Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule, 19013-19029 [2019-09035]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029;
FXES11130900000 189 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018–BD46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reclassifying the
American Burying Beetle From
Endangered to Threatened on the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month
petition finding; request for comments.
AGENCY:
Under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reclassify the American burying beetle
(Nicrophorus americanus) from
endangered to threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List). This determination is
based on a thorough review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that the
threats to this species have been
reduced to the point that it no longer
meets the definition of an endangered
species under the Act, but is likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future. We are also
proposing a rule under section 4(d) of
the Act to provide for the conservation
of the species. Many routine activities in
the species’ range will not be regulated
if this proposal is finalized because
these practices will not affect the overall
viability of the American burying beetle.
We are soliciting additional data and
information that may assist us in
making a final decision on this
proposed action. This document also
serves as the 12-month finding on a
petition to remove this species from the
List.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before July
2, 2019. Please note that if you are using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting
an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on this date. We must
receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by June
17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
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, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2018–
0029, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 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 Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Copies of documents: This proposed
rule and supporting documents are
available on https://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, the supporting file for this
proposed rule will be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
Oklahoma Ecological Services Field
Office, 9014 East 21st St., Tulsa, OK
74129; telephone 918–382–4500.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonna Polk, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office, 9014
East 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129;
telephone 918–382–4500. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Act, a species may warrant
reclassification from endangered to
threatened if it no longer meets the
definition of endangered (in danger of
extinction). The American burying
beetle is listed as endangered, and we
are proposing to reclassify the American
burying beetle as threatened because we
have determined it is not currently in
danger of extinction. Reclassifications
can only be made by issuing a
rulemaking. Furthermore, changes to the
prohibitions relevant to this species,
such as those we are proposing for this
species under a section 4(d) rule, can
only be made by issuing a rulemaking.
The basis for our action.
Under the Act, we may determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19013
species based on any one or a
combination of 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. We
have determined that the American
burying beetle is not currently at risk of
extinction and, therefore, does not meet
the definition of endangered. However,
due to continued threats from increasing
temperatures and ongoing land use
changes, we find that the American
burying beetle is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
We are proposing to promulgate a
section 4(d) rule.
The Service proposes to prohibit all
intentional take of the American
burying beetle and specifically tailor the
prohibition of incidental take to the
three geographic areas that the
American burying beetle occupies. In
the New England and Northern Plains
analysis areas, incidental take under the
proposed rule is only prohibited in
suitable habitat when the take is the
result of soil disturbance. However, we
propose an exception for any incidental
take associated with ranching and
grazing activities. In the Southern Plains
analysis areas, incidental take is not
prohibited unless it occurs on defined
conservation lands. However, we
propose an exception for any incidental
take that occurs on conservation lands
while conducting activities that are in
compliance with a Service-approved
management plan. Federally
implemented, funded, or permitted
actions would continue to be subject to
the requirements of section 7 of the Act.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We want any final rule resulting from
this proposal to reflect full
consideration of all relevant issues and
be as effective as possible. Therefore, we
invite tribal and governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, and
other interested parties to submit
comments or recommendations
concerning any aspect of this proposed
rule. Comments should be as specific as
possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this
proposed action, we will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information we receive. Such
communications may lead to a final rule
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
19014
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
that differs from this proposal, i.e., a
final rule could leave the species listed
as endangered, reclassify the species as
threatened, or remove the species from
the List. All comments, including
commenters’ names and addresses, if
provided to us, will become part of the
supporting record.
We specifically request comments on:
(1) New information on the historical
and current status, range, distribution,
and population size of the American
burying beetle, including the locations
of any additional populations.
(2) New information on the known,
potential, and future threats to the
American burying beetle, particularly
any projected quantities and locations of
potential threats to the American
burying beetle or its habitat. For
example, we request any information
that would allow us to better project the
potential future impacts of wind
development, including scientific
assessments of how much potential
habitat could be lost. Better assessments
of future land use and industry
development could allow us to develop
more accurate assessments of risks and
potential exemptions associated with
the proposed rule under section 4(d) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which
we refer to as our proposed ‘‘4(d) rule,’’
below.
(3) The temperature range in which
the species will or will not persist long
term.
(4) Any available data on the effects
climate change may have on the
ecosystem on which this species
depends, particularly information
related to a future northward shift of
this ecosystem.
(5) New information regarding the life
history, ecology, and habitat use of the
American burying beetle.
(6) Information on a potential acreage
threshold level below which the
prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule
would not be necessary and advisable
for the conservation of American
burying beetle.
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 (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(1)(A)) directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or 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 the proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. Comments must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
submitted to https://www.regulations.gov
before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the
date specified in DATES. We will not
consider hand-delivered comments that
we do not receive, or mailed comments
that are not postmarked, by the date
specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your
comment, 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.
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, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides
for a public hearing on this proposed
rule, if requested. We must receive
requests for a public hearing, in writing,
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown
in DATES. We will schedule a public
hearing on this proposal, if requested,
and the place of the hearing, as well as
how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ which was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited the expert opinion
of appropriate independent specialists
regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in the Species
Status Assessment Report (SSA Report)
(Service 2019; available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029) supporting
this proposed rule. The purpose of such
review is to ensure that our decisions
are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. We have
incorporated feedback from the peer
review in the SSA Report (Service
2019).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires
that, for any petition to revise the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that
reclassifying a species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the
petition (‘‘12-month finding’’). In this
finding, we determine whether the
petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted,
(2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but
immediate proposal 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. We
must publish these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register. This document
represents:
• Our 12-month not-warranted
finding on an August 21, 2015, petition
to remove the American burying beetle
from the List (that is, to ‘‘delist’’ this
species);
• Our proposed determination that
the American burying beetle no longer
meets the definition of endangered
under the Act;
• Our proposed determination that
the American burying beetle meets the
definition of threatened under the Act;
• Our proposed rule to reclassify the
American burying beetle from
endangered to threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; and
• Our proposed 4(d) rule that outlines
the proposed prohibitions applicable to
the conservation of the American
burying beetle.
Previous Federal Actions
We published a final rule to list the
American burying beetle as an
endangered species under the Act on
July 13, 1989 (54 FR 29652). We issued
a recovery plan on September 27, 1991.
We completed a status review (‘‘5-year
review’’) under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the
Act for the American burying beetle on
June 16, 2008. The 5-year review
recommended that this species remain
classified as endangered (Service 2008).
On August 21, 2015, we received a
petition dated August 18, 2015, from the
American Stewards of Liberty, the
Independent Petroleum Association of
America, the Texas Public Policy
Foundation, and Dr. Steven W.
Carothers requesting that the American
burying beetle be removed from the List.
The petition claims that the threats to
the species do not support a conclusion
that the species is at risk of extinction
now or in the foreseeable future. The
Service published a 90-day finding on
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14058), that the
petition contained substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted. The Independent Petroleum
Association of America, American
Stewards of Liberty, and Osage
Producers Association filed a lawsuit on
September 21, 2017, challenging the
Service’s failure to make a 12-month
finding on their petition. The parties
have settled this lawsuit, with the
Service agreeing to deliver a 12-month
finding on the petition no later than
April 30, 2019. This document serves as
our 12-month finding on the August 18,
2015, petition to remove the American
burying beetle from the List.
Species Status Assessment for American
Burying Beetle
We prepared a species status
assessment (SSA) for the American
burying beetle (Service 2019), which
includes a thorough review of the
species’ taxonomy, natural history,
habitats, ecology, populations, and
range. The SSA analyzes individual,
population, and species requirements,
as well as factors affecting the species’
survival and its current conditions, to
assess the species’ current and future
viability in terms of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
We define viability as the ability of a
species to persist and to avoid
extinction over the long term. Resiliency
refers to the population size and
demographic characteristics necessary
to endure stochastic environmental
variation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp.
308–310). Resilient populations are
better able to recover from losses caused
by random variation, such as
fluctuations in recruitment
(demographic stochasticity), variations
in rainfall (environmental stochasticity),
or changes in the frequency of wildfires.
Redundancy refers to the number and
geographic distribution of populations
or sites necessary to endure catastrophic
events (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308–
310). As defined here, catastrophic
events are rare occurrences, usually of
finite duration, that cause severe
impacts to one or more populations.
Examples of catastrophic events include
tropical storms, unusually high or
prolonged floods, prolonged drought,
and unusually intense wildfire. Species
that have multiple resilient populations
distributed over a larger landscape are
more likely to survive catastrophic
events, because not all populations
would be affected. Representation refers
to the genetic diversity, both within and
among populations, necessary to
conserve long-term adaptive capability
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 307–308).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
Species with greater genetic diversity
are more able to adapt to environmental
changes and to colonize new sites.
The SSA Report (Service 2019)
provides the scientific basis that informs
our regulatory determination as to
whether or not this species should be
listed as an endangered or a threatened
species under the Act. This decision
involves the application of standards
within the Act, the Act’s implementing
regulations, and Service policies (see
Finding and Proposed Determination,
below). The following discussion is a
summary of the results and conclusions
from the SSA Report (Service 2019). We
have solicited and incorporated peer
review of the draft SSA Report (Service
2019) from objective and independent
scientific experts.
Description
The American burying beetle
(Nicrophorus americanus) is a member
of the beetle family Silphidae
(subfamily Nicrophorinae); these beetles
bury vertebrate carcasses for
reproductive purposes and exhibit
parental care of young. The genus
Nicrophorus contains about 70 species
worldwide, of which 15 occur in North
America (Peck and Kaulbars 1987,
entire). Globally, burying beetles are
restricted to temperate climates, and
high elevations in tropical climates
(Arnett 1946; Howden & Peck 1972;
Cornaby 1974; Anderson & Peck 1985;
Young 1978;; Peck & Anderson 1985;
Trumbo 1990; Ruddiman 2001; Sikes &
Venables 2013). The American burying
beetle is the largest silphid (carrion
beetle) in North America, reaching 1.0
to 1.8 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) in
length (Anderson 1982, p. 362;
Backlund and Marrone 1997, p. 53). The
beetles are black with orange-red
markings. The American burying beetle
is native to at least 35 States in the
United States, covering most of
temperate eastern North America, and
the southern borders of three eastern
Canadian provinces. The species is
believed to be extirpated from all but
nine States in the United States and is
likely extirpated from Canada. Based on
the last 15 years of surveys, the
American burying beetle is known to
occur in portions of Arkansas, Kansas,
Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Texas; on Block Island off the coast of
Rhode Island; and in reintroduced
populations on Nantucket Island off the
coast of Massachusetts and in southwest
Missouri, where a nonessential
experimental population (NEP) was
established in 2012 under section 10(j)
of the Act (77 FR 16712; March 22,
2012). Reintroduction efforts are also
underway in Ohio, but survival of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19015
reintroduced American burying beetles
into the next year (successful overwintering) has not yet been
documented. A 2017 report of a
potential American burying beetle in
Michigan is being investigated. Surveys
for American burying beetles in
Michigan in 2018 failed to confirm the
report, but additional surveys are
planned in 2019. While it is possible
that additional surveys could result in
the location of additional American
burying beetles in areas not currently
known to support them, it is unlikely
that there are viable populations that are
not known. Most portions of the
historical range have not had a positive
survey in over 50 years and over that
time period it is likely that the species
would have been reported if there was
a viable population present.
The American burying beetle is a
nocturnal species that lives for only one
year. During the daytime, American
burying beetles are believed to bury
themselves under vegetation litter or
into soil (Jurzenski 2012, p. 76).
American burying beetles are active
from late spring through early fall,
occupy a variety of habitats and bury
themselves in the soil to hibernate for
the duration of the winter. American
burying beetles emerge from their
winter inactive period when ambient
nighttime air temperatures consistently
exceed 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (15
degrees Celsius (°C)) (Kozol 1988, p. 11;
Kozol 1990c, p. 4; Bedick et al. 1999, p.
179; Service 2008, p. 13). Reproduction
occurs in the spring to early summer
after this emergence. New adult beetles
or offspring (called tenerals), usually
emerge in summer, over-winter
(hibernate) as adults, and comprise the
breeding population the following
summer (Kozol 1988, p. 2; Amaral et al.
2005, pp. 30, 35).
Summary of Species Requirements
Requirements of Individuals
Adults and larvae depend on dead
animals (carrion), e.g., cotton rats,
pheasants, prairie dogs, ground
squirrels, etc., for food and moisture.
Adults also require adequate soil
moisture, appropriate soil temperatures,
and appropriate soil particle size to
allow them to bury themselves and/or a
carcass (see chapter 2 of the SSA Report;
Service 2019). Although American
burying beetles will use multiple soil
types, they have a strong preference for
soils with high moisture levels. Burying
beetles likely seek moist microhabitats
to avoid drying out (Bedick et al. 2006;
Hoback 2008, pp. 2, 4), but a specific
threshold for soil moisture is unknown.
Adequate soil moisture levels appear to
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19016
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
be critical for American burying beetles,
and they show a strong preference for
moist, sandy loam soil with organic
matter (Hoback 2008, unpublished).
When the nighttime ambient air
temperature is consistently below 59 °F
(15 °C), American burying beetles bury
into the soil and become inactive
(Service 1991, p. 11; Scott and Traniello
1989, pp. 34–35; Kozol 1995, p. 11).
American burying beetles require
adequate soil moisture, temperature,
and particle size during this inactive
phase as well (Bedick et al. 2004, p. 28).
Carrion selection for food can include
an array of available carrion species and
sizes, as well as feeding through
capturing and consuming live insects
(Service 1991, p. 11) and eating fly
larvae when encountered on a carcass
(Trumbo 1994, p. 247).
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Population and Species Requirements
For reproduction, American burying
beetles need appropriately sized carrion,
access to mates, and suitable soils.
American burying beetles are nocturnal
and must find and bury the carcass in
one night. Carrion sources that
American burying beetles have been
documented using for reproduction
include carcasses weighing from 1.7 to
10.5 ounces (48 to 297 grams (g)), but
the optimum weight of carcasses is 3.5
to 7.0 ounces (80 to 200 g) (Kozol 1988,
pp. 12–13, 25, 36–39, figures 1 and 2;
Kozol 1990a, pp. 7–8). Once an
appropriate carcass has been found for
reproduction, American burying beetles
may compete amongst themselves or
with other species for control of the
carcass until usually only a single
dominant male and female burying
beetle remain (Springett 1967, p. 56;
Wilson and Fudge 1984, entire; Scott
and Traniello 1989, p. 34). Once the pair
wins the battle for the rights to the
carcass, the successful couple buries the
carrion, copulates, and constructs an
underground cavity called a brood
chamber around the carcass, although
either sex is capable of burying a carcass
alone (Kozol et al. 1988, p. 170).
Once underground, both parents strip
the carcass of fur or feathers, roll the
carcass into a ball and treat it with
secretions that form a brood chamber
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
and retard growth of mold and bacteria.
The female American burying beetle
lays eggs in the soil adjacent to the
carcass (Pukowski 1933, p. 555; Milne
1976, p. 84; Scott and Traniello 1990, p.
274) where the eggs incubate for about
6 days before hatching into larvae that
require parental care. Higher ambient
temperatures increase egg development
rates and reduce incubation times
(Damos and Savolpoulou-Soultani
2012). Females reproducing on smaller
carcasses produce fewer eggs than
females reproducing on larger carcasses
(Creighton et al. 2009, p. 681; Billman
et al. 2014a, entire; 2014b, entire).
Brood sizes of American burying beetles
can sometimes exceed 25 larvae, but 12
to 18 is more typical (Kozol 1990b,
entire).
Parental care in the genus
Nicrophorus is unique because both
parents participate in the rearing of
young (Pukowski 1933, p. 585;
Fetherston et al. 1990, entire; Trumbo
1990, p. 9). Larvae of large Nicrophorus
species are extremely dependent on
parental regurgitation and will die
before they reach second instar (second
stage of larval development) if they
receive no parental care (Scott 1998a, p.
602). Additionally, American burying
beetles will cull their brood through
cannibalism to increase size and
survival of larvae in response to a less
than adequately sized carcass (Billman
et al., 2014a, entire; 2014b, entire). The
reproductive process from carcass burial
to eclosure (emergence from pupae) is
about 30 to 65 days (Kozol 1995, pp. 2,
99: 55–65 days; Kozol 1988, p. 16: 48–
65 days; Smith and Clifford 2006, p. 11).
Suitable carrion for reproduction is
more likely to be available in properly
functioning ecosystems that have
diverse vegetative communities and
associated potential carrion species.
Suitable soils contain the appropriate
abiotic elements (e.g., soil temperature,
soil moisture, particle size, etc.) that are
favorable for excavation and formation
of brood chambers. These abiotic
elements also contribute to proper
growth and development of young.
Areas containing the appropriate
abiotic elements must be of sufficient
size to support the survival of adequate
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
numbers of individual American
burying beetles such that the
opportunity to find a mate is not
reduced and that the presence and
abundance of carrion to support
breeding and feeding are uninterrupted.
The Service does not currently have
information on the minimum size of
suitable areas (habitat patch size)
needed to maintain a healthy
population of American burying beetles.
The minimum area needed to support a
self-sustaining population varies based
on habitat quality factors such as
climate, soils, vegetation, carrion
availability, predators, and competition.
The American burying beetle lives up
to 12–16 months and is dependent upon
annual reproduction to sustain extant
populations. Sufficiently sized areas
also contribute to opportunities for
populations to at least remain stable
over time. Ideally, areas should be of
sufficient size to support a positive
growth rate and enable populations to
expand over time. These suitable areas
also must be connected with other
suitable, occupied American burying
beetle habitats so that gene flow and
genetic diversity are maintained, if not
enhanced, and individuals have access
to areas with appropriate temperatures,
moisture levels, and soil types, when
needed, across the landscape.
We generally refer to American
burying beetle populations as clustered,
localized areas, roughly defined by
habitat differences or other geographical
features, with inter-breeding
individuals. However, there are no clear
boundaries separating many of the areas
known to be occupied by American
burying beetles. For the purposes of this
analysis we organized the current range
of the American burying beetle into
analysis areas that follow broad
geographic and ecological patterns:
Northern Plains analysis areas, Southern
Plains analysis areas, and the New
England Analysis Area (see Figure 1).
This is the scale of ‘‘populations’’
referred to in the analysis of risk factors
potentially affecting the species
(chapters 4 and 5 in the SSA Report;
Service 2019).
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Review of the Recovery Plan
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. Recovery plans identify sitespecific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that set a trigger for
review of the species’ status, and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress.
Recovery plans are not regulatory
documents; instead they are intended to
establish goals for long-term
conservation of listed species and define
criteria that are designed to indicate
when the threats facing a species have
been removed or reduced to such an
extent that the species may no longer
need the protections of the Act, as well
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
as actions that may be employed to
achieve reaching the criteria. There are
many paths to accomplishing recovery
of a species, and recovery may be
achieved without all criteria being fully
met or all actions fully implemented.
Recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management
that may, or may not, fully follow the
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The American burying beetle recovery
plan was approved by the Service on
September 27, 1991 (Service 1991).
Delisting criteria were not established in
the recovery plan. However, for
reclassification from endangered to
threatened, the recovery plan
established a criterion of at least three
self-sustaining populations of at least
500 individuals in each of four broad
geographical areas of the species’
historical range: The Northeast, the
Southeast, the Midwest, and the Great
Lakes States. The threshold of 500
individuals was developed based on
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19017
limited empirical data from Block Island
(Service 1991, p. 8) and theoretical
conservation biology literature (Franklin
1980; Soule 1980; Salwasser et al. 1982)
that suggested the effective population
number of 500 was the minimum
threshold size for a biological
population to maintain long-term
adaptability. We now understand that a
population estimate of 500 adults is
probably an inadequate metric for a selfsustaining population of this species,
because minimum viable population for
most species would be considerably
larger than 500 individuals, minimum
viable populations thresholds vary by
species, and additional empirical data
and analysis for American burying
beetles suggest a larger threshold may be
more appropriate for this species (Reed
et al. 2003; Amaral et al. 2005; p. 36;
Brook et al. 2006; Flather et al. 2011;
Wolf et al. 2015). However, new
population targets for the species have
not been developed and would be
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
EP03MY19.058
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
19018
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
different for each population due to
differences in habitat and stressors
acting on populations. Likewise,
conservation of populations in the four
broad geographical areas used in the
recovery plan may not appropriately
address future threats given our current
understanding of the species’ range and
risks to populations (see sections 2.5.4
and 5.4 in the SSA Report; Service
2019). For example, the authors of the
recovery plan were not aware of future
climate-related risks and current
projections indicating that southern
portions of the historic range would not
be suitable for future recovery (see
section 5.4 in the SSA Report; Service
2019). Because we have limited
information on actual population
estimates by which to measure
population resiliency, the primary
indicators that we rely on for resiliency
are area and condition of habitat,
geographic distribution of American
burying beetles within analysis areas,
relative abundance, and size and
number of concentrations of positive
surveys within an analysis area (see
chapters 4 and 5 in the SSA Report;
Service 2019). Thus, the recovery plan
information is considered to be out of
date (Service 2008), and the SSA Report
(Service 2019) provides an updated,
revised analysis of current and future
risks based on our current
understanding of the species’ needs.
Current Status of the Species
Because the American burying beetle
completes its life cycle in one year, each
year’s population levels are largely
dependent on the reproductive success
of the previous year and reproductive
conditions in the current year.
Fluctuations are thought to be a
function of the abundance of the carrion
resources on which the species
depends. Therefore, population
numbers may be cyclic (due to weather,
disease, etc.), with high numbers and
abundance in one year, followed by a
decline in numbers the succeeding year.
Because survey information can
fluctuate over time and survey effort is
not equal for all analysis areas, the SSA
Report (Service 2019) uses a
combination of habitat and population
factors to evaluate the current status of
populations. For each analysis area, a
current condition category is assigned
based on relative abundance, population
distribution, known population trends,
availability of suitable habitat, acres of
protected areas, and the level of
management in protected areas (see
section 4.7.1 in the SSA Report; Service
2019). The current condition categories
are qualitative estimates of the current
status of the species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
Southern Plains Analysis Areas
We included three separate analysis
areas within the Southern Plains
analysis areas: Red River Analysis Area,
Arkansas River Analysis Area, and Flint
Hills Analysis Area. The Red River
Analysis Area includes 3,251,894 total
acres in portions of Arkansas, Texas,
and southeastern Oklahoma near the
Red River. Within this area, there are
2,678,406 acres of suitable habitat,
123,779 acres of managed protected
lands, and 23,997 acres of multipurpose protected lands. Managed lands
are defined in the SSA Report (Service
2019) as those areas that have
management plans that incorporate
active management with the primary
purpose of maintaining or improving
wildlife habitat and are assumed to
protect or improve American burying
beetle habitat. Multi-purpose protected
lands are defined in the SSA Report
(Service 2019) as areas managed for
mixed purposes and are assumed to
include some management for wildlife
that would protect or improve American
burying beetle habitat. Within the Red
River Analysis Area, only the Hugo
Wildlife Management Area in Oklahoma
is currently known to support American
burying beetles, with five captured in
2016. Between 1993 and 1996, the
southeastern portion of the Red River
Analysis Area supported localized
populations with relatively high catch
rates of American burying beetles
(Creighton et al. 2009, p. 40), but catch
rates in these areas have declined since
the early 2000s, and this area is no
longer considered to be occupied. No
positive surveys have been documented
in the Arkansas or Texas portions of the
Red River Analysis Area since 2008, and
only eight positive surveys are known in
the analysis area (all in Oklahoma) since
2008. Populations in Texas may be
extirpated. The current resiliency of the
Red River Analysis Area is considered
low due to the limited distribution and
very low ratios of positive to negative
surveys in recent years.
The Arkansas River Analysis Area
includes 17,753,431 total acres in
portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and
Kansas. Within this area, there are
14,470,603 acres of suitable habitat,
1,486,002 acres of managed protected
lands, and 933,608 acres of multipurpose protected lands. Protected areas
include multiple Federal, State, and
private areas, many of which are known
to support American burying beetles.
There are some positive surveys in all
portions of the Arkansas River Analysis
Area and scattered concentrations of
positive surveys in all but the
northeastern portion of the analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
area. The current resiliency of the
analysis area is considered high due to
the large area of suitable habitat, wide
distribution of American burying beetles
within the analysis area, the presence of
several large protected areas, and fair
ratios of positive to negative surveys.
The Flint Hills Analysis Area
includes 3,706,908 total acres in
portions of Oklahoma and Kansas.
Within this area, there are 2,758,610
acres of suitable habitat, 133,196 acres
of managed protected lands, and 52,114
acres of multi-purpose protected lands.
Protected areas include Federal, State,
tribal, and private areas, many of which
are known to support American burying
beetles. Distribution is fair with some
recent positive surveys in the southern
two-thirds of the analysis area and one
concentration of positive surveys. This
analysis area has a relatively low ratio
of positive to negative surveys with
relatively large fluctuations between
years. Reports for 2016 indicated more
positive surveys and a higher ratio of
positive to negative surveys, but some
areas have limited survey effort.
Portions of this analysis area have a very
low ratio of positive surveys, which
indicates low density populations. The
current resiliency of the analysis area is
considered moderate due to the large
area of native habitat, relatively wide
distribution within the analysis area and
proximity to the Arkansas River
Analysis Area, the presence of several
large protected areas, and ratios of
positive to negative surveys that are on
average low but can periodically be
good in some locations.
Northern Plains Analysis Areas
We included three separate analysis
areas within the Northern Plains
analysis areas: Loess Canyons Analysis
Area, Sand Hills Analysis Area, and
Niobrara Analysis Area. The Loess
Canyons Analysis Area includes
2,758,610 total acres in southcentral
portions of Nebraska. Within this area,
there are 1,686,948 acres of suitable
habitat, 15,342 acres of managed
protected lands, and 3,843 acres of
multi-purpose protected lands. In
addition, there are five conservation
easements specifically set up for
protection and management of
American burying beetles, held by the
Nebraska Land Trust, in the Loess
Canyons, totaling 3,277 acres. The
protected areas within this analysis area
are known to support American burying
beetles. Distribution is currently fair
across the Loess Canyons Analysis Area,
with one relatively large contiguous
concentration of positive surveys in the
center of the analysis area. This analysis
area has a fair ratio of positive to
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
negative surveys. The current resiliency
of the analysis area is considered
moderate due to the extent of native
habitat, relatively wide distribution
within the analysis area, and fair ratios
of positive to negative surveys.
However, expansion of eastern redcedar
(Juniperus virginiana) due to a lack of
fire or mechanical control has reduced
the habitat quality in much of this
analysis area, and this population is
sensitive to droughts. The analysis area
is relatively small and isolated from
other populations.
The Sand Hills Analysis Area
includes 10,819,170 total acres in
northcentral portions of Nebraska.
Within this area, there are 8,633,685
acres of suitable habitat, 93,983 acres of
managed protected lands, and 24,633
acres of multi-purpose protected lands.
Most protected areas within this
analysis area are known to support
American burying beetles, but some
large forested areas have relatively few
positive surveys. The Valentine
National Wildlife Refuge is the only
large block of protected lands in this
analysis area with relatively good catch
rates and distribution of American
burying beetles, but smaller protected
areas near the Niobrara River also have
American burying beetles (Hoback 2018,
pers. comm.). Distribution is good, with
some positive surveys in all portions of
the analysis area and one large
contiguous concentration of positive
surveys. This analysis area has the
highest ratio of positive to negative
surveys for the last 15-year timeframe.
The current resiliency of the analysis
area is considered high due to the large
area of native habitat, wide distribution
within the analysis area, and good ratios
of positive to negative surveys.
The Niobrara River Analysis Area
includes 4,108,903 total acres in
northcentral portions of Nebraska and
southcentral portions of South Dakota.
Within this area, there are 2,961,469
acres of suitable habitat, 58,918 acres of
managed protected lands, and 33,582
acres of multi-purpose protected lands.
It includes a large area of tribal land, but
no American burying beetles have been
documented there. Some protected areas
within this analysis area are known to
support American burying beetles.
Distribution is currently fair with some
positive surveys in most portions of the
analysis area and one contiguous
concentration of positive surveys. This
analysis area has a fair ratio of positive
to negative surveys for the last 15-year
timeframe. The current resiliency of the
analysis area is considered moderate
due to the large area of native habitat,
relatively wide distribution, and fair
ratios of positive to negative surveys.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
New England Analysis Area
The New England Analysis Area
includes Block Island and Nantucket
Island. Block Island has 2,554 acres of
suitable habitat, and Nantucket Island
has 23,311 acres of suitable habitat. This
is a small area relative to other analysis
areas, but the level of protection and
active management are significantly
greater than the other analysis areas.
There are 2,507 acres of protected lands
on Block Island and 11,934 acres on
Nantucket Island. The total area of
protected lands is small compared to
some other analysis areas, but it is a
relatively large percentage of the
suitable habitat. The protected areas
within this analysis area are known to
support American burying beetles.
Distribution is currently fair, with some
positive surveys in most portions of the
analysis area that is considered suitable
habitat. This analysis area has a good
ratio of positive to negative surveys on
Block Island and fair to poor ratios on
Nantucket Island. On Block Island, the
American burying beetle population is
relatively stable with population
estimates ranging from 200 to 1,000.
This population has been monitored
annually since 1991. Carrion
provisioning has been conducted on
Block Island since 1993. On Nantucket
Island, the reintroduced population
does not appear to be self-sustaining
and requires human assistance for longterm maintenance (Mckenna-Foster et
al. 2016, entire). The current resiliency
of the analysis area is considered
moderate due to relatively good
distribution, and fair ratios of positive to
negative surveys. However, the
populations on both islands are highly
dependent on active management.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing
species, reclassifying species, or
removing species from listed status. A
species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to
one or more of the five listing factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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. A species may be reclassified
or delisted on the same basis. The SSA
Report (Service 2019) represents a
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19019
compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning
the status of the species, including the
past, present, and future threats, to
evaluate viability of the American
burying beetle. The effects of
conservation actions were also assessed
as part of the current condition of the
American burying beetle in the SSA
Report (Service 2019), and those effects
were projected in future scenarios.
The American Burying Beetle
Recovery Plan (Service 1991) and the 5year status review of the species
(Service 2008) identify the following
factors as threats or potential threats to
American burying beetles: Direct habitat
loss and alteration, increase in
competition for carrion resources,
decrease in abundance of prey, loss of
genetic diversity in isolated
populations, disease/pathogens,
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(commonly known as DDT), habitat
fragmentation due to agricultural and
grazing practices that lead to changes in
vertebrate composition or density, and
invasive species. We now know that
DDT and some other threats identified
at the time that the recovery plan and
5-year status review were completed are
either no longer a threat or pose less of
a threat to the species. However, none
of these factors alone adequately
explains why the American burying
beetle declined over much of its historic
range while species in the same genus
are still relatively common rangewide.
There are eight sympatric congeners
(other Nicrophorus species or species of
the same genus) which have not
experienced similar reductions in their
ranges (Sikes and Raithel 2002, p. 104).
Much of the evidence suggesting the
reduction of appropriate carrion
resources as a primary mechanism of
population decline for the American
burying beetle is circumstantial.
However, this hypothesis fits the
temporal and geographical pattern of the
disappearance of American burying
beetles from 90 percent of its historical
range, and may explain why American
burying beetles declined while related
species that do not rely on the same
carrion resources did not similarly
decline (Sikes and Raithel 2002, p. 104).
The availability of appropriately sized
carrion may explain current
distributions of the American burying
beetle and the presence or absence of
American burying beetles in most of the
existing analysis areas. For example, the
American burying beetle population on
Nantucket Island was established with
provisioned carcasses, but is projected
to be extirpated without continued
provisioning of appropriately sized
carcasses (Mckenna-Foster et al. 2016,
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19020
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
entire). Apparently, the natural
availability of appropriately sized
carrion is limited on the island and will
not support the population without any
provisioning. American burying beetles
need carcasses of 80 to 200 grams, and
areas that can support the species must
have potential carrion sources within
this size range. The abundance of
potential carrion species and
competition for the carcasses can affect
availability for American burying
beetles.
Risk factors are not equal in all
portions of the American burying
beetle’s range, and some risk factors
have changed since the recovery plan
was written. All current risks for each
analysis area are described in chapter 4,
and future risks are discussed in chapter
5, of the SSA Report (Service 2019).
Risks such as conversion to cropland
and wind energy development are
greater in portions of the Northern
Plains analysis areas, while risks
associated with grazing, silviculture,
and oil and gas development are more
common in the Southern Plains analysis
areas. All remaining populations have
some risks associated with areas of
urban or suburban development,
particularly in the New England
Analysis Area, but most current
American burying beetle populations
are in rural areas and have potential
risks associated with habitat loss due to
agricultural land uses. Risks associated
with the effects of changing climate,
including increasing temperatures, are
now the most significant threat for most
analysis areas.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range (Factor A)
Agricultural land uses and urban
expansion are predicted to have impacts
to American burying beetle habitat and
populations over time; however, those
impacts are expected to be relatively
minor in most of the current known
range of the species. Historically and to
a lesser extent currently, land
conversion to agriculture, intensive
domestic livestock grazing, logging, fire
suppression, wind energy development,
and urban development are common
causes of habitat quality reductions,
loss, and fragmentation within the
current range of the American burying
beetle. Habitat loss and alteration affect
this species at local and regional levels,
and could account for the extirpation of
populations once they become isolated
from others (Kozol 1995, p. 170;
Ratcliffe 1996; Lomolino and Creighton
1996, entire; Amaral et al. 1997, pp.
123–124; Bedick et al. 1999, p. 179;
Creighton et al. 2009, p. 40). There are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
no known American burying beetle
populations surviving in intensively
farmed or highly urbanized areas.
Large areas of native grasslands have
been converted to nonnative grasses to
improve pastures for intensive cattle
grazing operations. Even in areas with
native vegetation, pastures and hay
fields can be more intensely grazed or
mowed during drought periods when
demand for grass or hay is high, which
can keep habitat in an unfavorable or
marginal condition for longer time
periods. A more complete description of
potential land use impacts is provided
in chapter 3 of the SSA Report (Service
2019).
Relatively little urban and industrial
development is occurring within the
current known range of the American
burying beetle. There are a few
relatively large urban areas near
American burying beetle populations in
the New England area but most of the
current range is rural. Most of the
existing American burying beetle range
is already under some agricultural use
(primarily grazing and hay production).
Two scenarios in the SSA Report
(Service 2019) explore potential future
land use changes to help characterize
the likely potential for impacts to
suitable habitat for the American
burying beetle. Land use changes were
evaluated separately for each analysis
area because they are a risk factor for
current conditions. Future risk factors
like climate changes affect different
analysis areas over different time
periods; however, climate changes were
not considered under the two land use
scenarios in the SSA Report (Service
2019). Climate related impacts to habitat
and range are addressed under Factor E.
The large areas of known and
potential habitat in the Southern Plains
buffer the effects of most land use
changes. The projected combined
permanent loss of suitable habitat from
all sources for the Southern Plains
analysis areas is 1.2% or 246,293 acres
from the existing 19,995,088 acres
(Service 2019). The combined impacts
of urban expansion and agriculture
(primarily conversion to cropland) are
expected to affect 5–15% of the suitable
habitat in the Northern Plains and
redcedar expansion in the Loess Canyon
Analysis Area is expected to result in up
to an additional 30% habitat loss
(Service 2019).
The projections in our SSA Report
(Service 2019) indicate that future
representation and redundancy are both
reduced with potential losses of habitat
in New England, Loess Canyons, and
the reintroduction site in Missouri. The
potential loss of the Loess Canyons
population is due to land use changes,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
including redcedar expansion, and the
New England populations and Missouri
reintroduction could be lost if active
management and habitat protection are
not continued. The combined effects of
land use and future climate changes (see
Factor E) are likely to impact the
resiliency of most populations and the
overall viability of the species.
Other Considerations
This assessment of land use effects
includes cautions because these effects
were compared to areas of potential
suitable habitat, and our assessment of
suitable habitat was very broad. Not all
potentially suitable habitat is occupied
by American burying beetles; therefore,
this analysis may underestimate the
impacts of land use changes. Additional
cautions are related to our limited
ability to quantify some potential future
effects. For example, uncommon
increases in crop prices could increase
incentives for conversion of grassland to
row crops to levels beyond the
assumptions used in the two scenarios.
Recent development and potential
expansion of wind energy projects could
also add to impacts from other land use
changes. The construction of wind
turbines, roads, and powerlines has
direct permanent habitat impacts and
fragments the remaining habitat. The
operation of wind turbines also has
potential for direct take through
American burying beetle collisions with
the blades.
Future land use effects related to
wind power were not factored into land
use scenarios because we did not have
estimates of future development or total
areas that may be affected by wind
projects, and there are no studies
available to evaluate the actual effects of
wind projects on American burying
beetles. Within the Southern Plains
analysis areas, the current area of wind
projects is relatively small, and there is
limited potential for expansion. Less
than 10 percent of the Southern Plains
analysis areas have annual average wind
speeds of 6 meters/second (m/s) or
greater at 30 meters height that are
recommended for wind development.
There is greater potential for wind
energy development in the Northern
Plains analysis areas. Nearly all of the
Northern Plains analysis areas have
annual average wind speeds of 6 m/s or
greater at 30 meters height. There are
6,471 wind turbines registered in the
Northern Plains analysis areas, but we
do not know what areas, or what
percentage of the suitable habitat in
Northern Plains analysis areas, may be
affected by wind projects in future
years. The Service intends to do further
evaluation of potential effects of wind
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
projects and welcomes any additional
information on the subject.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes (Factor B)
Overutilization for any purpose was
not identified as a threat to the species
at the time of listing in 1989, and it is
not considered a threat to the species’
continued existence today.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Disease or Predation (Factor C)
While disease and predation may
represent relevant threats to the
American burying beetle, they are not
known to result in population-level
impacts. Further information regarding
disease and predation can be found in
the SSA Report (Service 2019).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms (Factor D)
Under this factor, we examine the
stressors identified within the other
factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by
any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Section 4(b)(1)(A)
of the Act requires that the Service 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
. . .’’ In relation to Factor D under the
Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant
Federal, State, and Tribal laws,
regulations, and other such binding
legal mechanisms that may ameliorate
or exacerbate any of the threats we
describe in threat analyses under the
other four factors or otherwise enhance
the species’ conservation. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their
implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from
those laws and regulations.
Existing regulatory mechanisms vary
by location, but generally do not fully
address the numerous stressors that the
American burying beetle faces. The
American burying beetle is State-listed
in Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Ohio, and Oklahoma. The specific
protections vary by State, but often
include some permitting requirements
or coordination with the State wildlife
agencies when projects could directly
impact the species or its habitat. It is not
State-listed in Rhode Island, Arkansas
(special concern only), South Dakota, or
Texas. Currently, there is no protection
under State law for the habitat of the
American burying beetle in Arkansas or
South Dakota (Backlund et al. 2008).
In some parts of the range (Nebraska,
South Dakota, and Kansas), the species
occurs almost exclusively on private
land and regulatory mechanisms do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
address the stressors impacting the
species. In other areas, there are several
robust populations on public lands or
private conservation organization
properties, but many protected lands
supporting American burying beetles
require ongoing management like
prescribed fire or other measures to
control invasion of woody vegetation to
ensure the species’ continued presence.
Federal and State agencies have adopted
and implemented laws, regulations, and
best management practices that result in
protection of American burying beetles.
In addition, the Department of
Defense (DoD), with the assistance of
the Service and the states, is responsible
under the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a–
670f, as amended) for carrying out
programs and implementing
management strategies to conserve and
protect biological resources on its lands.
Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs) are
planning documents that allow DoD
installations to implement landscapelevel planning to provide for the
management of natural resources,
including fish, wildlife, and plants,
without any net loss in the capability of
an installation to support its military
mission. Incorporation of INRMPs on
the DoD installations provide
management and conservation benefit to
American burying beetles.
In some cases, where American
burying beetles occur on lands with
conservation easements, deed
restrictions, or owned by conservation
organizations, existing regulatory
mechanisms appear to be adequate.
However, existing land protections are
not comprehensive for the American
burying beetle. Given the varied
missions of these landowners, the level
of protection varies and may change
over time. Additionally, populations in
the New England and Northern Plains
Analysis areas are expected to
experience future threats from land use
change and all populations are expected
to experience future threats from
climate change over varying time
periods. Existing regulatory mechanisms
do not address those future threats to
the American burying beetle.
Other Natural and Manmade Factors
(Factor E)
The most significant potential threat
under this factor is climate change. This
is a summary of climate-related risks,
and additional information is available
in the SSA Report (Service 2019). The
SSA Report’s chapter 3 summarizes
general climate risks, chapter 4 includes
current risks, and chapter 5 covers
future risks (Service 2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19021
Most considerations of climate change
in classification decisions hinge upon
whether climate change will manifest in
changing habitat conditions and how
the species is likely to respond to these
changes in the future. Therefore, a key
consideration for classification
decisions where climate change is a
potential stressor is how we interpret
‘‘foreseeable future’’ in the definition of
a threatened species under the Act.
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) adopted four
possible Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCP) scenarios (2.6, 4.5, 6,
and 8.5) to capture the possible ranges
of climate change within the next
century (Hartmann et al. 2013; Moss et
al. 2008). In our analysis of potential
climate change impacts to the American
burying beetle, we used two of those
scenarios, RCP 4.5 and 8.5, over
different blocks of time through the end
of this century (years 2010–2039, 2040–
2069, and 2070–2099). For the purpose
of this document we define those time
periods as: ‘‘early century time period’’
(2010–2039), ‘‘mid-century time period’’
(2040–2069), and ‘‘late century time
period’’ (2070–2099). We use more than
one emissions scenario to account for
uncertainty regarding future
atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. By using both a
relatively high and relatively low
emissions scenario in our projections,
we attempt to bracket the likely
possibilities for climate change in the
foreseeable future. RCP 4.5 is at the low
end of the intermediate range of
conditions projected by the IPCC and
represents a situation under which key
atmospheric conditions would stabilize
at a relatively moderate level shortly
after 2100. This scenario envisions
emissions mitigation through strong
policy action by the international
community, including the United
States, in the near future to curb
emissions and the resulting effects to
global climate. RCP 8.5 is the high end
of IPCC projections of atmospheric
conditions. RCP 8.5 is the expected
scenario if strong policy actions to curb
emissions are not pursued by the United
States and the international community.
This scenario is essentially the
continuation of current trends in
emissions as they may play out over the
next century. For ease of reference, we
refer to these as ‘‘emissions scenarios,’’
although they are not based solely on
emissions of greenhouse gases. Our
approach of using the two RCPs is
consistent with the current widespread
scientific practice of considering
projections based on RCP 4.5 and RCP
8.5 so as to consider a range of projected
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
19022
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
conditions, rather than relying on a
single scenario. The U.S. Global Change
Research Program used these two RCPs
as the core scenarios for the Fourth
National Climate Assessment (Hayhoe et
al. 2017), and they also are used as the
basis for projections generated via the
U.S. Geological Survey’s National
Climate Change Viewer.
The life-history characteristics of
American burying beetles indicate
limited ability to tolerate warmer
temperatures. Adult American burying
beetles use secretions to slow
decomposition of carcasses they bury
for reproduction (see Summary of
Species Requirements, above, for more
information on the role of carcasses in
reproduction). The carcasses are buried
and must support both adults and larvae
for at least 2 to 3 weeks, but high
temperatures have been shown to
reduce the effectiveness of the
secretions and accelerate decomposition
(Jacques et al. 2009, p. 871). While the
American burying beetle has life-history
requirements similar to other carrion
beetles, it is the largest Nicrophorus in
North America and requires a larger
carcass to reach its maximum
reproductive potential (i.e., to raise a
maximum number of offspring) than the
other burying beetles (Service 1991, p.
2; Kozol et al. 1988, p. 37; Trumbo 1992,
pp. 294–295). American burying beetles
also have a longer time period for egg
and larval development than other
Nicrophorus carrion beetles, so the
carcass must last longer (at least 12 to
14 days) to provide food and moisture
for adults and support development of
their larvae to the pupa stage.
Temperature-related increases in
decomposition and development of fly
larvae would limit or prohibit
reproductive success for American
burying beetles if carcasses are in a
suitable condition for shorter periods of
time or do not last long enough to
support development of their larvae.
The distribution of American burying
beetles also indicates a limited ability to
tolerate warmer temperatures.
Nicrophorus abundance and diversity
are higher in cooler climates. There are
15 Nicrophorus species in the United
States and Canada, but only 2 are
endemic to Central and South America,
and they occur at higher elevations with
cooler temperatures. Reasons for
burying beetles’ lack of success in
warmer climates include increased
competition with flies and ants, as well
as increased rates of carcass
decomposition. Carcass decomposition
is dominated by dipteran species (true
flies) and the diversity of dipteran
species using carcasses increases in
warmer climates. Based on species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
distributions and existing climate
conditions, few Nicrophorus species
appear to be capable of maintaining
populations in areas with long-term
average summer mean-maximum
temperatures at or exceeding a 95 °F
threshold (N. carolinus, and possibly N.
pustulatus and N. marginatus), and
there are no Nicrophorus species in
areas with average summer meanmaximum temperatures exceeding
100 °F.
Under both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions
scenarios, all American burying beetle
populations in the Southern Plains
Analysis Areas are projected to have
summer mean-maximum temperatures
exceeding 95 °F within the mid-century
time period. Surveys for American
burying beetles in locations that have
experienced a mean-maximum
temperature near or above 95 °F during
summer have shown declining capture
rates the following year. Existing survey
information from Fort Chaffee (Arkansas
River Analysis Area) supports the
assumption that mean-maximum
temperatures above 95 °F would
adversely affect American burying
beetle populations. Monitoring of
American burying beetles has occurred
annually from 1992 through 2016.
During the study period, catch rates of
American burying beetles declined from
the previous year every time meanmaximum temperatures exceeded 95 °F,
which happened a total of six times
throughout the study period. Based on
this information, we anticipate
continued population declines and
potential extirpation if mean-maximum
temperatures exceeding 95 °F became
the average during summer months and
more extreme temperatures occurred
more frequently.
Evidence suggests that southern
populations of American burying
beetles that experience summer meanmaximum temperatures near 95 °F are
declining. Since 2008, only seven
American burying beetles have been
detected within the Oklahoma portion
of the southernmost analysis area, and
no American burying beetles have been
documented in the Texas or Arkansas
portions. We have no evidence to
suggest that habitat conditions within
these areas have significantly changed,
which might otherwise explain the
observed American burying beetle
declines in this area. Populations have
declined or are extirpated in large
protected areas like Camp Maxey,
Texas, with no apparent changes in land
use. It appears that temperatures near
this area are at, or past, a threshold that
would support American burying
beetles. This may be further supported
by the fact that the species does not
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
exist south of the Red River area in
Texas and Louisiana, where habitat, soil
conditions, and carrion availability are
likely to be similar. This leads us to
conclude that the southern edge of the
species’ range is driven by this
temperature threshold.
Temperature has always limited the
American burying beetle’s range to some
degree. Populations at the northern edge
of the range are limited by cool night
time temperatures and shorter growing
seasons, whereas populations at the
southern edge of the range are likely
limited by high temperatures. The
western edge of the species’ range has
been limited by reduced precipitation
and soil moisture. Although
temperature and other effects of climate
change are expected to affect American
burying beetles in both the northern and
the southern parts of the range, we
expect that the populations in southern
areas will be affected sooner and to a
greater extent based on projected
temperatures. Under both the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 emissions scenarios, a majority
of the Southern Plains analysis areas are
expected to be near or exceed summer
mean-maximum threshold temperatures
(95 °F) by 2039, with potential to
extirpate American burying beetles from
most or all Southern Plains populations.
Within the mid-century time period, all
Southern Plains analysis areas are
expected to exceed threshold
temperatures under both the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 emissions scenarios, likely
resulting in extirpation of the American
burying beetle from these areas.
American burying beetles near the
southern and western edge of the range
may already be at their limits for
temperature- and moisture-related
tolerances and have a limited ability to
adapt to rapidly changing climate
conditions (see comments on limits
related to life history in chapter 5 of the
SSA Report; Service 2019).
There are no American burying beetle
populations, including known historical
populations, located in areas that
experience a long-term summer meanmaximum air temperature above 95 °F.
The Red River Analysis Area represents
the southernmost and warmest portion
of the American burying beetle’s current
range, with summer mean-maximum air
temperatures of approximately 93 to
94 °F. Historical populations south of
the Red River Analysis Area have not
been documented in over 70 years.
Because American burying beetles have
not expanded their range to warmer
climates since the early 1900s, we
believe that climate conditions
associated with the current and
historical ranges represent existing
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
thresholds for maintaining American
burying beetle populations.
Increased air temperatures, changes in
precipitation, increased evaporative
losses, and prolonged droughts may
stress or kill individual American
burying beetles and reduce reproductive
success or reduce the time periods with
suitable conditions for reproduction.
High air temperatures have been
documented to kill or sterilize American
burying beetles at captive colonies when
air conditioning systems have failed,
resulting in colony temperatures at 85 to
90 °F for about 2 weeks (Merz 2016,
pers. comm.). Survey protocols require
traps to be checked in the morning
because American burying beetle
mortalities have occurred when they are
confined in traps during warm days.
More indirect effects of increased
temperatures and reduced precipitation
or soil moisture may be related to
competition. Congeners with higher
temperature or lower moisture
tolerances, like N. carolinus, may be
more competitive and reduce or
eliminate American burying beetles in
southern populations. Species like N.
carolinus can compete for appropriate
carcasses and reproduce under warmer
and drier conditions than American
burying beetles (Abbott and Abbott
2013, p. 2). At Camp Maxey, N.
carolinus numbers increased rapidly
when American burying beetle and N.
orbicollis numbers declined (Abbott and
Abbott 2013, p. 2).
Increasing temperatures resulting
from climate change could reduce the
reproductive success of American
burying beetles by reducing the portion
of the active season with suitable
temperatures for reproduction. Recent
temperature studies with N. orbicollis
indicate even small increases in
temperature can affect reproduction
(Creighton 2016, pers. comm.). This
type of research is currently being
conducted with American burying
beetles as well, but those results are not
yet available. N. orbicollis has a similar
historical range and is the most closely
related congener; therefore, we expect
the American burying beetle study will
yield similar results. For N. orbicollis,
the percent of successful broods
declined at temperatures greater than 20
°C (68 °F) and declined rapidly at any
temperatures greater than 25 °C (77 °F).
An increase of only 2 to 3 degrees (from
25 to 27–28 °C, or approximately 77 to
80 °F) stopped most beetles from
attempting to prepare a carcass for
reproduction, and those that did were
not successful in producing any larvae
or tenerals. The warmer temperatures
apparently precluded eggs from
hatching or larvae from developing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
beyond a very early stage. The study
also demonstrated effects of
temperatures on seasonal timeframes
that would support reproduction. While
more southern latitudes have a longer
active season and would logically have
more time to reproduce, the temperature
restrictions actually reduce the potential
for reproduction in Oklahoma. N.
orbicollis in the northern portion of
their range (Wisconsin) have a longer
period of suitable climate conditions for
reproduction and could reproduce more
often than N. orbicollis in the southern
portion of their range (Oklahoma) due to
these temperature restrictions. Projected
climate changes could limit
reproduction in the future to an even
greater extent.
American burying beetles are a
nocturnal species, and nighttime
temperatures are likely to influence the
behavior and range of this species as
well. Nights above 75 °F were only
observed in the Southern Plains analysis
areas (Red River, Arkansas River, and
Flint Hills analysis areas) with the
exception of 7 nights over a 35-year
period in Colome, South Dakota (1 night
in 2001, 3 nights in 2006, and 3 nights
in 2011). The effects of the increase in
nights above 75 °F and potential impacts
to reproductive success may be
occurring in the Red River Analysis
Area, where declines in positive
American burying beetle surveys have
been documented since the early 2000s.
Temperatures of 75 °F or higher
adversely affected reproductive success
in N. orbicollis (Creighton 2016, pers.
comm.) and may have a similar effect on
American burying beetles. We do not
have data specifically related to
reproductive success in the Red River
Analysis Area, but the American
burying beetle population declines
coincide with the increase in nighttime
temperatures above 75 °F. From 1993–
1996, the Red River Analysis Area
supported some areas with good catch
rates of American burying beetles in the
southeastern portion (Creighton et al.
2009, p. 40), but positive/negative ratios
and catch rates have declined since the
early 2000s. On the Weyerhaeuser
Habitat Conservation Plan planning area
in McCurtain County, Oklahoma,
relative densities of American burying
beetles generally declined from an
average of 0.076 beetles per trap-night
(106 beetles captured) in 1997, to 0.010
beetles per trap-night (16 beetles
captured) in 2001. There was a slight
increase in 2002 (0.015 beetles per trapnight), and a greater one in 2003 (0.053
beetles per trap-night), but then relative
densities dropped again. During 2005–
2007, there were no captures of
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19023
American burying beetles at regular
sites and only one capture in 2005 at a
supplemental site (Schnell et al. 2008).
No positive surveys have been
documented in the Arkansas or Texas
portions since 2008, and only seven
positive surveys are known in the
Oklahoma portion since 2006.
Populations in Texas may be extirpated.
American burying beetles are only
active at night, resulting in a very
narrow window of time for suitable
carcasses to be available for American
burying beetles to find, bury, and
prepare for reproduction. Higher
temperatures cause carrion to
decompose more rapidly, and fly larvae
to develop faster and quickly consume
small carcasses. At high temperatures,
exposed carcasses can be heavily
infested with fly larvae within 2 days,
and carcasses may only be suitable and
available for 1 or 2 nights. Thus, we
conclude that increased air
temperatures can affect reproductive
success by reducing the availability of
suitable carrion due to competition with
flies and ants.
Risks associated with the effects of
changing climate, including increasing
temperatures, are a significant threat for
some analysis areas in the foreseeable
future. The combination of information
in the SSA Report (see chapter 5;
Service 2019) indicates increasing air
and soil temperatures as a result of
climate change is a significant risk to
future viability of the species. Within
the mid-century time period, American
burying beetles in all Southern Plains
analysis areas would likely be
extirpated and would represent a loss of
approximately 59 percent of the current
range of the species. The summer meanmaximum threshold (95 °F), where we
determine American burying beetle
numbers will decline and not be able to
persist into the future, is predicted to be
exceeded in nearly all portions of the
Southern Plains analysis areas under
either the moderate or high emissions
levels of climate change within the midcentury time period. Northern Plains
analysis areas are largely unaffected by
moderate emissions levels of climate
change within the mid-century time
period (see chapter 5 of the SSA Report;
Service 2019), but under the RCP 8.5
emissions scenario, temperatures
approach 93 to 95 °F in about two-thirds
of the Loess Canyons Analysis Area and
small portions of the other two analysis
areas in the Northern Plains within the
mid-century time period. Under the RCP
8.5 emissions scenario, Southern Plains
American burying beetle populations
would be projected to have summer
mean-maximum temperatures up to 98
to 100 °F within the mid-century time
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19024
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
period. We conclude that the American
burying beetle is at risk of extirpation
within the Southern Plains analysis
areas under the two projected climate
conditions we analyzed (RCP 4.5 and
8.5) within the mid-century time period.
The species would likely continue to be
represented by Northern Plains and
New England populations, but at least
three populations and 59 percent of the
existing range of the species are
projected to be lost within the midcentury time period.
The effects of climate change, such as
increasing temperatures, changes in
precipitation, increased evaporative
losses, and prolonged droughts, are
known to stress and sometimes kill
individual American burying beetles
and, therefore, are likely to reduce
reproductive success. Overall, we
consider these factors threats to
American burying beetle populations,
but the impacts are currently limited to
the southernmost parts of the range.
However, future projections indicate
that American burying beetles have a
high risk of extirpation throughout the
Southern Plains analysis areas and in
large portions of the Northern Plains
analysis areas due to these effects of
climate change.
Finding and Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the American
burying beetle. The American burying
beetle was listed as endangered in 1989,
due to the disappearance of the species
across the vast majority of its known
historical range, habitat changes, and
competition for limited carrion
resources. At the time of listing, only
two highly disjunct populations of a
formerly widespread species were
known to be extant, one in New England
and one in eastern Oklahoma.
We now know there are more
populations over a much wider area
relative to the time of listing. Since the
time of listing, numerous searches and
surveys have resulted in the discovery
of additional American burying beetle
occurrences in Oklahoma, Nebraska,
Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, and South
Dakota. However, some known
populations are small and isolated, and
populations in the monitored portions
of the southernmost areas have declined
in recent years. In some parts of the
range (Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Kansas), the species occurs almost
exclusively on private land, presenting
additional future risks for land use
conversion leading to loss or
fragmentation of previously suitable
habitat. Several robust populations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
occur on public lands or private
conservation organization properties,
but many protected lands supporting
American burying beetles require
ongoing management like prescribed
fire or other measures to control
invasion of woody vegetation to ensure
the species’ continued presence.
Additionally, most of those protected
areas are in southern areas, where
increasing temperatures due to climate
change are projected to cause
extirpation sometime within the midcentury time period. Although we now
know the species occurs in more
locations than at the time of listing,
extant American burying beetle
populations vary in level of protected
habitat, there is limited information on
population trends and biological
limiting factors for most populations,
and all populations are exposed to a
combination of risk factors. Further,
although the threats to the species vary
in scope and severity, some threats
(such as those related to increasing
temperatures) are difficult to avoid or
minimize. Population viability in the
only areas that are not threatened by
climate changes, namely the New
England Analysis Area, appears to be
reliant to some degree upon continuing
habitat management and/or
provisioning of carrion.
We have determined that the
American burying beetle’s current
viability is higher than was known at
the time of listing. Based on the analysis
in the SSA Report (Service 2019), and
summarized information above, the
Service concludes that the American
burying beetle does not currently meet
the definition of endangered under the
Act because it is not presently in danger
of extinction. Our analysis indicates that
the overall viability of the species is not
significantly impacted by the current
rate of land use change or the existing
level of habitat degradation or
fragmentation. The species is currently
represented by several populations with
moderate to high resiliency that are
distributed in several portions of the
historical range.
The future status of the species was
evaluated under increasing
temperatures for three periods of time
(years 2010–2039, 2040–2069, and
2070–2099). As described above, we
defined those time periods, as such:
‘‘early century time period,’’ ‘‘midcentury time period,’’ and ‘‘late century
time period,’’ respectively. According to
both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions
scenarios, due to expected temperature
increases, the species is likely to be
extirpated from the Southern Plains
analysis areas sometime within the midcentury time period. Furthermore, mean
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maximum summer temperatures in the
Northern Plains analysis areas approach
93–95 °F under the RCP 8.5 emissions
scenario within the mid-century time
period. About two-thirds of the Loess
Canyons Analysis Area and small
portions of the other two analysis areas
in the Northern Plains would also be at
risk of extirpation under this scenario.
The projections of increasing
temperatures are considered reliable;
however, there is greater uncertainty in
future projections of land use change
and in the species’ response to both
increasing temperatures and changes in
land use. We believe that the risk of
extinction will increase significantly
between 2040 and 2069, based primarily
on the effects of projected temperature
increases. The foreseeable future is
uniquely related to population status,
trends, and threats for the species in
each analysis area, and there are varying
degrees of foreseeability with respect to
various threats. Due to the improved
condition of the species’ status since the
time of listing and the increasing threats
from increasing temperatures and
ongoing land use changes, we find that
the American burying beetle is not
currently in danger of extinction, but is
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. Because we have found that the
American burying beetle meets the
definition of threatened under the Act,
we propose to reclassify it from
endangered to threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List).
Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that the American burying beetle is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range (i.e., warrants listing as
a threatened species), we find it
unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation
of potentially significant portions of the
range. Where the best available
information allows the Services to
determine a status for the species
rangewide, that determination should be
given conclusive weight because a
rangewide determination of status more
accurately reflects the species’ degree of
imperilment and better promotes the
purposes of the Act. Under this reading,
we should first consider whether the
species warrants listing ‘‘throughout
all’’ of its range and proceed to conduct
a ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
analysis if, and only if, a species does
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
not qualify for listing as either an
endangered or a threatened species
according to the ‘‘throughout all’’
language. We note that the court in
Desert Survivors v. Department of the
Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018
WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018),
did not address this issue, and our
conclusion is therefore consistent with
the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose to reclassify
the American burying beetle as a
threatened species across its entire
range in accordance with sections 3(20)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Conclusion
Using the best available scientific and
commercial information, we conclude
that, while the American burying beetle
is not currently in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, it is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. In accordance with 50 CFR
424.11(c), we therefore propose to
reclassify the American burying beetle
as threatened on the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at
50 CFR 17.11(h).
Proposed 4(d) Rule
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the
Service has discretion to issue
regulations that we find necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species. We
may also prohibit by regulation, with
respect to threatened wildlife, any act
prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act
for endangered wildlife. When we
establish a 4(d) rule, the general
prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31 for
threatened species do not apply to the
subject species, and the 4(d) rule
contains all the prohibitions and
exceptions that apply to the subject
species. For the American burying
beetle, the Service has developed a
proposed 4(d) rule to respond to the
specific threats and conservation needs
of this species.
The proposed 4(d) rule would
prohibit all intentional take of the
American burying beetle. The proposed
4(d) rule would only prohibit incidental
take of the species where the Service
has determined such a prohibition is
necessary and advisable for the
conservation for the species. For
example, take from a biologically
insignificant threat would not be
necessary and advisable to regulate
whereas a factor that is a population
driver would be necessary and advisable
to regulate via a 4(d) rule. Incidental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
take is defined as take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, otherwise
lawful activity.
The Service proposes to specifically
tailor the prohibition of incidental take
in each of the three geographic areas
that the American burying beetle
occupies. In the New England and
Northern Plains analysis areas,
incidental take would only be
prohibited in suitable habitat when the
take is the result of soil disturbance.
Suitable habitat is defined, consistent
with the SSA Report (Service 2019), as
areas where suitable soils contain the
appropriate abiotic elements (e.g., soil
temperature, soil moisture, particle size,
etc.) that are favorable for excavation
and formation of brood chambers and
where appropriate carrion for
reproduction is available. This suitable
habitat accounts for breeding, feeding,
overwintering, and dispersal needs.
Areas that are regularly tilled,
maintained through regular mowing, or
urban areas with paved surfaces are
examples of lands considered
unfavorable for use by American
burying beetles. Soil disturbance means
movement or alteration of soil
associated with modifying the existing
land use. Soil disturbance includes
actions such as grading, filling, soil
excavating or topsoil stripping. Soil
disturbance also includes non-physical
alterations such as chemical treatment,
including ground or soil sterilizers, and
pesticides that would make the habitat
unsuitable. However, typical
agricultural levels of applications like
liming or fertilizer should not affect
American burying beetles, and we do
not intend to regulate such practices.
Because incidental take stemming
from normal livestock ranching and
grazing activities is not expected to have
an appreciable negative impact on the
species, and retaining land uses
associated with ranching or grazing
(rather than converting the land to row
crops) provides potential habitat for the
species, we are proposing to allow any
incidental take associated with ranching
and grazing. Ranching and grazing
means activities involved in grazing
livestock (e.g., cattle, bison, horse,
sheep, goats or other grazing animals)
such as: Gathering of livestock;
construction and maintenance of fences
associated with livestock grazing;
installation and maintenance of corrals,
loading chutes, and other livestock
working facilities; development and
maintenance of livestock watering
facilities; placement of supplements
such as salt blocks for grazing livestock;
and, when associated with livestock
grazing, the control of noxious weeds,
haying, mowing, and prescribed
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19025
burning. Ranching and grazing does not
include any form of tillage, conversion
of grassland to cropland, or management
of cropland. Overall, we find that
ranching, grazing, and wildlife
management activities, such as
prescribed fire or invasive species
control, is necessary and advisable to
conserve the species.
In the Southern Plains analysis areas,
incidental take would only be
prohibited on certain conservation
lands, as defined below under Proposed
Regulation Promulgation. However,
within these conservation lands,
activities conducted in compliance with
Service-approved conservation plans
that result in take of the species would
not be prohibited. For example, on
conservation lands in the Southern
Plains analysis areas managed by the
Department of Defense, certain activities
that result in incidental take would not
be prohibited if those activities are in
compliance with a Service-approved
integrated natural resources
management plan.
In addition to intentional take and
some forms of incidental take, we also
propose to prohibit activities related to
possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken American burying
beetles, import and export of the
species, activities related to shipping or
delivering the species in interstate or
foreign commerce, and the sale or
offering to sell of the species. These
activities are generally prohibited for
endangered wildlife. We have
determined that it is appropriate to
extend the Act’s protections to these
activities as well for the American
burying beetle.
This proposed 4(d) rule tailors the
Act’s protections to allow activities that
only have minor or temporary effects
and are unlikely to affect the resiliency
of American burying beetle populations
or viability of the species. The risks for
American burying beetle populations
are different for each region of the
country, and risks that may be minor for
one population could affect the
resiliency of others. For example, urban
expansion is a minor risk for larger
populations in Nebraska and South
Dakota, but is a substantial risk for the
small Block Island population in Rhode
Island. The proposed 4(d) rule includes
protection of habitat related to soil
disturbance activities on Block Island
because suitable habitat is limited (only
about 2,000 acres) and protecting habitat
is necessary for the conservation of this
population.
Although threats vary in type and
degree across the American burying
beetle’s range, those related to land use
activities and climate change continue
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19026
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
to impact the species. Habitat loss or
alteration related to land use activities
is ongoing in all American burying
beetle populations, but the impacts of
these habitat losses is minor for most
analysis areas with the exception of the
Loess Canyons and New England
populations. Climate change impacts are
ongoing as well, and southern
populations are projected to be
extirpated within 20 to 30 years, as
described above.
We recognize that many types of
activities will impact suitable American
burying beetle habitat, and application
of prohibitions should also take into
account the scope, scale, and magnitude
of potential risks in American burying
beetle habitat. We recognize that large
intact areas of habitat are important for
American burying beetle conservation.
We seek public comment on the
proposed 4(d) rule to ensure that
proposed measures will effectively
conserve the American burying beetle.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in
the New England Analysis Area
Within the New England Analysis
Area, we propose to only prohibit
incidental take if it occurs in suitable
habitat and is the result of soil
disturbance, as defined below under
Proposed Regulation Promulgation,
which includes converting suitable
habitat from an existing land use to a
different land use. The species
persistence in the New England
Analysis Area is dependent upon active
management occurring on two small
coastal islands. There is a large
percentage of land mass in the New
England Analysis Area that is protected
in some form, and American burying
beetles occur on many lands with
conservation easements, deed
restrictions, or owned by conservation
organizations; municipal, State, and
Federal agencies; and private land
trusts. However, existing land
protections are not comprehensive for
the American burying beetle. Given the
varied missions of these landowners,
the level of protection varies and may
change over time. Although there may
be some minimal level of take incidental
to ranching and grazing, the effects of
such land uses serve to maintain
suitable habitat for the species.
Therefore, prohibiting take from
ranching and grazing is not necessary
and advisable to conserve the species.
Urban and suburban expansion and
development activities can lead to soil
disturbance that may lead to incidental
take of the species. Habitat conversion
further limits the habitat available to
American burying beetles in the New
England Analysis Area. The population
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
in the New England Analysis Area is
proportionally more sensitive and
vulnerable to impacts than the other
analysis areas, because it is limited to
two small coastal islands, and the
species’ persistence on one or both of
the islands is likely dependent on
management, particularly captive
breeding, reintroduction, and the
provisioning of carrion. Thus, urban and
suburban expansion represent
substantial risks to the future viability of
the species in this area. Therefore, we
have determined that prohibiting
incidental take due to activities that
cause soil disturbance, including
suitable habitat conversion, is necessary
and advisable to conserve the species.
Limiting the prohibition to suitable
habitat is sufficient as any beetles
occupying unsuitable habitat would be
very few in number and possibly either
lost to the population or not of value to
the population.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in
the Northern Plains Analysis Areas
Within the Northern Plains analysis
areas, we propose to only prohibit
incidental take if it occurs in suitable
habitat and is the result of soil
disturbance, which includes converting
habitat from an existing land use to a
different land use, as defined below
under Proposed Regulation
Promulgation. The combined impacts of
urban expansion and agriculture
(primarily conversion to cropland) are
expected to affect 5–15% of the suitable
habitat in the Northern Plains (Service
2019). Thus, we find that urban
expansion and agriculture land
conversion to cropland (combined with
other risks such as cedar expansion as
discussed earlier in the proposed rule)
represent risks to the future viability of
the species in this area. Therefore, we
have determined that prohibiting
incidental take due to activities that
cause soil disturbance, including
suitable habitat conversion, is necessary
and advisable to conserve the species.
However, incidental take that is the
result of normal grazing and livestock
activities would not be prohibited. In
addition, activities by State or Federal
government agencies related to wildlife
management that result in incidental
take of American burying beetles would
not be prohibited. Grasslands in the
Northern Plains support relatively highdensity populations of American
burying beetles that have high
resiliency. Ranching, grazing, and
wildlife management activities in this
area are generally compatible with
conservation of this species, as these
land uses help maintain native
grassland habitats (see chapters 4 and 5
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the SSA Report; Service 2019)
important for American burying beetle
conservation. Based on the analysis of
climate change impacts in the SSA
Report (Service 2019), we believe it is
possible that the Northern Plains may
support the only remaining selfsustaining populations with moderate or
high resiliency by mid-century.
Therefore, protecting existing habitat in
the Northern Plains is important for the
future viability of the species. Although
there may be some minimal level of take
incidental to ranching, grazing, and
wildlife management activities, the
effects of such land uses serve to
maintain suitable habitat for the species
and prevent more extensive soil
disturbance than would occur with
other land use changes such as farming
or urban development.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in
the Southern Plains Analysis Areas
Within the Southern Plains analysis
areas on defined conservation lands, see
below under Proposed Regulation
Promulgation, incidental take is
exempted if it occurs in compliance
with a Service-approved management
plan, such as an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP),
that includes conservation measures for
the American burying beetle. Outside of
defined conservation lands incidental
take is not prohibited because the
Southern Plains Analysis Area currently
has low risks to the species associated
with land development. The combined
permanent loss of habitat projected due
to urban and agricultural expansion is
less than 2 percent (Service 2019).
Currently, conservation lands provide
relatively large protected areas of habitat
with good populations; these lands
would potentially serve as sources of
American burying beetles for relocation
and reintroduction efforts in areas that
are projected to have future climate
conditions that would be expected to
sustain the species. We propose to
define ‘‘conservation lands’’ as lands
included within the existing boundaries
of Fort Chaffee in Arkansas
(approximately 64,000 acres), and
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
(approximately 45,000 acres), Camp
Gruber/Cherokee Wildlife Management
Area (approximately 64,000 acres), and
The Nature Conservancy Tall Grass
Prairie Preserve (approximately 40,000
acres) in Oklahoma. These areas have
defined boundaries and management
that is compatible with recovery for the
American burying beetle; however, that
management is not intentionally being
conducted for American burying beetles
and monitoring and management would
likely cease at some sites without the
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19027
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
incidental take protections in place
specific to the species. Active
management and monitoring in these
conservation lands is considered
important to help support recovery by
serving as source populations for
relocation and reintroduction efforts of
American burying beetle populations,
for as long as they sustain beetle
populations.
Land use changes such as urban
development and conversion to
agricultural lands that cause habitat loss
and fragmentation are a minor risk in
Southern Plains analysis areas. These
activities are not considered a threat to
the species in this area because the
combined permanent loss of habitat
projected due to urban and agricultural
expansion is less than 2 percent of these
large analysis areas and is unlikely to
affect the viability of the species in
these areas (Service 2019). Large areas of
suitable habitat, combined with low
levels of projected land use change, and
relatively large areas of protected habitat
indicate that impacts to habitat are not
likely to affect the viability of the
species in these areas.
Section 4(d) and Section 7 of the Act
Federal agencies would continue to be
required to consult on all actions that
may affect American burying beetles in
all analysis areas; however, these
consultations could likely be
streamlined through a programmatic
consultation for actions with incidental
take that is not prohibited under the
proposed 4(d) rule.
Permits for Threatened Wildlife
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, for the enhancement of
propagation or survival, for economic
hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, or for special
purposes consistent with the purposes
of the Act. There are also certain
statutory exemptions from the
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Common name
*
INSECTS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would
revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the
American burying beetle as threatened
on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and would revise
50 CFR 17.47 to codify the prohibitions
and exceptions that would apply to the
American burying beetle under the 4(d)
rule. This proposal would not affect the
designation of the nonessential
experimental population in four
counties in Missouri or the prohibitions
established for that population. There is
no critical habitat designated for this
species; therefore, this proposed rule
would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are staff members of the Service’s
Oklahoma Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
*
*
Nicrophorus
americanus.
A complete list of all references cited
in this proposed rule is available at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029, or upon
request from the Oklahoma Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
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.
Where listed
*
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
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
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.
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Beetle, American burying’’
under ‘‘INSECTS’’ in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
T
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
*
*
Wherever found, except where listed as
an experimental population.
PO 00000
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
References Cited
Required Determinations
Scientific name
*
*
Beetle, American
burying.
prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
50 CFR 17.47(c) should be directed to
the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
*
*
*
54 FR 29652, 7/13/1989; [Federal Register citation of the final rule]; 50 CFR
17.47(c).4d
03MYP1
19028
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Common name
Beetle, American
burying.
*
Scientific name
Nicrophorus
americanus.
*
3. Amend § 17.47 by adding paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Special rules—insects.
*
*
*
*
(c) American burying beetle
(Nicrophorus americanus).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions apply to the American
burying beetle:
(i) Take of the American burying
beetle, except that take that is incidental
to otherwise lawful activity (incidental
take) is only prohibited when the take
occurs on suitable American burying
beetle habitat:
(A) In the New England and Northern
Plains Analysis Areas where the
incidental take results from soil
disturbance; or
(B) In the Southern Plains Analysis
Areas where the incidental take occurs
on defined conservation lands, except
where incidental take is in compliance
with a Service-approved conservation
plan.
(ii) Possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken American burying
beetles.
(A) It is unlawful to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any
means whatsoever, any American
burying beetle that was taken in
violation of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section or State law.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, Federal and
State law enforcement officers may
possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship
any American burying beetle taken in
violation of the Act as necessary in
performing their official duties.
(iii) Import and export of the
American burying beetle.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce. It
is unlawful to deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever,
and in the course of a commercial
activity, the American burying beetle.
(v) Sale or offer for sale. It is unlawful
to sell or to offer for sale in interstate or
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Status
Listing citations and applicable rules
In southwestern Missouri, the counties
of Cedar, St. Clair, Bates, and Vernon.
XN
77 FR 16712, 3/22/2012; 50 CFR
17.85(c).10j
*
■
§ 17.47
Where listed
Jkt 247001
*
*
foreign commerce any American
burying beetle.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. (i)
Any employee or agent of the Service or
of a State conservation agency that is
operating a conservation program
pursuant to the terms of a cooperative
agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act,
who is designated by his agency for
such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of his official duties, take
American burying beetles, provided
that, for State conservation agencies, the
American burying beetle is covered by
an approved cooperative agreement to
carry out conservation programs.
(ii) Federal or State government
agencies may incidentally take
American burying beetles when
conducting wildlife management
activities in the Northern Plains
Analysis Areas.
(iii) Incidental take of American
burying beetles resulting from ranching
and grazing activities is allowed.
(3) Definitions. For the purposes of
this paragraph (c), we define the
following terms:
(i) Conservation lands means lands
included within the existing boundaries
of Fort Chaffee in Arkansas
(approximately 64,000 acres), and
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
(approximately 45,000 acres), Camp
Gruber/Cherokee Wildlife Management
Area (approximately 64,000 acres), and
The Nature Conservancy Tall Grass
Prairie Preserve (approximately 40,000
acres) in Oklahoma.
(ii) New England Analysis Area means
Block Island in Rhode Island and
Nantucket Island in Massachusetts.
(iii) Northern Plains Analysis Areas
means portions of Nebraska and South
Dakota, as presented in the map at
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, to
initially include an 18.6-mile buffer
around each capture location to
determine the outside boundaries of the
analysis area. For specific information
regarding whether a parcel of land is
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
inside the Northern Plains Analysis
Areas, contact your local Service
ecological services field office. Field
office contact information may be
obtained from the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed
at 50 CFR 2.2.
(iv) Ranching and grazing means
activities involved in grazing livestock
(e.g., cattle, bison, horse, sheep, goats, or
other grazing animals) such as:
Gathering of livestock; construction and
maintenance of fences associated with
livestock grazing; installation and
maintenance of corrals, loading chutes,
and other livestock working facilities;
development and maintenance of
livestock watering facilities; placement
of supplements such as salt blocks for
grazing livestock; and, when associated
with livestock grazing, the control of
noxious weeds, haying, mowing, and
prescribed burning. Ranching and
grazing does not include any form of
farming, conversion of grassland to
cropland, or management of cropland.
(v) Soil disturbance means movement
or alteration of soil. Soil disturbance
includes actions such as grading, filling,
soil excavating or topsoil stripping. Soil
disturbance also includes non-physical
alterations such as chemical treatment.
(vi) Southern Plains Analysis Areas
means portions of Arkansas, Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas, as presented in
the map at paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, to initially include an 18.6-mile
buffer around each capture location to
determine the outside boundaries of the
analysis area. For specific information
regarding whether a parcel of land is
inside the Southern Plains Analysis
Areas, contact your local Service
ecological services field office. Field
office contact information may be
obtained from the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed
at 50 CFR 2.2.
(4) Map of American Burying Beetle
Analysis Areas.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
19029
Dated: April 25, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–09035 Filed 5–2–19; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 May 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
EP03MY19.059
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19013-19029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09035]
[[Page 19013]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029; FXES11130900000 189 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BD46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
propose to reclassify the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus
americanus) from endangered to threatened on the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). This determination is based
on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that the threats to this species have been
reduced to the point that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act, but is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future. We are also proposing a rule under
section 4(d) of the Act to provide for the conservation of the species.
Many routine activities in the species' range will not be regulated if
this proposal is finalized because these practices will not affect the
overall viability of the American burying beetle. We are soliciting
additional data and information that may assist us in making a final
decision on this proposed action. This document also serves as the 12-
month finding on a petition to remove this species from the List.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July
2, 2019. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by June 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: 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 FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. 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, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 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 Public Comments, below, for more information).
Copies of documents: This proposed rule and supporting documents
are available on https://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the
supporting file for this proposed rule will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 East 21st St., Tulsa,
OK 74129; telephone 918-382-4500.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Polk, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office,
9014 East 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129; telephone 918-382-4500. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Act, a species may warrant reclassification from
endangered to threatened if it no longer meets the definition of
endangered (in danger of extinction). The American burying beetle is
listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify the American
burying beetle as threatened because we have determined it is not
currently in danger of extinction. Reclassifications can only be made
by issuing a rulemaking. Furthermore, changes to the prohibitions
relevant to this species, such as those we are proposing for this
species under a section 4(d) rule, can only be made by issuing a
rulemaking.
The basis for our action.
Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or
threatened species based on any one or a combination of 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. We
have determined that the American burying beetle is not currently at
risk of extinction and, therefore, does not meet the definition of
endangered. However, due to continued threats from increasing
temperatures and ongoing land use changes, we find that the American
burying beetle is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule.
The Service proposes to prohibit all intentional take of the
American burying beetle and specifically tailor the prohibition of
incidental take to the three geographic areas that the American burying
beetle occupies. In the New England and Northern Plains analysis areas,
incidental take under the proposed rule is only prohibited in suitable
habitat when the take is the result of soil disturbance. However, we
propose an exception for any incidental take associated with ranching
and grazing activities. In the Southern Plains analysis areas,
incidental take is not prohibited unless it occurs on defined
conservation lands. However, we propose an exception for any incidental
take that occurs on conservation lands while conducting activities that
are in compliance with a Service-approved management plan. Federally
implemented, funded, or permitted actions would continue to be subject
to the requirements of section 7 of the Act.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to reflect full
consideration of all relevant issues and be as effective as possible.
Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or
recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule. Comments
should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule
[[Page 19014]]
that differs from this proposal, i.e., a final rule could leave the
species listed as endangered, reclassify the species as threatened, or
remove the species from the List. All comments, including commenters'
names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the
supporting record.
We specifically request comments on:
(1) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of the American burying beetle,
including the locations of any additional populations.
(2) New information on the known, potential, and future threats to
the American burying beetle, particularly any projected quantities and
locations of potential threats to the American burying beetle or its
habitat. For example, we request any information that would allow us to
better project the potential future impacts of wind development,
including scientific assessments of how much potential habitat could be
lost. Better assessments of future land use and industry development
could allow us to develop more accurate assessments of risks and
potential exemptions associated with the proposed rule under section
4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which we refer to as our
proposed ``4(d) rule,'' below.
(3) The temperature range in which the species will or will not
persist long term.
(4) Any available data on the effects climate change may have on
the ecosystem on which this species depends, particularly information
related to a future northward shift of this ecosystem.
(5) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat use of the American burying beetle.
(6) Information on a potential acreage threshold level below which
the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule would not be necessary and
advisable for the conservation of American burying beetle.
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 (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or 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 the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be
submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern
Time) on the date specified in DATES. We will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are
not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, 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.
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, or by
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule a public hearing
on this proposal, if requested, and the place of the hearing, as well
as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at
least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert
opinion of appropriate independent specialists regarding scientific
data and interpretations contained in the Species Status Assessment
Report (SSA Report) (Service 2019; available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029) supporting
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analysis. We have incorporated feedback from the peer review in the SSA
Report (Service 2019).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that, for any petition to
revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information
that reclassifying a species may be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the petition (``12-month
finding''). In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action
is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but immediate
proposal 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. We must publish these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register. This document represents:
Our 12-month not-warranted finding on an August 21, 2015,
petition to remove the American burying beetle from the List (that is,
to ``delist'' this species);
Our proposed determination that the American burying
beetle no longer meets the definition of endangered under the Act;
Our proposed determination that the American burying
beetle meets the definition of threatened under the Act;
Our proposed rule to reclassify the American burying
beetle from endangered to threatened on the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife; and
Our proposed 4(d) rule that outlines the proposed
prohibitions applicable to the conservation of the American burying
beetle.
Previous Federal Actions
We published a final rule to list the American burying beetle as an
endangered species under the Act on July 13, 1989 (54 FR 29652). We
issued a recovery plan on September 27, 1991. We completed a status
review (``5-year review'') under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act for the
American burying beetle on June 16, 2008. The 5-year review recommended
that this species remain classified as endangered (Service 2008).
On August 21, 2015, we received a petition dated August 18, 2015,
from the American Stewards of Liberty, the Independent Petroleum
Association of America, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Dr.
Steven W. Carothers requesting that the American burying beetle be
removed from the List. The petition claims that the threats to the
species do not support a conclusion that the species is at risk of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The Service published a
90-day finding on
[[Page 19015]]
March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14058), that the petition contained substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. The Independent Petroleum Association of
America, American Stewards of Liberty, and Osage Producers Association
filed a lawsuit on September 21, 2017, challenging the Service's
failure to make a 12-month finding on their petition. The parties have
settled this lawsuit, with the Service agreeing to deliver a 12-month
finding on the petition no later than April 30, 2019. This document
serves as our 12-month finding on the August 18, 2015, petition to
remove the American burying beetle from the List.
Species Status Assessment for American Burying Beetle
We prepared a species status assessment (SSA) for the American
burying beetle (Service 2019), which includes a thorough review of the
species' taxonomy, natural history, habitats, ecology, populations, and
range. The SSA analyzes individual, population, and species
requirements, as well as factors affecting the species' survival and
its current conditions, to assess the species' current and future
viability in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
We define viability as the ability of a species to persist and to
avoid extinction over the long term. Resiliency refers to the
population size and demographic characteristics necessary to endure
stochastic environmental variation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-
310). Resilient populations are better able to recover from losses
caused by random variation, such as fluctuations in recruitment
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency of wildfires. Redundancy
refers to the number and geographic distribution of populations or
sites necessary to endure catastrophic events (Shaffer and Stein 2000,
pp. 308-310). As defined here, catastrophic events are rare
occurrences, usually of finite duration, that cause severe impacts to
one or more populations. Examples of catastrophic events include
tropical storms, unusually high or prolonged floods, prolonged drought,
and unusually intense wildfire. Species that have multiple resilient
populations distributed over a larger landscape are more likely to
survive catastrophic events, because not all populations would be
affected. Representation refers to the genetic diversity, both within
and among populations, necessary to conserve long-term adaptive
capability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 307-308). Species with greater
genetic diversity are more able to adapt to environmental changes and
to colonize new sites.
The SSA Report (Service 2019) provides the scientific basis that
informs our regulatory determination as to whether or not this species
should be listed as an endangered or a threatened species under the
Act. This decision involves the application of standards within the
Act, the Act's implementing regulations, and Service policies (see
Finding and Proposed Determination, below). The following discussion is
a summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA Report (Service
2019). We have solicited and incorporated peer review of the draft SSA
Report (Service 2019) from objective and independent scientific
experts.
Description
The American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) is a member of
the beetle family Silphidae (subfamily Nicrophorinae); these beetles
bury vertebrate carcasses for reproductive purposes and exhibit
parental care of young. The genus Nicrophorus contains about 70 species
worldwide, of which 15 occur in North America (Peck and Kaulbars 1987,
entire). Globally, burying beetles are restricted to temperate
climates, and high elevations in tropical climates (Arnett 1946; Howden
& Peck 1972; Cornaby 1974; Anderson & Peck 1985; Young 1978;; Peck &
Anderson 1985; Trumbo 1990; Ruddiman 2001; Sikes & Venables 2013). The
American burying beetle is the largest silphid (carrion beetle) in
North America, reaching 1.0 to 1.8 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) in
length (Anderson 1982, p. 362; Backlund and Marrone 1997, p. 53). The
beetles are black with orange-red markings. The American burying beetle
is native to at least 35 States in the United States, covering most of
temperate eastern North America, and the southern borders of three
eastern Canadian provinces. The species is believed to be extirpated
from all but nine States in the United States and is likely extirpated
from Canada. Based on the last 15 years of surveys, the American
burying beetle is known to occur in portions of Arkansas, Kansas,
Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas; on Block Island off the
coast of Rhode Island; and in reintroduced populations on Nantucket
Island off the coast of Massachusetts and in southwest Missouri, where
a nonessential experimental population (NEP) was established in 2012
under section 10(j) of the Act (77 FR 16712; March 22, 2012).
Reintroduction efforts are also underway in Ohio, but survival of
reintroduced American burying beetles into the next year (successful
over-wintering) has not yet been documented. A 2017 report of a
potential American burying beetle in Michigan is being investigated.
Surveys for American burying beetles in Michigan in 2018 failed to
confirm the report, but additional surveys are planned in 2019. While
it is possible that additional surveys could result in the location of
additional American burying beetles in areas not currently known to
support them, it is unlikely that there are viable populations that are
not known. Most portions of the historical range have not had a
positive survey in over 50 years and over that time period it is likely
that the species would have been reported if there was a viable
population present.
The American burying beetle is a nocturnal species that lives for
only one year. During the daytime, American burying beetles are
believed to bury themselves under vegetation litter or into soil
(Jurzenski 2012, p. 76). American burying beetles are active from late
spring through early fall, occupy a variety of habitats and bury
themselves in the soil to hibernate for the duration of the winter.
American burying beetles emerge from their winter inactive period when
ambient nighttime air temperatures consistently exceed 59 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (15 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) (Kozol 1988, p. 11;
Kozol 1990c, p. 4; Bedick et al. 1999, p. 179; Service 2008, p. 13).
Reproduction occurs in the spring to early summer after this emergence.
New adult beetles or offspring (called tenerals), usually emerge in
summer, over-winter (hibernate) as adults, and comprise the breeding
population the following summer (Kozol 1988, p. 2; Amaral et al. 2005,
pp. 30, 35).
Summary of Species Requirements
Requirements of Individuals
Adults and larvae depend on dead animals (carrion), e.g., cotton
rats, pheasants, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, etc., for food and
moisture. Adults also require adequate soil moisture, appropriate soil
temperatures, and appropriate soil particle size to allow them to bury
themselves and/or a carcass (see chapter 2 of the SSA Report; Service
2019). Although American burying beetles will use multiple soil types,
they have a strong preference for soils with high moisture levels.
Burying beetles likely seek moist microhabitats to avoid drying out
(Bedick et al. 2006; Hoback 2008, pp. 2, 4), but a specific threshold
for soil moisture is unknown. Adequate soil moisture levels appear to
[[Page 19016]]
be critical for American burying beetles, and they show a strong
preference for moist, sandy loam soil with organic matter (Hoback 2008,
unpublished). When the nighttime ambient air temperature is
consistently below 59 [deg]F (15 [deg]C), American burying beetles bury
into the soil and become inactive (Service 1991, p. 11; Scott and
Traniello 1989, pp. 34-35; Kozol 1995, p. 11). American burying beetles
require adequate soil moisture, temperature, and particle size during
this inactive phase as well (Bedick et al. 2004, p. 28).
Carrion selection for food can include an array of available
carrion species and sizes, as well as feeding through capturing and
consuming live insects (Service 1991, p. 11) and eating fly larvae when
encountered on a carcass (Trumbo 1994, p. 247).
Population and Species Requirements
For reproduction, American burying beetles need appropriately sized
carrion, access to mates, and suitable soils. American burying beetles
are nocturnal and must find and bury the carcass in one night. Carrion
sources that American burying beetles have been documented using for
reproduction include carcasses weighing from 1.7 to 10.5 ounces (48 to
297 grams (g)), but the optimum weight of carcasses is 3.5 to 7.0
ounces (80 to 200 g) (Kozol 1988, pp. 12-13, 25, 36-39, figures 1 and
2; Kozol 1990a, pp. 7-8). Once an appropriate carcass has been found
for reproduction, American burying beetles may compete amongst
themselves or with other species for control of the carcass until
usually only a single dominant male and female burying beetle remain
(Springett 1967, p. 56; Wilson and Fudge 1984, entire; Scott and
Traniello 1989, p. 34). Once the pair wins the battle for the rights to
the carcass, the successful couple buries the carrion, copulates, and
constructs an underground cavity called a brood chamber around the
carcass, although either sex is capable of burying a carcass alone
(Kozol et al. 1988, p. 170).
Once underground, both parents strip the carcass of fur or
feathers, roll the carcass into a ball and treat it with secretions
that form a brood chamber and retard growth of mold and bacteria. The
female American burying beetle lays eggs in the soil adjacent to the
carcass (Pukowski 1933, p. 555; Milne 1976, p. 84; Scott and Traniello
1990, p. 274) where the eggs incubate for about 6 days before hatching
into larvae that require parental care. Higher ambient temperatures
increase egg development rates and reduce incubation times (Damos and
Savolpoulou-Soultani 2012). Females reproducing on smaller carcasses
produce fewer eggs than females reproducing on larger carcasses
(Creighton et al. 2009, p. 681; Billman et al. 2014a, entire; 2014b,
entire). Brood sizes of American burying beetles can sometimes exceed
25 larvae, but 12 to 18 is more typical (Kozol 1990b, entire).
Parental care in the genus Nicrophorus is unique because both
parents participate in the rearing of young (Pukowski 1933, p. 585;
Fetherston et al. 1990, entire; Trumbo 1990, p. 9). Larvae of large
Nicrophorus species are extremely dependent on parental regurgitation
and will die before they reach second instar (second stage of larval
development) if they receive no parental care (Scott 1998a, p. 602).
Additionally, American burying beetles will cull their brood through
cannibalism to increase size and survival of larvae in response to a
less than adequately sized carcass (Billman et al., 2014a, entire;
2014b, entire). The reproductive process from carcass burial to
eclosure (emergence from pupae) is about 30 to 65 days (Kozol 1995, pp.
2, 99: 55-65 days; Kozol 1988, p. 16: 48-65 days; Smith and Clifford
2006, p. 11).
Suitable carrion for reproduction is more likely to be available in
properly functioning ecosystems that have diverse vegetative
communities and associated potential carrion species. Suitable soils
contain the appropriate abiotic elements (e.g., soil temperature, soil
moisture, particle size, etc.) that are favorable for excavation and
formation of brood chambers. These abiotic elements also contribute to
proper growth and development of young.
Areas containing the appropriate abiotic elements must be of
sufficient size to support the survival of adequate numbers of
individual American burying beetles such that the opportunity to find a
mate is not reduced and that the presence and abundance of carrion to
support breeding and feeding are uninterrupted. The Service does not
currently have information on the minimum size of suitable areas
(habitat patch size) needed to maintain a healthy population of
American burying beetles. The minimum area needed to support a self-
sustaining population varies based on habitat quality factors such as
climate, soils, vegetation, carrion availability, predators, and
competition.
The American burying beetle lives up to 12-16 months and is
dependent upon annual reproduction to sustain extant populations.
Sufficiently sized areas also contribute to opportunities for
populations to at least remain stable over time. Ideally, areas should
be of sufficient size to support a positive growth rate and enable
populations to expand over time. These suitable areas also must be
connected with other suitable, occupied American burying beetle
habitats so that gene flow and genetic diversity are maintained, if not
enhanced, and individuals have access to areas with appropriate
temperatures, moisture levels, and soil types, when needed, across the
landscape.
We generally refer to American burying beetle populations as
clustered, localized areas, roughly defined by habitat differences or
other geographical features, with inter-breeding individuals. However,
there are no clear boundaries separating many of the areas known to be
occupied by American burying beetles. For the purposes of this analysis
we organized the current range of the American burying beetle into
analysis areas that follow broad geographic and ecological patterns:
Northern Plains analysis areas, Southern Plains analysis areas, and the
New England Analysis Area (see Figure 1). This is the scale of
``populations'' referred to in the analysis of risk factors potentially
affecting the species (chapters 4 and 5 in the SSA Report; Service
2019).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 19017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MY19.058
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Review of the Recovery Plan
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. Recovery plans identify site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the species'
status, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; instead they are
intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed
species and define criteria that are designed to indicate when the
threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent
that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act, as well
as actions that may be employed to achieve reaching the criteria. There
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may
be achieved without all criteria being fully met or all actions fully
implemented. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The American burying beetle recovery plan was approved by the
Service on September 27, 1991 (Service 1991). Delisting criteria were
not established in the recovery plan. However, for reclassification
from endangered to threatened, the recovery plan established a
criterion of at least three self-sustaining populations of at least 500
individuals in each of four broad geographical areas of the species'
historical range: The Northeast, the Southeast, the Midwest, and the
Great Lakes States. The threshold of 500 individuals was developed
based on limited empirical data from Block Island (Service 1991, p. 8)
and theoretical conservation biology literature (Franklin 1980; Soule
1980; Salwasser et al. 1982) that suggested the effective population
number of 500 was the minimum threshold size for a biological
population to maintain long-term adaptability. We now understand that a
population estimate of 500 adults is probably an inadequate metric for
a self-sustaining population of this species, because minimum viable
population for most species would be considerably larger than 500
individuals, minimum viable populations thresholds vary by species, and
additional empirical data and analysis for American burying beetles
suggest a larger threshold may be more appropriate for this species
(Reed et al. 2003; Amaral et al. 2005; p. 36; Brook et al. 2006;
Flather et al. 2011; Wolf et al. 2015). However, new population targets
for the species have not been developed and would be
[[Page 19018]]
different for each population due to differences in habitat and
stressors acting on populations. Likewise, conservation of populations
in the four broad geographical areas used in the recovery plan may not
appropriately address future threats given our current understanding of
the species' range and risks to populations (see sections 2.5.4 and 5.4
in the SSA Report; Service 2019). For example, the authors of the
recovery plan were not aware of future climate-related risks and
current projections indicating that southern portions of the historic
range would not be suitable for future recovery (see section 5.4 in the
SSA Report; Service 2019). Because we have limited information on
actual population estimates by which to measure population resiliency,
the primary indicators that we rely on for resiliency are area and
condition of habitat, geographic distribution of American burying
beetles within analysis areas, relative abundance, and size and number
of concentrations of positive surveys within an analysis area (see
chapters 4 and 5 in the SSA Report; Service 2019). Thus, the recovery
plan information is considered to be out of date (Service 2008), and
the SSA Report (Service 2019) provides an updated, revised analysis of
current and future risks based on our current understanding of the
species' needs.
Current Status of the Species
Because the American burying beetle completes its life cycle in one
year, each year's population levels are largely dependent on the
reproductive success of the previous year and reproductive conditions
in the current year. Fluctuations are thought to be a function of the
abundance of the carrion resources on which the species depends.
Therefore, population numbers may be cyclic (due to weather, disease,
etc.), with high numbers and abundance in one year, followed by a
decline in numbers the succeeding year. Because survey information can
fluctuate over time and survey effort is not equal for all analysis
areas, the SSA Report (Service 2019) uses a combination of habitat and
population factors to evaluate the current status of populations. For
each analysis area, a current condition category is assigned based on
relative abundance, population distribution, known population trends,
availability of suitable habitat, acres of protected areas, and the
level of management in protected areas (see section 4.7.1 in the SSA
Report; Service 2019). The current condition categories are qualitative
estimates of the current status of the species.
Southern Plains Analysis Areas
We included three separate analysis areas within the Southern
Plains analysis areas: Red River Analysis Area, Arkansas River Analysis
Area, and Flint Hills Analysis Area. The Red River Analysis Area
includes 3,251,894 total acres in portions of Arkansas, Texas, and
southeastern Oklahoma near the Red River. Within this area, there are
2,678,406 acres of suitable habitat, 123,779 acres of managed protected
lands, and 23,997 acres of multi-purpose protected lands. Managed lands
are defined in the SSA Report (Service 2019) as those areas that have
management plans that incorporate active management with the primary
purpose of maintaining or improving wildlife habitat and are assumed to
protect or improve American burying beetle habitat. Multi-purpose
protected lands are defined in the SSA Report (Service 2019) as areas
managed for mixed purposes and are assumed to include some management
for wildlife that would protect or improve American burying beetle
habitat. Within the Red River Analysis Area, only the Hugo Wildlife
Management Area in Oklahoma is currently known to support American
burying beetles, with five captured in 2016. Between 1993 and 1996, the
southeastern portion of the Red River Analysis Area supported localized
populations with relatively high catch rates of American burying
beetles (Creighton et al. 2009, p. 40), but catch rates in these areas
have declined since the early 2000s, and this area is no longer
considered to be occupied. No positive surveys have been documented in
the Arkansas or Texas portions of the Red River Analysis Area since
2008, and only eight positive surveys are known in the analysis area
(all in Oklahoma) since 2008. Populations in Texas may be extirpated.
The current resiliency of the Red River Analysis Area is considered low
due to the limited distribution and very low ratios of positive to
negative surveys in recent years.
The Arkansas River Analysis Area includes 17,753,431 total acres in
portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Within this area, there are
14,470,603 acres of suitable habitat, 1,486,002 acres of managed
protected lands, and 933,608 acres of multi-purpose protected lands.
Protected areas include multiple Federal, State, and private areas,
many of which are known to support American burying beetles. There are
some positive surveys in all portions of the Arkansas River Analysis
Area and scattered concentrations of positive surveys in all but the
northeastern portion of the analysis area. The current resiliency of
the analysis area is considered high due to the large area of suitable
habitat, wide distribution of American burying beetles within the
analysis area, the presence of several large protected areas, and fair
ratios of positive to negative surveys.
The Flint Hills Analysis Area includes 3,706,908 total acres in
portions of Oklahoma and Kansas. Within this area, there are 2,758,610
acres of suitable habitat, 133,196 acres of managed protected lands,
and 52,114 acres of multi-purpose protected lands. Protected areas
include Federal, State, tribal, and private areas, many of which are
known to support American burying beetles. Distribution is fair with
some recent positive surveys in the southern two-thirds of the analysis
area and one concentration of positive surveys. This analysis area has
a relatively low ratio of positive to negative surveys with relatively
large fluctuations between years. Reports for 2016 indicated more
positive surveys and a higher ratio of positive to negative surveys,
but some areas have limited survey effort. Portions of this analysis
area have a very low ratio of positive surveys, which indicates low
density populations. The current resiliency of the analysis area is
considered moderate due to the large area of native habitat, relatively
wide distribution within the analysis area and proximity to the
Arkansas River Analysis Area, the presence of several large protected
areas, and ratios of positive to negative surveys that are on average
low but can periodically be good in some locations.
Northern Plains Analysis Areas
We included three separate analysis areas within the Northern
Plains analysis areas: Loess Canyons Analysis Area, Sand Hills Analysis
Area, and Niobrara Analysis Area. The Loess Canyons Analysis Area
includes 2,758,610 total acres in southcentral portions of Nebraska.
Within this area, there are 1,686,948 acres of suitable habitat, 15,342
acres of managed protected lands, and 3,843 acres of multi-purpose
protected lands. In addition, there are five conservation easements
specifically set up for protection and management of American burying
beetles, held by the Nebraska Land Trust, in the Loess Canyons,
totaling 3,277 acres. The protected areas within this analysis area are
known to support American burying beetles. Distribution is currently
fair across the Loess Canyons Analysis Area, with one relatively large
contiguous concentration of positive surveys in the center of the
analysis area. This analysis area has a fair ratio of positive to
[[Page 19019]]
negative surveys. The current resiliency of the analysis area is
considered moderate due to the extent of native habitat, relatively
wide distribution within the analysis area, and fair ratios of positive
to negative surveys. However, expansion of eastern redcedar (Juniperus
virginiana) due to a lack of fire or mechanical control has reduced the
habitat quality in much of this analysis area, and this population is
sensitive to droughts. The analysis area is relatively small and
isolated from other populations.
The Sand Hills Analysis Area includes 10,819,170 total acres in
northcentral portions of Nebraska. Within this area, there are
8,633,685 acres of suitable habitat, 93,983 acres of managed protected
lands, and 24,633 acres of multi-purpose protected lands. Most
protected areas within this analysis area are known to support American
burying beetles, but some large forested areas have relatively few
positive surveys. The Valentine National Wildlife Refuge is the only
large block of protected lands in this analysis area with relatively
good catch rates and distribution of American burying beetles, but
smaller protected areas near the Niobrara River also have American
burying beetles (Hoback 2018, pers. comm.). Distribution is good, with
some positive surveys in all portions of the analysis area and one
large contiguous concentration of positive surveys. This analysis area
has the highest ratio of positive to negative surveys for the last 15-
year timeframe. The current resiliency of the analysis area is
considered high due to the large area of native habitat, wide
distribution within the analysis area, and good ratios of positive to
negative surveys.
The Niobrara River Analysis Area includes 4,108,903 total acres in
northcentral portions of Nebraska and southcentral portions of South
Dakota. Within this area, there are 2,961,469 acres of suitable
habitat, 58,918 acres of managed protected lands, and 33,582 acres of
multi-purpose protected lands. It includes a large area of tribal land,
but no American burying beetles have been documented there. Some
protected areas within this analysis area are known to support American
burying beetles. Distribution is currently fair with some positive
surveys in most portions of the analysis area and one contiguous
concentration of positive surveys. This analysis area has a fair ratio
of positive to negative surveys for the last 15-year timeframe. The
current resiliency of the analysis area is considered moderate due to
the large area of native habitat, relatively wide distribution, and
fair ratios of positive to negative surveys.
New England Analysis Area
The New England Analysis Area includes Block Island and Nantucket
Island. Block Island has 2,554 acres of suitable habitat, and Nantucket
Island has 23,311 acres of suitable habitat. This is a small area
relative to other analysis areas, but the level of protection and
active management are significantly greater than the other analysis
areas. There are 2,507 acres of protected lands on Block Island and
11,934 acres on Nantucket Island. The total area of protected lands is
small compared to some other analysis areas, but it is a relatively
large percentage of the suitable habitat. The protected areas within
this analysis area are known to support American burying beetles.
Distribution is currently fair, with some positive surveys in most
portions of the analysis area that is considered suitable habitat. This
analysis area has a good ratio of positive to negative surveys on Block
Island and fair to poor ratios on Nantucket Island. On Block Island,
the American burying beetle population is relatively stable with
population estimates ranging from 200 to 1,000. This population has
been monitored annually since 1991. Carrion provisioning has been
conducted on Block Island since 1993. On Nantucket Island, the
reintroduced population does not appear to be self-sustaining and
requires human assistance for long-term maintenance (Mckenna-Foster et
al. 2016, entire). The current resiliency of the analysis area is
considered moderate due to relatively good distribution, and fair
ratios of positive to negative surveys. However, the populations on
both islands are highly dependent on active management.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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. A
species may be reclassified or delisted on the same basis. The SSA
Report (Service 2019) represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the past, present, and future threats, to evaluate viability
of the American burying beetle. The effects of conservation actions
were also assessed as part of the current condition of the American
burying beetle in the SSA Report (Service 2019), and those effects were
projected in future scenarios.
The American Burying Beetle Recovery Plan (Service 1991) and the 5-
year status review of the species (Service 2008) identify the following
factors as threats or potential threats to American burying beetles:
Direct habitat loss and alteration, increase in competition for carrion
resources, decrease in abundance of prey, loss of genetic diversity in
isolated populations, disease/pathogens, dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (commonly known as DDT), habitat fragmentation due to
agricultural and grazing practices that lead to changes in vertebrate
composition or density, and invasive species. We now know that DDT and
some other threats identified at the time that the recovery plan and 5-
year status review were completed are either no longer a threat or pose
less of a threat to the species. However, none of these factors alone
adequately explains why the American burying beetle declined over much
of its historic range while species in the same genus are still
relatively common rangewide. There are eight sympatric congeners (other
Nicrophorus species or species of the same genus) which have not
experienced similar reductions in their ranges (Sikes and Raithel 2002,
p. 104).
Much of the evidence suggesting the reduction of appropriate
carrion resources as a primary mechanism of population decline for the
American burying beetle is circumstantial. However, this hypothesis
fits the temporal and geographical pattern of the disappearance of
American burying beetles from 90 percent of its historical range, and
may explain why American burying beetles declined while related species
that do not rely on the same carrion resources did not similarly
decline (Sikes and Raithel 2002, p. 104). The availability of
appropriately sized carrion may explain current distributions of the
American burying beetle and the presence or absence of American burying
beetles in most of the existing analysis areas. For example, the
American burying beetle population on Nantucket Island was established
with provisioned carcasses, but is projected to be extirpated without
continued provisioning of appropriately sized carcasses (Mckenna-Foster
et al. 2016,
[[Page 19020]]
entire). Apparently, the natural availability of appropriately sized
carrion is limited on the island and will not support the population
without any provisioning. American burying beetles need carcasses of 80
to 200 grams, and areas that can support the species must have
potential carrion sources within this size range. The abundance of
potential carrion species and competition for the carcasses can affect
availability for American burying beetles.
Risk factors are not equal in all portions of the American burying
beetle's range, and some risk factors have changed since the recovery
plan was written. All current risks for each analysis area are
described in chapter 4, and future risks are discussed in chapter 5, of
the SSA Report (Service 2019). Risks such as conversion to cropland and
wind energy development are greater in portions of the Northern Plains
analysis areas, while risks associated with grazing, silviculture, and
oil and gas development are more common in the Southern Plains analysis
areas. All remaining populations have some risks associated with areas
of urban or suburban development, particularly in the New England
Analysis Area, but most current American burying beetle populations are
in rural areas and have potential risks associated with habitat loss
due to agricultural land uses. Risks associated with the effects of
changing climate, including increasing temperatures, are now the most
significant threat for most analysis areas.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range (Factor A)
Agricultural land uses and urban expansion are predicted to have
impacts to American burying beetle habitat and populations over time;
however, those impacts are expected to be relatively minor in most of
the current known range of the species. Historically and to a lesser
extent currently, land conversion to agriculture, intensive domestic
livestock grazing, logging, fire suppression, wind energy development,
and urban development are common causes of habitat quality reductions,
loss, and fragmentation within the current range of the American
burying beetle. Habitat loss and alteration affect this species at
local and regional levels, and could account for the extirpation of
populations once they become isolated from others (Kozol 1995, p. 170;
Ratcliffe 1996; Lomolino and Creighton 1996, entire; Amaral et al.
1997, pp. 123-124; Bedick et al. 1999, p. 179; Creighton et al. 2009,
p. 40). There are no known American burying beetle populations
surviving in intensively farmed or highly urbanized areas.
Large areas of native grasslands have been converted to nonnative
grasses to improve pastures for intensive cattle grazing operations.
Even in areas with native vegetation, pastures and hay fields can be
more intensely grazed or mowed during drought periods when demand for
grass or hay is high, which can keep habitat in an unfavorable or
marginal condition for longer time periods. A more complete description
of potential land use impacts is provided in chapter 3 of the SSA
Report (Service 2019).
Relatively little urban and industrial development is occurring
within the current known range of the American burying beetle. There
are a few relatively large urban areas near American burying beetle
populations in the New England area but most of the current range is
rural. Most of the existing American burying beetle range is already
under some agricultural use (primarily grazing and hay production).
Two scenarios in the SSA Report (Service 2019) explore potential
future land use changes to help characterize the likely potential for
impacts to suitable habitat for the American burying beetle. Land use
changes were evaluated separately for each analysis area because they
are a risk factor for current conditions. Future risk factors like
climate changes affect different analysis areas over different time
periods; however, climate changes were not considered under the two
land use scenarios in the SSA Report (Service 2019). Climate related
impacts to habitat and range are addressed under Factor E.
The large areas of known and potential habitat in the Southern
Plains buffer the effects of most land use changes. The projected
combined permanent loss of suitable habitat from all sources for the
Southern Plains analysis areas is 1.2% or 246,293 acres from the
existing 19,995,088 acres (Service 2019). The combined impacts of urban
expansion and agriculture (primarily conversion to cropland) are
expected to affect 5-15% of the suitable habitat in the Northern Plains
and redcedar expansion in the Loess Canyon Analysis Area is expected to
result in up to an additional 30% habitat loss (Service 2019).
The projections in our SSA Report (Service 2019) indicate that
future representation and redundancy are both reduced with potential
losses of habitat in New England, Loess Canyons, and the reintroduction
site in Missouri. The potential loss of the Loess Canyons population is
due to land use changes, including redcedar expansion, and the New
England populations and Missouri reintroduction could be lost if active
management and habitat protection are not continued. The combined
effects of land use and future climate changes (see Factor E) are
likely to impact the resiliency of most populations and the overall
viability of the species.
Other Considerations
This assessment of land use effects includes cautions because these
effects were compared to areas of potential suitable habitat, and our
assessment of suitable habitat was very broad. Not all potentially
suitable habitat is occupied by American burying beetles; therefore,
this analysis may underestimate the impacts of land use changes.
Additional cautions are related to our limited ability to quantify some
potential future effects. For example, uncommon increases in crop
prices could increase incentives for conversion of grassland to row
crops to levels beyond the assumptions used in the two scenarios.
Recent development and potential expansion of wind energy projects
could also add to impacts from other land use changes. The construction
of wind turbines, roads, and powerlines has direct permanent habitat
impacts and fragments the remaining habitat. The operation of wind
turbines also has potential for direct take through American burying
beetle collisions with the blades.
Future land use effects related to wind power were not factored
into land use scenarios because we did not have estimates of future
development or total areas that may be affected by wind projects, and
there are no studies available to evaluate the actual effects of wind
projects on American burying beetles. Within the Southern Plains
analysis areas, the current area of wind projects is relatively small,
and there is limited potential for expansion. Less than 10 percent of
the Southern Plains analysis areas have annual average wind speeds of 6
meters/second (m/s) or greater at 30 meters height that are recommended
for wind development. There is greater potential for wind energy
development in the Northern Plains analysis areas. Nearly all of the
Northern Plains analysis areas have annual average wind speeds of 6 m/s
or greater at 30 meters height. There are 6,471 wind turbines
registered in the Northern Plains analysis areas, but we do not know
what areas, or what percentage of the suitable habitat in Northern
Plains analysis areas, may be affected by wind projects in future
years. The Service intends to do further evaluation of potential
effects of wind
[[Page 19021]]
projects and welcomes any additional information on the subject.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes (Factor B)
Overutilization for any purpose was not identified as a threat to
the species at the time of listing in 1989, and it is not considered a
threat to the species' continued existence today.
Disease or Predation (Factor C)
While disease and predation may represent relevant threats to the
American burying beetle, they are not known to result in population-
level impacts. Further information regarding disease and predation can
be found in the SSA Report (Service 2019).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D)
Under this factor, we examine the stressors identified within the
other factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires that the Service 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 . . .'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal
laws, regulations, and other such binding legal mechanisms that may
ameliorate or exacerbate any of the threats we describe in threat
analyses under the other four factors or otherwise enhance the species'
conservation. We give strongest weight to statutes and their
implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from
those laws and regulations.
Existing regulatory mechanisms vary by location, but generally do
not fully address the numerous stressors that the American burying
beetle faces. The American burying beetle is State-listed in Kansas,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, and Oklahoma. The specific protections
vary by State, but often include some permitting requirements or
coordination with the State wildlife agencies when projects could
directly impact the species or its habitat. It is not State-listed in
Rhode Island, Arkansas (special concern only), South Dakota, or Texas.
Currently, there is no protection under State law for the habitat of
the American burying beetle in Arkansas or South Dakota (Backlund et
al. 2008).
In some parts of the range (Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas),
the species occurs almost exclusively on private land and regulatory
mechanisms do not address the stressors impacting the species. In other
areas, there are several robust populations on public lands or private
conservation organization properties, but many protected lands
supporting American burying beetles require ongoing management like
prescribed fire or other measures to control invasion of woody
vegetation to ensure the species' continued presence. Federal and State
agencies have adopted and implemented laws, regulations, and best
management practices that result in protection of American burying
beetles.
In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD), with the assistance
of the Service and the states, is responsible under the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a-670f, as amended) for carrying out programs and
implementing management strategies to conserve and protect biological
resources on its lands. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
(INRMPs) are planning documents that allow DoD installations to
implement landscape-level planning to provide for the management of
natural resources, including fish, wildlife, and plants, without any
net loss in the capability of an installation to support its military
mission. Incorporation of INRMPs on the DoD installations provide
management and conservation benefit to American burying beetles.
In some cases, where American burying beetles occur on lands with
conservation easements, deed restrictions, or owned by conservation
organizations, existing regulatory mechanisms appear to be adequate.
However, existing land protections are not comprehensive for the
American burying beetle. Given the varied missions of these landowners,
the level of protection varies and may change over time. Additionally,
populations in the New England and Northern Plains Analysis areas are
expected to experience future threats from land use change and all
populations are expected to experience future threats from climate
change over varying time periods. Existing regulatory mechanisms do not
address those future threats to the American burying beetle.
Other Natural and Manmade Factors (Factor E)
The most significant potential threat under this factor is climate
change. This is a summary of climate-related risks, and additional
information is available in the SSA Report (Service 2019). The SSA
Report's chapter 3 summarizes general climate risks, chapter 4 includes
current risks, and chapter 5 covers future risks (Service 2019).
Most considerations of climate change in classification decisions
hinge upon whether climate change will manifest in changing habitat
conditions and how the species is likely to respond to these changes in
the future. Therefore, a key consideration for classification decisions
where climate change is a potential stressor is how we interpret
``foreseeable future'' in the definition of a threatened species under
the Act.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopted four
possible Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios (2.6,
4.5, 6, and 8.5) to capture the possible ranges of climate change
within the next century (Hartmann et al. 2013; Moss et al. 2008). In
our analysis of potential climate change impacts to the American
burying beetle, we used two of those scenarios, RCP 4.5 and 8.5, over
different blocks of time through the end of this century (years 2010-
2039, 2040-2069, and 2070-2099). For the purpose of this document we
define those time periods as: ``early century time period'' (2010-
2039), ``mid-century time period'' (2040-2069), and ``late century time
period'' (2070-2099). We use more than one emissions scenario to
account for uncertainty regarding future atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. By using both a relatively high and relatively low
emissions scenario in our projections, we attempt to bracket the likely
possibilities for climate change in the foreseeable future. RCP 4.5 is
at the low end of the intermediate range of conditions projected by the
IPCC and represents a situation under which key atmospheric conditions
would stabilize at a relatively moderate level shortly after 2100. This
scenario envisions emissions mitigation through strong policy action by
the international community, including the United States, in the near
future to curb emissions and the resulting effects to global climate.
RCP 8.5 is the high end of IPCC projections of atmospheric conditions.
RCP 8.5 is the expected scenario if strong policy actions to curb
emissions are not pursued by the United States and the international
community. This scenario is essentially the continuation of current
trends in emissions as they may play out over the next century. For
ease of reference, we refer to these as ``emissions scenarios,''
although they are not based solely on emissions of greenhouse gases.
Our approach of using the two RCPs is consistent with the current
widespread scientific practice of considering projections based on RCP
4.5 and RCP 8.5 so as to consider a range of projected
[[Page 19022]]
conditions, rather than relying on a single scenario. The U.S. Global
Change Research Program used these two RCPs as the core scenarios for
the Fourth National Climate Assessment (Hayhoe et al. 2017), and they
also are used as the basis for projections generated via the U.S.
Geological Survey's National Climate Change Viewer.
The life-history characteristics of American burying beetles
indicate limited ability to tolerate warmer temperatures. Adult
American burying beetles use secretions to slow decomposition of
carcasses they bury for reproduction (see Summary of Species
Requirements, above, for more information on the role of carcasses in
reproduction). The carcasses are buried and must support both adults
and larvae for at least 2 to 3 weeks, but high temperatures have been
shown to reduce the effectiveness of the secretions and accelerate
decomposition (Jacques et al. 2009, p. 871). While the American burying
beetle has life-history requirements similar to other carrion beetles,
it is the largest Nicrophorus in North America and requires a larger
carcass to reach its maximum reproductive potential (i.e., to raise a
maximum number of offspring) than the other burying beetles (Service
1991, p. 2; Kozol et al. 1988, p. 37; Trumbo 1992, pp. 294-295).
American burying beetles also have a longer time period for egg and
larval development than other Nicrophorus carrion beetles, so the
carcass must last longer (at least 12 to 14 days) to provide food and
moisture for adults and support development of their larvae to the pupa
stage. Temperature-related increases in decomposition and development
of fly larvae would limit or prohibit reproductive success for American
burying beetles if carcasses are in a suitable condition for shorter
periods of time or do not last long enough to support development of
their larvae.
The distribution of American burying beetles also indicates a
limited ability to tolerate warmer temperatures. Nicrophorus abundance
and diversity are higher in cooler climates. There are 15 Nicrophorus
species in the United States and Canada, but only 2 are endemic to
Central and South America, and they occur at higher elevations with
cooler temperatures. Reasons for burying beetles' lack of success in
warmer climates include increased competition with flies and ants, as
well as increased rates of carcass decomposition. Carcass decomposition
is dominated by dipteran species (true flies) and the diversity of
dipteran species using carcasses increases in warmer climates. Based on
species distributions and existing climate conditions, few Nicrophorus
species appear to be capable of maintaining populations in areas with
long-term average summer mean-maximum temperatures at or exceeding a 95
[deg]F threshold (N. carolinus, and possibly N. pustulatus and N.
marginatus), and there are no Nicrophorus species in areas with average
summer mean-maximum temperatures exceeding 100 [deg]F.
Under both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions scenarios, all American
burying beetle populations in the Southern Plains Analysis Areas are
projected to have summer mean-maximum temperatures exceeding 95 [deg]F
within the mid-century time period. Surveys for American burying
beetles in locations that have experienced a mean-maximum temperature
near or above 95 [deg]F during summer have shown declining capture
rates the following year. Existing survey information from Fort Chaffee
(Arkansas River Analysis Area) supports the assumption that mean-
maximum temperatures above 95 [deg]F would adversely affect American
burying beetle populations. Monitoring of American burying beetles has
occurred annually from 1992 through 2016. During the study period,
catch rates of American burying beetles declined from the previous year
every time mean-maximum temperatures exceeded 95 [deg]F, which happened
a total of six times throughout the study period. Based on this
information, we anticipate continued population declines and potential
extirpation if mean-maximum temperatures exceeding 95 [deg]F became the
average during summer months and more extreme temperatures occurred
more frequently.
Evidence suggests that southern populations of American burying
beetles that experience summer mean-maximum temperatures near 95 [deg]F
are declining. Since 2008, only seven American burying beetles have
been detected within the Oklahoma portion of the southernmost analysis
area, and no American burying beetles have been documented in the Texas
or Arkansas portions. We have no evidence to suggest that habitat
conditions within these areas have significantly changed, which might
otherwise explain the observed American burying beetle declines in this
area. Populations have declined or are extirpated in large protected
areas like Camp Maxey, Texas, with no apparent changes in land use. It
appears that temperatures near this area are at, or past, a threshold
that would support American burying beetles. This may be further
supported by the fact that the species does not exist south of the Red
River area in Texas and Louisiana, where habitat, soil conditions, and
carrion availability are likely to be similar. This leads us to
conclude that the southern edge of the species' range is driven by this
temperature threshold.
Temperature has always limited the American burying beetle's range
to some degree. Populations at the northern edge of the range are
limited by cool night time temperatures and shorter growing seasons,
whereas populations at the southern edge of the range are likely
limited by high temperatures. The western edge of the species' range
has been limited by reduced precipitation and soil moisture. Although
temperature and other effects of climate change are expected to affect
American burying beetles in both the northern and the southern parts of
the range, we expect that the populations in southern areas will be
affected sooner and to a greater extent based on projected
temperatures. Under both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions scenarios, a
majority of the Southern Plains analysis areas are expected to be near
or exceed summer mean-maximum threshold temperatures (95 [deg]F) by
2039, with potential to extirpate American burying beetles from most or
all Southern Plains populations. Within the mid-century time period,
all Southern Plains analysis areas are expected to exceed threshold
temperatures under both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions scenarios, likely
resulting in extirpation of the American burying beetle from these
areas. American burying beetles near the southern and western edge of
the range may already be at their limits for temperature- and moisture-
related tolerances and have a limited ability to adapt to rapidly
changing climate conditions (see comments on limits related to life
history in chapter 5 of the SSA Report; Service 2019).
There are no American burying beetle populations, including known
historical populations, located in areas that experience a long-term
summer mean-maximum air temperature above 95 [deg]F. The Red River
Analysis Area represents the southernmost and warmest portion of the
American burying beetle's current range, with summer mean-maximum air
temperatures of approximately 93 to 94 [deg]F. Historical populations
south of the Red River Analysis Area have not been documented in over
70 years. Because American burying beetles have not expanded their
range to warmer climates since the early 1900s, we believe that climate
conditions associated with the current and historical ranges represent
existing
[[Page 19023]]
thresholds for maintaining American burying beetle populations.
Increased air temperatures, changes in precipitation, increased
evaporative losses, and prolonged droughts may stress or kill
individual American burying beetles and reduce reproductive success or
reduce the time periods with suitable conditions for reproduction. High
air temperatures have been documented to kill or sterilize American
burying beetles at captive colonies when air conditioning systems have
failed, resulting in colony temperatures at 85 to 90 [deg]F for about 2
weeks (Merz 2016, pers. comm.). Survey protocols require traps to be
checked in the morning because American burying beetle mortalities have
occurred when they are confined in traps during warm days. More
indirect effects of increased temperatures and reduced precipitation or
soil moisture may be related to competition. Congeners with higher
temperature or lower moisture tolerances, like N. carolinus, may be
more competitive and reduce or eliminate American burying beetles in
southern populations. Species like N. carolinus can compete for
appropriate carcasses and reproduce under warmer and drier conditions
than American burying beetles (Abbott and Abbott 2013, p. 2). At Camp
Maxey, N. carolinus numbers increased rapidly when American burying
beetle and N. orbicollis numbers declined (Abbott and Abbott 2013, p.
2).
Increasing temperatures resulting from climate change could reduce
the reproductive success of American burying beetles by reducing the
portion of the active season with suitable temperatures for
reproduction. Recent temperature studies with N. orbicollis indicate
even small increases in temperature can affect reproduction (Creighton
2016, pers. comm.). This type of research is currently being conducted
with American burying beetles as well, but those results are not yet
available. N. orbicollis has a similar historical range and is the most
closely related congener; therefore, we expect the American burying
beetle study will yield similar results. For N. orbicollis, the percent
of successful broods declined at temperatures greater than 20 [deg]C
(68 [deg]F) and declined rapidly at any temperatures greater than 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). An increase of only 2 to 3 degrees (from 25 to 27-
28 [deg]C, or approximately 77 to 80 [deg]F) stopped most beetles from
attempting to prepare a carcass for reproduction, and those that did
were not successful in producing any larvae or tenerals. The warmer
temperatures apparently precluded eggs from hatching or larvae from
developing beyond a very early stage. The study also demonstrated
effects of temperatures on seasonal timeframes that would support
reproduction. While more southern latitudes have a longer active season
and would logically have more time to reproduce, the temperature
restrictions actually reduce the potential for reproduction in
Oklahoma. N. orbicollis in the northern portion of their range
(Wisconsin) have a longer period of suitable climate conditions for
reproduction and could reproduce more often than N. orbicollis in the
southern portion of their range (Oklahoma) due to these temperature
restrictions. Projected climate changes could limit reproduction in the
future to an even greater extent.
American burying beetles are a nocturnal species, and nighttime
temperatures are likely to influence the behavior and range of this
species as well. Nights above 75 [deg]F were only observed in the
Southern Plains analysis areas (Red River, Arkansas River, and Flint
Hills analysis areas) with the exception of 7 nights over a 35-year
period in Colome, South Dakota (1 night in 2001, 3 nights in 2006, and
3 nights in 2011). The effects of the increase in nights above 75
[deg]F and potential impacts to reproductive success may be occurring
in the Red River Analysis Area, where declines in positive American
burying beetle surveys have been documented since the early 2000s.
Temperatures of 75 [deg]F or higher adversely affected reproductive
success in N. orbicollis (Creighton 2016, pers. comm.) and may have a
similar effect on American burying beetles. We do not have data
specifically related to reproductive success in the Red River Analysis
Area, but the American burying beetle population declines coincide with
the increase in nighttime temperatures above 75 [deg]F. From 1993-1996,
the Red River Analysis Area supported some areas with good catch rates
of American burying beetles in the southeastern portion (Creighton et
al. 2009, p. 40), but positive/negative ratios and catch rates have
declined since the early 2000s. On the Weyerhaeuser Habitat
Conservation Plan planning area in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, relative
densities of American burying beetles generally declined from an
average of 0.076 beetles per trap-night (106 beetles captured) in 1997,
to 0.010 beetles per trap-night (16 beetles captured) in 2001. There
was a slight increase in 2002 (0.015 beetles per trap-night), and a
greater one in 2003 (0.053 beetles per trap-night), but then relative
densities dropped again. During 2005-2007, there were no captures of
American burying beetles at regular sites and only one capture in 2005
at a supplemental site (Schnell et al. 2008). No positive surveys have
been documented in the Arkansas or Texas portions since 2008, and only
seven positive surveys are known in the Oklahoma portion since 2006.
Populations in Texas may be extirpated.
American burying beetles are only active at night, resulting in a
very narrow window of time for suitable carcasses to be available for
American burying beetles to find, bury, and prepare for reproduction.
Higher temperatures cause carrion to decompose more rapidly, and fly
larvae to develop faster and quickly consume small carcasses. At high
temperatures, exposed carcasses can be heavily infested with fly larvae
within 2 days, and carcasses may only be suitable and available for 1
or 2 nights. Thus, we conclude that increased air temperatures can
affect reproductive success by reducing the availability of suitable
carrion due to competition with flies and ants.
Risks associated with the effects of changing climate, including
increasing temperatures, are a significant threat for some analysis
areas in the foreseeable future. The combination of information in the
SSA Report (see chapter 5; Service 2019) indicates increasing air and
soil temperatures as a result of climate change is a significant risk
to future viability of the species. Within the mid-century time period,
American burying beetles in all Southern Plains analysis areas would
likely be extirpated and would represent a loss of approximately 59
percent of the current range of the species. The summer mean-maximum
threshold (95 [deg]F), where we determine American burying beetle
numbers will decline and not be able to persist into the future, is
predicted to be exceeded in nearly all portions of the Southern Plains
analysis areas under either the moderate or high emissions levels of
climate change within the mid-century time period. Northern Plains
analysis areas are largely unaffected by moderate emissions levels of
climate change within the mid-century time period (see chapter 5 of the
SSA Report; Service 2019), but under the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario,
temperatures approach 93 to 95 [deg]F in about two-thirds of the Loess
Canyons Analysis Area and small portions of the other two analysis
areas in the Northern Plains within the mid-century time period. Under
the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, Southern Plains American burying beetle
populations would be projected to have summer mean-maximum temperatures
up to 98 to 100 [deg]F within the mid-century time
[[Page 19024]]
period. We conclude that the American burying beetle is at risk of
extirpation within the Southern Plains analysis areas under the two
projected climate conditions we analyzed (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) within the
mid-century time period. The species would likely continue to be
represented by Northern Plains and New England populations, but at
least three populations and 59 percent of the existing range of the
species are projected to be lost within the mid-century time period.
The effects of climate change, such as increasing temperatures,
changes in precipitation, increased evaporative losses, and prolonged
droughts, are known to stress and sometimes kill individual American
burying beetles and, therefore, are likely to reduce reproductive
success. Overall, we consider these factors threats to American burying
beetle populations, but the impacts are currently limited to the
southernmost parts of the range. However, future projections indicate
that American burying beetles have a high risk of extirpation
throughout the Southern Plains analysis areas and in large portions of
the Northern Plains analysis areas due to these effects of climate
change.
Finding and Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the American burying beetle. The American burying beetle was listed
as endangered in 1989, due to the disappearance of the species across
the vast majority of its known historical range, habitat changes, and
competition for limited carrion resources. At the time of listing, only
two highly disjunct populations of a formerly widespread species were
known to be extant, one in New England and one in eastern Oklahoma.
We now know there are more populations over a much wider area
relative to the time of listing. Since the time of listing, numerous
searches and surveys have resulted in the discovery of additional
American burying beetle occurrences in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arkansas,
Texas, Kansas, and South Dakota. However, some known populations are
small and isolated, and populations in the monitored portions of the
southernmost areas have declined in recent years. In some parts of the
range (Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas), the species occurs almost
exclusively on private land, presenting additional future risks for
land use conversion leading to loss or fragmentation of previously
suitable habitat. Several robust populations occur on public lands or
private conservation organization properties, but many protected lands
supporting American burying beetles require ongoing management like
prescribed fire or other measures to control invasion of woody
vegetation to ensure the species' continued presence. Additionally,
most of those protected areas are in southern areas, where increasing
temperatures due to climate change are projected to cause extirpation
sometime within the mid-century time period. Although we now know the
species occurs in more locations than at the time of listing, extant
American burying beetle populations vary in level of protected habitat,
there is limited information on population trends and biological
limiting factors for most populations, and all populations are exposed
to a combination of risk factors. Further, although the threats to the
species vary in scope and severity, some threats (such as those related
to increasing temperatures) are difficult to avoid or minimize.
Population viability in the only areas that are not threatened by
climate changes, namely the New England Analysis Area, appears to be
reliant to some degree upon continuing habitat management and/or
provisioning of carrion.
We have determined that the American burying beetle's current
viability is higher than was known at the time of listing. Based on the
analysis in the SSA Report (Service 2019), and summarized information
above, the Service concludes that the American burying beetle does not
currently meet the definition of endangered under the Act because it is
not presently in danger of extinction. Our analysis indicates that the
overall viability of the species is not significantly impacted by the
current rate of land use change or the existing level of habitat
degradation or fragmentation. The species is currently represented by
several populations with moderate to high resiliency that are
distributed in several portions of the historical range.
The future status of the species was evaluated under increasing
temperatures for three periods of time (years 2010-2039, 2040-2069, and
2070-2099). As described above, we defined those time periods, as such:
``early century time period,'' ``mid-century time period,'' and ``late
century time period,'' respectively. According to both RCP 4.5 and 8.5
emissions scenarios, due to expected temperature increases, the species
is likely to be extirpated from the Southern Plains analysis areas
sometime within the mid-century time period. Furthermore, mean maximum
summer temperatures in the Northern Plains analysis areas approach 93-
95 [deg]F under the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario within the mid-century
time period. About two-thirds of the Loess Canyons Analysis Area and
small portions of the other two analysis areas in the Northern Plains
would also be at risk of extirpation under this scenario. The
projections of increasing temperatures are considered reliable;
however, there is greater uncertainty in future projections of land use
change and in the species' response to both increasing temperatures and
changes in land use. We believe that the risk of extinction will
increase significantly between 2040 and 2069, based primarily on the
effects of projected temperature increases. The foreseeable future is
uniquely related to population status, trends, and threats for the
species in each analysis area, and there are varying degrees of
foreseeability with respect to various threats. Due to the improved
condition of the species' status since the time of listing and the
increasing threats from increasing temperatures and ongoing land use
changes, we find that the American burying beetle is not currently in
danger of extinction, but is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Because we have found
that the American burying beetle meets the definition of threatened
under the Act, we propose to reclassify it from endangered to
threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(List).
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
American burying beetle is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range (i.e.,
warrants listing as a threatened species), we find it unnecessary to
proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the
range. Where the best available information allows the Services to
determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should
be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status
more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better
promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this reading, we should first
consider whether the species warrants listing ``throughout all'' of its
range and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion of its range''
analysis if, and only if, a species does
[[Page 19025]]
not qualify for listing as either an endangered or a threatened species
according to the ``throughout all'' language. We note that the court in
Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS,
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not address this issue,
and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the opinion in that
case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to reclassify the American burying
beetle as a threatened species across its entire range in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conclusion
Using the best available scientific and commercial information, we
conclude that, while the American burying beetle is not currently in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, it is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. In accordance with 50
CFR 424.11(c), we therefore propose to reclassify the American burying
beetle as threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
Proposed 4(d) Rule
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species. We may also prohibit by regulation,
with respect to threatened wildlife, any act prohibited by section
9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife. When we establish a 4(d)
rule, the general prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31 for threatened species
do not apply to the subject species, and the 4(d) rule contains all the
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to the subject species. For the
American burying beetle, the Service has developed a proposed 4(d) rule
to respond to the specific threats and conservation needs of this
species.
The proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit all intentional take of the
American burying beetle. The proposed 4(d) rule would only prohibit
incidental take of the species where the Service has determined such a
prohibition is necessary and advisable for the conservation for the
species. For example, take from a biologically insignificant threat
would not be necessary and advisable to regulate whereas a factor that
is a population driver would be necessary and advisable to regulate via
a 4(d) rule. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to,
and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity.
The Service proposes to specifically tailor the prohibition of
incidental take in each of the three geographic areas that the American
burying beetle occupies. In the New England and Northern Plains
analysis areas, incidental take would only be prohibited in suitable
habitat when the take is the result of soil disturbance. Suitable
habitat is defined, consistent with the SSA Report (Service 2019), as
areas where suitable soils contain the appropriate abiotic elements
(e.g., soil temperature, soil moisture, particle size, etc.) that are
favorable for excavation and formation of brood chambers and where
appropriate carrion for reproduction is available. This suitable
habitat accounts for breeding, feeding, overwintering, and dispersal
needs. Areas that are regularly tilled, maintained through regular
mowing, or urban areas with paved surfaces are examples of lands
considered unfavorable for use by American burying beetles. Soil
disturbance means movement or alteration of soil associated with
modifying the existing land use. Soil disturbance includes actions such
as grading, filling, soil excavating or topsoil stripping. Soil
disturbance also includes non-physical alterations such as chemical
treatment, including ground or soil sterilizers, and pesticides that
would make the habitat unsuitable. However, typical agricultural levels
of applications like liming or fertilizer should not affect American
burying beetles, and we do not intend to regulate such practices.
Because incidental take stemming from normal livestock ranching and
grazing activities is not expected to have an appreciable negative
impact on the species, and retaining land uses associated with ranching
or grazing (rather than converting the land to row crops) provides
potential habitat for the species, we are proposing to allow any
incidental take associated with ranching and grazing. Ranching and
grazing means activities involved in grazing livestock (e.g., cattle,
bison, horse, sheep, goats or other grazing animals) such as: Gathering
of livestock; construction and maintenance of fences associated with
livestock grazing; installation and maintenance of corrals, loading
chutes, and other livestock working facilities; development and
maintenance of livestock watering facilities; placement of supplements
such as salt blocks for grazing livestock; and, when associated with
livestock grazing, the control of noxious weeds, haying, mowing, and
prescribed burning. Ranching and grazing does not include any form of
tillage, conversion of grassland to cropland, or management of
cropland. Overall, we find that ranching, grazing, and wildlife
management activities, such as prescribed fire or invasive species
control, is necessary and advisable to conserve the species.
In the Southern Plains analysis areas, incidental take would only
be prohibited on certain conservation lands, as defined below under
Proposed Regulation Promulgation. However, within these conservation
lands, activities conducted in compliance with Service-approved
conservation plans that result in take of the species would not be
prohibited. For example, on conservation lands in the Southern Plains
analysis areas managed by the Department of Defense, certain activities
that result in incidental take would not be prohibited if those
activities are in compliance with a Service-approved integrated natural
resources management plan.
In addition to intentional take and some forms of incidental take,
we also propose to prohibit activities related to possession and other
acts with unlawfully taken American burying beetles, import and export
of the species, activities related to shipping or delivering the
species in interstate or foreign commerce, and the sale or offering to
sell of the species. These activities are generally prohibited for
endangered wildlife. We have determined that it is appropriate to
extend the Act's protections to these activities as well for the
American burying beetle.
This proposed 4(d) rule tailors the Act's protections to allow
activities that only have minor or temporary effects and are unlikely
to affect the resiliency of American burying beetle populations or
viability of the species. The risks for American burying beetle
populations are different for each region of the country, and risks
that may be minor for one population could affect the resiliency of
others. For example, urban expansion is a minor risk for larger
populations in Nebraska and South Dakota, but is a substantial risk for
the small Block Island population in Rhode Island. The proposed 4(d)
rule includes protection of habitat related to soil disturbance
activities on Block Island because suitable habitat is limited (only
about 2,000 acres) and protecting habitat is necessary for the
conservation of this population.
Although threats vary in type and degree across the American
burying beetle's range, those related to land use activities and
climate change continue
[[Page 19026]]
to impact the species. Habitat loss or alteration related to land use
activities is ongoing in all American burying beetle populations, but
the impacts of these habitat losses is minor for most analysis areas
with the exception of the Loess Canyons and New England populations.
Climate change impacts are ongoing as well, and southern populations
are projected to be extirpated within 20 to 30 years, as described
above.
We recognize that many types of activities will impact suitable
American burying beetle habitat, and application of prohibitions should
also take into account the scope, scale, and magnitude of potential
risks in American burying beetle habitat. We recognize that large
intact areas of habitat are important for American burying beetle
conservation. We seek public comment on the proposed 4(d) rule to
ensure that proposed measures will effectively conserve the American
burying beetle.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in the New England Analysis Area
Within the New England Analysis Area, we propose to only prohibit
incidental take if it occurs in suitable habitat and is the result of
soil disturbance, as defined below under Proposed Regulation
Promulgation, which includes converting suitable habitat from an
existing land use to a different land use. The species persistence in
the New England Analysis Area is dependent upon active management
occurring on two small coastal islands. There is a large percentage of
land mass in the New England Analysis Area that is protected in some
form, and American burying beetles occur on many lands with
conservation easements, deed restrictions, or owned by conservation
organizations; municipal, State, and Federal agencies; and private land
trusts. However, existing land protections are not comprehensive for
the American burying beetle. Given the varied missions of these
landowners, the level of protection varies and may change over time.
Although there may be some minimal level of take incidental to ranching
and grazing, the effects of such land uses serve to maintain suitable
habitat for the species. Therefore, prohibiting take from ranching and
grazing is not necessary and advisable to conserve the species. Urban
and suburban expansion and development activities can lead to soil
disturbance that may lead to incidental take of the species. Habitat
conversion further limits the habitat available to American burying
beetles in the New England Analysis Area. The population in the New
England Analysis Area is proportionally more sensitive and vulnerable
to impacts than the other analysis areas, because it is limited to two
small coastal islands, and the species' persistence on one or both of
the islands is likely dependent on management, particularly captive
breeding, reintroduction, and the provisioning of carrion. Thus, urban
and suburban expansion represent substantial risks to the future
viability of the species in this area. Therefore, we have determined
that prohibiting incidental take due to activities that cause soil
disturbance, including suitable habitat conversion, is necessary and
advisable to conserve the species. Limiting the prohibition to suitable
habitat is sufficient as any beetles occupying unsuitable habitat would
be very few in number and possibly either lost to the population or not
of value to the population.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in the Northern Plains Analysis
Areas
Within the Northern Plains analysis areas, we propose to only
prohibit incidental take if it occurs in suitable habitat and is the
result of soil disturbance, which includes converting habitat from an
existing land use to a different land use, as defined below under
Proposed Regulation Promulgation. The combined impacts of urban
expansion and agriculture (primarily conversion to cropland) are
expected to affect 5-15% of the suitable habitat in the Northern Plains
(Service 2019). Thus, we find that urban expansion and agriculture land
conversion to cropland (combined with other risks such as cedar
expansion as discussed earlier in the proposed rule) represent risks to
the future viability of the species in this area. Therefore, we have
determined that prohibiting incidental take due to activities that
cause soil disturbance, including suitable habitat conversion, is
necessary and advisable to conserve the species.
However, incidental take that is the result of normal grazing and
livestock activities would not be prohibited. In addition, activities
by State or Federal government agencies related to wildlife management
that result in incidental take of American burying beetles would not be
prohibited. Grasslands in the Northern Plains support relatively high-
density populations of American burying beetles that have high
resiliency. Ranching, grazing, and wildlife management activities in
this area are generally compatible with conservation of this species,
as these land uses help maintain native grassland habitats (see
chapters 4 and 5 in the SSA Report; Service 2019) important for
American burying beetle conservation. Based on the analysis of climate
change impacts in the SSA Report (Service 2019), we believe it is
possible that the Northern Plains may support the only remaining self-
sustaining populations with moderate or high resiliency by mid-century.
Therefore, protecting existing habitat in the Northern Plains is
important for the future viability of the species. Although there may
be some minimal level of take incidental to ranching, grazing, and
wildlife management activities, the effects of such land uses serve to
maintain suitable habitat for the species and prevent more extensive
soil disturbance than would occur with other land use changes such as
farming or urban development.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule in the Southern Plains Analysis
Areas
Within the Southern Plains analysis areas on defined conservation
lands, see below under Proposed Regulation Promulgation, incidental
take is exempted if it occurs in compliance with a Service-approved
management plan, such as an integrated natural resources management
plan (INRMP), that includes conservation measures for the American
burying beetle. Outside of defined conservation lands incidental take
is not prohibited because the Southern Plains Analysis Area currently
has low risks to the species associated with land development. The
combined permanent loss of habitat projected due to urban and
agricultural expansion is less than 2 percent (Service 2019).
Currently, conservation lands provide relatively large protected
areas of habitat with good populations; these lands would potentially
serve as sources of American burying beetles for relocation and
reintroduction efforts in areas that are projected to have future
climate conditions that would be expected to sustain the species. We
propose to define ``conservation lands'' as lands included within the
existing boundaries of Fort Chaffee in Arkansas (approximately 64,000
acres), and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (approximately 45,000
acres), Camp Gruber/Cherokee Wildlife Management Area (approximately
64,000 acres), and The Nature Conservancy Tall Grass Prairie Preserve
(approximately 40,000 acres) in Oklahoma. These areas have defined
boundaries and management that is compatible with recovery for the
American burying beetle; however, that management is not intentionally
being conducted for American burying beetles and monitoring and
management would likely cease at some sites without the
[[Page 19027]]
incidental take protections in place specific to the species. Active
management and monitoring in these conservation lands is considered
important to help support recovery by serving as source populations for
relocation and reintroduction efforts of American burying beetle
populations, for as long as they sustain beetle populations.
Land use changes such as urban development and conversion to
agricultural lands that cause habitat loss and fragmentation are a
minor risk in Southern Plains analysis areas. These activities are not
considered a threat to the species in this area because the combined
permanent loss of habitat projected due to urban and agricultural
expansion is less than 2 percent of these large analysis areas and is
unlikely to affect the viability of the species in these areas (Service
2019). Large areas of suitable habitat, combined with low levels of
projected land use change, and relatively large areas of protected
habitat indicate that impacts to habitat are not likely to affect the
viability of the species in these areas.
Section 4(d) and Section 7 of the Act
Federal agencies would continue to be required to consult on all
actions that may affect American burying beetles in all analysis areas;
however, these consultations could likely be streamlined through a
programmatic consultation for actions with incidental take that is not
prohibited under the proposed 4(d) rule.
Permits for Threatened Wildlife
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, for the enhancement of propagation or
survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, or for special purposes consistent with the
purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of 50 CFR 17.47(c) should be directed to the Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reclassify the American burying beetle as threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would revise 50 CFR
17.47 to codify the prohibitions and exceptions that would apply to the
American burying beetle under the 4(d) rule. This proposal would not
affect the designation of the nonessential experimental population in
four counties in Missouri or the prohibitions established for that
population. There is no critical habitat designated for this species;
therefore, this proposed rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
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.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-
0029, or upon request from the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend 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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Beetle, American
burying'' under ``INSECTS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Beetle, American burying....... Nicrophorus Wherever found, except T 54 FR 29652, 7/13/
americanus. where listed as an 1989; [Federal
experimental Register citation of
population. the final rule]; 50
CFR 17.47(c).\4d\
[[Page 19028]]
Beetle, American burying....... Nicrophorus In southwestern XN 77 FR 16712, 3/22/
americanus. Missouri, the 2012; 50 CFR
counties of Cedar, 17.85(c).\10j\
St. Clair, Bates, and
Vernon.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.47 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.47 Special rules--insects.
* * * * *
(c) American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to the American
burying beetle:
(i) Take of the American burying beetle, except that take that is
incidental to otherwise lawful activity (incidental take) is only
prohibited when the take occurs on suitable American burying beetle
habitat:
(A) In the New England and Northern Plains Analysis Areas where the
incidental take results from soil disturbance; or
(B) In the Southern Plains Analysis Areas where the incidental take
occurs on defined conservation lands, except where incidental take is
in compliance with a Service-approved conservation plan.
(ii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken American
burying beetles.
(A) It is unlawful to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship, by any means whatsoever, any American burying beetle that was
taken in violation of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or State law.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section,
Federal and State law enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any American burying beetle taken in violation of
the Act as necessary in performing their official duties.
(iii) Import and export of the American burying beetle.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce. It is unlawful to deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce,
by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity,
the American burying beetle.
(v) Sale or offer for sale. It is unlawful to sell or to offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any American burying beetle.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. (i) Any employee or agent of the
Service or of a State conservation agency that is operating a
conservation program pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement
with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is
designated by his agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of his official duties, take American burying beetles, provided
that, for State conservation agencies, the American burying beetle is
covered by an approved cooperative agreement to carry out conservation
programs.
(ii) Federal or State government agencies may incidentally take
American burying beetles when conducting wildlife management activities
in the Northern Plains Analysis Areas.
(iii) Incidental take of American burying beetles resulting from
ranching and grazing activities is allowed.
(3) Definitions. For the purposes of this paragraph (c), we define
the following terms:
(i) Conservation lands means lands included within the existing
boundaries of Fort Chaffee in Arkansas (approximately 64,000 acres),
and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (approximately 45,000 acres), Camp
Gruber/Cherokee Wildlife Management Area (approximately 64,000 acres),
and The Nature Conservancy Tall Grass Prairie Preserve (approximately
40,000 acres) in Oklahoma.
(ii) New England Analysis Area means Block Island in Rhode Island
and Nantucket Island in Massachusetts.
(iii) Northern Plains Analysis Areas means portions of Nebraska and
South Dakota, as presented in the map at paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, to initially include an 18.6-mile buffer around each capture
location to determine the outside boundaries of the analysis area. For
specific information regarding whether a parcel of land is inside the
Northern Plains Analysis Areas, contact your local Service ecological
services field office. Field office contact information may be obtained
from the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at
50 CFR 2.2.
(iv) Ranching and grazing means activities involved in grazing
livestock (e.g., cattle, bison, horse, sheep, goats, or other grazing
animals) such as: Gathering of livestock; construction and maintenance
of fences associated with livestock grazing; installation and
maintenance of corrals, loading chutes, and other livestock working
facilities; development and maintenance of livestock watering
facilities; placement of supplements such as salt blocks for grazing
livestock; and, when associated with livestock grazing, the control of
noxious weeds, haying, mowing, and prescribed burning. Ranching and
grazing does not include any form of farming, conversion of grassland
to cropland, or management of cropland.
(v) Soil disturbance means movement or alteration of soil. Soil
disturbance includes actions such as grading, filling, soil excavating
or topsoil stripping. Soil disturbance also includes non-physical
alterations such as chemical treatment.
(vi) Southern Plains Analysis Areas means portions of Arkansas,
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, as presented in the map at paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, to initially include an 18.6-mile buffer around
each capture location to determine the outside boundaries of the
analysis area. For specific information regarding whether a parcel of
land is inside the Southern Plains Analysis Areas, contact your local
Service ecological services field office. Field office contact
information may be obtained from the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(4) Map of American Burying Beetle Analysis Areas.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 19029]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MY19.059
Dated: April 25, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09035 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C