[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42238-42251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17526]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0041; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Six Sand Dune Beetles as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list six Nevada sand dune beetle
species as endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In our 90-
day finding on this petition (76 FR 47123, August 4, 2011), we
determined that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted for four of the six species:
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab (Aegialia crescenta), Crescent Dunes
serican scarab (Serica ammomenisco), large aegialian scarab (Aegialia
magnifica), and Giuliani's dune scarab (Pseudocotalpa giulianii). We
also determined that the petition did not present substantial
information indicating that listing the other two species, Hardy's
aegialian scarab (Aegialia hardyi) and Sand Mountain serican scarab
(Serica psammobunus), may be warranted. We therefore initiated status
reviews on only the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes
serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab.
After review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing these four beetle species is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any
new information that becomes available concerning the threats to these
four beetle species or their habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 18,
2012.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0041. The
supporting documentation used in preparing this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office,
4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 775-
861-6300; or by facsimile at 775-861-6301. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing a species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of
the petition. In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the
immediate proposal
[[Page 42239]]
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Petition History
On February 2, 2010, we received a petition dated January 29, 2010,
from WildEarth Guardians (referred to below as the petitioner). The
petitioner requested that the Service list six species of sand dune
beetles in Nevada as endangered or threatened, and designate critical
habitat, under the Act. The six beetle species are Hardy's aegialian
scarab (Aegialia hardyi), Sand Mountain serican scarab (Serica
psammobunus), Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab (A. crescenta), Crescent
Dunes serican scarab (S. ammomenisco), large aegialian scarab (A.
magnifica), and Giuliani's dune scarab (Pseudocotalpa giulianii).
Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution,
current status, and actual and potential causes of decline.
On March 12, 2010, we acknowledged receipt of the petition in a
letter to the petitioner. We informed the petitioner that we reviewed
the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing
an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section
4(b)(7) of the Act was not necessary. We also stated that we
anticipated making an initial finding in fiscal year 2010.
On August 4, 2011, we made our 90-day finding that the petition did
not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing two of the six beetle species, the Hardy's aegialian
scarab and Sand Mountain serican scarab, may be warranted (76 FR 47123,
August 4, 2011). Therefore, no further action is required on the
petition as it relates to these two species. However, we determined
that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing of the other four beetle species,
the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab,
large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab, may be warranted.
At that time, we initiated a review of the status of these species to
determine if listing these four beetle species is warranted.
This notice constitutes the status review on the Crescent Dunes
aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian
scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab and the 12-month finding on the
February 2, 2010, petition to list these species as endangered or
threatened and to designate critical habitat under the Act.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 10, 1978, the Service proposed to list Giuliani's dune
scarab as threatened, citing the effects of off-road vehicle (ORV) use
(43 FR 35636). The Service stated that ORV activity compacts dead
organic matter accumulated on dune slopes and prevents its buildup,
thereby destroying the larval habitat of the beetle. The proposed rule
also determined that there were no State and Federal laws protecting
the species and its habitat. Included in the proposed rule was a
proposal to designate critical habitat at Big Dune, Nye County, Nevada.
On October 1, 1980, the Service withdrew the proposal to list
Giuliani's dune scarab (45 FR 65137). We took this action because, at
that time, amendments to the Act mandated that we withdraw any proposed
rules to list species that we had not finalized within 2 years of the
proposal.
In 1984, 1989, and 1991, we published notices of review that
identified Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, large aegialian scarab, and
Giuliani's dune scarab as candidates under consideration for addition
to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (49 FR 21664, May 22,
1984; 54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991). In
each notice of review, each beetle was identified as a category 2
candidate. Category 2 candidates were those for which the Service
possessed information indicating that listing as endangered or
threatened was possibly appropriate but for which conclusive data on
biological vulnerability and threats were not currently available to
support a proposed rule.
On February 28, 1996, the Service adopted a single category of
candidate species and no longer considered category 2 species as
candidates (61 FR 7595), thus removing the beetles from consideration.
The decision to stop considering category 2 species as candidates was
designed to reduce confusion about the status of these species and to
clarify that we no longer regarded these species as candidates for
listing.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
As a whole, the invertebrates of Nevada are poorly studied, and
there is limited life-history information for these sand dune beetle
species (NDOW 2006, p. 12). However, the taxonomic information is
available and was reviewed to reach the conclusion that each of these
species is a valid taxon. All four of the beetle species are
taxonomically categorized as follows: Kingdom Animalia, Phylum
Mandibulata, Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera, Superfamily
Scarabaeoidea, Family Scarabaeidae.
The Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab (Subfamily Aphodiinae, Tribe
Aegialiini (Brown 1931, pp. 9, 11-12), Aegialia crescenta) was first
described in 1977 (Gordon and Cartwright 1977, pp. 45-47) and
genetically analyzed in 1997 (Porter and Rust 1997, pp. 304, 306, 308).
These beetles are 3.75 to 5.00 millimeters (mm) (about 0.19 inch (in))
long and 2.05 to 2.70 mm (less than 0.13 in) wide (Gordon and
Cartwright 1977, p. 45). The adults are dark reddish brown with
yellowish underside, legs, and mouthparts. Little is known about the
larvae of the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab.
The Crescent Dunes serican scarab (Subfamily Melolonthinae, Tribe
Sericini (Hayes 1929, p. 26), Serica ammomenisco) (errantly spelled
ammomensico in some texts) was first described in 1987 (Hardy and
Andrews 1987, pp. 173-174). The name is derived from the Greek ammo
(sand) and menisco (crescent) and refers to the only place they are
known to occur, Crescent Dunes. These beetles are 6.5 to 8.2 mm (0.25
to 0.33 in) long and 3.4 mm (0.13 in) wide (Hardy and Andrews 1987, p.
173). The adults have a black head and thorax with dark brown legs;
however, their color ranges from pale brown to brownish black (Hardy
and Andrews 1987, p. 173). They are recognized by the band of pale
hairs behind the top of the head (clypeus), their relatively light
coloration, and the unique genitalia of the males (Hardy and Andrews
1987, p. 173). Little is known about larvae of the Crescent Dunes
serican scarab.
The large aegialian scarab (Subfamily Aphodiinae, Tribe Aegialiini
(Brown 1931, pp. 9, 11-12), Aegialia magnifica) also was first
described by Gordon and Cartwright in 1977 (pp. 43-45) and genetically
analyzed in 1995 (Porter and Rust 1996, pp. 711, 716, 718; 1997, pp.
304, 306, 308). These beetles are 4.40 to
[[Page 42240]]
5.90 mm (about 0.25 in) long and 2.48 to 3.25 mm (less than 0.25 in)
wide (Gordon and Cartwright 1977, p. 43). The adults are pale red with
yellowish-red mouthparts and underside. They have a smooth upper back
and do not have wings. Little is known about the larvae of the large
aegialian scarab.
The Giuliani's dune scarab (Subfamily Rutelinae, Tribe Rutelini
(Hayes 1929, p. 29), Pseudocotalpa giulianii) was first described by
Hardy in 1974 (pp. 243-247). These beetles are 17 to 25 mm (0.75 to 1
in) long and 7 to 10 mm (0.25 to 0.50 in) wide (Hardy 1974 p. 244). The
adults are light tan with a more yellowish head; the legs are darker
tan with reddish brown feet (tarsi) and claws. Males and females are
similar in appearance, but easily distinguished by the size of the
claws at the end of their rear legs; female claws are equal whereas the
outer claw of the male is twice as long as the inner (Rust 1985, p.
105). Larvae average 12 mm (0.47 in) in length and resemble a white
grub (Rust 1985, p. 108).
These four beetle species are not vertebrates and therefore the
Service's Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment policy (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996) does not apply.
Habitat
Many genera of Scarabaeidae in North American deserts, including
these four dune beetle species, occur in vegetated, unstable, sandy
areas around sand dunes. The dunes and surrounding unstable, sandy
areas are created by sand that is carried by wind from dry lakebeds
upwind of the dunes. These four beetle species burrow and live in loose
sand, eat decomposed plant matter, and mate on live vegetation (Hardy
1971, pp. 240-241; 1976, pp. 301-302; Gordon and Cartwright 1977, p.
42; Hardy and Andrew 1987, p. 178; Rust 1982, pp. 3-4). The beetles
need moist sand to protect them from temperature extremes (both hot and
cold) and drying out (Porter and Rust 1996, p. 709; Service 2012a, p.
3).
Distribution
The historical range of each of these four beetle species is
unknown. It is also unknown whether the range of any of the four
species has changed since they were first described in the 1970s and
1980s.
Based on surveys conducted in January 2012, the current known range
of the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab is limited to 6,594 ha (16,295
ac) of BLM-administered lands at two main sand dunes--Crescent Dunes
and San Antonio Dunes, within a larger dune complex in Big Smoky Valley
(Nachlinger et al. 2001, p. A10-82; Service 2012a, pp. 1, 5). Crescent
Dunes is a 402-hectare (ha) (996-acre (ac)) complex of crescent-shaped
sand dunes located about 19 kilometers (km) (12 miles (mi)) northwest
of Tonopah, Nye County, Nevada (NRCS 1972, pp. 23, 55, Maps 15, 18, 21;
2006a, p. 1). Crescent Dunes is created by prevailing winds from the
northwest, which are primarily associated with Pacific Ocean Cell
winter storms (i.e., El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a) (Parsons 2010,
p. 15). Studies indicate that the Crescent Dunes system has moved less
than 76 meters (m) (250 feet (ft)) southeast since 1954 (Parsons 2010,
pp. 18-19). San Antonio Dunes is a 751-ha (1,856-ac) complex of dunes
located approximately 24 km (15 mi) north of Crescent Dunes at the
northern edge of the San Antonio Mountains. It is likely that San
Antonio Dunes is created by the same prevailing wind that has created
Crescent Dunes.
Based on surveys conducted in January 2012, the current known range
of the Crescent Dunes serican scarab is restricted to 5,843 ha (14,439
ac) of BLM-administered land at Crescent Dunes (at this time it is
unknown if it occurs at the nearby San Antonio Dunes) (Hardy and Andrew
1987, p. 178; Gordon and Cartwright 1977, p. 45; Hardy and Andrews
1987, p. 173; Service 2012a, p. 1). The species' range estimates are
larger than the areas of the dunes (as indicated above) because the
beetles occur on the dune and in sandy areas surrounding the dune.
It is unknown if the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and the
Crescent Dunes serican scarab also occur at sand dunes on BLM-
administered lands near Millers, Nevada, and about 40 km (25 mi)
southwest of the Crescent Dunes. These dunes are part of the same
larger dune complex as Crescent Dunes within Big Smoky Valley (BLM and
DOE 2010, pp. 11.7-60; Service 2012a, p. 1). Gordon and Cartwright
reported a record for the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab at Game Range
Dunes in Clark County, Nevada (1988, p. 18). However, we have no other
information confirming that the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab occurs
anywhere other than at Crescent Dunes and San Antonio Dunes. Presence
of the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab at Game Range Dunes is unlikely
because these dunes are located approximately 200 km (125 mi) southeast
of Crescent Dunes.
The current known range of the large aegialian scarab and
Giuliani's dune scarab is restricted to two sand dune complexes on BLM-
administered lands--Big Dune (also called Amargosa Dunes) and Lava Dune
(Hardy 1974, pp. 243-247; Gordon and Cartwright 1977, pp. 43-45; Porter
and Rust 1996, p. 718; Service 2011a, pp. 1-12; 2011b p. 1-7; 2012b pp.
1-4). Big Dune is a 305-ha (753-ac) complex star sand dune located 16.5
km (10 mi) west of Lathrop Wells, Nye County, Nevada (NRCS 1998, p. 35,
Map 33). It is formed from prevailing winds from the northeast (PSI
2009, p. F-21); however, the wind directions at Big Dune vary
seasonally and are also out of the southeast (BLM and DOE 2010, p.
11.1-209). Lava Dune is a 170-ha (420-ac) dune located 6 km (4.5 mi)
east of Big Dune, which was formed from sand trapped at the base of an
old volcanic cinder cone and lava flow (NRCS 2006b, p. 1).
Based on surveys conducted in February 2012, the estimated range of
the large aegialian scarab is 490 ha (1,212 ac) of BLM-administered
land at Big Dune and approximately 200 ha (494 ac) of BLM-administered
land at Lava Dune (Service 2011a, pp. 3-4; 2012b, p. 3). The species'
range estimate is larger than the areas of the dunes (as indicated
above) because the beetle occurs on the dune and in sandy and vegetated
areas surrounding the dune. The large aegialian scarab has a patchy
distribution, but occurs underneath every species of live vegetation
throughout the Big Dune area (Service 2012b p. 2).
Based on surveys conducted in April 2011, the estimated range of
the Giuliani's dune scarab is 307 ha (759 ac) of BLM-administered land
at Big Dune and 200 ha (494 ac) of BLM-administered land at Lava Dune
(Service 2012b, p. 3). The species' range estimate is larger than the
areas of the dunes (as indicated above) because the beetle occurs on
the dune and in sandy areas surrounding the dune. The Giuliani's dune
scarab has a clumped distribution and uses the north face of the dune
more heavily than the south and west faces (BLM 2007, p. 4; Boyd 2010,
pp. 2, 6-7). Three other dune complexes located near Big Dune and Lava
Dune--the Skeleton Hills, Dumont Dunes, and Ibex Dune--have been
surveyed for Giuliani's dune scarab, but none were found (Hardy and
Andrews 1976, pp. 1-44; Rust 1982, p. 2).
Biology and Population Abundance
Crescent Dunes Aegialian Scarab and Crescent Dunes Serican Scarab--
Little is known about the population abundance or biology of the
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and Crescent Dunes serican scarab.
During a survey in January 2012, the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab
was observed beneath every species of live plant surrounding the dunes,
such as Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Atriplex
[[Page 42241]]
spp. (saltbush), and Salsola spp. (tumbleweed) (Service 2012a, p. 3).
The sex ratio of Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab at Crescent Dunes was
one male to one female (Service 2012a, p. 5). We reviewed other
regional sand dune-obligate beetles as surrogates, but did not locate
life-history information for the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and
Crescent Dunes serican scarab (Gordon 1975, pp. 173-175; Gordon and
Cartwright 1977, pp. 47-48; Andrews et al. 1979, p. 19; Rust 1986, pp.
47-51; Service 1992, pp. 1-5; Britten and Rust 1996, pp. 649-651; Van
Dam and Van Dam 2006, pp. 31-35). However, it is likely the Crescent
Dunes aegialian scarab has similar life history to the large aegialian
scarab because they are taxonomically related and genetically similar
(Porter and Rust 1997, pp. 304, 306, 308).
Large Aegialian Scarab--Both adult and larval large aegialian
scarabs live beneath any species of live plant throughout the Big Dune
area, such as Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) and Salsola spp. (Rust
1995, p. 7; Service 2012b, p. 2). They burrow into loose sand to access
wet sand (Hardy and Andrew 1987, p. 175). The year-round wet sand is
usually 0.5 to 1.0 m (1.6 to 3.3 ft) under the surface. They can be
located from October to April by sifting moist sand 8 to 33 centimeters
(cm) (3 to 13 in) deep beneath dune plants (Rust 1995, p. 6). Adult
large aegialian scarabs are most active from mid-February to late
April. Based on limited reported survey data, we were not able to
estimate population abundance for this species. In the only reported
survey, a combined total of 316 large aegialian scarabs were observed
at Big Dune from March to April 2007 (Boyd 2010, pp. 5-6). Presence of
large aegialian scarabs at Lava Dune was confirmed, but only limited
sampling occurred on December 17, 2007 (Boyd 2010, pp. 9-10).
Giuliani's Dune Scarab--Adult Giuliani's dune scarabs live
underneath vegetation closely surrounding the edge of the large dune,
and most commonly occur under Petalonyx thurberi (sandpaper plant)
(Rust 1995, p. 6; Boyd 2010, p. 10). They are only observed aboveground
when they emerge for 3 weeks from late April to early May. They emerge
for 5 to 30 minutes each evening to hover over and mate on shrub
vegetation and the sand surface (Hardy 1971, pp. 240-241; 1976, pp.
301-302; Rust 1982, pp. 3, 5; Service 2011a, pp. 2-5). Aboveground
mating activity is greatly reduced when it is cold and windy (Rust
1982, p. 4; 1985 p. 106; Boyd 2010, p. 4).
In trying to determine how long adult Giuliani's dune scarabs live,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) marked approximately 160 beetles
over a 3-week period in April 2011; only one adult beetle was
recaptured 1 week after its original capture (Service 2011a, p. 4). The
adults do not feed (Rust 1982, p. 9), and it is unknown how long they
live once they change from a grub (larva) to an adult.
Hardy (1976, pp. 301-302) reported a sex ratio of Giuliani's dune
scarabs at Big Dune of 1.3 males to 10 females, and Rust (1985, p. 108)
reported a ratio of 2.5 males to 10 females. In contrast to these sex
ratios, Boyd (2007, p. 3) reported that in a sample of 140 Giuliani's
dune scarabs collected at Big Dune, 136 were male and 4 were female.
Various factors influence the sex ratio of different samples, such as
collection method and timing.
Attempts to quantify adult population structure of Giuliani's dune
scarab, including population numbers, have failed (Rust 1985, pp. 106,
108; Murphy 2007, p. 1; Boyd 2010, pp. 3-4). In an unpublished report,
Rust (1982, p. 5) estimated that the adult Giuliani's beetle population
at Big Dune was between 1,000 and 5,000 individuals, but this estimate
was not based on count data. In a survey conducted around the perimeter
of Big Dune in 2007, adult Giuliani's dune scarabs were detected at
seven of eight survey sites on April 24, and at four of four survey
sites on May 1 (Boyd 2010, p. 2). Approximately 800 to 1,000 individual
Giuliani's dune scarabs were detected on the April 24 survey and 140
individuals were collected on May 1 (Boyd 2010, pp. 2-3). Approximately
40 individuals were detected at Lava Dune on a May 3, 2007, survey;
however, the sampling effort at Lava Dune was much lower than the
sampling effort at Big Dune (Boyd 2010, p. 3).
Larval Giuliani's dune scarabs also live beneath plants surrounding
the dune. We found no information on when the larvae emerge. Larvae are
an average 12 mm (0.5 in) in length and take 2 or more years to fully
develop (Rust 1982, p. 6). Only two Giuliani's dune scarab larvae have
been recovered and both occurred beneath Petalonyx thurberi at a depth
of 20 to 40 cm (8 to 16 in) (Rust 1982, p. 5; 1985, p. 108). Larvae
feed on accumulated plant debris at the base of shrubs (Rust 1982, pp.
4-5; 1985, p. 108; 1995, p. 6; Boyd 2010, p. 10).
Eggs of Giuliani's dune scarab are oval and measure 3.0 to 3.5 mm
(0.25 in) long by 2.5 to 3.0 mm (0.25 in) wide. Females examined in
1982 had an average of 4.2 eggs (Rust 1982, p. 5). We found no
information on egg placement; however, it is thought that eggs are
deposited in sand near shrub roots (Rust 1982, p. 5).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are
defined in the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof
of a significant threat. The combination of exposure and some
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could
suffice. However, the mere identification of factors that could impact
a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that the
species warrants listing. The information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats that act
on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of
endangered or threatened under the Act. A species may be endangered or
threatened based on the intensity or severity of one operative threat
alone or based on the synergistic effect of several operative threats
acting in concert.
In making this finding, we have considered and evaluated the best
available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large
aegialian scarab,
[[Page 42242]]
and Giuliani's dune scarab. We examined the petition, information in
our files, and other published and unpublished literature in relation
to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Additionally, we solicited information from the public, but did not
receive any response. We consulted with biologists from the BLM, the
Service, and the Nevada Natural Heritage Program.
Below we summarize the information regarding the status and threats
to the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab,
large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab in relation to the
five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
In this section, we describe and evaluate various conditions in
relation to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitats and ranges of the four beetle species. We
identified the following activities as potentially impacting the
species' habitats and ranges: Mining, solar development, off-road
vehicle recreation, commercial filming, and livestock grazing.
Mining
Mining removes vegetation and soil and alters surface water flows
and infiltration of water. Indirect effects of mining, such as
establishment of new roads to access mines and increased human
presence, cause increased vegetation impacts and beetle displacement.
Destruction of vegetation around dunes, disturbance of dune sand, and
disruption of reproductive behavior would reduce or eliminate sand dune
beetle populations because the larvae of the beetle use decomposed
organic matter as their primary food source and the adults mate on live
vegetation.
There are three different types of mineral resources on BLM-
administered lands: Locatable (such as iron and gold), leasable
(typically oil and gas), and salable (common materials such as sand,
gravel, clay, and lava rock) (BLM 2011, p. 10). Locatable minerals are
``claimed,'' while leasable and salable minerals are only offered by
the BLM upon request.
A mining claim is an administrative action in which a claimant
receives a possessory right to the subsurface mineral (BLM 2011a, p.
7). The BLM cannot deny a mining claim because the General Mining Law
of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) gives a person a statutory right to the
claim. However, a claim does not authorize surface disturbance. In
order to extract the mineral, the claimant must file a plan of
operation (BLM 2011a, p. 29). An approved plan of operation allows the
claimant to obtain surface rights and begin mining operations (BLM
2011a, p. 33).
Once a request to develop (extract) any mineral resource, including
locatable, leasable, and salable minerals, the BLM must go through
several steps. First, an interdisciplinary team of professional
resource specialists (e.g., hydrologists, biologists, geologists, and
archeologists) reviews the plan of operation. These specialists are
able to make recommendations on project design and implementation to
reduce impacts to wildlife, plants, and other resources. Then, the BLM
must solicit input from the public and other Federal agencies on the
plan of operation, as required under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Using this
input, the BLM may further amend the project's design and
implementation, or it may reject the plan of operation. If the BLM
grants the permit for mineral development, it maintains discretion over
how and when these operations proceed through the terms of the right-
of-way (ROW) grant under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and the regulations in
parts 2800 and 3000 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43
CFR 2800 and 43 CFR 3000).
BLM classifies each of the four dune beetles addressed in this
finding as a sensitive species (BLM 2003, p. 6). BLM manages sensitive
species in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 Release 6-125, revised on
December 12, 2008 (BLM 2008b). BLM defines sensitive species as
``species that require special management or considerations to avoid
potential future listing'' (BLM 2008b, Glossary, p. 5). The stated
objective for sensitive species is to initiate proactive conservation
measures that reduce or eliminate threats to minimize the likelihood of
and need for listing under the Act (BLM 2008b, Section 6840.02).
Conservation, as it applies to BLM sensitive species, is defined as
``the use of programs, plans, and management practices to reduce or
eliminate threats affecting the status of the species, or improve the
condition of the species' habitat on BLM-administered lands'' (BLM
2008b, Glossary, p. 2).
Locatables--The areas around Crescent Dunes and San Antonio Dunes
have low potential for locatable minerals (BLM 1997, Map 32).
Historically, there have been no locatable mining claims at Crescent
Dunes and four claims at San Antonio Dunes. Currently, there are no
locatable mining claims on Crescent Dunes or San Antonio Dunes.
Although it is possible that mining claims may be filed in the future,
the low potential for locatable minerals and low number of historical
claims indicate that such future claims are unlikely. If development of
any mining claims is requested, BLM must evaluate potential effects to
these dune beetles and adhere to their sensitive species policy, and
the Service would have the opportunity to provide recommendations to
protect these beetles under the NEPA process.
The areas around Big Dune and Lava Dune have no potential for
locatable minerals (Castor et al. 2006, pp. L2-L3). Prior to 2006,
there were 23 mining claims at Big Dune and 26 claims at Lava Dune. All
of these were removed after it was determined there was no potential
for locatable minerals (Castor et al. 2006, pp. L2-L3).
Although there is no potential for locatable minerals at Lava Dune,
currently there are 39 gold mining claims on Lava Dune that overlap 29
percent of the range of the large aegialian scarab and 40 percent of
the range of the Giuliani's dune scarab (BLM serial Nos. NMC 916075 to
916093 and NMC 360591 to 360610, filed December 7, 2005). No plans of
operation have been filed for any of the mining claims at Lava Dune
(BLM 2011b, pp. 1-62). There is no time limit for the claimant to file
a plan of operation, and a claim remains in effect as long as the
claimant continues to pay the annual BLM maintenance fee.
No mining claims can be filed at Big Dune until the year 2029,
because 777 ha (1,920 ac) of land has been closed to mining under
Secretarial Order 7737 until that time (74 FR 56657; November 2, 2009).
This area represents 71 percent of the range of the large aegialian
scarab and 60 percent of the range for the Giuliani's dune scarab. It
is possible that mining claims may be filed at Lava Dune; however, it
is unlikely because the area has no potential for locatable minerals.
If development of any mining claim is requested, BLM must evaluate
potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to their sensitive
species policy, and the Service would have the opportunity to provide
recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA process.
Leasables--The areas around Crescent Dunes and San Antonio Dunes
(BLM 1997, Map 32), Big Dune, and Lava Dune (Castor et al. 2006, pp.
L2-L3) have a low potential for leasable minerals. Historically, there
have been no requests for leasable minerals on
[[Page 42243]]
Crescent Dunes, Big Dune, and Lava Dune, and two requests on San
Antonio Dunes. Currently, there are no leased minerals on Big Dune,
Lava Dune, Crescent Dunes, or San Antonio Dunes. Although it is
possible that requests for leasable minerals may be submitted in the
future, the low potential for leasable minerals and low number of
historical requests indicate that such future requests are unlikely. If
any mineral leases are requested, BLM must evaluate potential effects
to these dune beetles and adhere to their sensitive species policy, and
the Service would have the opportunity to provide recommendations to
protect these beetles under the NEPA process.
Salables--The area around Crescent Dunes is rich in sand. The area
around San Antonio Dunes does not have much sand (Service 2012a).
Historically, there has been only one request for development of
salable minerals at Crescent Dunes and no requests at San Antonio
Dunes. Currently, there are no requests for salable minerals at
Crescent Dunes or San Antonio Dunes. Although it is possible that
development of salable minerals may be requested at Crescent Dunes or
San Antonio Dunes in the future, the historical lack of requests for
salable minerals in the area indicate that such future requests are
unlikely. If development of salable minerals is requested, BLM must
evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to their
sensitive species policy, and the Service would have the opportunity to
provide recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA
process.
Big Dune is rich in sand, while Lava Dune is rich in sand and lava
rock. Historically, there has been only one request for salable
minerals at Big Dune and two requests at Lava Dune. Currently, there
are no requests for salable mineral development on Big Dune.
There is one pending request to extract lava rock on 74 ha (182 ac)
of BLM-administered land at Lava Dune (BLM serial no. NVN 074682). This
area represents 11 percent of the range of the large aegialian scarab
and 15 percent of the range of the Giuliani's dune scarab. The request
and plan of operation for mining lava rock at Lava Dune were submitted
on March 9, 2001, and have not been approved or denied. This request to
extract lava rock on Lava Dune underwent internal interdisciplinary
review in 2005. Although the Service did not provide comments on this
proposal, we provided comments on an earlier mining request by the same
claimant in the same area. In 1993, we stated, ``implementation of the
proposed action may result in severe impacts to the candidate species
which occur on Big Dune and may threaten their population status'' (BLM
2005, p. 1). The BLM only approved mining on the portions of Lava Dune
that were not suitable habitat for the large aegialian scarab and
Giuliani's dune scarab. In 2005, the BLM wildlife biologists
recommended the 2001 request not be approved because the area is
suitable habitat for the large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune
scarab and because of our 1993 comments (BLM 2005, p. 1; 2006, p. 1;
2008, pp. 1-48). During recent discussions, the BLM informed us that
the 2001 request is pending analysis under NEPA (BLM 2005, p. 1; 2006,
p. 1; Service 2012b, p. 2). After the request has been announced to the
public, and after the BLM has considered any public comments submitted
on the request, the BLM may grant a ROW to the operator or deny the
request. If approved, the BLM has discretion over how and when these
operations proceed. Although this request was submitted 11 years ago,
there is no time limit for BLM to act on the request under 43 CFR 2900.
In the future, it is possible that requests to develop salable
minerals at Big Dune or Lava Dune may be filed because these areas are
rich in sand and lava rock, although historically there have been few
requests for development of salable minerals in these areas. If
requests for development of salable minerals are received, the BLM must
evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to their
sensitive species policy, and the Service would have the opportunity to
provide recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA
process.
There are no active mining operations at Big Dune, Crescent Dunes,
or San Antonio Dunes. Although there is one active lava rock mining
operation on Lava Dune (Cind-R-Lite 2011, p. 1), the mined area occurs
on solid rocky ground of an old volcanic cinder cone (NRCS 2006b, p. 1)
and is not suitable habitat for the large aegialian scarab or
Giuliani's dune scarab (Service 2011b, p. 3).
Conclusion--We do not consider mining to be a current or future
threat to the large aegialian scarab or Giuliani's dune scarab at Big
Dune, the Crescent Dunes serican scarab or Crescent Dunes aegialian
scarab at Crescent Dunes, or the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab at San
Antonio Dunes because of the low likelihood of mineral development at
these areas (the areas are considered to have low mineral potential,
there have been few historical requests for minerals in these areas,
and there are no current mining applications at these dunes). In
addition, before future mining requests could be developed, the BLM
would have to evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and
adhere to their sensitive species policy, and the Service would be able
to provide recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA
process. We conclude that mining at Lava Dune does not constitute a
current threat to the large aegialian scarab or Giuliani's dune scarab
because the active lava rock mining operation is outside of the range
of these two species of beetles, the BLM has not acted on the pending
lava rock stockpiling application in 11 years, and no plans of
development have been submitted for the gold mining claims. However, if
approved, mining lava rock at Lava Dune would remove up to 15 percent
of the total range for the Giuliani's dune scarab (Service 2011b, p. 4)
and 7.5 percent of the total range for the large aegialian scarab
(Service 2012b, pp. 2-3). We do not consider this to be a significant
threat because there is no evidence to indicate that the remaining 85
percent of the Giuliani's dune scarab's range and remaining 92.5
percent of the large aegialian scarab's range would be insufficient to
support the biological needs of these two beetle species.
Solar Development
Developing land for solar energy projects on or near the dunes may
compact and remove both vegetation and sand, alter surface flows and
infiltration of water, and affect temperature and wind patterns.
Destruction of vegetation around dunes, disturbance of dune sand, and
disruption of reproductive behavior would reduce or eliminate sand dune
beetle populations because the larvae of the four beetle species use
decomposed organic matter as their primary food source and the adults
mate on live vegetation. In addition, sand transport processes and
other ecological processes that create habitat for these four species
of sand dune beetles may be altered by structures blocking the wind
(BLM and DOE 2010, pp. 11.7-6, 11.7-8, 11.7-43, 11.7-68, 11.7-115,
11.7-128). Roads and increased human presence associated with solar
development result in indirect effects to dune beetles (e.g., roads and
increased human presence may result in increased illegal ORV use, which
impacts beetle habitat).
There have been no ROW applications for solar development projects
at Crescent Dunes or San Antonio Dunes, except for the solar project
currently under construction about 1.6 km (1 mi) west of Crescent
Dunes. The Crescent
[[Page 42244]]
Dunes Solar Energy Project is 655 ha (1,619 ac) and is located within
the range of the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and Crescent Dunes
serican scarab (BLM case file no. NVN 086292; BLM 2010, pp. 1-2; 75 FR
81307, December 27, 2010; Service 2012a, pp. 1-8). Construction will
remove approximately 607 ha (1,500 ac or 2.3 sq mi), which is 10
percent of the total range of the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and
11 percent of the total range of the Crescent Dunes serican scarab. It
is unlikely that the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project will disrupt
sand transport processes at Crescent Dunes because the facility will
not block the prevailing winds.
In addition, the BLM has proposed to establish a utility-scale
solar energy zone about 8.0 km (5 mi) southwest of Crescent Dunes
(Millers Solar Energy Zone). A solar energy zone is a priority area
within BLM-administered lands that is suited for utility-scale
production of solar energy in accordance with the requirements of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.) (BLM and DOE 2010,
p. 1-8). This proposed solar energy zone would not affect the beetles
because it does not overlap the range of either species, and it is
unlikely that solar developments within the solar energy zone would
disrupt sand transport processes because of the distance from Crescent
Dunes and facilities would not block the prevailing winds (Service
2012a, p. 2; Parsons 2010, p. 15).
In the future, it is possible that ROW applications for solar
development may be filed at Crescent Dunes and San Antonio dunes;
however, if applications for solar development are filed, the BLM must
evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to their
sensitive species policy, and the Service would have the opportunity to
provide recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA
process.
Since 2007, there have been five ROW applications for solar
development at Big Dune and none at Lava Dune; however, all the
applications at Big Dune have been rescinded. It is possible that solar
development projects near Big Dune or Lava Dune may be proposed in the
future but at this time, the best available information does not
indicate that solar development projects threaten the large aegialian
scarab or Giuliani's dune scarab. If applications for solar development
are filed, the BLM must evaluate potential effects to these dune
beetles and adhere to their sensitive species policy, and the Service
would have the opportunity to provide recommendations to protect these
beetles under the NEPA process.
Conclusion--We do not consider solar energy development to threaten
the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab or Crescent Dunes serican scarab
now or in the future. Although the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
will remove up to 10 percent of the total range of the Crescent Dunes
aegialian scarab and 11 percent of the total range of the Crescent
Dunes serican scarab, we do not consider the project a significant
threat to these beetles because there is no evidence to indicate that
the remaining 90 and 89 percent, respectively, of their ranges would be
insufficient to support the biological needs of these species, and the
project would not significantly alter sand transport processes. The
proposed solar energy zone near Crescent Dunes does not overlap the
range of either species and would not disrupt sand transport processes.
There have been no ROW applications for solar development at San
Antonio Dunes. We do not consider solar energy development to pose a
threat to the large aegialian scarab or Giuliani's dune scarab now or
in the future because there have been no ROW applications filed at Lava
Dune, there are no current applications for solar development at Big
Dune, and all previous applications at Big Dune have been rescinded. It
is unknown how many, if any, future applications for solar development
would occur in these areas. However, if there are any applications, the
BLM must evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to
their sensitive species policy, and the Service would have the
opportunity to provide recommendations to protect these beetles under
the NEPA process.
Off-Road Recreation
Off-road vehicle (ORV) recreationalists currently use both Crescent
Dunes and Big Dune for riding and camping. ORV use is prohibited on
Lava Dune (BLM 1998, pp. 21, 23-24). Beetle habitat could be impacted
by ORV activity that compacts and redistributes sand beneath plants,
destroys live vegetation, and prevents the buildup of decomposed
organic matter by uncovering dead sticks and leaves from beneath the
vegetation. These habitat impacts could reduce or eliminate sand dune
beetle populations because the adult and larvae of these four species
of beetle only live under and mate on live vegetation and use
decomposed organic matter as their primary food source.
Crescent Dunes--Crescent Dunes is located on BLM-administered lands
managed by the Tonopah Field Office (formerly the Battle Mountain
District Office, Tonopah Resource Area/Field Station prior to 2008). In
1997, the BLM designated 1,214 ha (3,000 ac) at Crescent Dunes, which
includes all of Crescent Dune's 402 ha (996 ac), as a Special
Recreation Management Area (SRMA) primarily for ORV use. To reduce
potential impacts to dune beetles and their habitat, BLM prohibited ORV
use on all vegetated sand areas within the Crescent Dunes SRMA (BLM
1997, p. 21). The Crescent Dunes SRMA encompasses 89 percent of the
range for the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and 100 percent of the
range for the Crescent Dunes serican scarab. The beetles live under
live vegetation in loose, sandy areas. Illegal ORV riding over
vegetation reduces beetle habitat. To estimate the historical loss of
vegetation from ORV use immediately surrounding Crescent Dunes, we
reviewed aerial photography of the dunes taken between the 1950s and
2010 (Army Map Service 1952; 1954; USGS 1970a; 1970b; Google Earth
1990, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2010) and conducted a site visit in January
2012. The vegetation density and distribution at Crescent Dunes appears
unchanged since the 1950s (Service 2011b, pp. 1-7), and we did not
observe any current or historical evidence of illegal ORV use.
San Antonio Dunes--San Antonio Dunes is located on BLM-administered
lands managed by the Tonopah Field Office. This area is open to
unrestricted vehicle use (BLM 1997, pp. 20-21, Map 20). Although San
Antonio Dunes is open to ORV use, these dunes likely receive relatively
little use from ORV recreationalists. Because Crescent Dunes provides
more open sand and is closer to Tonopah than San Antonio Dunes
(approximately half the distance), San Antonio Dunes likely receives
less ORV use than does Crescent Dunes. Additionally, we reviewed high-
resolution aerial imagery (Google Earth 2012) and detected no evidence
of ORV-user created roads, indicating that ORV use is not heavy at San
Antonio Dunes.
Big Dune--Big Dune is located on BLM-administered lands managed by
the Pahrump Field Office (formerly a portion of the Las Vegas Field
Office prior to 2008) (BLM 1998, pp. 3-41). In 1998, the BLM designated
4,694 ha (11,600 ac) around Big Dune as an SRMA, which included all of
Big Dune, which is 305 ha (753 ac) (BLM 1998, pp. 21, 23-24). Within
the SRMA, BLM identified 777 ha (1,920 ac) of Big Dune as an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to support all species dependent
upon dune habitat, with emphasis on the large aegialian scarab and
Giuliani's dune scarab (BLM 1988, pp. 1-24; 1998, pp. 7, 11). To
protect habitat for the large aegialian scarab and
[[Page 42245]]
Giuliani's dune scarab and to reduce potential impacts to the dune
beetles and their habitat, BLM closed an 81-ha (200-ac) area and a 9-ha
(23-ac) area to ORV use and prohibited ORV use on all other vegetated
areas within the Big Dune SRMA, including the Big Dune ACEC (BLM 1998,
pp. 21, 23-24). The Big Dune SRMA and Big Dune ACEC encompass 100
percent of the range for the large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune
scarab at Big Dune, while the closed portions encompass 18 percent of
the range for the Giuliani's dune scarab and 7 percent of the range for
the large aegialian scarab (Service 2011b, pp. 1-8; 2012b, pp. 1-8).
Illegal ORV riding over vegetation reduces beetle habitat. To
estimate the historical loss of vegetation from ORV use immediately
surrounding Big Dune, we reviewed aerial photography of the dunes and
adjacent areas taken between the 1940s and 2010 (Army Map Service 1948;
USGS 1970a; 1970b; Google Earth 1990, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2010). ORV
users have recreated on Big Dune for the past 60 years (Army Map
Service 1948). Historical user-created road establishment has resulted
in the loss of approximately 61.5 ha (152 ac) of the vegetation
immediately surrounding Big Dune (Service 2011b, pp. 1-8). The density
of vegetation around Big Dune has been reduced when compared to
vegetation 3.25 km (2 mi) south of the dune (Service 2011b, pp. 1-8).
Approximately 8,417 vehicles containing 21,042 visitors recreated at
Big Dune in 2010 (BLM 2011c, p. 1). To estimate if there were any
recent reductions of beetle habitat resulting from ORV use, we reviewed
aerial imagery between 1990 and 2010 and conducted 3 site visits. We
found the density of vegetation has decreased; however, the
distribution of vegetation at Big Dune has changed little (Service
2011b, pp. 1-7), and we observed few current incidents of plants
destroyed by illegal ORV activity (Service 2011a, pp. 2, 6; 2011b, pp.
1-7; 2012b, pp. 1-8). Given this information, it does not appear that
the total amount of suitable habitat for the large aegialian scarab and
Giuliani's dune scarab has been reduced between 1990 and 2010.
Lava Dune--Lava Dune is located on BLM-administered lands and
private land. Approximately 90 percent of the dune complex is on lands
administered by the BLM, while the remaining 10 percent is owned by a
private mining company (Nye County parcel number 000-158-28). ORV use
is prohibited on the portion of Lava Dune administered by the BLM (BLM
1998, pp. 21, 23-24). Because ORV riding is prohibited at Lava Dune, we
did not review vegetation changes at Lava Dune from ORV use. We found
no information on the frequency of illegal ORV use on the dune,
although we observed a set of vehicle tracks on the dune in April 2011
(Service 2011a, pp. 3, 9).
Conclusion--We do not consider legal ORV activity to be a
significant threat to any of the four beetle species. ORV activity is
prohibited on Lava Dune and restricted to unvegetated slopes within the
Big Dune SRMA and the Crescent Dunes SRMA. Each of the four sand dune
beetle species considered in this finding is dependent on vegetation
for suitable habitat, and unvegetated sand dune slopes are not
considered suitable dune beetle habitat. We have no information on
dispersal of any of the four dune beetle species or whether ORV
activity on unvegetated slopes between patches of suitable habitat
affects any of the four species. However, ORV use has not precluded
dune beetle dispersal because even though ORV use has occurred at
Crescent Dunes and Big Dune for over 60 years, Crescent Dunes serican
scarab and Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab are widely distributed at
Crescent Dunes, and large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune scarab
are widely distributed at Big Dune. ORV activity is not restricted to
unvegetated slopes at San Antonio Dunes, but because of their location,
these dunes receive relatively little ORV recreational use. Ongoing
illegal ORV activity results in some level of impacts to these four
species of beetle; however, we do not consider illegal ORV activity to
be a significant threat because current illegal ORV use is minimal, and
future illegal ORV activity is expected to be minimal based on past use
trends.
Commercial Filming
The area around Big Dune is popular for commercial filming and
still photography. Since 1993, BLM has issued 19 special use permits
for film production at Big Dune (BLM 2011d, pp. 1-15). Permit
stipulations limit activities to 10 vehicles carrying 30 people and do
not authorize new surface disturbance (BLM 1990, p. 2). No filming is
allowed in the dune beetle exclosure areas (BLM 1990, p. 3). We
conclude that commercial filming does not pose a significant threat to
the survival of these four beetle species now or in the future.
Livestock Grazing
There is no livestock grazing at Big Dune and Lava Dune. Crescent
Dunes and San Antonio Dunes are located within an active BLM-designated
grazing allotment. We found no information on the amount of or the
timing of livestock use. However, the soil around these dune complexes
has a low potential for forage (vegetation feed for livestock) (NRCS
1972, pp. 23, 81; NRCS 1998, p. 35). We conclude that livestock grazing
is not a significant threat to these four beetle species.
Summary of Factor A
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and Crescent Dunes serican scarab--
The Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab occurs at Crescent and San Antonio
Dunes, and the Crescent Dunes serican scarab occurs at Crescent Dunes.
We do not consider ORV activity a significant threat to these beetles.
BLM policy restricts ORV use to unvegetated areas at Crescent Dunes,
and these two beetle species are known to occur only under or very
close to vegetation. ORV use at San Antonio Dunes is minimal and does
not appear to be impacting vegetation (beetle habitat). Current illegal
ORV activity at Crescent Dunes is minimal and future illegal ORV
activity is expected to be minimal based on past use trends. We do not
consider mining a threat to the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab and
Crescent Dunes serican scarab because there are currently no mining
applications at these dunes, and it is unlikely future mining
applications would be filed because the mineral potential is low.
Although the Crescent Dunes Solar Power Project would remove up to 11
percent of the range for these two beetles, there is no evidence
indicating that the remaining portion of their ranges would be
insufficient to support the biological needs of these two species. It
is unknown how many, if any, future applications for solar development
would occur in these areas. However, if there are any applications, the
BLM must evaluate potential effects to these dune beetles and adhere to
their sensitive species policy, and the Service would have the
opportunity to provide recommendations to protect these beetles under
the NEPA process. Based on our assessment of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning present threats to these two
beetle species' habitat, we conclude that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range is
not a threat to the continued existence of these two beetle species.
Large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune scarab--The large
aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune scarab occur in two locations: Big
Dune and Lava Dune. BLM policy prohibits ORV use at Lava Dune and
restricts use to unvegetated areas at Big Dune and these two beetle
[[Page 42246]]
species are known to occur only under or very close to vegetation. We
do not consider illegal ORV activity to be a significant threat to
these two beetle species because impacts to dune beetle habitat from
current illegal ORV activity is minimal, and future impacts to dune
beetle habitat from illegal ORV use is expected to be minimal based on
past use trends. If approved, a pending mining application at Lava Dune
would remove up to 15 percent of the range for the Giuliani's dune
scarab and the large aegialian scarab. However, because this
application has been pending for 11 years, we do not consider it an
immediate threat. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the
remaining portion of their ranges would be insufficient to support the
biological needs of these beetle species. It is unknown how many, if
any, future mining requests would occur at Lava Dune. Although there
are no solar applications at Big Dune or Lava Dune, it is unknown how
many, if any, future applications for solar development would occur in
these areas. However, if there are any future mining requests or
applications for solar development, the BLM must evaluate potential
effects to these dune beetles and adhere to their sensitive species
policy, and the Service would have the opportunity to provide
recommendations to protect these beetles under the NEPA process. Based
on our assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning present threats to these two beetle species' habitat and
their likely continuation in the future, we conclude that the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their
habitat or range is not a threat to the continued existence of these
two beetle species.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
There is no available information indicating that the Crescent
Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian
scarab, or Giuliani's dune scarab is collected for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Pyle et al. (1981,
p. 241) note that invertebrates generally are not imperiled by
overcollection, and that these particular beetle species are not showy
and thus less likely to be collected. We conclude that overutilization
is not a threat to the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes
serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, or Giuliani's dune scarab now
or in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
No information is available on the incidence of disease for any of
the four beetle species. The only information available on predation is
that nighthawks (Chordeiles sp.) have been observed preying on adult
Giuliani's dune scarabs at Big Dune (Boyd 2010, p. 4; Service 2011a, p.
5). The scarabs were above ground as part of their mating activity,
which is thought to be limited to a brief period during evenings in
April to May (see ``Biology and Population Abundance'' section above).
Except for this brief period of aboveground mating activity by the
Giuliani's dune scarab, the life cycle of this and the other three sand
dune beetles occurs below ground. No information is available on
predation of the beetles during belowground parts of their life cycle.
We conclude that disease or predation is not a threat to any of the
four beetle species.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the four dune
beetles discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Endangered Species Act requires the Service to take into account
``those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or
any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such
species * * *'' We interpret this language to require the Service to
consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws and regulations when
developing our threat analyses. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may preclude the need for listing if we determine that such mechanisms
adequately address the threats to the species such that listing is not
warranted.
The Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab,
large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab are not protected
under Nevada State law because they are classified as insects and not
wildlife (NRS 555.265). However, the range of each species occurs on
Federal lands managed by the BLM, so protection and management of the
habitat for each species is determined by Federal laws, regulations,
and policies. Relevant Federal laws, regulations, and policies are
summarized below.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)--
This Act sets forth the BLM's multiple use mandate and requires that
the BLM take any action necessary to prevent impacts greater than those
that would normally be expected from an activity in compliance with
current standards, in compliance with current regulations, and
implemented using the best reasonably available technology (i.e., undue
and unnecessary degradation). The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act's implementing regulations, 43 CFR 2800 and 43 CFR 3000, control
administration and authorization of ROWs and mineral management,
respectively. These regulations require the BLM to reduce environmental
impacts from these ROWs to environmental resources, including these
four sand dune beetle species.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)--
The NEPA requires all Federal agencies to formally document, consider,
and publicly disclose the environmental impacts of major Federal
actions and management decisions significantly affecting the human
environment. The NEPA documentation is provided in an environmental
impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a categorical
exclusion, and may be subject to administrative or judicial appeal. As
part of BLM policy, for any mining and solar power plant applications
to conduct operations in the Crescent Dunes, San Antonio Dunes, Lava
Dune, or Big Dune, an analysis will be conducted to evaluate potential
effects to these dune beetles and identify possible project
alternatives. The Service would have the opportunity to comment on the
project alternatives and provide conservation recommendations to
protect these beetles. However, the BLM is not required to select an
alternative having the least significant environmental impacts and may
select an action that will adversely affect these beetles, provided
that these effects are disclosed in their NEPA document.
BLM Policy--The BLM classifies all four beetle species as sensitive
species (BLM 2003, p. 6). Under their 6840 manual, BLM is required to
manage sensitive species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate
threats affecting the species or improve the condition of the species'
habitat in order to reduce the likelihood of listing under the Act (BLM
2008, pp. 3, 38). The BLM identified and implemented several management
actions that conserve habitat for the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab,
Crescent Dunes serican scarab, aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune
scarab (BLM 1994, pp. 1-427; BLM 1997, pp. 1-193).
The BLM's management action to conserve the Crescent Dunes
aegialian scarab and Crescent Dunes serican
[[Page 42247]]
scarab is the prohibition of ORV use on vegetated sand areas within the
Crescent Dunes SRMA (BLM 1997, p. 21). The area is closed to high-speed
race events (BLM 1997, p. 20, Map 30). The area is also designated as a
ROW avoidance area; however, ROWs can be granted (e.g., solar power
plants) if no feasible alternative can be found (BLM 1997, p. 19, Map
22). The area is closed to non-energy leasable minerals and subject to
no-surface-occupancy restrictions for fluid leasable minerals (BLM
1997, p. 21, Map 34).
Management actions for the large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's
dune scarab include: (1) Prohibition of ORV use on Lava Dune; (2)
prohibition of ORV use in vegetated areas within the Big Dune SRMA,
including the Big Dune ACEC; (3) maintenance of approximately 777 ha
(1,920 ac) of sand dune habitat within the Big Dune ACEC in a natural
condition; and (4) prohibition of ORV activity within 90 ha (223 ac) of
beetle habitat (BLM 1998, pp. 11, 23). Within the Big Dune ACEC, lands
are to be retained in Federal ownership; ROWs are not allowed; the area
is closed to mining; mineral leasing is subject to no-surface-occupancy
stipulations; temporary roads must be reclaimed; and competitive high-
speed ORV events are prohibited (competitive non-speed events are
allowed) (BLM 1998, p. 7). The stipulations protect the beetles from
these threats at Big Dune except illegal ORV activity. Solar
development is allowed at Lava Dune and outside the ACEC at Big Dune.
Mineral development is allowed at Lava Dune.
Therefore, partly as a result of BLM management actions taken as a
result of Federal laws, regulations, and policy, we determined under
Factor A that mining, solar development, ORV use, commercial filming,
and livestock grazing were not significant threats to the Crescent
Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian
scarab, or Giuliani's dune scarab. Although not protected by State law,
we determined under Factor B that collection or any other form of
overutilization was not a threat to any of the four beetle species. We
also determined that disease or predation was not a threat to any of
the four species under Factor C, nor was stochastic events or climate
change under Factor E. We conclude that the the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms are not a threat to the Crescent Dunes aegialian
scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and
Giuliani's dune scarab.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Stochastic Events
The large aegialian scarab's and Giuliani's dune scarab's ranges
are limited to Big Dune and Lava Dune; the Crescent Dunes aegialian
scarab's range is limited to Crescent Dunes and San Antonio Dunes; and
Crescent Dunes serican scarab's range is limited to Crescent Dunes.
Extreme environmental disasters at these areas, such as earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, severe floods, or severe and frequent winter
storms, could impact these species through direct mortality or removal
of vegetation. However, this area has one of the lowest frequencies of
extreme environmental disasters in the United States (DOE 1986, pp. 3-
22, 6-27, 6-32), and any extreme weather phenomena occurring in the
desert are of such short duration that no significant effects are
expected (DOE 1986, pp. 6-27, 6-32). We do not consider extreme
environmental disasters a threat to these four beetle species.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other
examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-
85.) Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that
most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the
mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate,
and is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp.
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been
caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming
will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate
of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG
emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764, 797-
811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527,
529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global projections
of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes
in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a summary of
observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
[[Page 42248]]
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or
system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
As is the case with all threats that we assess, even if we conclude
that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a
negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not
necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling).
We used the web-based tool Climate Wizard to evaluate (1) changes
in temperature and precipitation across Nevada during the past 50
years, and (2) projected changes in temperature and precipitation at
Crescent Dunes and Big Dune by the 2050s based on 16 general
circulation climate models. Across Nevada, temperature has increased by
an average of 0.016 degree Celsius (0.029 degree Fahrenheit) per year
for a total increase of 0.81 degree Celsius (1.45 degree Fahrenheit)
over the past 50 years (http://www.climatewizard.org/ org/, accessed April
30, 2012). Precipitation has increased by an average of 0.342 percent
per year across Nevada, for a total increase of 17.1 percent over the
past 50 years.
For projected changes in temperature and precipitation based on
general circulation models, we used Climate Wizard's default setting
for emission scenario (the A2 high scenario). At Crescent Dunes,
projected increases in temperature by the 2050s range from 1.47 to 3.61
degrees Celsius (2.64 to 6.49 degrees Fahrenheit) across the 16 models,
with an average (median) value of 2.88 degrees Celsius (5.18 degrees
Fahrenheit) (http://www.climatewizard.org/, accessed May 4, 2012).
Projected change in precipitation by the 2050s at Crescent Dunes range
from a decrease of 30.51 percent to an increase of 19.73 percent across
the 16 models, with a median value of 1.73 percent decrease.
At Big Dune, projected increases in temperature by the 2050s range
from 1.52 to 3.49 degrees Celsius (2.74 to 6.28 degrees Fahrenheit)
across the 16 models, with a median value of 2.82 degrees Celsius (5.07
degrees Fahrenheit) (http://www.climatewizard.org/, accessed May 4,
2012). Projected change in precipitation by the 2050s at Big Dune range
from a decrease of 27.90 percent to an increase of 39.79 percent across
the 16 models, with a median value of 2.36 percent decrease.
The climate in southwestern North America has been becoming
increasingly arid during the past century and is projected to continue
to become more arid during the 21st century (Seager et al. 2007,
entire). Seager et al. (2007) modeled aridity as a function of
precipitation minus evaporation, and evaporation rates increase as
temperature increases. Their study area included the southern two-
thirds of Nevada, an area that encompasses the range of each of the
four beetle species addressed in this finding. The most severe
multiyear droughts that have impacted western North America in the
recorded past have been attributed to variations in surface sea
temperatures in the tropics, particularly persistent La Nina-like
events (USGS 2004, entire; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1183). Based on their
model results, Seager et al. (2007, p. 1184) conclude that droughts in
the North American Southwest during this century will become more
severe than historical droughts because La Nina conditions will be
overlaid on a base condition that is drier than any experienced in
recent history.
Climate change will thus clearly affect habitat conditions for the
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large
aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab. Increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide, air temperature, and evapotranspiration rates will
affect vegetation, and each of the four beetle species is dependent on
vegetation for its habitat. However, it is difficult to project how
climate change will affect overall vegetation structure and composition
because certain plant species may increase in response to these
changes, while other plant species may decrease. For example, plant
species adapted to desert-like conditions may gain a competitive
advantage and increase in cover or density. Also, little is known about
the biology of any of the four sand dune beetle species, so it is
difficult to know how any potential changes in plant species
composition would affect dune beetle habitat suitability. While climate
change will undoubtedly affect habitat conditions for the Crescent
Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian
scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab, there is currently insufficient
specific information to conclude that climate change is a significant
threat to any of these four beetle species.
Synergistic Interactions Among Threat Factors
We have evaluated individual current and future potential threats
to the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab,
large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab. These species face
potential threats from mining, solar development, ORV use, commercial
filming, livestock grazing, stochastic events, and climate change. In
considering whether the threats to a species may be so great as to
warrant listing under the Act, we must look beyond the possible impacts
of potential threats in isolation and consider the potential cumulative
impacts of all of the threats facing a species.
In making this finding, we considered whether there may be
cumulative effects to any of the four dune beetle species from the
combined impacts of existing threats such that even if each threat
individually does not result in population-level impacts, that
cumulatively the effects may be significant. We considered whether the
combined effects of mining and solar development may result in a
significant impact to any of the four beetle species because mining and
solar development each has the potential to result in some level of
habitat loss. However, we conclude that synergistic effects between
mining and solar development are unlikely to result in a significant
[[Page 42249]]
overall population impact to any of the four beetle species because the
proposed mining and solar development projects occur in different areas
and their effects would not overlap. The proposed lava rock mining
operation would impact the large aegialian scarab and Giuliani's dune
scarab if approved, whereas the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project,
which is currently being constructed, will impact the Crescent Dunes
aegialian scarab and Crescent Dunes serican scarab. ORV use potentially
impacts each of the four beetle species, but as a result of BLM
policies and management that reduce impacts from ORV use, we conclude
that ORV use impacts combined with potential impacts from mining, solar
development, commercial filming, and livestock grazing would not be of
sufficient severity and scope to result in a significant impact to any
of the four dune beetle species. BLM policies and management include
prohibition of ORV use anywhere at Lava Dune and within an 81-ha (200-
ac) area and a 9-ha (23-ac) area at Big Dune, and restriction of ORV
use to unvegetated areas at the rest of Big Dune and all of Crescent
Dunes (each of the dune beetle species is known to occur only under or
in close proximity to vegetation). Based on its location and lack of
evidence of ORV use detected from high-resolution aerial imagery, we
believe ORV use at San Antonio Dunes is minimal and thus is unlikely
causing a population-level impact to the Crescent Dunes aegialian
scarab. As discussed under Factor A, illegal ORV use impacts beetles
and their habitat, but we conclude, based on the most current available
information, illegal ORV use does not occur with sufficient frequency
and geographic scope to cause population-level impacts to any of the
four beetle species. It is unknown how many, if any, future requests
for mining and solar development would occur in these areas. However,
if there are any requests, BLM must evaluate potential effects to these
dune beetles and adhere to their sensitive species policy, and the
Service would have the opportunity to provide recommendations to
protect these beetles under the NEPA process.
Synergistic interactions are possible between effects of climate
change and effects of other threats such as mining, solar development,
ORV use, and livestock grazing. Increases in carbon dioxide,
temperature, and evapotranspiration will affect vegetation, and each of
the four dune beetle species is closely associated with the presence of
vegetation. However, as noted above in the Climate Change section,
uncertainty about how different plant species will respond under
climate change, combined with uncertainty about how changes in plant
species composition would affect suitability of dune beetle habitat,
make projecting possible synergistic effects of climate change on the
dune beetle species too speculative at this time. At this point in
time, given the complex and uncertain nature of effects associated with
climate change and the lack of information on the biology on each of
these four dune beetle species, we can only conclude that additional
information would be needed to determine whether synergistic
interactions between climate change and other threats will impact the
Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large
aegialian scarab, or Giuliani's dune scarab.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican
scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune scarab are
endangered or threatened throughout all of their ranges. We examined
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by these four beetle species.
To ensure that this finding is based on the latest scientific and
commercial information on the species, their habitat, and threats
occurring, or likely to occur, we examined the petition, information in
our files, and other published and unpublished literature. We solicited
information from the public, but did not receive any response. We
consulted with species and habitat specialists from the BLM, the
Service, and NNHP.
We evaluated whether the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent
Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune
scarab were affected by mining, solar development, and ORV use;
however, these impacts are either limited in scope or significant
uncertainty exists about if or how they may impact these species. The
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent any of the
above factors is not a threat because BLM, by following their policy
and through NEPA, has been successful in minimizing manmade impacts to
these four beetle species. The best available information does not
indicate that overutilization, predation, disease, stochastic events,
or climate change is a threat to the continued existence of any of
these four beetle species now or in the foreseeable future. There is
also no evidence to indicate that synergistic or cumulative effects
between the factors would result in significant threats to any of these
four beetle species.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, the effects of these impacts on the four beetle species do
not indicate that the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes
serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, or Giuliani's dune scarab is in
danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing any of these four beetle species as an
endangered or threatened species throughout its range is not warranted
at this time.
Significant Portion of Its Range
Having determined that the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, the
Crescent Dunes serican scarab, the large aegialian scarab, and the
Giuliani's dune scarab are not endangered or threatened throughout
their ranges, we must next consider whether there are any significant
portions of their ranges where any of the species is in danger of
extinction or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines
``species'' as follows: ``The term `species' includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS]
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.'' The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not
defined by the statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations:
(1) The consequences of a determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range, but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a
portion of a range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April
[[Page 42250]]
2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
105253 (D. Ariz. September 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008
finding on a petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660,
February 5, 2008). The Service had asserted in both of these
determinations that it had authority, in effect, to protect only some
members of a ``species,'' as defined by the Act (i.e., species,
subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled that the
determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the grounds that this
approach violated the plain and unambiguous language of the Act. The
courts concluded that reading the SPR language to allow protecting only
a portion of a species' range is inconsistent with the Act's definition
of ``species.'' The courts concluded that once a determination is made
that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS) meets the definition
of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' it must be placed
on the list in its entirety and the Act's protections applied
consistently to all members of that species (subject to modification of
protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the
Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: A species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' Based
on this interpretation and supported by existing case law, the
consequence of finding that a species is endangered or threatened in
only a significant portion of its range is that the entire species will
be listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's
protections will be applied across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to
the 2007 Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, long-term agency
practice has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial
opinions that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an
independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we
next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use
a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It would not be
meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a
portion of the range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a
negligible increase in extinction risk would result from its loss.
Because nearly any portion of a species' range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species' viability, use of such a low
threshold would require us to impose restrictions and expend
conservation resources disproportionately to conservation benefit:
Listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On the other
hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136
(9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high
[[Page 42251]]
threshold, we minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed
or resources expended that do not contribute substantially to species
conservation. But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase
``in a significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation, we ask whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the
remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to
be endangered.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
We evaluated the current range of the four beetles to determine if
there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for
any of the species. The ranges for each of the beetles are relatively
small and limited to the local dune system where they are found. We
examined potential threats from mining, solar development projects, ORV
use, commercial filming, livestock grazing, overutilization, disease or
predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, stochastic
events, and climate change. We found no concentration of threats that
suggests that any of these four species of dune beetles may be in
danger of extinction in a portion of its range. We found no portions of
their ranges where potential threats are significantly concentrated or
substantially greater than in other portions of their ranges.
Therefore, we find that factors affecting each species are essentially
uniform throughout their ranges, indicating no portion of the range of
any of the four species warrants further consideration of possible
endangered or threatened status under the Act. There is no available
information indicating that there has been a range contraction for any
of the four species, and therefore we find that lost historical range
does not constitute a significant portion of the range for the Crescent
Dunes aegialian scarab, the Crescent Dunes serican scarab, the large
aegialian scarab, or the Giuliani's dune scarab.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent
Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Giuliani's dune
scarab to our Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section)
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor
these four beetle species and encourage their conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for any of these four beetle species, we
will act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 28, 2012.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-17526 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P