted proposed listing rule is published). actions as efficient and timely as petition findings for 20 candidate Because the majority of these petitioned possible, given the requirements of the species (species petitioned prior to the species were already candidate species relevant law and regulations and last CNOR). We did not include an prior to our receipt of a petition to list constraints relating to workload and updated assessment form as part of our them, we had already assessed their personnel. We are continually resubmitted petition findings for the 16 status using funds from our Candidate considering ways to streamline candidate species for which we are Conservation Program, so we continue processes or achieve economies of scale preparing either proposed listing to monitor the status of these species and have been batching related actions determinations or not-warranted 12- through our Candidate Conservation together. Given our limited budget for month findings. However, in the course Program. implementing section 4 of the ESA, of preparing the proposed listing During FYs 2017 and 2018, we also these efforts also contribute towards determinations or 12-month not- funded work on resubmitted petition finding that we are making expeditious warranted findings for those species, we findings for petitions to uplist four progress to add qualified species to the have continued to monitor new listed species (two grizzly bear Lists. populations, Delta smelt, and information about their status so that we Findings for Petitioned Candidate Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette can make prompt use of our authority Species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the cactus)), for which we had previously case of an emergency posing a received a petition and made a Below are updated summaries for significant risk to the well-being of any warranted-but-precluded finding. petitioned candidates for which we of these candidate species; see Another way that we have been published findings under section summaries below regarding publication expeditious in making progress to add 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance of these findings (these species will qualified species to the Lists is that we with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any remain on the candidate list until a have endeavored to make our listing petitions for which we made warranted-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54743

but-precluded 12-month findings within The total population of southern horn-like bony appendage above the the past year as having been resubmitted helmeted is estimated to be bill) that is flattened against the head. on the date of the warranted-but- between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals The Sira curassow inhabits cloud-forest precluded finding. We are making and is declining. Hunting is believed to habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs continued warranted-but-precluded 12- be the primary threat to the species, on high mountains in the tropics) at month findings on the petitions for followed by habitat loss and elevations from 1,100 to 1,450 m (3,609 these species. degradation. Although the National to 4,757 ft) and above. Under the Act and our implementing Parks have been important for the Although historical population data regulations, a species may warrant preservation of the species, financial are lacking, the population is currently listing if it is in danger of extinction or and human resources needed to protect estimated at fewer than 250 mature likely to become so within the park resources are limited. Within the individuals and is declining. The foreseeable future throughout all or a Parks, there are human settlements and primary cause of the decline is ongoing significant portion of its range. Because ongoing encroachment, including illegal hunting by local indigenous we have determined that each candidate logging operations and forest clearing communities. Additionally, the Sira species is in danger of extinction for farming. Rural development and curassow’s range within the Cerros del throughout all of its range or likely to road building limit the species’ ability Sira region is limited (550 square 2 become an endangered species within to disperse. Range reductions due to kilometers (km ) (212 square miles 2 the foreseeable future throughout all of effects from climate change are also (mi )) and declining. Its habitat is being its range, we find it unnecessary to predicted for the southern helmeted degraded by subsistence agriculture, proceed to an evaluation of potentially curassow, when warming temperatures forest clearing, road building, and significant portions of the range. Where may cause the species to shift its associated rural development. Although the best available information allows the distribution upslope and outside of the Sira curassow is legally protected in Services to determine a status for the protected National Parks. a large portion of its range in El Sira species rangewide, that determination The southern helmeted curassow is Communal Reserve, illegal hunting still should be given conclusive weight classified as critically endangered on occurs there. The species is classified as because a rangewide determination of the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been critically endangered on the IUCN Red status more accurately reflects the noted internationally, and the species is List. It is not threatened by international species’ degree of imperilment and not listed in any appendices of CITES. trade, and it is not listed in any The species was listed in Annex B of the better promotes the purposes of the Act. appendices of CITES or the EU Wildlife European Union (EU) Wildlife Trade Trade Regulations. Under this reading, we should first Regulations that are directly applicable In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the consider whether the species warrants in all EU Member States. In 1997, the sira curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. listing ‘‘throughout all’’ of its range and southern helmeted curassow was listed After reevaluating the threats to the proceed to conduct a ‘‘significant with all species in the genus . In species, we have determined that no portion of its range’’ analysis if, and 2008, it was moved from Annex B to change in the LPN is warranted. The only if, a species does not qualify for Annex D (i.e., a lower level of Sira curassow does not represent a listing as either an endangered or a protection) because it was one of the monotypic genus. It faces threats that threatened species according to the species that ‘‘are not subject to levels of are high in magnitude based on its small ‘‘throughout all’’ language. We note that international trade that might be estimated population and limited range. the court in Desert Survivors v. incompatible with their survival, but The few locations where it is believed Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv– warrant monitoring of trade levels.’’ The to exist continue to face pressure from 01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. species continues to be listed on Annex hunting and habitat loss. The best Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this D. scientific and commercial data available issue, and our conclusion is therefore In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the indicate that the population decline will consistent with the opinion in that case. southern helmeted curassow was continue in the future. Because the Therefore, on the basis of the best assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating species is experiencing significant available scientific and commercial the threats to the species, we have population declines due to both hunting information, we find that each determined that no change in the LPN and habitat loss and degradation, we candidate species below, for which we is warranted. The southern helmeted have made no change to the LPN of 2, are making a resubmitted 12-month curassow does not represent a which reflects imminent threats of high finding, warrants listing throughout all monotypic genus. It faces threats that magnitude. of its range in accordance with sections are high in magnitude based on its Bogota´ (Rallus semiplumbeus)— 3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the Act. small, limited range. The few locations The Bogota´ rail is found in the East Birds where it is believed to exist continue to Andes of , . It is face pressure from hunting and habitat a medium-sized nonmigratory rail Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi loss and destruction, and the population largely restricted to areas at elevations unicornis)—The southern helmeted will likely continue to decline. Because from 2,500–4,000 m (8,202–13,123 ft) in curassow is a game bird with a the species is experiencing ongoing and surrounding Bogota´, Columbia, on distinctive pale-blue horn-like significant population declines and the Ubate´–Bogota´ Plateau. This region appendage, or casque, above its bill. The habitat loss, we have made no change to formerly supported vast marshes and southern helmeted curassow is known the LPN of 2, which reflects imminent swamps, but few lakes with suitable only from central Bolivia on the eastern threats of high magnitude. habitat for the rail remain. The species slope of the Andes, where large portions Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae)— is secretive, and wetland habitats most of its habitat are in National Parks. The The Sira curassow is a game bird that frequently used by rail are fringed by species inhabits dense, humid, foothill is known only from the Cerros del Sira dense vegetation-rich shallows. The and lower montane forest and adjacent region of Peru. Size and coloration are current population size of the Bogota´ evergreen forest at altitudes between similar to the southern helmeted rail is estimated between 1,000 and 450 and 1,500 meters (m) (1,476 to 4,921 curassow, but the Sira curassow has a 2,499 mature individuals and is thought feet (ft)). shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a to be declining. The primary threat to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54744 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the rail is habitat loss and degradation. Takahe is a long-lived bird, individuals. The species has Approximately 8 million people live in potentially living between 14 and 20 experienced a three-fold increase in its the City of Bogota´, and 11 million in the years, and has a low reproductive rate, population since the first reliable census larger metro area. The wetlands have with clutches consisting of one to three was conducted in 1987. Most of this experienced a 97 percent loss in eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison increase occurred during a period of historical extent with few suitably Mountains (cold winters and high intensive management, especially vegetated marshes remaining. snowfall) may also be a limiting factor predator control, from 1998 through Additionally, road building may result to the takahe. The population of takahe 2004. The Chatham is in further colonization and human remains very small and has low genetic listed as nationally critical by the interference, including introduction of diversity relative to other species. The NZDOC. It is classified as endangered nonnative species in previously stable New Zealand Department of on the IUCN Red List and is not listed wetland environments. The Bogota´ rail Conservation (NZDOC) is currently in any appendices of CITES. is listed as endangered at the global and attempting to manage further loss of Predation of eggs and chicks, and to national level by IUCN. Trade does not genetic diversity through translocations. a lesser extent of adults, is thought to be appear to be of concern at the Additionally, NZDOC has implemented the main impediment to the Chatham international level, and the species is a captive-breeding and release program oystercatcher population. Although the not listed in any appendices of CITES. to supplement the mainland population Mangere and South East nature reserves In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the and has established several reserve are free of all mammalian predators, Bogota´ rail was assigned an LPN of 2. populations on islands and fenced nonnative mammalian predators inhabit After reevaluating the threats to this mainland sites; these actions are having Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are species, we have determined that no a positive effect on population growth. the most common predator on eggs. change in the LPN for the species is The takahe is listed as endangered on Other documented predators include needed. The Bogota´ rail does not the IUCN Red List, and New Zealand gulls (Larus spp.), the native brown skua represent a monotypic genus. It faces considers it a nationally critical species. (Catharacta antarctica), , and threats that are high in magnitude due It is not listed in any appendices of domestic dogs. Nest destruction and to the pressures on the species’ habitat. CITES as international trade is not a disturbance by humans and livestock Its range is very small and is rapidly concern. are also noted threats. Habitat loss and contracting because of widespread In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the degradation has occurred from habitat loss and degradation. Although takahe was assigned an LPN of 8. After introductions of nonnative Marram portions of the Bogota´ rail’s range occur reevaluating the threats to the takahe, grass (Ammophila arenaria) in the early in protected areas, most of the savanna we have determined that no change in 1900s to revegetate destabilized dunes. the classification of the magnitude and The dense marram grass is unsuitable wetlands are unprotected. The imminence of threats to the species is for Chatham oystercatcher nesting. population is small and is believed to be warranted at this time. The takahe does Consequently, the Chatham declining. The factors affecting the not represent a monotypic genus. The oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to species are ongoing, and are, therefore, species is subject to predation by shore, where nests are vulnerable to imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 2 nonnative animals, particularly the tides and storm surges; up to 50 percent to reflect imminent threats of high introduced weasel. Although it has a of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea magnitude. small population, has limited suitable levels associated with climate change Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri)—The habitat, and may experience inbreeding will likely affect future nesting success. takahe is a large flightless bird in the depression, because the NZDOC is Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher rail family. The takahe was once actively involved in measures to aid the may be at risk from loss of genetic widespread in the forest and grassland recovery of the species, we find the diversity given its small population size. ecosystems on the South Island of New threats are moderate in magnitude. In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Zealand. It was thought to be extinct Despite conservation efforts, the threats Chatham oystercatcher was assigned an until it was rediscovered in the are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats Murchison Mountains on the South Lack of suitable habitat and predation, to this species, we have determined no Island in 1948. In addition to its native combined with the takahe’s small change in the LPN for the species is range on the mainland, the takahe has population size and naturally low warranted. The Chatham oystercatcher been introduced to offshore islands and reproductive rate, are threats to this does not represent a monotypic genus. mainland sanctuaries. species that are moderate in magnitude. The current population estimate is very When rediscovered in 1948, it was Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect small, and the species has a limited estimated that the takahe population imminent threats of moderate range, but NZDOC has taken measures consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the magnitude. to recover and maintain the species, and minimum total population now rests at Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus the population appears to have 306 individuals. Several factors have chathamensis)—The Chatham stabilized. However, the species historically led to the species’ decline, oystercatcher is native to the Chatham continues to face moderate threats, from including hunting, competition from Island group located 860 km (534 mi) predation, trampling, nest disturbance, introduced herbivores (animals that feed east of mainland New Zealand. The storm surges, and habitat loss due to on plants), and predators such as species breeds along the coastline of nonnative Marram grass, that are weasels and the weka, a flightless four islands in the chain: Chatham, Pitt, affecting nesting success and survival of woodhen that is endemic to New South East, and Mangere. The Chatham the Chatham oystercatcher. These Zealand. Currently, weasel predation oystercatcher is found mainly along threats are ongoing and, thus, are appears to be the most significant of rocky shores, including wide volcanic imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to these threats. Weasel trapping is an rock platforms and occasionally on reflect imminent threats of moderate effective tool at slowly increasing sandy or gravelly beaches. magnitude. survival and reproductive output of The Chatham oystercatcher is the Orange-fronted parakeet takahe; however, control efforts do not rarest oystercatcher in the world, with a (Cyanoramphus malherbi)—The orange- completely eliminate the threat. recent population estimate of 300 to 320 fronted parakeet was once well

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54745

distributed on the South Island of is warranted because NZDOC is actively depends is still being altered and mainland New Zealand and a few managing for the species. The orange- degraded. An LPN of 8 continues to be offshore islands. It is now considered fronted parakeet does not represent a accurate for this species. the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. The monotypic genus. Although the species’ Okinawa (Dendrocopos three remaining naturally occurring available suitable nesting habitat in noguchii, syn. Sapheopipo noguchii)— populations are all within a 30-km beech forests is limited, there appears to The Okinawa woodpecker is a relatively (18.6-mi) radius of one another in have been some success with large woodpecker found on Okinawa fragmented beech tree forests translocations to offshore islands, and Island, Japan. The species prefers (Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys. translocations are continuing. The subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests Orange-fronted parakeets have also been species faces threats (e.g., predation, that are undisturbed and mature. It captive-bred and released onto four habitat degradation, and competition for currently occurs within the forested predator-free islands where breeding food and suitable nesting habitat) that areas in the northern part of the island, has been confirmed. are moderate in magnitude because the generally in the Yambaru forest, and in The species’ range contracted when NZDOC continues to take measures to some undisturbed forest in coastal areas. its population was severely reduced in aid the recovery of the species. We find Most of the older forests that support the late 1800s and early 1900s for that the threats to this species are the species are within the Jungle unknown reasons. From 1999 to 2000, ongoing and imminent; thus, the LPN Warfare Training Center (formerly the mainland population crashed from remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats known as the Northern Training Area or perhaps 500 to 700 birds to a rough of moderate magnitude. Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S. estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus Marine Corps installation on Okinawa of ship rat (Rattus rattus) eruptions. galeatus)—The helmeted woodpecker is Island. Information on current population a fairly small woodpecker native to Deforestation in the Yambaru region status is mixed. In 2013, the total regions of southern , eastern has been cited as the main cause of the population was estimated between 290 Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina. Okinawa woodpecker’s reduced habitat and 690 individuals (130 to 270 on the The helmeted woodpecker is non- and population. As of the mid 1990s, mainland, and 160 to 420 on the migratory, occurring in subpopulations only 40 km2 (15 mi2) of suitable habitat islands). More recently, there are in suitable habitat within its range. was available for this species. While indications that both the offshore and Characteristic habitat is large tracts of most of the activities associated with mainland populations have declined to well-preserved southern Atlantic Forest habitat loss appear to have ceased, the around 100 and 250 birds, respectively, in both lowland and montane areas from Okinawa woodpecker still suffers from but these are rough estimates. sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m limited suitable habitat and a small The most prominent factors affecting (3,280 ft). The species is believed to population size. This situation makes it the species on the mainland are prefer mature (old-growth) trees in vulnerable to extinction from disease predation by nonnative mammals such tropical and subtropical semi-deciduous and natural disasters such as typhoons. as weasels and rats (Rattus spp.), as well forests as well as in mixed deciduous- In addition, the species is vulnerable to as habitat destruction. Habitat loss and coniferous forests. introduced predators such as feral dogs degradation has affected large areas of The helmeted woodpecker is one of and cats, Javan mongoose (Herpestes native forest on the mainland. In the rarest in the Americas. javanicus), and weasels (Mustela itatsi). addition, silviculture (care and Its population is believed to have In 2016, the Japanese Government cultivation) of beech forests in the past declined sharply between 1945 and designated Yambaru National Park and had removed mature trees with nest 2000, in conjunction with the clearing nominated ‘‘the northern part of cavities needed by the parakeet. The of mature forest habitat, and is currently Okinawa Island’’ (including Yambaru species’ habitat is also degraded by estimated at 400–8,900 individuals. National Park) as a United Nations introduced herbivores that alter forest Although forest clearing has recently Educational, Scientific and Cultural structure in a way that reduces the slowed, and the species occurs in at Organization World Heritage Centre. available feeding habitat for the least 17 protected areas throughout its The species is listed as critically parakeet. Additionally, the parakeet range, habitat degradation continues endangered on the IUCN Red List. It is competes with two other native and the population is still believed to be legally protected in Japan. It is not listed parakeets for nest sites and food and declining. The principal threat to the in any appendices of CITES and is not with nonnative wasps and finches for helmeted woodpecker is loss, known to be in trade. food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and feather degradation, and fragmentation of its In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the disease virus is a potential threat to this Atlantic Forest habitat. Competition for Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an species. The disease was discovered in nest cavities is also likely a limiting LPN of 2. After reevaluating the wild native birds in New Zealand in factor. The helmeted woodpecker is available information, we find that no 2008 (e.g., the red-fronted parakeet, listed as endangered in Brazil and as change in the LPN is warranted. The Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae), vulnerable by the IUCN. It is not listed Okinawa woodpecker does not although it has not been documented in in any appendices of CITES. represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the orange-fronted parakeet. Infected In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the the species are high in magnitude due birds generally follow one of three helmeted woodpecker was assigned an to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. paths: They develop immunity, die LPN of 8. After reevaluating the The population is very small and is within a couple of weeks, or become available information, we find that no believed to still be declining. Although chronically infected. Chronic infections change in the LPN for the helmeted new protected areas have been result in feather loss and deformities of woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted established that will likely benefit the beak and feathers. woodpecker does not represent a Okinawa woodpecker, it is not yet clear In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the monotypic genus. The magnitude of that these areas will be fully protected orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an threats to the species is moderate from logging and other anthropogenic LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors because the species’ range is fairly large. development, and from nonnative affecting the species, we have The threats are imminent because the predators. Even though threats from determined that no change in the LPN forest habitat upon which the species logging have been reduced, it will take

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54746 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

many years for secondary and clear-cut occurring, due to the continued decline are small. The species is reported as forest habitat to mature such that it is in area and quality of the ’s rare, even in protected areas. Therefore, suitable for the woodpecker. The threats gallery forest habitat. Effects from an LPN of 8 remains valid for this to the species are ongoing, imminent, climate change may also be negatively species. and high in magnitude due to its altering the Cerrado and the tapaculo’s Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops restricted range, small population size, specialized gallery forest habitat within luteirostris)—The Ghizo white-eye is a past habitat loss, and endemism. The the Cerrado by reducing the amount of small (perching) bird LPN for this species remains a 2 to available habitat for the species. Results described as ‘‘warbler-like.’’ It is reflect imminent threats of high from one climate change modeling endemic to the small island of Ghizo in magnitude. study predicted that the Brasilia the Solomon Islands in the South Yellow-browed toucanet tapaculo could lose all its range and Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New (Aulacorhynchus huallagae)—The protected habitat by 2060. The species Guinea. The total range of the Ghizo yellow-browed toucanet has a small is currently known to occur in six white-eye is estimated to be less than 35 range on the eastern slope of the Andes protected areas and has been found on km2 (13.5 mi2), of which less than 1 km2 of north-central Peru at elevations of private land next to protected areas. (0.39 mi2) is the old-growth forest that 2,000–2,600 m (6,562–8,530 ft). The These protected areas are limited in the species seems to prefer. toucanet occurs in humid montane extent and size, with few larger than Little information is available about forests. The population status is not 25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)). this species and its habitat. It is locally well known because of the In the early 2000s, only 1.2 percent of common in old-growth forest patches inaccessibility of its habitat, but is the Cerrado was in protected areas; and less common elsewhere. The estimated at 600–1,500 mature however, more recent estimates are 6.5 species has been observed in a variety individuals. The species currently percent. of habitats on the island, but it is occupies three known locations within The primary threat to the species is unknown whether sustainable a small range. Habitat loss and ongoing loss, fragmentation, and populations can exist outside of forested destruction from deforestation for degradation of its habitat, which is habitats. The population is estimated to agriculture has been widespread in the expected to limit the availability and be between 250 and 1,000 mature region and is suspected to be the main extent of suitable habitat for the individuals and is suspected to be threat, although deforestation appears to tapaculo. The Cerrado is the largest, declining due to habitat degradation, have occurred mainly below the most diverse, and possibly most particularly since a tsunami hit the altitudinal range of this toucanet. Gold threatened tropical savanna in the island in 2007. Habitat loss appears to mining and manufacturing also are world. Land in the Cerrado is currently be the main threat. As of 2012, the common in the region. The yellow- being converted for intensive grazing human population on the island was browed toucanet is described as scarce and mechanized agriculture, including 7,177 and growing rapidly, and there wherever found, and ongoing soybean and rice plantations. The has been prolific growth in informal population declines resulting from tapaculo’s gallery-forest habitat has been human settlements and temporary habitat loss are assumed. It is classified less affected by clearing for agriculture housing on Ghizo, which may be as endangered on the IUCN Red List and than the surrounding Cerrado. However, adversely affecting the Ghizo white-eye is not listed in any CITES appendices. effects to gallery forest arise from and its habitat. Areas around Ghizo In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the wetland drainage and the diversion of Town, which previously supported the yellow-browed toucanet was assigned water for irrigation and from annual species, have been further degraded an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the burning of adjacent grasslands. since the town was devastated by the available information, we find that no The IUCN recently changed the status 2007 tsunami, and habitat was found change in the LPN is warranted at this of the species from near threatened to less likely able to support the species in time. The yellow-browed toucanet does endangered, identifying the species’ 2012. The species is also affected by not represent a monotypic genus. The small and fragmented range as conversion of forested areas to estimated population is small with just justification for the change in status. agricultural uses. The old-growth forest three known locations within a The Brazilian Red List assessed the on Ghizo is still under pressure from restricted range. The magnitude of species as endangered, noting severe clearance for local use as timber and threats to the habitat remains high, and fragmentation and continuing decline in firewood, and for clearing for gardens, its population is likely declining. The area and quality of habitat. It is not as are the areas of secondary growth, LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent threatened by international trade and is which are already suspected to be threats of high magnitude. not listed in any appendices of CITES. suboptimal habitat for this species. Brasilia tapaculo (Scytalopus In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, we The population of this species is novacapitalis)—The Brasilia tapaculo is assigned the Brasilia tapaculo an LPN of believed to be declining and, given its a small, secretive, ground-dwelling bird 8. After reevaluating the available fragmented habitat in combination with with limited flight ability. The tapaculo information, we have determined that small population sizes, may be at greater is found in gallery-forest habitat that is no change in the LPN is warranted at risk of extinction due to synergistic a smaller habitat component occurring this time. The Brasilia tapaculo does not effects. The IUCN Red List classifies this within the wider tropical savanna or represent a monotypic genus. Threats to species as endangered. It is not listed in ‘‘Cerrado’’ of the Central Goia´s Plateau the species are moderate in magnitude any appendices of CITES, and this of Brazil. Gallery forests are narrow and are imminent. The species has a species is not in international trade. fringes of thick streamside vegetation fairly wide geographic range, but is In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the that occur on the edges of rivers and endemic to the Cerrado and strongly Ghizo white-eye was assigned an LPN of streams at elevations of approximately associated with gallery forests, a very 2. After reevaluating the available 800–1,000 m (2,625–3,281 ft). The small component of the Cerrado. information, we find that no change in Brasilia tapaculo is described as ‘‘rare,’’ Conversion of the Cerrado is ongoing. the LPN is warranted. The Ghizo white- but the population size is unknown. The populations currently appear to be eye does not represent a monotypic Despite a lack of data on population found only in or next to a handful of genus. It faces threats that are high in trends, declines are suspected to be protected areas, and most of these areas magnitude due to declining suitable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54747

habitat and its small, declining although it has infrequently been and especially during an extensive population size. The best information illegally sold in the pet trade. rodent eradication effort planned for available indicates that forest clearing is In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the this year. Project impact evaluations for occurring at a pace that is rapidly black-backed tanager was assigned an the eradication effort determined that denuding its habitat; secondary-growth LPN of 8. After reevaluating the the currawong was at significant risk forest continues to be converted to available information, we have from secondary poisoning, and this agricultural purposes. Further, the determined that no change in the LPN action is expected to result in the human population on the small island for this species is warranted at this time. temporary disruption of one breeding is likely contributing to the reduction in The black-backed tanager does not cycle. To ensure the currawong’s safety, old-growth forest for local uses such as represent a monotypic genus. We find project evaluators determined that timber and clearing for gardens. These that the threat from habitat loss is approximately 50–60 percent of the threats to the species are ongoing, high moderate in magnitude due to the wild population would need to be held in magnitude, and imminent. Thus, species’ fairly large range, its existence in captive management during the based on the best scientific and in protected areas, and an indication of eradication effort. A pilot study that commercial data available, the LPN some flexibility in its diet and habitat housed wild currawongs in aviaries in remains a 2 for this species. suitability. Threats are imminent anticipation of this eradication effort Black-backed tanager (Tangara because the species is at risk due to has shown promise for protecting the peruviana)—The black-backed tanager ongoing and widespread loss of habitat subspecies. Another potential threat to is endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest due to beachfront and related the currawong is rising global region of southeastern Brazil. It is development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 temperatures associated with climate currently found in the coastal states of remains valid for this species. change that may affect the cloud layer Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sa˜o Lord Howe Island pied currawong on the island’s mountaintops—resulting Paulo, Parana`, Santa Catarina, and Rio (Strepera graculina crissalis)—The Lord in drying of the forest where the Grande do Sul. The species is generally Howe Island pied currawong is a fairly currawong gets about half of its food restricted to the sand-forest ‘‘restinga’’ large, crow-like bird, endemic to Lord and possibly creating a food shortage for habitat, which is a coastal component Howe Island, New South Wales, the subspecies. habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest Australia. Lord Howe Island is a small The subspecies’ status is not complex. Restingas are herbaceous, island northeast of Sydney, Australia, addressed by IUCN; however, based on shrubby, coastal sand-dune habitats. with 28 smaller islets and rocks. The IUCN criteria, it has been assessed as The black-backed tanager is primarily Lord Howe Island pied currawong endangered nationally in Australia. In found in undisturbed vegetated habitat occurs throughout the island but is most addition, the New South Wales but has also been observed in secondary numerous in the mountainous areas on Threatened Species Conservation Act of (or second-growth) forests. It has also the southern end. It has also been 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied been observed visiting gardens and recorded to a limited extent on the currawong as vulnerable due to its orchards of houses close to forested Admiralty Islands, located 1 km (0.6 mi) extremely limited range and its small areas. The black-backed tanager is one north of Lord Howe Island. The Lord population size. It is not listed in any of just a few tanagers known to migrate Howe Island pied currawong breeds in appendices of CITES, and trade is not an seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the rainforests and palm forests, particularly issue for this subspecies. black-backed tanager is generally not along streams. Approximately 75 In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the considered rare. The population percent of Lord Howe Island, plus all Lord Howe Island pied currawong was estimate is between 2,500 to 9,999 outlying islets and rocks within the assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating mature individuals. Populations Lord Howe Island group, is protected the threats to the Lord Howe Island pied currently appear to be small, under the Permanent Park Preserve, currawong, we have determined that no fragmented, and declining. which has similar status to that of a change in the LPN is warranted. The The primary factor affecting this national park. Lord Howe Island pied currawong does species is habitat loss and destruction The best current population estimate not represent a monotypic genus. It due to urban expansion and beachfront in 2005 and 2006 indicated that there faces threats that are high in magnitude development, and this type of were approximately 200 individuals. due to a combination of factors development will continue in the The Lord Howe Island pied currawong including its small population size and future. Additional habitat loss from sea- exists as a small, isolated population, risks from nontarget poisoning from level rise associated with global climate which makes it vulnerable to stochastic rodent control. Additionally, aspects of change may be compounded by an events. The potential for the the rodent eradication project also carry increased demand by humans to use introduction of other nonnative some risk, including those associated remaining land for housing and predators to this island ecosystem has with trapping, holding, and a missed infrastructure. In addition to the overall also been identified as an issue for this breeding cycle. If the rodent eradication loss and degradation of its habitat, the subspecies. In addition to its small program is successful, effects from remaining tracts of its habitat are population size, direct persecution (via nontarget poisoning and any predation severely fragmented. The black-backed shootings) by humans in retaliation for by rodents on currawong eggs will cease tanager’s remaining suitable habitat in predation on domestic and endemic to be stressors for the currawong. the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Parana´ birds has been documented. The Despite conservation efforts, the have largely been destroyed, and habitat incidence of shootings has declined population of the Lord Howe Island loss and degradation will likely increase since the 1970s, when conservation pied currawong has remained around in the future. Although small portions of efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but 100 to 200 individuals, probably this species’ range occur in six protected occasional shootings were still because of limited suitable nesting areas, protections appear limited. The occurring as recently as 2006. habitat. Species with small population black-backed tanager is classified as Because the Lord Howe pied sizes such as the Lord Howe pied vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is currawong often preys on small rodents, currawong may be at greater risk of also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is it may be subject to nontarget poisoning extinction due to synergistic effects of not listed in any appendices of CITES during ongoing rat-baiting programs, factors affecting this subspecies.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54748 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

However, because significant the threat is imminent. Thus, we have ramshorn at one of the sites known to conservation efforts for the currawong assigned an LPN of 8 for this species. have previously supported the species, have been implemented, and the all of the sites continue to be affected Snails subspecies is being closely managed and and/or threatened by the same factors monitored, we find that the threats are Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella (i.e., salt water intrusion and other water nonimminent. Thus, based on the best magnifica)—Magnificent ramshorn is quality degradation, nuisance aquatic information available, the LPN remains the largest North American air-breathing plant control, storms, sea-level rise, etc.) at 6 to reflect nonimminent threats of freshwater snail in the family believed to have resulted in extirpation high magnitude. Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., of the species from the wild. Currently, coiling in one plane), relatively thin only two captive populations exist: A Reptiles shell that reaches a diameter commonly captive population of the species Gopher tortoise, eastern population exceeding 35 millimeters (mm) and comprised of approximately 1,000+ (Gopherus polyphemus)—The following heights exceeding 20 mm. The great adults and one with approximately 300+ summary is based on information in our width of its shell, in relation to the adults. Although captive populations of files. The gopher tortoise is a large, diameter, makes it easily identifiable at the species have been maintained since terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that all ages. The shell is brown colored 1993, a single catastrophic event, such reaches a total length up to 15 in (38 (often with leopard-like spots) and as a severe storm, disease, or predator cm) and typically inhabits the sandhills, fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to infestation, affecting this captive pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine still or slow-flowing aquatic habitats. population could result in the near flatwoods associated with the longleaf The magnificent ramshorn is believed to extinction of the species. The threats are pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A be a southeastern North Carolina high in magnitude and ongoing; fossorial animal, the gopher tortoise is endemic. The species is known from therefore, we assign this species an LPN usually found in areas with well– only four sites in the lower Cape Fear of 2. drained, deep, sandy soils; an open tree River Basin in North Carolina. Although canopy; and a diverse, abundant, the complete historical range of the Insects (Butterflies) herbaceous groundcover. species is unknown, the species and the Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Mimoides The gopher tortoise ranges from fact that it was not reported until 1903 lysithous harrisianus)—Harris’ mimic extreme southern South Carolina south suggest that the species may have swallowtail is a subspecies that inhabits through peninsular Florida, and west always been rare and localized. the restinga (sand forest) habitats within through southern Georgia, Florida, Salinity and pH are major factors the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil. It southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into limiting the distribution of the historically occurred in southern extreme southeastern Louisiana. The magnificent ramshorn, as the snail Espirito Santo State and along the coast eastern population of the gopher tortoise prefers freshwater bodies with of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the Recent records indicated that there were Alabama (east of the Mobile and range of 6.8–7.5). While members of the just three sites occupied by the butterfly Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, in the State of Rio de Janeiro; however, species; the gopher tortoise is federally it is currently unknown whether preliminary results from an ongoing listed as threatened in the western magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize study indicate that there are two newly portion of its range, which includes their eggs, mate with other individuals discovered colonies within the City of Alabama (west of the Mobile and of the species, or both. Like other Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and members of the Planorbidae family, the protected National Parks, and the other Louisiana. magnificent ramshorn is believed to be sites appear to be under municipal The primary threat to the gopher primarily a vegetarian, feeding on conservation with uncertain protected tortoise is fragmentation, destruction, submerged aquatic plants, algae, and status. These two new colonies in the and modification of its habitat (either detritus. While several factors have City of Rio de Janeiro are located in deliberately or from inattention), likely contributed to the possible small patches of vegetation and are including conversion of longleaf pine extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn possibly at risk of extirpation forests to incompatible silvicultural or in the wild, the primary factors include (disappearing from a specific geographic agricultural habitats, urbanization, loss of habitat associated with the area within its range). The best-studied shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly extirpation of beavers (and their colony at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o has from fire exclusion or insufficient fire impoundments) in the early 20th maintained a stable and viable size for management), and establishment and century, increased salinity and nearly two decades; however, there is spread of invasive species. Other threats alteration of flow patterns, as well as limited information on its status since include disease, predation (mainly on increased input of nutrients and other 2004. We could not find recent nests and young tortoises), and pollutants. The magnificent ramshorn population numbers for the subspecies inadequate regulatory mechanisms, appears to be extirpated from the wild in any of the other colonies. specifically those needed to protect and due to habitat loss and degradation Habitat destruction has been the main enhance relocated tortoise populations resulting from a variety of human- threat and is ongoing. Based on a in perpetuity. The magnitude of threats induced and natural factors. The only number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of to the eastern range of the gopher known surviving individuals of the the area historically covered by tropical tortoise is considered moderate to low, species are presently being held and forests within the Atlantic Forest biome since populations extend over a broad propagated at a private residence and a has been converted or severely degraded geographic area and conservation lab at North Carolina State University’s as the result of human activities. In measures are in place in some areas. Veterinary School; the population at the addition to the overall loss and However, since the species is currently North Carolina Wildlife Resources degradation of its habitat, the remaining being affected by a number of threats Commission’s Watha State Fish tracts of its habitat are severely including destruction and modification Hatchery was recently lost. fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics, While efforts have been made to human-caused, is a stressor for Harris’ and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, restore habitat for the magnificent mimic swallowtail due to its potential to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54749

destroy the few remaining, occupied the species has declined from ‘‘fewer other stressors, contribute to local habitats. Sea-level rise may also affect than 20 colonies’’ in 1994, to 8 to 12 in extirpations. this coastal subspecies, and habitat loss 2017. The body of science on the The fluminense swallowtail butterfly from sea-level rise may be compounded species indicates a continual decline of was the first invertebrate to be officially by an increased demand by humans to subpopulations as well as a decrease in noted on the list of Brazilian animals use remaining land for housing and the numbers of individuals within each threatened with extinction in 1973. It infrastructure. subpopulation. Genetic analysis of eight has been classified as vulnerable by the Another factor affecting this butterfly of the remaining subpopulations is IUCN Red List since 1983. The species is collection. Although Harris’ mimic consistent with metapopulation is currently categorized by Brazil as swallowtail is categorized as dynamics (a group of separate endangered. It has not been formally endangered on the list of Brazilian fauna subpopulations that has some level of considered for listing in the appendices threatened with extinction, and mixing) with low genetic diversity and to CITES. However, it is listed on Annex collection and trade of the subspecies is trending towards increased isolation of B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations; prohibited, it has been offered for sale these populations from urban species listed on Annex B require a on the internet. Specimens of Harris’ development. The butterfly is described permit for import. mimic swallowtail are routinely as seasonally common, with sightings of In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the advertised online ranging from $1,000 to up to 50 individuals at one colony in a fluminense swallowtail was assigned an $2,200 U.S. dollars (USD), indicating single morning. A study at Biological LPN of 2. After reevaluating the that illegal collection and trade may be Reserve of Poc¸o das Antas estimated stressors to this species, we have occurring and demand for this butterfly that the subpopulation ranged from 10 determined that no change to the LPN is high. Harris’ mimic swallowtail is not to 50 individuals. We could not find is warranted. The fluminense currently on the IUCN Red list, although estimates for butterfly numbers in the swallowtail does not represent a it was identified as a ‘‘threatened and remaining subpopulations. monotypic genus. The overall number of extinct subspecies’’ in the family Habitat loss, degradation, and subpopulations recorded for the species Papilionidae in the 1994 IUCN Red List. fragmentation are the principal threats has declined from previous records of The subspecies has not been formally to this species. The species occupies ‘‘fewer than 20 colonies’’ to considered for listing in the appendices highly specialized habitat and requires approximately 8 to 12. Only one of these to CITES. It is also not regulated on the large areas to maintain a viable colony. known subpopulations is presently annexes to EU Wildlife Trade Based on a number of estimates, 88 to found within a large protected area, and Regulations. 95 percent of the area historically the majority of the remaining In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, covered by tropical forests within the subpopulations are on small, Harris’ mimic swallowtail was assigned Atlantic Forest biome has been fragmented parcels with limited or no an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the converted or severely degraded as a protections and are vulnerable to threats to this subspecies, we have result of human activities. Habitat loss extirpation. Despite the conservation determined that no change in the LPN and destruction is caused primarily by measures in place, the species continues is warranted. Harris’ mimic swallowtail road and building construction, to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and is a subspecies that is not within a drainage of swamps, and vegetation destruction, and illegal collection and monotypic genus. Threats are high in suppression, and the remaining tracts trade) that are high in magnitude. The magnitude due to the existence of only are severely fragmented. Fire, either threats are ongoing and, therefore, a few small, fragmented colonies, and wildfire or human-caused, is a stressor imminent. The LPN remains a 2 to the potential for catastrophic events for the fluminense swallowtail and has reflect imminent threats of high such as fire. Additionally, although the the potential to destroy the few magnitude. subspecies is protected by Brazilian law remaining, occupied habitats. This Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail and several of the colonies are located coastal butterfly may also be affected by (Parides hahneli)—Hahnel’s Amazonian within protected areas, the high price habitat loss from sea-level rise, which swallowtail is a large black and yellow advertised online for specimens may be compounded by human use of butterfly endemic to Brazil. It is known indicates that there is demand for the the remaining land for infrastructure from three remote locations along the subspecies, likely from illegal and housing. tributaries of the middle and lower collection. Because the population is Only one of the subpopulations is Amazon River basin in the states of very small and limited to approximately presently found within a large protected Amazonas and Para´. Its preferred habitat five known colonies, we find the threats area (Poc¸o das Antas Biological is on old sand strips (stranded beaches) are of high magnitude. Based on the best Reserve), and the majority of the that are overgrown with dense scrub information available, the LPN remains remaining populations are on smaller, vegetation or forest. Hahnel’s a 3 to reflect imminent threats of high fragmented parcels with limited or no Amazonian swallowtail is described as magnitude. protections and are vulnerable to very scarce and extremely localized in Fluminense swallowtail (Parides extirpation. association with its specialized habitat ascanius)—Like Harris’ mimic Illegal collection of the fluminense and its larval host plant. Population size swallowtail (above), the fluminense swallowtail is likely occurring and and trends are not known for this swallowtail also inhabits the restinga ongoing. The species is located near species. However, habitat alteration and (sand forest) habitats of the coastal urban areas and is easy to capture. destruction are ongoing in Para´ and Atlantic Forest of Brazil within the State Recently, multiple specimens of Amazonas where this species is found, of Rio de Janeiro. There are at least eight fluminense swallowtail have been and researchers are concerned that this confirmed subpopulations of advertised online with costs ranging destruction is taking place before the fluminense swallowtail, and several from $220 to $700 USD. The impact of butterfly can be better studied and its other small, likely ephemeral, illegal collection to the fluminense ecological needs can be better subpopulations are currently being swallowtail is difficult to assess, but understood. studied (i.e., 8–12 estimated removal of individuals from the In the 2015 Global Forest Resources subpopulations). Thus, the overall remaining small, fragmented Assessment of 234 countries and number of subpopulations reported for populations could, in combination with territories, Brazil reported the greatest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54750 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

loss of primary forest from 1990 to 2015, there are dense stands of the host plant numbers of spiders were observed, very and the states of Para´ and Amazonas (Oxandra lanceolata), and these stands few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae (where the butterfly is found) are rare. There is no known estimate of survived. Additionally, this species may experienced high rates of deforestation population size, but subpopulations are be at greater risk of extinction due to in the last decade. Habitat loss and known from five sites. Two of the sites small fragmented subpopulations and destruction are occurring (e.g., high may be recently extirpated, one is synergistic effects of the factors noted rates of deforestation, dam construction, thought to be tenuous, and two are above. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite waterway crop transport, and clearing viable with strong numbers in some swallowtail has been categorized on for agriculture and cattle grazing) and years. IUCN’s Red List as vulnerable, but it is will likely continue in the future. Habitat loss, degradation, and marked ‘‘needs updating.’’ This species Collection (see Harris’ mimic fragmentation are considered the is not listed in any of the appendices of swallowtail discussion, above) is also a primary factors affecting the Jamaican CITES or the EU Wildlife Trade potential threat for Hahnel’s Amazonian kite swallowtail. Historical habitat loss Regulations, although some level of swallowtail. The species has been and destruction occurred when forests illegal trade is likely occurring. collected for commercial trade and may were cleared for agriculture and timber In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the be reared for trade. Locations in the extraction. More recent habitat Jamaican kite swallowtail was assigned wild have been kept secret given the destruction is occurring primarily from an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the high value of this butterfly to collectors. sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish pots, factors affecting the Jamaican kite Over the past 2 years, multiple or charcoal. Charcoal-making also swallowtail, we have determined that specimens of Hahnel’s Amazonian carries the risk of fire, which destroys no change in LPN is warranted. The swallowtail were noted for sale or sold pupae in the leaf litter. Additionally, Jamaican kite swallowtail does not from locations in the United States for mining for limestone and bauxite also represent a monotypic genus. The $70 to $500 USD and from Germany pose threats to remaining forested tracts. Jamaican kite swallowtail is known (approximately $166 USD). The two strongest subpopulations of from only five small subpopulations, Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is the Jamaican kite swallowtail occur in and as few as two of these classified as data deficient as of 2018 on protected areas (i.e., the Portland Bight subpopulations may presently be viable. the IUCN Red List. The species is listed Protected Area and the Forest Reserve in Although Jamaica has taken regulatory as endangered on the State of Para´’s list the Cockpit Country), although habitat steps to preserve native swallowtail of threatened species, but it is not listed destruction within these areas continues habitat, plans for conservation of vital by the State of Amazonas or by Brazil. to be a problem. Additionally, Jamaica’s areas for the butterfly have not been Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is not Forest Act of 1996 and Forest implemented. Based on our reevaluation listed in any appendices of CITES. Regulations Act of 2001 have increased of the threats to this species, the LPN However, it is listed on Annex B of the the power of Jamaican authorities to remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats EU Wildlife Trade Regulations; species protect the species’ habitat; the of high magnitude. listed on Annex B require a permit for Jamaican kite swallowtail is included in Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail import. Jamaica’s National Strategy and Action (Teinopalpus imperialis)—The Kaiser-i- In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the Plan on Biological Diversity. This Hind swallowtail is a large, ornate, Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail was strategy established specific plans for green-black-and-orange butterfly native assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating protecting sites that support two to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, the threats to the Hahnel’s Amazonian subpopulations of the swallowtail. China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, swallowtail, we have determined that Although these projects were identified Thailand, and Vietnam. The species no change in the LPN is warranted. This as high priorities, to date they have not occurs in the foothills of the Himalayan swallowtail does not represent a been initiated due to funding and Mountains and other mountainous monotypic genus. It faces threats that capacity constraints. Therefore, regions at altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m are high in magnitude and imminence conservation management continues to (4,921 to 10,000 ft) above sea level, in due to its small endemic population and be lacking for this species. undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved limited and decreasing availability of its Although the Jamaican Wildlife evergreen forests or montane deciduous highly specialized habitat. Habitat Protection Act of 1994 carries steep forests. Although it has a relatively large alteration and destruction are ongoing fines and penalties, illegal collection of range, it is restricted to higher in Para´ and Amazonas where the the Jamaican kite swallowtail appears to elevations and occurs only locally butterfly is found and are likely to be occurring. Three specimens of the within this range. Adults fly up to open continue. These threats are high in Jamaican kite swallowtail were noted hilltops above the forests to mate, where magnitude due to the species’ highly for sale on the internet as recently as males will often defend mating localized and specialized habitat 2017, for as much as 100 Euros ($120 territories. Larval host-plants are limited requirements. Potential impacts from USD), and one specimen sold in 2015 to Magnolia and Daphne species, and in collection are unknown but could, in for 150 Euros ($178 USD). Specimens of some regions the Kaiser-i-Hind combination with other stressors, the Homerus swallowtail (Papilio swallowtail is strictly monophagous, contribute to local extirpations. Based homerus, another rare Jamaican only using a single species of Magnolia on a reevaluation of the threats, the LPN butterfly) have also been illegally as a host plant. Despite the species’ remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats traded, indicating that there is a market widespread distribution, populations of high magnitude. for Jamaican butterflies despite heavy are described as being very local and Jamaican kite swallowtail fines. never abundant. Even early accounts of (Protographium marcellinus, syn. Predation from native predators, the species described it as being a very Eurytides marcellinus)—The Jamaican including spiders, the Jamaican tody rare occurrence. kite swallowtail is a small blue-green (Todus todus), and praying mantis, may Habitat destruction is believed to and black butterfly and is regarded as be adversely affecting the few remaining negatively affect this species, which Jamaica’s most endangered butterfly. Jamaican kite swallowtail populations, prefers undisturbed, high-altitude Breeding populations of the Jamaican especially in the smaller forests. In China and India, the Kaiser- kite swallowtail are found only where subpopulations. In years where large i-Hind swallowtail populations are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54751

affected by habitat modification and 12-month not-warranted findings prior currently listed as threatened, and destruction due to commercial and to making the next annual resubmitted therefore already receive certain illegal logging. In Nepal, the species is petition 12-month findings for these protections under the ESA. Those affected by habitat disturbance and species. In the course of preparing protections are set forth in our destruction resulting from mining, wood proposed listing rules or not-warranted regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly collection for use as fuel, deforestation, petition findings, we are continuing to bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by reference, collection of fodders and fiber plants, monitor new information about these 50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR forest fires, invasion of bamboo species species’ status so that we can make 17.71, and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.61 into the oak forests, agriculture, and prompt use of our authority under (Sclerocactus brevispinus). It is grazing animals. In Vietnam, the forest section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of therefore unlawful for any person, habitat is reportedly declining. The an emergency posing a significant risk among other prohibited acts, to take Forest Ministry in Nepal considers to any of these species. These species (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, habitat destruction to be a critical threat are the following: Pen˜ asco least shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or to all biodiversity, including the Kaiser- chipmunk (Tamias minimus collect, or attempt to engage in such i-Hind swallowtail. Comprehensive atristriatus), Sierra Nevada red fox— activity) a grizzly bear or a delta smelt, information on the rate of degradation of Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes subject to applicable exceptions. Also, it Himalayan forests containing the Kaiser- necator), red tree vole—north Oregon is unlawful for any person, among other i-Hind butterfly is not available, but coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus), prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to habitat loss is consistently reported as Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus possession Sclerocactus brevispinus one of the primary ongoing threats to gulolineatus), Texas fatmucket the species there. ( bracteata), Texas fawnsfoot from an area under Federal jurisdiction, Collection for commercial trade is (Truncilla macrodon), Texas subject to applicable exceptions. Other also regarded as a threat to the species. pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), Hermes protections that apply to these The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes), threatened species even before we valued and has been collected and Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly complete proposed and final traded despite various prohibitions. (Atlantea tulita), rattlesnake-master reclassification rules include those Although it is difficult to assess the borer moth (Papaipema eryngii), under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, potential impacts from collection, it is Astragalus microcymbus (skiff whereby Federal agencies must insure possible that collection in combination milkvetch), Astragalus schmolliae that any action they authorize, fund, or with other stressors could contribute to (Chapin Mesa milkvetch), Cirsium carry out is not likely to jeopardize the local extirpations of small populations. wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle), Pinus continued existence of any endangered Since 1996, the Kaiser-i-Hind albicaulis (whitebark pine), Solanum or threatened species. swallowtail has been categorized on the conocarpum (marron bacora), and Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), IUCN Red List as ‘‘lower risk/near Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted North Cascades ecosystem population threatened,’’ but IUCN indicates that twistflower). (Region 6)—Since 1990, we have this assessment needs updating. The received and reviewed five petitions Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed requesting a change in status for the listed in CITES appendix II since 1987. North Cascades grizzly bear population We previously made warranted-but- Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR precluded findings on four petitions swallowtail is listed on annex B of the 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 14372, April seeking to reclassify threatened species EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; In the October 17, 2016, CNOR, the to endangered status. The taxa involved 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998). In response Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was assigned in the reclassification petitions are two to these petitions, we determined that an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus grizzly bears in the North Cascade threats to this species, we have arctos horribilis), delta smelt ecosystem warrant a change to determined that no change in its LPN of (Hypomesus transpacificus), and 8 is warranted. The Kaiser-i-Hind Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette endangered status. We have continued swallowtail does not represent a cactus). Because these species are to find that these petitions are monotypic genus. Threats from habitat already listed under the ESA, they are warranted but precluded through our destruction and illegal collection are not candidates for listing and are not annual CNOR process. On January 13, moderate in magnitude due to the included in Table 1. However, this 2017, in partnership with the National species’ wide distribution and to notice and associated species Park Service, we made available for various protections in place within each assessment forms or 5-year review public comment a draft North Cascades country. We find that the threats are documents also constitute the findings Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan imminent due to ongoing habitat for the resubmitted petitions to (plan) and draft environmental impact destruction and high market value for reclassify these species. Our updated statement (EIS) to determine how to specimens. Based on our reassessment assessments for these species are restore the grizzly bear to the North of the threats, we have retained an LPN provided below. We find that Cascades ecosystem (82 FR 4416). The of 8 to reflect imminent threats of reclassification to endangered status for comment period on this draft plan and moderate magnitude. two grizzly bear ecosystem populations, EIS closed on March 14, 2017 and delta smelt, and Sclerocactus reopened again on August 2, 2019. The Candidates in Review brevispinus are all currently warranted final restoration plan and EIS are For several candidates, we continue to but precluded by work identified above expected to take up to 2 years to find that listing is warranted but (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate complete as we evaluate a variety of precluded as of the date of publication Species, above). One of the primary alternatives, including population of this notice. However, we are working reasons that the work identified above is restoration. This ecosystem does not on thorough reviews of all available data considered to have higher priority is contain a verified population (only three regarding these species and expect to that the grizzly bear populations, delta confirmed observations of individuals publish either proposed listing rules or smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are in the last 20 years), and is isolated from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54752 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

other populations in British Columbia threats that are ongoing, thus imminent, threats faced by the species. The and the United States. and, therefore, we are reevaluating its magnitude of the threats is high because We continue to find that reclassifying status. However, higher-priority listing the threats occur rangewide and result grizzly bears in this ecosystem as actions, including court-approved in mortality or significantly reduce the endangered is warranted but precluded, settlements, court-ordered and statutory reproductive capacity of the species. and we continue to assign an LPN of 3 deadlines for petition findings and Threats are imminent because they are for the uplisting of the North Cascades listing determinations, emergency ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., population based on high-magnitude listing determinations, and responses to nonnative species), considered threats, including human-caused litigation, continue to preclude irreversible. Thus, we are maintaining mortality due to incomplete habitat reclassifying grizzly bears in this an LPN of 2 for this species. protection measures (motorized-access ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette management), very small population to reclassify threatened species to cactus) (Region 6)—Pariette cactus is size, and population fragmentation endangered are a lower priority than restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta resulting in genetic isolation. However, listing currently unprotected species, as geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of we acknowledge the possibility that species currently listed as threatened northeastern Utah. The species is there is no longer a population present are already afforded protection under restricted to one population with an in the ecosystem. The threats are high the ESA and its implementing overall range of approximately 16 miles in magnitude, because the limiting regulations. by 5 miles in extent. The species’ entire factors for grizzly bears in this recovery Delta smelt (Hypomesus population is within a developed and zone are human-caused mortality and transpacificus) (Region 8)—The expanding oil and gas field. The extremely small population size. The following summary is based on location of the species’ habitat exposes threats are ongoing and imminent. information contained in our files and it to destruction from road, pipeline, However, higher-priority listing actions, the April 7, 2010, 12-month finding and well-site construction in connection including court-approved settlements, published in the Federal Register (75 with oil and gas development. The court-ordered and statutory deadlines FR 17667); see that 12-month finding for species may be illegally collected as a for petition findings and listing additional information on why specimen plant for horticultural use. determinations, emergency listing reclassification to endangered is Recreational off-road vehicle use and determinations, and responses to warranted but precluded. In our 12- livestock trampling are additional litigation, continue to preclude month finding, we determined that a threats. The species is currently reclassifying grizzly bears in this change in status of the delta smelt from federally listed as threatened (44 FR ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules threatened to endangered was 58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, to reclassify threatened species to warranted, although precluded by other September 15, 2009). The threats are of endangered are a lower priority than high priority listings. The primary a high magnitude, because any one of listing currently unprotected species, as rationale for reclassifying delta smelt the threats has the potential to severely species currently listed as threatened from threatened to endangered was the affect the survival of this species, a are already afforded protection under significant declines in species narrow endemic with a highly limited the ESA and its implementing abundance that have occurred since range and distribution. Threats are regulations. 2001. Delta smelt abundance, as ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population survey, was exceptionally low between species for uplisting. However, higher- (Region 6)—Since 1992, we have 2004 and 2010, increased during the wet priority listing actions, including court- received and reviewed six petitions year of 2011, and decreased again to approved settlements, court-ordered and requesting a change in status for the very low levels at present. statutory deadlines for petition findings Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear population The primary threats to the delta smelt and listing determinations, emergency (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR are direct entrainments by State and listing determinations, and responses to 8250, February 12, 1993; 58 FR 43856, Federal water export facilities, summer litigation, continue to preclude August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, and fall increases in salinity and water reclassifying the Pariette cactus. 1998; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999; 81 FR clarity resulting from decreases in Furthermore, proposed rules to 1368, January 12, 2016). In response to freshwater flow into the estuary, and reclassify threatened species to these petitions, in an August 29, 2011, effects from introduced species. endangered are generally a lower 5-year status review, we determined that Ammonia in the form of ammonium priority than listing currently grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak may also be a significant threat to the unprotected species (i.e., candidate ecosystem warranted a change to survival of the delta smelt. Additional species), as species currently listed as endangered status. However, in the 2014 potential threats are predation by threatened are already afforded the CNOR (79 FR 72450; December 5, 2014), striped and largemouth bass and inland protection of the ESA and the we determined that threatened status silversides, contaminants, and small implementing regulations. was appropriate and that uplisting to population size. Existing regulatory We continue to find that endangered status was no longer mechanisms have not proven adequate reclassification of this species to warranted. This decision was to halt the decline of delta smelt since endangered is warranted but precluded challenged in court (Alliance for the 1993, when we listed the delta smelt as as of the date of publication of this Wild Rockies v. Ryan Zinke et al. (Case a threatened species (58 FR 12854; notice. (See 72 FR 53211, September 18, No. 9:16–cv–00021–DLC)), and on March 5, 1993). 2007, and the species assessment form August 22, 2017, the court ruled against As a result of our analysis of the best (see ADDRESSES) for additional the Service. The court reinstated the scientific and commercial data information on why reclassification to previous finding that uplisting the available, we have retained the endangered is warranted but precluded.) Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of recommendation of uplisting the delta However, we are working on a thorough grizzly bears was warranted but smelt to an endangered species. We review of all available data and expect precluded, with an LPN of 3 for the have assigned an LPN of 2, based on the to publish a 5-year status review and uplisting based on high-magnitude high magnitude and high imminence of draft recovery plan prior to making the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54753

next annual resubmitted petition 12- proposed rule to list as endangered or Species in Table 2 of this notice are month finding. In the course of threatened in the Federal Register. This those we included either as proposed preparing a 5-year status review and category does not include species for species or as candidates in the previous draft recovery plan, we are continuing which we have withdrawn or finalized CNORs (published December 2, 2016, at to monitor new information about this the proposed rule. 81 FR 87246 for domestic species and species’ status. PT—Species proposed for listing as October 17, 2016, at 81 FR 71457 for Current Notice of Review threatened. foreign species) that are no longer PSAT—Species proposed for listing as proposed species or candidates for We gather data on plants and animals threatened due to similarity of listing. Since December 2, 2016, for native and foreign to the United States appearance. domestic species and October 17, 2016, that appear to merit consideration for C—Candidates: Species for which we for foreign species, we listed 17 species, addition to the Lists of Endangered and have on file sufficient information on withdrew 4 species from proposed Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). biological vulnerability and threats to status, and removed 8 species from the This notice identifies those species that support proposals to list them as candidate list by making not-warranted we currently regard as candidates for endangered or threatened. Issuance of findings or withdrawing proposed rules. addition to the Lists. These candidates proposed rules for these species is The first column indicates the present include species and subspecies of fish, precluded at present by other higher status of each species, using the wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of priority listing actions. This category following codes (not all of these codes vertebrate animals. This compilation includes species for which we made a may have been used in this CNOR): relies on information from status 12-month warranted-but-precluded E—Species we listed as endangered. surveys conducted for candidate finding on a petition to list. Our analysis T—Species we listed as threatened. assessment and on information from for this notice included making new SAT—Species we listed as threatened State Natural Heritage Programs, other findings on all petitions for which we due to similarity of appearance. State and Federal agencies, previously made ‘‘warranted-but- Rc—Species we removed from the knowledgeable scientists, public and precluded’’ findings. We identify the candidate list, because currently private natural resource interests, and species for which we made a continued available information does not support comments received in response to warranted-but-precluded finding on a a proposed listing. previous notices of review. resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ Rp—Species we removed from the Tables 1 and 2, below, list animals candidate list, because we have arranged alphabetically by common in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for withdrawn the proposed listing. names under the major group headings, The second column indicates why the additional information). and list plants alphabetically by names species is no longer a candidate species The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the of genera, species, and relevant or proposed for listing, using the LPN for each candidate species, which subspecies and varieties. Animals are following codes (not all of these codes we use to determine the most grouped by class or order. Useful may have been used in this CNOR): synonyms and subgeneric scientific appropriate use of our available A—Species that are more abundant or names appear in parentheses with the resources. The lowest numbers have the widespread than previously believed synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ highest priority. We assign LPNs based and species that are not subject to the sign. Several species that have not yet on the immediacy and magnitude of degree of threats sufficient that the been formally described in the scientific threats, as well as on taxonomic status. species is a candidate for listing (for literature are included; such species are We published a complete description of reasons other than that conservation identified by a generic or specific name our listing priority system in the efforts have removed or reduced the (in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’ Federal Register (48 FR 43098; threats to the species). We incorporate standardized common September 21, 1983). F—Species whose range no longer names in these notices as they become The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ includes a U.S. territory. available. We sort plants by scientific identifies the Regional Office to which I—Species for which the best name due to the inconsistencies in you should direct information, available information on biological common names, the inclusion of comments, or questions regarding vulnerability and threats is insufficient vernacular and composite subspecific domestic species (see addresses under to support a conclusion that the species names, and the fact that many plants Request for Information, below). For is an endangered species or a threatened still lack a standardized common name. species foreign to the United States, you species. Table 1 lists all candidate species, should direct information, comments, or L—Species we added to the Lists of plus species currently proposed for questions to the office of the Chief, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listing under the ESA. We emphasize Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species and Plants. that in this notice we are not proposing (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). M—Species we mistakenly included to list any of the candidate species; Following the scientific name (fourth as candidates or proposed species in the rather, we will develop and publish column) and the family designation last notice of review. proposed listing rules for these species (fifth column) is the common name N—Species that are not listable in the future. We encourage State (sixth column). The seventh column entities based on the ESA’s definition of agencies, other Federal agencies, and provides the known historical range for ‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic other parties to consider these species in the species or vertebrate population (for understanding. environmental planning. vertebrate populations, this is the U—Species that are not subject to the In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on historical range for the entire species or degree of threats sufficient to warrant the left side of the table identifies the subspecies and not just the historical issuance of a proposed listing and status of each species according to the range for the distinct population therefore are not candidates for listing, following codes: segment), indicated by postal code due, in part or totally, to conservation PE—Species proposed for listing as abbreviations for States and U.S. efforts that remove or reduce the threats endangered. Proposed species are those territories. Many species no longer to the species. species for which we have published a occur in all of the areas listed. X—Species we believe to be extinct.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54754 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

The columns describing lead region, Pacific Northwest. Hawaii, Idaho, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK scientific name, family, common name, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, 99503–6199 (907/786–3505). and historical range include information Guam, and Commonwealth of the Pacific Southwest. California and as previously described for Table 1. Northern Mariana Islands. Regional Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Request for Information Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA We request you submit any further NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– 95825 (916/414–6464). information on the species named in 4181 (503/231–6158). We will provide information we this notice as soon as possible or Southwest. Arizona, New Mexico, receive to the Region having lead whenever it becomes available. We are Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director responsibility for each candidate species particularly interested in any (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 mentioned in the submission, and information: Gold Avenue SW, Room 4012, information and comments we receive (1) Indicating that we should add a Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248– will become part of the administrative species to the list of candidate species; 6920). record for the species, which we (2) Indicating that we should remove Midwest. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, maintain at the appropriate Regional a species from candidate status; Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Office. (3) Recommending areas for domestic and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), For species foreign to the United species that we should designate as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 States, submit information, materials, or critical habitat, or indicating that American Blvd. West, Suite 990, comments regarding a particular species designation of critical habitat would not Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/ to the office of the Chief, Branch of be prudent; 713–5334). Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR (4) Documenting threats to any of the Southeast. Alabama, Arkansas, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). included species; Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Public Availability of Comments (5) Describing the immediacy or Mississippi, North Carolina, South magnitude of threats facing candidate Carolina, Tennessee, , and Before including your address, phone species; the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional number, email address, or other (6) Pointing out taxonomic or Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife personal identifying information in your nomenclature changes for any of the Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite submission, be advised that your entire species; 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/679–4156). submission—including your personal (7) Suggesting appropriate common Northeast. Connecticut, Delaware, identifying information—may be made names; and District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, publicly available at any time. Although (8) Noting any mistakes, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New you can ask us in your submission to errors in the indicated historical ranges. Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode withhold from public review your We will consider all information Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West personal identifying information, we provided in response to this CNOR in Virginia. Regional Director (TE), U.S. cannot guarantee that we will be able to deciding whether to propose species for Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate do so. listing and when to undertake necessary Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589 Authority listing actions (including whether (413/253–8615). emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) Mountain-Prairie. Colorado, Kansas, This notice is published under the of the ESA is appropriate). Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, authority of the Endangered Species Act For domestic species, submit South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et information, materials, or comments Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and seq.). regarding a particular species to the Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Dated: September 24, 2019. Regional Director of the Region Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO Margaret E. Everson, identified as having the lead 80225–0486 (303/236–7400). Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and responsibility for that species. The Alaska. Alaska. Regional Director Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of regional addresses follow: (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS) [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

Mammals

C * ...... 6 Southwest ...... Tamias minimus atristriatus .... Sciuridae ...... Chipmunk, Pen˜asco least ...... U.S.A. (NM). PT ...... Pacific South- Pekania pennanti ...... Mustelidae ...... Fisher (West Coast DPS) ...... U.S.A (CA, OR, WA). west. C * ...... 3 Pacific South- Vulpes vulpes necator ...... Canidae ...... Fox, Sierra Nevada red (Sierra U.S.A. (CA, OR). west. Nevada DPS). PT ...... Pacific South- Martes caurina ssp. Mustelidae ...... Marten, Humboldt ...... U.S.A. (CA). west. humboldtensis. C * ...... 9 Pacific ...... Arborimus longicaudus ...... Cricetidae ...... Vole, red tree (north Oregon U.S.A. (OR). coast DPS). PT ...... 6 Mountain-Prairie Gulo gulo luscus ...... Mustelidae ...... Wolverine, North American U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR, (Contiguous U.S. DPS). UT, WA, WY).

Birds

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54755

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

C * ...... 6 ...... Strepera graculina crissalis ..... Cracticidae ...... Currawong, Lord Howe Island Lord Howe Island, New South pied. Wales. C * ...... 8 ...... Haematopus chathamensis ..... Haematopodidae .. Oystercatcher, Chatham ...... Chatham Islands, New Zea- land. C * ...... 8 ...... Cyanoramphus malherbi ...... ...... Parakeet, orange-fronted ...... New Zealand. PT ...... Southeast ...... Pterodroma hasitata ...... Procellariidae ...... Petrel, black-capped ...... U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC). C * ...... 2 ...... Rallus semiplumbeus ...... Rallidae ...... Rail, Bogota´ ...... Colombia. PT ...... Southeast ...... Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. Rallidae ...... Rail, eastern black ...... U.S.A. (AL, AK, CO, CT, DE, jamaicensis. 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). PT ...... Pacific South- Centrocercus urophasianus .... Phasianidae ...... Sage-Grouse, Greater (Bi- U.S.A (CA, NV). west. State DPS). C * ...... 8 ...... Porphyrio hochstetteri ...... Rallidae ...... Takahe ...... New Zealand. C * ...... 8 ...... Tangara peruviana ...... Thraupidae ...... Tanager, black-backed ...... Brazil. C * ...... 8 ...... Scytalopus novacapitalis ...... Rhinocryptidae ..... Tapaculo, Brasilia ...... Brazil. C * ...... 2 ...... Aulacorhynchus huallagae ...... Ramphastidae ...... Toucanet, yellow-browed ...... Peru. C * ...... 2 ...... Zosterops luteirostris ...... Zosteropidae ...... White-eye, Ghizo ...... Solomon Islands. C * ...... 8 ...... Dryocopus galeatus ...... Picidae ...... Woodpecker, helmeted ...... Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay. C * ...... 2 ...... Dendrocopos noguchii ...... Picidae ...... Woodpecker, Okinawa ...... Okinawa Island, Japan.

Reptiles

C * ...... 8 Southeast ...... Gopherus polyphemus ...... Testudinidae ...... Tortoise, gopher (eastern pop- U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, ulation). SC).

Amphibians

PE ...... Midwest ...... Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Cryptobranchidae Hellbender, eastern (Missouri U.S.A. (MO). alleganiensis. DPS). C * ...... 8 Southeast ...... Gyrinophilus gulolineatus ...... Plethodontidae ..... Salamander, Berry Cave ...... U.S.A. (TN). PT ...... Southeast ...... Necturus lewisi ...... Proteidae ...... Waterdog, Neuse River ...... U.S.A. (NC).

Fishes

PE ...... Southeast ...... Noturus furiosus ...... ...... Madtom, Carolina ...... U.S.A. (NC). C * ...... 6 Pacific South- Spirinchus thaleichthys ...... Osmeridae ...... Smelt, longfin (San Francisco U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA), west. Bay–Delta DPS). Canada. PE ...... N/A ...... Acipenser dabryanus ...... Acipenseridae ...... Sturgeon, Yangtze ...... China. PE ...... Southeast ...... Fundulus julisia ...... Fundulidae ...... Topminnow, Barrens ...... U.S.A. (TN). PSAT ...... N/A Pacific ...... Salvelinus malma ...... Salmonidae ...... Trout, Dolly Varden ...... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada, East Asia.

Clams

C * ...... 8 ...... Mulinia modesta ...... Mactridae ...... Clam, Colorado delta ...... Mexico. C * ...... 2 Southwest ...... Lampsilis bracteata ...... ...... Fatmucket, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). C * ...... 2 Southwest ...... Truncilla macrodon ...... Unionidae ...... Fawnsfoot, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). PT ...... Southeast ...... Fusconaia masoni ...... Unionidae ...... Pigtoe, Atlantic ...... U.S.A. (GA, NC, VA). C * ...... 2 Southwest ...... Quadrula petrina ...... Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX).

Snails

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

Insects

C * ...... 5 Pacific South- Lycaena hermes ...... Lycaenidae ...... Butterfly, Hermes copper ...... U.S.A. (CA). west. PE ...... 3 Pacific ...... Euchloe ausonides insulanus Pieridae ...... Butterfly, Island marble ...... U.S.A. (WA). C * ...... 2 Southeast ...... Atlantea tulita ...... Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Puerto Rican har- U.S.A. (PR). lequin. C * ...... 8 Midwest ...... Papaipema eryngii ...... Noctuidae ...... Moth, rattlesnake-master borer U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, OK). PT ...... 5 Mountain-Prairie Lednia tumana ...... Nemouridae ...... Stonefly, meltwater lednian ..... U.S.A. (MT). PT ...... Mountain-Prairie Zapada glacier ...... Nemouridae ...... Stonefly, western glacier ...... U.S.A. (MT). C * ...... 2 ...... Parides ascanius ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, fluminense ...... Brazil. C * ...... 2 ...... Parides hahneli ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Hahnel’s Amazo- Brazil. nian. C * ...... 3 ...... Mimoides ( = Eurytides or Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Harris’ mimic ...... Brazil. Graphium) lysithous harrisianus. C * ...... 2 ...... Protographium ( = Eurytides or Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Jamaican kite ...... Jamaica. Graphium or Neographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 54756 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

C * ...... 8 ...... Teinopalpus imperialis ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Kaiser-i-Hind ...... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam.

Crustaceans

PT ...... Southeast ...... Procambarus econfinae ...... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Panama City ...... U.S.A. (FL). PT ...... Southeast ...... Cambarus cracens ...... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, slenderclaw ...... U.S.A. (AL).

Flowering Plants

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

TABLE 2—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 Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

Mammals

Rc ...... A Alaska ...... Odobenus rosmarus divergens Odobenidae ...... Walrus, Pacific ...... U.S.A. (AK), Russia.

Birds

T ...... L Pacific ...... Drepanis coccinea ...... Fringillidae ...... Iiwi (honeycreeper) ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... Ara macao ssp. cyanopterus .. Psittacidae ...... Macaw, scarlet ...... Belize, , Guate- mala, , Mexico, , Panama. T ...... L ...... Ara macao ssp. macao ...... Psittacidae ...... Macaw, scarlet (northern DPS) Colombia, Costa Rica, Pan- ama. SAT ...... L ...... Ara macao ssp. macao ...... Psittacidae ...... Macaw, scarlet (southern Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ec- DPS). uador, French Guiana, Guy- ana, Peru, Suriname, Ven- ezuela. Rc ...... A ...... Eunymphicus uvaeensis ...... Psittacidae ...... Parakeet, Uvea ...... Uvea, New Caledonia. Rc ...... A Southwest ...... Amazona viridigenalis ...... Psittacidae ...... Parrot, red-crowned ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.

Reptiles

T ...... L Midwest ...... Sistrurus catenatus ...... Viperidae ...... Massasauga ( = rattlesnake), U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, eastern. MO, NY, OH, PA, WI), Can- ada. E ...... L Southwest ...... Kinosternon sonoriense Kinosternidae ...... Turtle, Sonoyta mud ...... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. longifemorale.

Amphibians

Rc ...... A Southeast ...... Notophthalmus perstriatus ...... Salamandridae ..... Newt, striped ...... U.S.A. (FL, GA). E ...... L Southeast ...... Necturus alabamensis ...... Proteidae ...... Waterdog, black warrior ( = U.S.A. (AL). Sipsey Fork).

Fishes

Rp ...... N Southwest ...... Gila nigra ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, headwater ...... U.S.A (AZ, NM). Rp ...... N Southwest ...... Gila robusta ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, roundtail (Lower Colo- U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY). rado River Basin DPS). E ...... L Northeast ...... Crystallaria cincotta ...... Percidae ...... Darter, diamond ...... U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV). T ...... L Southeast ...... Percina aurora ...... Percidae ...... Darter, pearl ...... U.S.A. (LA, MS).

Clams

E ...... L Southwest ...... Popenaias popei ...... Unionidae ...... Hornshell, Texas ...... U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico. Rc ...... N Southwest ...... Quadrula aurea ...... Unionidae ...... Orb, golden ...... U.S.A. (TX). Rc ...... N Southwest ...... Quadrula houstonensis ...... Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, smooth ...... U.S.A. (TX).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules 54757

TABLE 2—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 Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

Insects

E ...... L Midwest ...... Bombus affinis ...... Apidae ...... Bee, rusty patched bumble ..... U.S.A. (CT, DE, DC, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI), Can- ada (Ontario, Quebec).

Rc ...... N Mountain-Prairie Arsapnia ( = Capnia) arapahoe Capniidae ...... Snowfly, Arapahoe ...... U.S.A. (CO).

Crustaceans

Rp ...... I Northeast ...... Stygobromus kenki ...... Crangonyctidae .... Amphipod, Kenk’s ...... U.S.A. (DC, MD, VA).

Flowering Plants

Rc ...... A Mountain-Prairie Boechera ( = Arabis) pusilla ... Brassicaceae ...... Rockcress, Fremont County or U.S.A. (WY). small. T ...... L Southeast ...... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ..... Sandmat, pineland ...... U.S.A. (FL). pinetorum. Rp ...... A Pacific South- Chorizanthe parryi var. Polygonaceae ...... Spineflower, San Fernando U.S.A. (CA). west. fernandina. Valley. E ...... L Southeast ...... Dalea carthagenensis var. Fabaceae ...... Prairie-clover, Florida ...... U.S.A. (FL). floridana. T ...... L Southeast ...... Digitaria pauciflora ...... Poaceae ...... Crabgrass, Florida pineland .... U.S.A. (FL). Rc ...... A Mountain-Prairie Eriogonum soredium ...... Polygonaceae ...... Buckwheat, Frisco ...... U.S.A. (UT). E ...... L Southwest ...... Festuca ligulata ...... Poaceae ...... Fescue, Guadalupe ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. Rc ...... A Mountain-Prairie Lepidium ostleri ...... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, Ostler’s ...... U.S.A. (UT). E ...... L Pacific ...... Sicyos macrophyllus ...... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI). T ...... L Southeast ...... Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. Sapotaceae ...... Bully, Everglades ...... U.S.A. (FL). austrofloridense. Rc ...... A Mountain-Prairie Trifolium friscanum ...... Fabaceae ...... Clover, Frisco ...... U.S.A. (UT).

[FR Doc. 2019–21478 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:46 Oct 09, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM 10OCP2