[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25197-25209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09106]
[[Page 25197]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE54
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Nelson's
Checker-Mallow From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our review of the best
available scientific and commercial data indicates that the threats to
Nelson's checker-mallow have been eliminated or reduced to the point
that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to Nelson's checker-mallow. We
request information and comments from the public regarding this
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for
Nelson's checker-mallow.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
27, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by June 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). Then,
click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel
on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check
the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including references cited, the 5-year review,
the recovery plan, the species status assessment (SSA) report, and the
draft PDM plan, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Project Leader, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone: 503-231-6179.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove Nelson's checker-mallow
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., ``delist'' the
species).
(2) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of Nelson's checker-mallow.
(3) New information on the known and potential threats to Nelson's
checker-mallow.
(4) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat of Nelson's checker-mallow.
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
Nelson's checker-mallow that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on
the species.
(6) The draft PDM plan for Nelson's checker-mallow.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information received
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remained listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the
species should be reclassified from threatened to endangered.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place
[[Page 25198]]
of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
Nelson's checker-mallow. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists; the SSA team also consulted with other experts on the
species. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer
Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16,
2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June
2012), we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information
contained in Nelson's checker-mallow SSA report. We sent the SSA report
to four independent peer reviewers and received no responses. The SSA
report was also submitted to our Federal, State, municipal, Tribal, and
conservation partners for scientific review. We received review from
two partners, representing a Federal agency and a nonprofit
conservation partner. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the final SSA
report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Previous Federal Actions
On February 12, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR
8235) a final rule listing Nelson's checker-mallow as a threatened
species. We finalized the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of
Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which includes Nelson's
checker-mallow, in 2010 (Service 2010, entire). We conducted a 5-year
status review in 2012 and did not recommend reclassification (Service
2012, entire). On May 7, 2018, we announced in the Federal Register (83
FR 20088) our initiation of a subsequent 5-year review for the species.
We completed the status review in 2021 and therein recommended
delisting the species.
Proposed Delisting Determination
Background
Nelson's checker-mallow is an herbaceous perennial plant in the
mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces 30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink
flowers, arranged on an elongated, branched stalk. Plants produce
short, thick, twisted rhizomes (creeping underground stems), as well as
a system of fine roots extending from a taproot (a stout main root)
(Service 2010, pp. F-3-F-4).
Nelson's checker-mallow is found in the Willamette Valley and the
Coast Range of Oregon and Washington. It occupies a variety of prairie
habitats and soil types, but is typically associated with open sites.
In the Willamette Valley, the species occasionally occurs in the
understory of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among woody
shrubs, but more frequently occupies native prairie remnants, including
those at the margins of sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides, fence
rows, drainage swales, and fallow fields (Glad et al. 1994, pp. 314-
321). In the Coast Range, Nelson's checker-mallow populations typically
occur in open, wet to dry meadows, in intermittent stream channels, and
along margins of coniferous forests (Glad et al. 1987, pp. 259-262).
Once established, Nelson's checker-mallow plants are hardy; if
plants become established at a site, they usually persist (Bartow 2020,
pers. comm.). Their long taproot allows them to access subsurface water
sources, and individual plants are long-lived (Dillon 2021, pers.
comm.). In addition, regeneration from the taproot is possible after
the above-ground and upper taproot portions of the plant have been
removed (Dillon 2021, pers. comm.).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
Nelson's checker-mallow is presented in the SSA report, version 1.0
(Service 2021, entire).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the List.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Washington (recovery plan) divides the geographic area
covered by included species into recovery zones, which provides a
framework for recovering the species' historical ranges. Nelson's
checker-mallow historically occupied seven recovery zones: SW
Washington, Portland, Coast Range, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis
East, and Corvallis West. The following discussion provides an
assessment of the species' status relative to the five delisting
criteria outlined in the recovery plan.
[[Page 25199]]
Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and Abundance
The recovery plan specifies that the distribution of populations
should reflect the extent of the species' historical geographic
distribution to the extent practicable and identifies goals for a
minimum number of populations and target number of plants per recovery
zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in one population in the Portland
recovery zone; 10,000 plants in two populations in the SW Washington,
Salem East, and Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000 plants in three
populations in the Coast Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants in four
populations in the Salem West and Corvallis West recovery zones. The
recovery plan further specifies that, with the exception of the
Portland recovery zone, these targets may be achieved with a
combination of at least two populations that number at least 2,000
individuals; and scattered independent populations must number at least
200 individuals. The rangewide delisting goal is 100,000 plants
occurring in 20 populations.
Currently, a total of 334,968 individual plants are distributed
across the historical range of the species. Considering only sites that
meet the minimum threshold of 200 individuals required to be considered
an independent population, there are 332,935 individual plants, found
in 42 populations and distributed across six of the seven recovery
zones.
Two recovery zones, Corvallis West and Salem West, meet both the
abundance and distribution goals outlined in the recovery plan.
Collectively, these two recovery zones contain 71 percent of the
populations (30 populations) and 95 percent of the individual plants
(313,662 plants) known to exist. A third zone, Salem East, contains
9,519 plants, occurring in three populations, essentially meeting the
distribution and abundance goals of 10,000 plants distributed among two
populations. Three of the remaining zones, Coast Range, Portland, and
SW Washington, have the minimum number of populations but do not meet
the recovery goals for abundance. The remaining zone, Corvallis East,
does not have any populations that meet the minimum population
threshold of 200 individual plants.
Rangewide, the abundance and distribution goal of 100,000 plants in
20 populations has been exceeded. Although the plants and populations
are not distributed among recovery zones precisely as identified in the
recovery plan, they are relatively well distributed throughout the
historical range of the species. Therefore, we conclude that the intent
of this criterion, which is to minimize extinction risk by ensuring a
sufficient number and distribution of plants and populations, has been
satisfied.
Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend and Evidence of Reproduction
The recovery plan notes that the number of individuals in the
population (or area of foliar cover) shall have been stable or
increasing over a period of at least 15 years. Stable does not mean
that the population size is static over time; over a period of 15
years, the number of individuals in the population may exhibit natural
year-to-year variability, but the trend must not be declining.
Populations must show evidence of reproduction by seed set or presence
of seedlings.
Tracking trends for individual Nelson's checker-mallow sites and
populations over time is confounded by irregular surveys and varying
methodologies. However, the overall abundance of Nelson's checker-
mallow has increased markedly since listing. Rangewide, the number of
populations with greater than 200 plants, and the total number of
plants, continues to increase. In addition, more sites have a large
number of individuals than at the time of listing. At the time of
listing in 1993, 19 sites had more than 100 plants, and only 5 sites
had more than 1,000 plants. In 2012, 26 sites had more than 100 plants,
and 4 had over 1,000 plants (Service 2012, pp. 17-19). Currently, 28
sites have more than 100 plants, and 24 sites have more than 1,000
plants (Service 2021, p. 18). These data indicate an overall positive
trend since the time of listing, as well as since the 2012 5-year
review. Additionally, natural reproduction is occurring on most sites
and overall abundance is increasing throughout the recovery zones.
Given that the number of individual plants and the number of large
populations continue to demonstrate a positive trend, we conclude that
this criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality and Management
The recovery plan specifies that sites supporting populations of
Nelson's checker-mallow must meet three criteria related to habitat
quality and management:
1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting populations of Nelson's
checker-mallow must be managed for high-quality prairie habitat, which
consists of a diversity of native, non-woody plant species; low
frequency of aggressive, nonnative plant species and encroaching woody
species; and essential habitat elements for native pollinators.
2. Security of habitat. A substantial portion of the habitat for
the populations should either be owned or managed by a government
agency or private conservation organization that identifies maintenance
of the species and the prairie ecosystem upon which it depends as the
primary management objective for the site, or the site must be
protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement or covenant
that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the
species.
3. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population
must be managed appropriately to ensure the maintenance or restoration
of quality prairie habitat and to control threats to the species. Use
of herbicides, mowing, burning, or livestock grazing in management
should be implemented with appropriate methods and timing to avoid
impacts to listed plant species. Management should be coordinated with
adjacent landowners to minimize effects of pesticide drift, changes in
hydrology, timber harvest, or road/utility maintenance. Species that
may hybridize with Nelson's checker-mallow should be managed as
appropriate to avoid contact with these taxa. Other potential threats
relating to scientific research, overcollection, vandalism,
recreational impacts, or natural herbivory/parasitism should be
successfully managed so as not to significantly impair recovery of the
species. Management and monitoring plans must be approved by the
Service and should include standardized monitoring and performance
criteria that will be used to assess the plans' effectiveness following
implementation and to allow for adaptive management, as necessary.
Management plans should include a focus on protecting habitat
heterogeneity within protected sites and across a range of elevations
and aspects to buffer the potential effects of climate change.
We can gauge the degree to which this criterion has been met by
considering the management and ownership of sites that contain Nelson's
checker-mallow. Of sites that have greater than 200 plants and,
therefore, meet the definition of an independent population, 38 have
formal management plans that address habitat quality and threats.
Similarly, 26 populations are in public ownership and thus are
considered protected; one additional site is owned and protected by a
nongovernmental conservation organization, while 11 privately owned
[[Page 25200]]
sites are protected by conservation easements. Four Nelson's checker-
mallow sites have no protection and lack management plans. Together,
these four sites account for less than 1 percent of the total number of
Nelson's checker-mallow plants. That a majority of sites known to
support Nelson's checker-mallow are managed in accordance with a formal
management plan and are protected by virtue of ownership or
conservation easement ameliorates concerns associated with the quality,
security, and threat to prairie habitat. Therefore, we conclude that
this recovery criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is Stored in a Facility
Approved by the Center for Plant Conservation
The recovery plan specifies that stored genetic material in the
form of seeds must represent the species' geographic distribution and
genetic diversity through collections across the full range of the
species. Collections from large populations are particularly important
as reservoirs of genetic variability within the species.
Nelson's checker-mallow seeds are currently stored at four separate
repositories. The majority of stored seeds are located at the Corvallis
Plant Materials Center (PMC) operated by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in Corvallis, Oregon. Approximately 408 kilograms (900 pounds)
of seeds, or about 112,500,000 seeds, are stored at this facility.
Seeds in this collection were sourced primarily from production fields,
which are maintained specifically to produce seed, and are used for
habitat restoration, population augmentation, and out-planting
throughout the range of the species. In addition, approximately 29,000
seeds are stored at the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank at Portland State
University in Portland, Oregon. This collection was sourced from Lane,
Linn, Benton, Marion, Polk, Yamhill, and Tillamook Counties in Oregon,
and Lewis County in Washington. A third, smaller collection of Nelson's
checker-mallow seeds is held at the Miller Seed Vault, at the
University of Washington's Botanical Gardens in Seattle, Washington.
Approximately 705 seeds from locations in Washington are stored there.
In addition to storage in these three regional repositories, a subset
of seed from the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and the Miller Seed Vault
has been sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource
Preservation at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Both the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and Colorado State University
facility are certified by the Center for Plant Conservation.
Collectively, stored seed represents the geographic range of Nelson's
checker-mallow, and part of this stored seed is in Center for Plant
Conservation-certified facilities. Therefore, we conclude that this
criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting Monitoring Plans and Agreements
to Continue Post-Delisting Monitoring Are in Place and Ready for
Implementation at the Time of Delisting
The recovery plan specifies that monitoring of populations
following delisting will verify the ongoing recovery of the species,
provide a basis for determining whether the species should be again
placed under the protection of the Act, and provide a means of
assessing the continuing effectiveness of management actions.
A draft PDM plan for Nelson's checker-mallow has been developed
that outlines an approach to monitoring Nelson's checker-mallow for a
period of 6 years after the species is delisted. It addresses the
current status of the species and provides details associated with
monitoring methods and implementation, including site selection, data
analysis, monitoring schedules, and reporting expectations. It also
describes potential outcomes in the context of how secure the species
remains after delisting. In addition, the draft PDM plan outlines roles
and responsibilities and estimates associated costs. The draft PDM plan
is available at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five
factors in delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c) and (e)).
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
[[Page 25201]]
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for removal from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (``delisted''). However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov.
To assess Nelson's checker-mallow viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the species' life-history needs.
The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics,
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current
condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about
the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the
best available information to characterize viability as the ability of
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Ecological Needs
Populations of Nelson's checker-mallow usually occupy open habitats
that are free from encroachment of trees and shrubs. In the absence of
disturbance to set back succession, prairie habitat is subject to woody
species encroachment, gradually transitioning into shrub or woodland
habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as fire or fall mowing, are
necessary to maintain the open, high-light prairie habitats that
Nelson's checker-mallow populations thrive in. Resilient Nelson's
checker-mallow populations need a sufficient number of individuals to
withstand stochastic events and disturbances. The minimum viable
population size for Nelson's checker-mallow is not identified. However,
the Recovery Plan specifies that independent populations should number
at least 200 individuals (Service 2010, pp. IV-20) which provides a
basis for evaluating population status.
For Nelson's checker-mallow to be considered viable, the species
must be able to withstand catastrophic events and adapt to
environmental changes. This can be achieved with a sufficient number of
resilient populations distributed across its geographic range and
representing the range of ecological settings in which the species is
known to exist. The minimum number of populations required for Nelson's
checker-mallow has not been determined. However, distribution and
abundance goals laid out in the Recovery Plan (Service 2010, pp. IV-35-
IV-36) and described in the Recovery Criteria section, above, provide a
benchmark for evaluating the species.
Factors Influencing the Species
At the time of listing in 1993, the primary threats to Nelson's
checker-mallow were habitat loss due to land-use conversion for
agriculture, competition from invasive plants, and roadside management
activities. Other factors identified as potentially affecting prairie
habitat were woody encroachment, hydrological alteration, recreational
use, and trampling. Planned construction and expansion of a reservoir
on Walker Creek (a tributary to the Nestucca River) was identified as a
future threat as associated inundation would result in the loss of many
plants, including the largest population of the species known to exist
at the time. The listing rule (58 FR 8235; February 12, 1993) also
noted the potentially negative effects of overcollection for scientific
and horticultural purposes, predation by weevils, and small population
size; some inadequacies in regulatory mechanisms were also identified.
Subsequent to listing, climate change and hybridization were identified
as potential threats to the viability of Nelson's checker-mallow.
We considered all of these threats when considering whether the
species continues to warrant protection under the Act. The threat of
inundation never materialized; the proposed reservoir was not
constructed, given the designation of Walker Creek as part of Oregon's
State Scenic Waterway program in 1992, and as part of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers program in 2019 (Oregon Department of Parks and
Recreation 2021). We previously determined that overcollection does not
occur to such a degree that it has a population-level effect and that
regulatory mechanisms are adequately reducing the effects of threats
that could act at a population
[[Page 25202]]
scale (Service 2012, pp. 22-28). Weevil predation occasionally impacts
individual plants and may locally affect some populations. However, it
is seasonal in nature and unpredictable, and we did not find that it
occurs at spatial and temporal scales large enough to affect the
overall status of the species.
Many small populations of Nelson's checker-mallow remain
distributed throughout the species' range. However, the number of large
populations has increased significantly since the species was listed in
1993. Based on our assessment, presently 24 sites have more than 1,000
plants. This represents a significant improvement relative to the time
of listing, when only five sites had more than 1,000 plants (Service
2012, pp. 17-19). Therefore, we conclude that small population size no
longer puts the species at risk of extinction. The potential for
hybridization among species of the same genus remains present. However,
we found that the best available data indicates that hybridization does
not pose a threat to the overall status of the species. Additional
discussion of these threats is available in the recovery plan (Service
2010, pp. II-30-II-31; chapter III entire) and in the 2012 5-year
review (Service 2012, pp. 22-28).
The stressors identified as having a population-level effects, and
therefore included in our assessment of current and future condition,
are habitat-related stressors and climate change. The loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of prairie habitats have cascading
effects that result in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic
diversity, reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of
population structure, and increased susceptibility to local population
extirpation caused by environmental catastrophes. Collectively, this
contributes to reduced viability through reductions in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. Climate change acts primarily through
changes in habitat quality. The discussion below details the causes and
consequences of these stressors on Nelson's checker-mallow.
Alteration of Natural and Human-Mediated Disturbance Processes
Change in community structure due to plant succession has been a
serious long-term stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow. Habitats
occupied by this species contain native grassland species, as well as
numerous introduced taxa, and are prone to transition to a later seral
stage of vegetative development. The natural transition of prairie to
forest in the absence of disturbance such as fire can lead to the loss
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p. 24). However, active
management of habitat through mowing and prescribed burning is
effective in reducing Nelson's checker-mallow's exposure to this
stressor.
Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and Urban Use
Agricultural and urban development has modified and destroyed
prairie habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely distributed patches
(Service 2012, p. 24). Urban development in particular results in
permanent loss of habitat and is of special concern where existing
prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban areas (Service 2010, p. III-
2). The greatest habitat losses due to land conversion are historical,
although periodic additional losses of habitat on private lands may
occur. Exposure of Nelson's checker-mallow populations to this stressor
is mitigated by protections associated with public land ownership,
conservation measures described later in this document, and State
regulations requiring mitigation and restoration of degraded habitat.
Invasion by Nonnative Plants
Habitats occupied by Nelson's checker-mallow contain a mix of
native and nonnative species. As described above, alteration of
disturbance processes results in woody encroachment of prairie
habitats. Nonnative woody species have been of particular concern, as
they can rapidly proliferate and degrade open prairie sites (Service
2012, p. 24). In addition, nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may
effectively limit recruitment (Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE)
2017, p. 1). Although invasion by nonnative plants remains a primary
stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow populations, management practices
including mowing, burning, and shrub removal are an effective approach
to mediating these effects.
Climate Change
In the Pacific Northwest, temperature increases of 3 to 6 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) are
predicted by the end of the 21st century (Bachelet et al. 2011, p.
414). Although winter precipitation is predicted to increase, increased
summer temperatures are expected to cause increased evapotranspiration,
resulting in reduced growing season soil moisture (Bachelet et al.
2011, p. 414) and ultimately affecting prairie habitat quality.
Detailed quantitative estimates of the effects of these conditions on
Nelson's checker-mallow populations are not available. However,
vulnerability assessments show the species to be moderately vulnerable
to the effects of climate change when simulations from four ``bookend''
global circulation models and three emission scenarios are aggregated
(Steel et al. 2011, p. 91).
In order for the species to be resilient to changing environmental
conditions and remain viable into the future, maintenance of large
populations in heterogenous habitats across the range of the species is
required (Service 2010, p. IV-6). Management activities that maintain
open prairie habitats, including mowing, burning, and shrub removal,
have resulted in an increase in the number of large populations
throughout the range of the species. As described below, the majority
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites are managed in accordance with
conservation programs that ensure maintenance of prairie conditions and
promote the existence of viable Nelson's checker-mallow populations
into the future.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Despite permanent habitat loss and modification, habitat
restoration and protection projects have been implemented on both
public and private lands throughout the range of Nelson's checker-
mallow. These projects offset some of the permanent habitat losses and,
as a result, Nelson's checker-mallow habitat is increasing (Bartow
2020, pers. comm.). The Wetland Reserve Program and other Farm Bill
programs administered by the USDA's NRCS have been widely implemented
in the Willamette Valley. Other programs, such as the Service's
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Act's section 10
programs (i.e., safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans),
are also available to landowners. These programs are focused on habitat
restoration and protection and have contributed significantly to
improving the status of Nelson's checker-mallow. These gains are
particularly evident in the Corvallis West and Salem West recovery
zones.
Rangewide, the majority of sites known to support Nelson's checker-
mallow benefit from some type of conservation measure, by virtue of
ownership and/or habitat management agreements. These conservation
measures offer benefits to the species well into the future. For
instance, of 66 sites, 44 are owned by a public entity, which offers
indefinite protection from prairie habitat conversion to other uses.
Fifty-seven sites are managed in accordance with the conservation
programs described above, which
[[Page 25203]]
ensure maintenance of prairie conditions required by Nelson's checker-
mallow. The terms of these agreements vary, but they are typically
valid for 10 to 30 years, with some extending into perpetuity.
Collectively, these management regimes ensure habitat protections at a
decades-long scale for most sites.
Current Condition
We assessed the current condition of Nelson's checker-mallow by
using the best available information to estimate resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. We sourced data for this analysis
primarily from the Threatened and Endangered Plant Geodatabase (version
12/31/2019), developed by the Institute for Applied Ecology under a
cooperative agreement with the Service for the purposes of tracking the
status of species listed under the Act in the Willamette Valley.
Additional data were compiled from supplementary reports (IAE 2019),
location-specific records, and other information in our files. We use
the term ``site'' rather than ``population'' to refer to our analytical
units throughout our current and future conditions analyses to avoid
confusion; the recovery plan defines an independent population as one
that contains more than 200 individual plants, but we evaluated sites
of all sizes.
Resiliency
Resiliency, the ability of populations to withstand stochastic
events, is commonly determined as a function of metrics such as
population size, growth rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We
evaluated the current resiliency of Nelson's checker-mallow populations
on the basis of abundance, as well as measurable habitat
characteristics that represent the habitat-related stressors discussed
above. The four specific metrics we included in our assessment of
population resiliency (abundance, prairie habitat condition, site
management, and site protection) are discussed in more detail below. A
complete description of our analytical approach to current conditions
is available in the SSA report. Abundance was scored based upon the
total number of plants within a site, based on the most recent survey.
Sites were scored as 1 (Low: Fewer than 200 plants), 2 (Moderate: 200-
1,999 plants), or 3 (High: Equal to or more than 2,000 plants). These
categorical thresholds correspond to recovery goals, which state that
recovery targets may be achieved with a combination of at least two
populations that number at least 2,000 individuals and that scattered
independent populations must number at least 200 individuals.
Prairie habitat condition is a measure of overall habitat quality
and was calculated using four distinct habitat metrics that are likely
to influence population resiliency: Percent woody cover, percent native
cover, native plant richness (number of unique species present), and
invasive plant cover. For each site where data on these criteria are
available, we assigned a score of 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), or 3 (Good) for
each habitat metric. We then determined overall prairie habitat
condition for each site by averaging individual habitat metric scores.
Additional detail about scoring categories for each individual metric
is available in the SSA report.
Site management reflects the potential for prairie habitat
degradation due to natural succession in the absence of natural and
anthropogenic disturbance regimes. Site management may also be
influential in mediating the effects of climate change through the
maintenance of large populations in heterogenous habitats, and
distributed across the range of the species. To account for existing
site management that serves to offset these stressors, we assigned each
site a score of 1 (Poor: Not managed for prairie conditions or
unknown), 2 (Fair: Generally managed for prairie conditions but no
management plan in place), or 3 (Good: Managed for prairie conditions
with a management plan in place).
Site protection is a measure of the potential for losing Nelson's
checker-mallow sites to agricultural and urban development. We used
site ownership and the existence of conservation agreements to assess
how well each site is protected from development, assigning each site a
score of 1 (Poor: Private ownership with no conservation easement or
similar program), 2 (Fair: Private ownership with conservation easement
or similar program), or 3 (Good: Public ownership or private
conservation organization ownership).
To estimate resiliency for each site, we calculated a condition
score by averaging the scores for abundance, mean prairie habitat
condition, site management, and site protection. We weighted management
twice as much as the other factors due to its relative importance to
long-term population resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV-5). Based on
overall scores, current condition of each site was classified as high
(score of greater than or equal to 2.5), moderate (score of 1.75-2.49),
or low (score of less than 1.75).
Currently, we know of 66 sites containing Nelson's checker-mallow.
Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are in high condition, while 29
of them (44 percent) are in moderate condition. Rangewide, only 6 sites
(9 percent) are in low condition. These results demonstrate relatively
high resiliency across the range of Nelson's checker-mallow.
Redundancy
Redundancy is defined as a species' ability to withstand
catastrophic events and is determined as a function of the number of
populations, as well as their distribution and connectivity. The
historical distribution of populations of Nelson's checker-mallow is
largely unknown. Throughout its range, Nelson's checker-mallow is
restricted to remnant prairie habitats that are highly fragmented due
to a history of land conversion and natural succession following
alterations to disturbance cycles. However, since the time of listing,
habitat restoration, reintroductions, and habitat protection have
collectively improved the status of the species. Among the 66 known
sites, 334,968 plants are distributed across six of the seven recovery
zones, demonstrating overall good redundancy.
Representation
Representation refers to the ability of a species to adapt to
change, and is based upon considerations of geographic, genetic,
ecological, and niche diversity. Because we lack information about the
genetic diversity of the species, we rely on geographical and
ecological diversity in our assessment of representation. Populations
of Nelson's checker-mallow are currently distributed in six of the
seven recovery zones and occur in both the Willamette Valley and in the
Coast Range. The species occupies a range of prairie sites with various
soil textures and moisture levels and occurs in a wide range of plant
communities including meadows, marshes, wetlands, riparian/tree shrub
forests, and disturbed areas. This indicates that the species has the
capacity to adapt to a variety of environmental conditions and has good
representation.
Future Viability
To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we
considered the factors that will influence the species in the
foreseeable future. We define the foreseeable future as 25 to 50 years.
This interval was chosen because it encompasses the length of time over
which we conclude we can make reliable predictions about the
anticipated effect of climate change. In addition, this period of time
is sufficient to observe population trends
[[Page 25204]]
for the species, based on its life-history characteristics. It also
captures the terms of many of the management plans and conservation
easements that are in effect at Nelson's checker-mallow sites.
We determined that, in the future, Nelson's checker-mallow will
continue to be influenced by the factors that have historically
influenced and are currently influencing the species, albeit at
different relative rates. Therefore, in our analysis of future
viability, we considered habitat-related changes and climate change. We
considered the specific sources of habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation (alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance
processes, habitat conversion to agricultural and urban use, and
invasion by nonnative plants) in light of ongoing conservation support,
including habitat management and site protection.
We make several assumptions about ongoing conservation support in
the foreseeable future. Support for the conservation of Nelson's
checker-mallow has been high among government agencies, nongovernmental
conservation organizations, and some private landowners. We assume that
priority recovery and management actions for the species will continue
at approximately the current pace and that the species will continue to
benefit from this ongoing conservation support. We base this assumption
on the inclusion of Nelson's checker-mallow in a recovery plan that
includes several other listed plants and insects, and that emphasizes
restoration and maintenance of prairie habitat for the benefit of
numerous species.
Management of existing sites for the restoration or maintenance of
open prairie conditions is expected to continue. All of the protected
sites have some level of management plan. These management plans vary
in scope and complexity across ownerships, but all provide at least a
basic level of habitat management that will benefit Nelson's checker-
mallow. We anticipate that efforts to formalize new management plans
where they do not currently exist, and to update existing management
plans in response to changing conditions, will continue. Again, we base
this assumption on the fact that prairie habitat is managed for
multiple species, some of which are listed as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. This provides an impetus for continued
formalized management of these sites and maintenance of Nelson's
checker-mallow habitat.
The majority of Nelson's checker-mallow sites are protected through
ownership by public agencies or nongovernmental conservation
organizations, or through conservation easements. We assume that sites
owned by public agencies or conservation organizations will remain so
owned. We also assume that conservation easements will continue to
provide protections where they currently exist, given that the terms
typically range from 30 years to perpetuity. Ongoing efforts to protect
additional sites through land acquisitions or enrollment in
conservation easements are expected to continue and may result in the
protection of additional sites. Although sites not protected by virtue
of ownership or conservation easement may be at risk due to development
in the future, these sites are in the minority and their status is
reflected in our analysis.
Resiliency
To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we
considered a single scenario where we assumed that climate change will
result in a dramatic reduction in abundance across the species' range
but site management and protection will remain intact, as discussed
above. We then reassessed population condition, applying the same
methodology used for assessing current condition.
Published assessments do not provide detailed quantitative
estimates of the effects of climate change on Nelson's checker-mallow
populations. In order to evaluate the effects of climate change on
individual sites, we characterized a worst-case future scenario in
terms we could use in our analysis of future condition. In consultation
with species experts and conservation partners, we defined the worst-
case scenario as one where increased mortality and decreased
recruitment culminate in a 50 percent reduction in abundance at all
sites. We consider this a worst-case scenario because a 50 percent
reduction represents the upper boundary of plausibility; the actual
effects of climate change on population sizes are likely to be more
moderate. Nevertheless, assuming a 50 percent reduction provides a
generous margin of error if the assumptions described above are
violated. We acknowledge that uniform response across the species'
range is not likely, and that some populations may fare better than
others under future conditions. However, this approach serves to
demonstrate future viability under challenging future conditions.
In the scenario described above, resiliency declined only modestly,
with 60 sites remaining in high or moderate condition (see Figure 1,
below). The number of sites in high overall condition decreased from 31
to 25, relative to current condition, while the number of sites in
moderate condition increased from 29 to 35. Sites experiencing reduced
condition are relatively well distributed throughout the range of the
species, with one site occurring in the Coast Range recovery zone,
three sites occurring in the Corvallis West recovery zone, one site
occurring in the Portland recovery zone, and one site occurring in the
Salem West recovery zone. The number of sites in overall low condition
(six sites) does not change in our foreseeable future.
These changes in overall future condition are driven by changes in
abundance. In our future scenario, six additional sites fall below 200
individual plants and, therefore, receive a low score for abundance.
Sites with low abundance are more vulnerable to stochastic events and
carry a higher risk for extirpation in the future. However, the
relative importance of site management and protection in guarding
against habitat loss and maintaining resiliency is reflected in the
relatively modest downward shift in overall future condition, relative
to current condition (see Figure 2, below).
Redundancy
Our analysis of future condition indicates that redundancy will be
maintained in the foreseeable future; 66 extant sites will remain well
distributed throughout the current known range of the species.
Consequently, no major changes in the species' ability to withstand
catastrophes in the future is expected.
Representation
The distribution of extant Nelson's checker-mallow sites does not
change under the parameters of our future condition analysis.
Consequently, changes in ecological diversity are not projected to
materialize as a result of climate change, and the species is likely to
continue to occupy prairie habitat throughout its range and retain its
adaptive capacity.
[[Page 25205]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP22.003
[[Page 25206]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP22.004
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Collectively, our analysis of the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation demonstrates that in 25 to 50 years, the viability of
Nelson's checker-mallow will not be significantly reduced. We note
that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the
scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only
analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed
their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative
effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and
future condition of the species. To assess the current and future
condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis that
encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors
[[Page 25207]]
that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of Nelson's Checker-Mallow's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. For a more
detailed discussion on the factors considered when determining whether
a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species and our analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in
making these decisions, please see Regulatory and Analytical Framework,
above.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating the threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that the primary drivers of the status of Nelson's
checker-mallow have been habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation
due to alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance processes
that maintain open prairie habitat, land conversion to agricultural and
urban use, and invasion by nonnative plants. The best available
information does not indicate that habitat loss due to inundation
(Factor A), overcollection (Factor B), predation (Factor C), small
population size (Factor E), or hybridization (Factor E) are threats to
the viability of the species. To summarize, the threat of inundation
never materialized as the proposed reservoir was not constructed;
overcollection does not occur to such a degree that it has a
population-level effect; weevil predation does occasionally impact
individual plants and may locally affect some populations, but it does
not occur at spatial and temporal scales large enough to affect the
overall status of the species; many small populations of Nelson's
checker-mallow remain distributed throughout the species' range, but
the number of large populations has increased significantly since the
species was listed; and the potential for hybridization among other
species in the same genus remains present, but does not pose a threat
to the overall status of the species. A variety of regulatory
mechanisms adequately reduce the effects of any threats that act at a
population scale (Factor D).
The habitat-related threats other than inundation identified above
as drivers of Nelson's checker-mallow status are still present on the
landscape. However, their magnitude and scope have decreased from
historical levels and have been offset by a variety of management and
conservation measures in the nearly 30 years since Nelson's checker-
mallow was listed. Active maintenance of prairie habitat through mowing
and prescribed burning has demonstrably reduced the threat posed by
alteration of disturbance processes and associated woody encroachment
(Factor A). The threat of invasive plants (Factor A) has also been
significantly reduced as a result of active management. Rangewide,
formalized management plans exist for 57 of the 66 sites known to
contain Nelson's checker-mallow, a number that is expected to remain
relatively constant into the foreseeable future. Similarly, 60 Nelson's
checker-mallow sites are either in public ownership, have been acquired
by nongovernmental conservation organizations, or are enrolled in
conservation easement programs (Factor D), which has substantially
reduced the risk of habitat and population losses due to land-use
conversion (Factor A). The number of sites protected from conversion to
agricultural or urban use is expected to remain relatively constant in
the future. In sum, despite the continued presence of habitat-related
threats on the landscape, advances in site management and protection
have led to a significant reduction in threats and overall improvement
in the status of the species since listing.
When Nelson's checker-mallow was listed, we estimated that the
species occurred at 48 sites distributed among five population centers
(historically interbreeding populations). Only five sites contained
more than 1,000 individuals, and 30 percent of the known individuals of
the species were threatened with inundation due to the planned
construction of a dam. Currently, 334,968 individual plants are
distributed across the historical range of the species. They occur at
66 sites, 24 of which have at least 1,000 Nelson's checker-mallow
plants. Our analysis of current condition, based on abundance, habitat
quality, site management, and site protection, shows that 60 of those
sites are in either moderate or high condition, indicating relatively
high resiliency. The sites are distributed among six of the seven
recovery zones and occur in varied geographical and ecological
settings, demonstrating overall good redundancy and representation.
Subsequent to listing, climate change and its potential to
negatively affect prairie habitat was identified as a potential threat
to Nelson's checker-mallow. We considered the potential consequences of
climate change on the species and evaluated a worst-case future
scenario that included a 50 percent reduction in the size of all known
populations across the range of the species. Even in the face of such a
severe population reduction, the species retained appreciable levels of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation, with only six sites showing
a reduction in resiliency and with geographical and ecological
distribution fully maintained.
We recognize that some habitat-related threats remain present and
that they have ongoing impacts to Nelson's checker-mallow. We
acknowledge that the specific effects of climate change on Nelson's
checker-mallow and its habitat are uncertain but may have a negative
impact. However, we found that current and expected patterns in site
protection and habitat management are sufficient to prevent affects to
the species such that it would meet the Act's definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we determine that Nelson's checker-mallow
is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that Nelson's checker-mallow is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any
portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
now or likely
[[Page 25208]]
to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on
the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for Nelson's checker-mallow, we choose
to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered or threatened.
For Nelson's checker-mallow, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats:
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due to alteration of
natural and human-mediated disturbance processes that maintain open
prairie habitat, land conversion to agricultural and urban use, and
invasion by nonnative plants; and climate change.
The threat of habitat loss from alteration of disturbance
processes, land-use conversion, and invasion of nonnative plants has
decreased in all portions of the species' range since the time listing,
due to land protection efforts and active habitat management. Although
these residual threats influence the species variably across its range,
there is no portion of the range where there is currently a
concentration of threats at a biologically meaningful scale, relative
to other areas of the range. In the foreseeable future, climate change
may interact synergistically with other threats to negatively affect
habitat quality. We acknowledge that uniform response across the
species' range is not likely, and that some populations may fare worse
than others under future conditions. However, the best available
information does not indicate that any portion of the species' range
will deteriorate disproportionately in the foreseeable future. We
anticipate that any negative consequence of co-occurring threats will
be successfully addressed through the same active management actions
that have contributed to the ongoing recovery of Nelson's checker-
mallow and that are expected to continue into the future.
We found no concentration of threats in any portion of the Nelson's
checker-mallow range at a biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we
find the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D.
Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp.
3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), because, in reaching this conclusion, we
did not need to consider whether any portions are significant and,
therefore, did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy's definition
of ``significant'' that those court decisions held were invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that Nelson's checker-mallow does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we
propose to remove the Nelson's checker-mallow from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing Nelson's checker-mallow from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect
Nelson's checker-mallow. There is no critical habitat designated for
this species, so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. PDM refers to
activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery
remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the
Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species
to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is
detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as
endangered or threatened is not again needed.
If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We are proposing to delist Nelson's checker-mallow based on our
analysis in the SSA report, expert opinions, and conservation actions
taken. Since delisting would be, in part, due to conservation actions
taken by stakeholders, we have prepared a draft PDM plan for Nelson's
checker-mallow. The draft PDM plan discusses the current status of the
taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring if we delist
the taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of Nelson's
checker-mallow at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes
frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods
and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers
will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5)
outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule
for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is
our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered
status of Nelson's checker-mallow. We will seek public and peer
reviewer comments on the draft PDM plan, including its objectives and
procedures (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and Information
Requested, above), with the publication of this proposed rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
[[Page 25209]]
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under
the Endangered Species Act. We published a document outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We do not believe that any Tribes
would be affected if we adopt this rule as proposed. There are
currently no Nelson's checker-mallow sites on Tribal lands, although
some sites may lie within the usual and accustomed places for Tribal
collection and gathering of resources. We welcome input from
potentially affected Tribes on this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 CFR part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), by removing the entry for
``Sidalcea nelsoniana'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-09106 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P