Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Nelson's Checker-Mallow From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 71491-71504 [2023-22759]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154;
FF09E22000FXES1113090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018–BE54
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing Nelson’s
Checker-Mallow From the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea
nelsoniana) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our
review of the best available scientific
and commercial data indicates that the
threats to Nelson’s checker-mallow have
been eliminated or reduced to the point
that the species no longer meets the
definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act).
DATES: This rule is effective November
16, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and
supporting documents, including
references cited, the 5-year review, the
recovery plan, the species status
assessment (SSA) report, and the postdelisting monitoring (PDM) plan, are
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–
0154.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Kessina Lee, Project Leader, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave.,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266;
telephone: 503–231–6179. Individuals
in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
On February 12, 1993, we published
in the Federal Register (58 FR 8235) a
final rule listing Nelson’s checkermallow as a threatened species. In 2010,
we finalized the Recovery Plan for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
Prairie Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Washington, which
includes Nelson’s checker-mallow
(Service 2010, entire). We conducted a
5-year status review in 2012, and did
not recommend reclassification (Service
2012, entire). On May 7, 2018, we
announced in the Federal Register (83
FR 20088) our initiation of a subsequent
5-year review for the species. We
completed the status review in 2021,
and therein recommended delisting the
species. On April 28, 2022, we
published in the Federal Register (87
FR 25197) a proposed rule to remove
Nelson’s checker-mallow from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants (List).
Peer Review
An SSA team prepared the SSA report
for Nelson’s checker-mallow (Service
2021, entire). The SSA team was
composed of Service biologists, and the
team consulted with other species
experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning
the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future
factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review in listing actions under the Act,
we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in
the Nelson’s checker-mallow SSA
report. As discussed in the proposed
rule, we sent the SSA report to four
independent peer reviewers and
received no responses. The SSA report
was also submitted to our Federal, State,
municipal, Tribal, and conservation
partners for scientific review. We
received responses from two partners,
representing a Federal agency and a
nonprofit conservation partner. In
preparing the proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which was the foundation for the
proposed rule and this final rule.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule and Draft Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan
We considered all comments and
information we received during the
comment period on our proposed rule to
delist Nelson’s checker-mallow (87 FR
25197; April 28, 2022). This
consideration resulted in the following
changes from the proposed rule and
draft PDM plan to this final rule and the
updated PDM plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71491
In this final rule, we include updated
monitoring data and the results of a
partial range-wide survey conducted in
2022, the species’ potential response to
climate change, and status of
reintroduction efforts. We also make
nonsubstantive, editorial corrections in
our preamble to improve clarity.
We revised the PDM plan by updating
the monitoring timetable and schedule
to include periodic surveys over a 10year timeframe, updating tables and text
to reflect results of recent monitoring
efforts, and making one substitution and
one addition to the monitoring site table
to better represent the current
distribution of the species.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25197), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by June 27, 2022. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposal. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. We
received comments from two
individuals addressing the proposed
rule, representing one public
commenter and one State agency. These
comments are posted at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154. The public
comment opposed the proposed
delisting of the Nelson’s checkermallow but did not provide substantive
information that could be evaluated or
incorporated, and we do not address it
further here. The State agency comment
also opposed the proposed delisting and
provided substantive information that is
addressed below.
Comment (1): The Oregon Department
of Agriculture (ODA) commented that
there is an overall lack of sufficient data
in the SSA report to back up claims of
population growth trends, reproduction,
and recruitment to support delisting
Nelson’s checker-mallow. ODA
recommended that the Service consider
a more robust, comprehensive,
methodical, and organized approach to
annual monitoring of these vulnerable
prairie species, and stated that, based on
the SSA report, it is unclear whether
populations of this species are selfsustaining or are exhibiting explosive
population growth due to intensive outplanting.
Response (1): In accordance with
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), this delisting
determination for Nelson’s checkermallow is based on the best scientific
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71492
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
and commercial data available. The
Service considered population growth,
reproduction, and recruitment of
Nelson’s checker-mallow in the SSA
report when assessing the species’
resiliency. We recognize that sites are
not monitored regularly throughout the
entire range, and that there is
interannual variation in abundance at
sites. However, monitoring data from
the time of listing through 2022 show an
overall trend of population growth with
increasing abundance and an increasing
number of known sites. At the time of
listing, there were 49 known sites, of
which 19 had 100 to 999 plants, and 5
had 1,000 plants or more (Service 2012,
pp. 17–19). Of the 66 sites known at the
time of the SSA report, 28 had 100 to
999 plants, and 24 sites had 1,000 plants
or more (Service 2021, pp. 17–18).
Restoration activities include
establishment of 51 new sites (i.e., outplantings) and augmentation of 15
existing sites. At this time, population
increases are driven by restoration
activities and not natural recruitment;
however, seedlings have been observed
on most (35 of 65) surveyed sites
(Silvernail et al. 2016, pp. 21–24).
In 2022, the Service funded a partial
range-wide survey (less than 50 percent
of known sites) of Nelson’s checkermallow (Service 2022, entire). Within
sites, the survey focused on obtaining an
inventory of larger patches of Nelson’s
checker-mallow plants, so most smaller
and isolated patches were not included.
A total of 62 patches, including more
than 86 percent of the plants known to
exist, were surveyed. Overall, the
population remains high with over
369,000 plants counted, reflecting an
overall increase of approximately 30,000
plants since completion of the SSA
report in 2021. Restored sites continue
to contribute more than 90 percent of
individuals (Service 2022, p. 5).
Comment (2): ODA commented that
while there have been successful
artificial reintroductions, because of the
dearth of population trend,
reproduction, and demographic data,
there is no sense of how reintroductions
have performed since 2017, when the
last range-wide species survey was
undertaken. ODA recommended that the
Service demonstrate long-term viability
of these reintroduction efforts through
focused, long-term monitoring before
delisting the species.
Response (2): While there have not
been more recent range-wide species
surveys since 2017, monitoring of 62
patches in 2022 (including more than 86
percent of known Nelson’s checkermallow plants) demonstrated the
population remains high and restored
sites continue to contribute more than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
90 percent of individuals (Service 2022,
p. 5).
In addition, the Service notes in the
SSA report that long-term monitoring
data are not currently available for the
majority of Nelson’s checker-mallow
sites and were not a component of our
resiliency assessment (Service 2021, p.
26). We are required to make our
determinations based on the best
available scientific and commercial data
at the time the determination is made.
Current data indicate that since the
Nelson’s checker-mallow was listed as
threatened in 1993, the species has
increased in both number and size of
populations, with a majority of
populations under management plans or
public ownership, such that the species
is no longer in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Considering the best scientific and
commercial information available,
Nelson’s checker-mallow also does not
meet the Act’s definition of a threatened
species. Finally, the PDM plan outlines
a 10-year monitoring plan with specific
criteria for site selection, data collection
and analysis methods, and reporting
requirements to track the species’ status.
The PDM plan also contains thresholds
for population numbers and
distribution, and triggers for
management protections to ensure that
Nelson’s checker-mallow remains
secure from the risk of extinction
following delisting.
Comment (3): ODA recommended that
the Service increase its reintroduction
efforts in the northern recovery zones
given the statement in the SSA report
that Coast Range, Portland, and
Southwest (SW) Washington are known
to have the minimum number of
populations but do not meet the
recovery goals for abundance.
Response (3): At the time the SSA
report was written, recovery goals for
abundance in the Coast Range (15,000
plants), Portland (5,000 plants), and SW
Washington (10,000 plants) recovery
zones had not been met. Since that time,
more than 11 new introduction sites
have been established across the
species’ range. While the Coast Range
and SW Washington recovery zones
remain below their abundance goals, the
Portland recovery zone now exceeds its
abundance goal. Recent surveys also
show increasing trends in plant
abundance across the species’ range
with the total number of plants
increasing from 334,968 at the time of
the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 15) to
426,032 in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 2–3).
Support for the ongoing conservation of
Nelson’s checker-mallow has been high
among government agencies,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
nongovernmental conservation
organizations, and some private
landowners. It is anticipated that
priority recovery and management
actions, including additional
reintroduction efforts, will continue at
approximately the current pace and that
the species will continue to benefit from
this ongoing conservation support.
Comment (4): ODA expressed a
concern about the species’ ability to
adapt to climate change given the recent
drought and extreme heat coupled with
the most successful recovery zones
occurring at the southern end of the
species’ range. They emphasized the
need for a better understanding of the
magnitude and urgency of the threats
and that data beyond 2020/2021 would
be helpful in understanding the species’
response to future climate conditions.
Response (4): The Service reviews the
best scientific and commercial
information available when conducting
a threats analysis. The identification of
factors that could impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a
finding that listing (or maintaining a
currently listed species) on the Federal
Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants is appropriate. In
determining whether a species meets
the definition of a threatened or
endangered species, we must evaluate
all identified threats by considering the
species’ expected response and the
effects of the threats—in light of those
actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level, as well as the cumulative effect of
the threats.
In our assessment of future viability of
the species in the SSA report, we
considered a worst case scenario that
assumed that the anticipated effects of
climate change would result in the
reduction of Nelson’s checker-mallow
populations by 50 percent within a
period of 25 to 50 years (Service 2021,
pp. 29–30). However, even under this
scenario, our analysis suggests that loss
of resiliency will be modest, with 60
sites remaining in moderate or high
condition, no change in the number of
recovery zones that meet recovery goals,
and no major changes in redundancy or
representation expected. Collectively,
this suggests that in 25 to 50 years,
viability of the species will not be
significantly reduced (Service 2021, p.
31). In addition, Nelson’s checkermallow has a deep taproot that allows
it to access groundwater and soil water
that may help it survive extended
periods of drought. At present,
quantitative estimates of the impacts of
increased temperatures and
precipitation changes on Nelson’s
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
checker-mallow are not available
outside of our analysis.
Current data are insufficient to
analyze how populations are affected by
year-to-year variation in weather. All
species have the potential to be
negatively impacted by climate change.
Recovery efforts have increased this
species’ resiliency, redundancy, and
representation such that the species is
now better able to recover from impacts.
Effects may be further buffered if
adaptive management strategies are
implemented at sites under public or
conservation organization ownership.
Many of the populations of Nelson’s
checker-mallow are on lands that will
be managed in perpetuity. While 30
populations are in the two southernmost
zones, there are 12 additional
independent populations dispersed
across other recovery zones that were
considered in the analysis of the
species’ resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. In addition, there are
currently more than 900 pounds of seed
in storage with more in production, and
reintroduction efforts are expected to
continue as part of prairie restoration at
both public and private sites.
Background
Nelson’s checker-mallow is an
herbaceous perennial plant in the
mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces
30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink flowers
arranged on an elongated, branched
stalk. Plants range from 50 to 150
centimeters (20 to 60 inches) in height.
Plants produce short, thick, twisted
rhizomes (creeping underground stems),
as well as a system of fine roots
extending from a taproot (a stout main
root) (Service 2010, appendix F, pp. F–
3–F–4).
Nelson’s checker-mallow is found in
the Willamette Valley and the Coast
Range of Oregon and Washington. It
occupies a variety of prairie habitats and
soil types but is typically associated
with open sites. In the Willamette
Valley, the species occasionally occurs
in the understory of Oregon ash
(Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among
woody shrubs, but more frequently
occupies native prairie remnants,
including those at the margins of
sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides,
fence rows, drainage swales, and fallow
fields (Glad et al. 1994, pp. 314–321). In
the Coast Range, Nelson’s checkermallow typically occurs in open, wet to
dry meadows; in intermittent stream
channels; and along margins of
coniferous forests (Glad et al. 1987, pp.
259–262).
Once established, Nelson’s checkermallow plants are hardy; if plants
become established at a site, they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
usually persist (Bartow 2020, pers.
comm.). Their long taproot allows them
to access subsurface water sources, and
individual plants are long-lived (Dillon
2021, pers. comm.). In addition,
regeneration from the taproot is possible
after the aboveground and upper taproot
portions of the plant have been removed
(Dillon 2021, pers. comm.).
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of Nelson’s
checker-mallow is presented in version
1.0 of the SSA report (Service 2021,
entire).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered and threatened species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum
extent practicable, include objective,
measurable criteria which, when met,
would result in a determination, in
accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of the Act, that the species be
removed from the List.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for
us and our partners on methods of
enhancing conservation and minimizing
threats to listed species, as well as
measurable criteria against which to
evaluate progress towards recovery and
assess the species’ likely future
condition. However, they are not
regulatory documents and do not
substitute for the determinations and
promulgation of regulations required
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A
decision to revise the status of a species,
or to delist a species, is ultimately based
on an analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data available to determine
whether a species is no longer an
endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that
information differs from the recovery
plan.
There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species,
and recovery may be achieved without
all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or
more criteria may be exceeded while
other criteria may not yet be
accomplished. In that instance, we may
determine that the threats are
minimized sufficiently, and that the
species is robust enough that it no
longer meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. In other cases, we may discover
new recovery opportunities after having
finalized the recovery plan. Parties
seeking to conserve the species may use
these opportunities instead of methods
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71493
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new
information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new
information may change the extent to
which existing criteria are appropriate
for identifying recovery of the species.
The recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management
that may, or may not, follow all the
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan for the Prairie
Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Washington (recovery
plan) divides the geographic area
covered by included species into
recovery zones, which provides a
framework for recovering the species’
historical ranges. Nelson’s checkermallow historically occupied seven
recovery zones: SW Washington,
Portland, Coast Range, Salem East,
Salem West, Corvallis East, and
Corvallis West. The following
discussion provides an assessment of
the species’ status relative to the five
delisting criteria outlined in the
recovery plan.
Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and
Abundance
The recovery plan specifies that the
distribution of populations should
reflect the extent of the species’
historical geographic distribution to the
extent practicable and identifies goals
for a minimum number of populations
and target number of plants per recovery
zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in 1
population in the Portland recovery
zone; 10,000 plants in 2 populations in
the SW Washington, Salem East, and
Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000
plants in 3 populations in the Coast
Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants
in 4 populations in the Salem West and
Corvallis West recovery zones.
The recovery plan further specifies
that, with the exception of the Portland
recovery zone, this may be achieved
with a combination of at least 2
populations that number at least 2,000
individuals; scattered independent
populations must number at least 200
individuals to add up to the target
number in each zone. The range-wide
delisting goal is 100,000 plants
occurring in 20 populations.
At the time of the SSA report, a total
of 334,968 individual plants were
distributed across the historical range of
the species. Considering only the sites
considered independent populations
(having at least 200 plants), there were
332,935 individual plants, found in 42
populations distributed across 6 of the
7 recovery zones (Service 2021, pp. 15,
27). Recent surveys show continued
increases in plant abundance across the
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
71494
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
species’ range, with the total number of
plants increasing to 426,032 in 2022
(Service 2022, pp. 2–3).
At the time of the SSA report, the
Corvallis West and Salem West recovery
zones met both the abundance and
distribution goals outlined in the
recovery plan. Collectively, these 2
recovery zones contained 71 percent of
the populations (30 populations) and 95
percent of the individual plants
(313,662 plants) known to exist. A third
zone, Salem East, contained 9,519
plants, occurring in three populations,
essentially meeting the distribution and
abundance goals of 10,000 plants
distributed among 2 populations. Three
zones (Coast Range, Portland, and SW
Washington) had the minimum number
of populations but did not meet the
recovery goals for abundance. The
remaining zone, Corvallis East, did not
have any sites that met the definition of
an independent population.
Surveys in 2022 included a new site
in the Corvallis East zone, so all
recovery zones are now occupied
(Service 2022, p. 3). Introduced
populations in the Salem East and
Portland zones have been established,
and those zones now meet overall
abundance goals per the recovery plan.
Overall, the population at the sites that
were included in our analysis for the
SSA increased from about 333,000
plants (Service 2021, p. 17) to about
370,000 plants in 2022 (Service 2022, p.
3).
The abundance and distribution goal
of 100,000 plants in 20 populations has
been exceeded, with numbers of nearly
333,000 plants in 42 populations, per
the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 17) and
more than 370,000 plants in those 42
populations in 2022 (Service 2022, pp.
2–3). While the plants and populations
are not distributed among recovery
zones precisely as identified in the
recovery plan, they are distributed
throughout the historical range of the
species. We conclude that the intent of
this criterion, which is to minimize
extinction risk by ensuring a sufficient
number and distribution of plants and
populations, has been satisfied.
Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend
and Evidence of Reproduction
The recovery plan notes that the
number of individuals in the population
(or area of foliar cover) shall have been
stable or increasing over a period of at
least 15 years. Stable does not mean that
the population size is static over time;
over a period of 15 years, the number of
individuals in the population may
exhibit natural year-to-year variability,
but the trend must not be declining.
Populations must show evidence of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
reproduction by seed set or presence of
seedlings.
While taking into account varying
methodologies and irregular population
monitoring throughout the species’
range, the overall abundance of Nelson’s
checker-mallow has increased markedly
since listing in 1993. Range-wide, both
the number of independent populations
(having 200 plants or more) and the
total number of plants continue to
increase. In addition, more populations
have a larger number of individuals
than at the time of listing, as shown in
table 1, below (Service 2012, pp. 17–19;
Service 2021, p. 18), and these data
indicate an overall positive trend since
the time of listing and since the 2012 5year review.
objective for the site, or the site must be
protected by a permanent or long-term
conservation easement or covenant that
commits present and future landowners
to the conservation of the species.
3. Management, monitoring, and
control of threats. Each population must
be managed appropriately to ensure the
maintenance or restoration of quality
prairie habitat and to control threats to
the species. Use of herbicides, mowing,
burning, or livestock grazing in
management should be implemented
with appropriate methods and timing to
avoid impacts to listed plant species.
Management should be coordinated
with adjacent landowners to minimize
effects of pesticide drift, changes in
hydrology, timber harvest, or road/
utility maintenance. Species that may
TABLE 1—NUMBER OF SITES WITH
MORE THAN 100 PLANTS AND MORE hybridize with Nelson’s checker-mallow
THAN 1,000 PLANTS FOR EXAMPLE should be managed as appropriate to
avoid contact with these taxa. Other
YEARS
potential threats relating to scientific
research, overcollection, vandalism,
Sites with
Sites with
Year
100–999
≥1,000
recreational impacts, or natural
plants
plants
herbivory/parasitism should be
successfully managed so as not to
1993 ..................
19
5
2012 ..................
26
4 significantly impair recovery of the
2021 ..................
28
24 species. Management and monitoring
plans must be approved by the Service
Additionally, seedlings were observed and should include standardized
monitoring and performance criteria
on most sites, as confirmed on 35 of 65
surveyed sites (Silvernail et al. 2016, pp. that will be used to assess the plans’
21–24), and overall abundance is
effectiveness following implementation
increasing throughout the recovery
and to allow for adaptive management,
zones. Given that the number of
as necessary. Management plans should
individual plants has increased, and
include a focus on protecting habitat
large populations have been
heterogeneity within protected sites and
successfully established, we conclude
across a range of elevations and aspects
that this criterion has been met.
to buffer the potential effects of climate
change.
Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality
Of the 42 independent populations of
and Management
Nelson’s checker-mallow (having 200
The recovery plan specifies that sites
plants or more), 38 have formal
supporting populations of Nelson’s
management plans that address habitat
checker-mallow must meet the
following three criteria related to habitat quality and threats. Of these 38
populations, 26 are in public ownership
quality and management:
and thus are considered protected in
1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting
populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow perpetuity from development; one site is
owned and protected by a
must be managed for high-quality
nongovernmental conservation
prairie habitat, which consists of a
organization; and the remaining 11
diversity of native, non-woody plant
privately owned sites are protected by
species; low frequency of aggressive,
conservation easements. Four of the 42
nonnative plant species and
populations, which account for less
encroaching woody species; and
than 1 percent of the total number of
essential habitat elements for native
Nelson’s checker-mallow plants, and 10
pollinators.
percent of the populations, have no
2. Security of habitat. A substantial
protection and lack management plans.
portion of the habitat for the
Given that a majority of populations are
populations should either be owned or
managed in accordance with a formal
managed by a government agency or
management plan and are protected by
private conservation organization that
virtue of ownership or conservation
identifies maintenance of the species
easement, we conclude that this
and the prairie ecosystem upon which
it depends as the primary management
recovery criterion has been met.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is
Stored in a Facility Approved by the
Center for Plant Conservation
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
The recovery plan specifies that
stored genetic material in the form of
seeds must represent the species’
geographic distribution and genetic
diversity through collections across the
full range of the species. Collections
from large populations are particularly
important as reservoirs of genetic
variability within the species.
Nelson’s checker-mallow seeds are
currently stored at four separate
repositories. The majority of stored
seeds, approximately 408 kilograms
(900 pounds) or about 112,500,000
seeds, are located at the Corvallis Plant
Materials Center (PMC) operated by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) in Corvallis,
Oregon. Seeds in this collection were
sourced primarily from production
fields, which are maintained
specifically to produce seed, and are
used for habitat restoration, population
augmentation, and out-planting
throughout the range of the species. In
addition, approximately 29,000 seeds
are stored at the Rae Selling Berry Seed
Bank at Portland State University in
Portland, Oregon. This collection was
sourced from Lane, Linn, Benton,
Marion, Polk, Yamhill, and Tillamook
Counties in Oregon, and Lewis County
in Washington. A third, smaller
collection of approximately 705
Nelson’s checker-mallow seeds from
locations in Washington is held at the
Miller Seed Vault at the University of
Washington’s Botanical Gardens in
Seattle, Washington.
In addition to storage in these three
regional repositories, a subset of seeds
from the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank
and the Miller Seed Vault has been sent
to the National Laboratory for Genetic
Resource Preservation at Colorado State
University in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Both the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank
and Colorado State University facility
are certified by the Center for Plant
Conservation. Collectively, the stored
seed represents the geographic range of
Nelson’s checker-mallow, and part of
this stored seed is in facilities certified
by the Center for Plant Conservation.
Therefore, we conclude that this
criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting
Monitoring (PDM) Plans and
Agreements To Continue PDM Are in
Place and Ready for Implementation at
the Time of Delisting
The recovery plan specifies that
monitoring of populations following
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
delisting will verify the ongoing
recovery of the species, provide a basis
for determining whether the species
should be again placed under the
protection of the Act, and provide a
means of assessing the continuing
effectiveness of management actions.
The PDM plan for Nelson’s checkermallow outlines an approach to
monitoring Nelson’s checker-mallow for
a period of 10 years after the species is
delisted. This plan addresses the current
status of the species and provides
details associated with monitoring
methods and implementation, including
site selection, data analysis, monitoring
schedules, and reporting expectations. It
also describes potential outcomes in the
context of how secure the species
remains after delisting. In addition, the
PDM plan outlines roles and
responsibilities and estimates associated
costs. The PDM plan is available at
Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154 on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations in
title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations set forth the procedures for
determining whether a species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species, issuing protective regulations
for threatened species, and designating
critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with
the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Service issued a final rule that
revised the regulations in 50 CFR part
424 regarding how we add, remove, and
reclassify endangered and threatened
species and the criteria for designating
listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR
45020; August 27, 2019). On the same
day, the Service also issued final
regulations that, for species listed as
threatened species after September 26,
2019, eliminated the Service’s general
protective regulations automatically
applying to threatened species the
prohibitions that section 9 of the Act
applies to endangered species (84 FR
44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an ‘‘endangered
species’’ as a species that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a
‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the following factors:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71495
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects. We consider these same five
factors in delisting a species (50 CFR
424.11(c) and (e)).
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
species’ expected response and the
effects of the threats—in light of those
actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—at an individual,
population, and species level. We
evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider
the cumulative effect of the threats in
light of those actions and conditions
that will have positive effects on the
species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the
species meets the definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ only after conducting a
cumulative analysis and describing the
expected effect on the species now and
in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71496
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far
into the future as we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats
and the species’ responses to those
threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time
in which we can make reliable
predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean
‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable
if it is reasonable to depend on it when
making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
of the species to adapt to both near-term
and long-term changes in its physical
and biological environment (for
example, climate conditions, pathogen).
In general, species viability will
increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith
et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the species’
ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors
influencing the species’ viability.
The SSA process can be categorized
into three sequential stages. During the
first stage, we evaluated the species’
life-history needs. The next stage
involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species’
demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an
explanation of how the species arrived
at its current condition. The final stage
of the SSA involved making predictions
about the species’ responses to positive
and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout
all of these stages, we used the best
available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to
sustain populations in the wild over
time. We use this information to inform
our regulatory decisions.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results
of our comprehensive biological review
of the best scientific and commercial
data regarding the status of the species,
including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report
does not represent our decision on
whether the species should be listed as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. However, it does provide
the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decision, which involves the
further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies. The following
is a summary of the key results and
conclusions from the SSA report; the
full SSA report can be found at Docket
No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154 on https://
www.regulations.gov.
To assess Nelson’s checker-mallow
viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to
withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example,
wet or dry, warm or cold years),
redundancy is the ability of the species
to withstand catastrophic events (for
example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation is the ability
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
In this discussion, we review the
biological condition of the species and
its resources, and the threats that
influence the species’ current and future
condition, in order to assess the species’
overall viability and the risks to that
viability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
Ecological Needs
Nelson’s checker-mallow usually
occupies open habitats that are free from
encroachment of trees and shrubs. In the
absence of disturbance to set back
succession, prairie habitat is subject to
woody species encroachment, gradually
transitioning into shrub or woodland
habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as
fire or fall mowing, are necessary to
maintain the open, high-light prairie
habitats that Nelson’s checker-mallow
populations thrive in. In addition,
resilient Nelson’s checker-mallow
populations need a sufficient number of
individuals to withstand stochastic
events and disturbances. The minimum
viable population size for Nelson’s
checker-mallow is not identified.
However, the recovery plan specifies
that independent populations should
number at least 200 individuals (Service
2010, p. IV–20), which provides a basis
for evaluating population status.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
For Nelson’s checker-mallow to be
considered viable, the species must be
able to withstand catastrophic events
and adapt to environmental changes.
This can be achieved with a sufficient
number of resilient populations
distributed across its geographic range
and representing the range of ecological
settings in which the species is known
to exist. The minimum number of
populations required for Nelson’s
checker-mallow has not been
determined. However, distribution and
abundance goals laid out in the recovery
plan (Service 2010, pp. IV–35–IV–36)
and described under Recovery Criteria,
above, provide a benchmark for
evaluating the species.
Factors Influencing the Species
At the time of listing in 1993, the
primary threats identified affecting
Nelson’s checker-mallow were urban
and agricultural development,
ecological succession that results in
shrub and tree encroachment of open
prairie habitats, and competition with
invasive weeds. Planned construction
and expansion of a reservoir on Walker
Creek (a tributary to the Nestucca River)
was identified as a future threat as
associated inundation would result in
the loss of many plants, including the
largest population of the species known
to exist at the time. The listing rule (58
FR 8235; February 12, 1993) also noted
the potentially negative effects of
overcollection for scientific and
horticultural purposes, predation by
weevils, and small population size.
Some inadequacies in regulatory
mechanisms were also identified.
Subsequent to listing, climate change
and hybridization were also identified
as potential threats to the viability of
Nelson’s checker-mallow.
We considered all of these threats
when considering whether the species
continues to warrant protection under
the Act. The threat of inundation never
materialized; the proposed reservoir was
not constructed, given that Walker
Creek was designated as part of
Oregon’s State Scenic Waterway
program in 1992, and as part of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers
program in 2019 (Oregon Department of
Parks and Recreation 2021, p. 1). These
two designations make construction of a
reservoir in this area unlikely at this
time or in the future due to additional
regulatory requirements. We previously
determined that overcollection does not
occur to such a degree that it has a
population-level effect, and that
regulatory mechanisms are adequately
reducing the effects of threats that could
act at a population scale (Service 2012,
pp. 22–28). Weevil predation
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
occasionally impacts individual plants
and may locally affect some
populations; however, it is seasonal in
nature and unpredictable. We did not
find that weevil predation occurs at
spatial and temporal scales large enough
to affect the overall status of Nelson’s
checker-mallow given the plant’s
current population levels.
Many sites with small numbers of
Nelson’s checker-mallow remain
distributed throughout the species’
range. However, the number of
populations with more than 1,000
plants has increased from 5 when the
species was listed in 1993 to 24
populations in 2021 (see table 1, above;
Service 2012, pp. 17–19; Service 2021,
p. 18). Therefore, we conclude that
small population size no longer puts the
species at risk of extinction. The
potential for hybridization among
species of the same genus remains
present. However, we found that the
best available data indicate that
hybridization does not pose a threat to
the overall status of the species.
Additional discussion of these threats is
available in the recovery plan (Service
2010, pp. II–30–II–31 and chapter III),
the 2012 5-year review (Service 2012,
pp. 22–28), and in the 2021 SSA report
(Service 2021, pp. 8–10).
The stressors identified as having
population-level effects are habitatrelated stressors and climate change.
The loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of prairie habitats have
cascading effects that result in smaller
population sizes, loss of genetic
diversity, reduced gene flow among
populations, destruction of population
structure, and increased susceptibility
to local population extirpation caused
by environmental catastrophes (Service
2010, chapter III). Climate change acts
primarily by altering habitat quality.
Collectively, these stressors can
contribute to reduced viability through
reductions in resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. The discussion
below details the causes and
consequences of these stressors on
Nelson’s checker-mallow.
Alteration of Natural and HumanMediated Disturbance Processes
Change in community structure due
to plant succession has been a serious
long-term stressor to Nelson’s checkermallow. Habitats occupied by this
species contain native grassland species,
as well as numerous introduced taxa,
and are prone to transition to a later
seral stage of vegetative development.
The natural transition of prairie to forest
in the absence of disturbance such as
fire can lead to the loss of Nelson’s
checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
24). However, active management of
habitat through mowing and prescribed
burning is effective in reducing Nelson’s
checker-mallow’s exposure to this
stressor.
Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and
Urban Use
Agricultural and urban development
has modified and destroyed prairie
habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely
distributed patches (Service 2012, p.
24). Urban development in particular
results in permanent loss of habitat and
is of special concern where existing
prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban
areas (Service 2010, p. III–2). The
greatest habitat losses due to land
conversion are historical, although
periodic additional losses of habitat on
private lands may occur. Exposure of
Nelson’s checker-mallow populations to
this stressor is mitigated by protections
associated with public land ownership,
conservation measures described later
in this document, and State regulations
requiring mitigation and restoration of
degraded habitat (see Conservation
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms,
below).
Invasion by Nonnative Plants
Habitats occupied by Nelson’s
checker-mallow contain a mix of native
and nonnative species. As described
above, alteration of disturbance
processes results in woody
encroachment of prairie habitats.
Nonnative woody species have been of
particular concern, as they can rapidly
proliferate and degrade open prairie
sites (Service 2012, p. 24). In addition,
nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may
effectively limit recruitment (Institute
for Applied Ecology (IAE) 2017, p. 1).
Although invasion by nonnative plants
remains a primary stressor to Nelson’s
checker-mallow populations,
management practices including
mowing, burning, and shrub removal
are an effective approach to mediating
these effects.
Climate Change
In the Pacific Northwest, temperature
increases of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius (°C)
(5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) are
predicted by the end of the 21st century
(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 414). Although
winter precipitation is predicted to
increase, increased summer
temperatures are expected to cause
increased evapotranspiration, resulting
in reduced growing season soil moisture
(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 414) and
ultimately affecting prairie habitat
quality. Detailed quantitative estimates
of the effects of these conditions on
Nelson’s checker-mallow populations
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71497
are not available. However,
vulnerability assessments show the
species to be moderately vulnerable to
the effects of climate change (Steel et al.
2011, p. 9).
In order for the species to be resilient
to changing environmental conditions
and remain viable into the future,
maintenance of large populations in
heterogenous habitats across the range
of the species is required (Service 2010,
p. IV–6). Management activities that
maintain open prairie habitats,
including mowing, burning, and shrub
removal, have resulted in an increase in
the number of large populations
throughout the range of the species. As
described below, the majority of
Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are
managed in accordance with
conservation programs that ensure
maintenance of prairie conditions and
promote the existence of viable
populations into the future.
Current Condition
We assessed the current condition of
Nelson’s checker-mallow by using the
best available information to estimate
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. We sourced data for this
analysis primarily from the Threatened
and Endangered Plant Geodatabase
(version 12/31/2019), developed by IAE
under a cooperative agreement with the
Service for the purposes of tracking the
status of species listed under the Act in
the Willamette Valley. Additional data
were compiled from supplementary
reports (IAE 2019, entire), locationspecific records, and other information
in our files. We use the term ‘‘site’’
rather than ‘‘population’’ to refer to our
analytical units throughout our current
and future conditions analyses to avoid
confusion; the recovery plan defines an
independent population as one that
contains more than 200 individual
plants, but we evaluated sites of all
sizes.
Resiliency
Resiliency, the ability of populations
to withstand stochastic events, is
commonly determined as a function of
metrics such as population size, growth
rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We
evaluated the current resiliency of
Nelson’s checker-mallow sites on the
basis of abundance, as well as
measurable habitat characteristics that
represent the habitat-related stressors
discussed above. The four specific
metrics we included in our assessment
of resiliency (abundance, prairie habitat
condition, site management, and site
protection) are discussed in more detail
below. A complete description of our
analytical approach to current
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71498
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
conditions is available in the SSA report
(Service 2021, pp. 19–22). Abundance
was scored based upon the total number
of plants within a site, based on the
most recent surveys. Sites were scored
as 1 (Low: fewer than 200 plants), 2
(Moderate: 200–1,999 plants), or 3
(High: equal to or more than 2,000
plants). These categorical thresholds
correspond to recovery goals, which
state that recovery targets may be
achieved with a combination of at least
2 populations that number at least 2,000
individuals and sites with less than 200
plants are not considered independent
populations.
Prairie habitat condition is a measure
of overall habitat quality and was
calculated using four distinct habitat
metrics that are likely to influence
population resiliency: percent woody
cover, percent native cover, native plant
richness (number of unique species
present), and invasive plant cover. For
each site where data on these criteria are
available, we assigned a score of 1
(Poor), 2 (Fair), or 3 (Good) for each
habitat metric. We then determined
overall prairie habitat condition for each
site by averaging individual habitat
metric scores. Additional detail about
scoring categories for each individual
metric is available in the SSA report
(Service 2021, pp. 19–22).
Site management reflects the potential
for prairie habitat degradation due to
natural succession in the absence of
natural and anthropogenic disturbance
regimes. Site management may also be
influential in mediating the effects of
climate change through the maintenance
of large populations in heterogenous
habitats distributed across the range of
the species. To account for existing site
management that serves to offset these
stressors, we assigned each site a score
of 1 (Poor: not managed for prairie
conditions or unknown), 2 (Fair:
generally managed for prairie conditions
but no management plan in place), or 3
(Good: managed for prairie conditions
with a management plan in place).
Site protection is a measure of the
potential for losing Nelson’s checkermallow sites to agricultural and urban
development. We used site ownership
and the existence of conservation
agreements to assess how well each site
is protected from development,
assigning each site a score of 1 (Poor:
private ownership with no conservation
easement or similar program), 2 (Fair:
private ownership with conservation
easement or similar program), or 3
(Good: public ownership or private
conservation organization ownership).
To estimate resiliency for each site,
we calculated a condition score by
averaging the scores for abundance,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
mean prairie habitat condition, site
management, and site protection. We
weighted management twice as much as
the other factors due to its relative
importance to long-term population
resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV–5;
Service 2021, p. 21). Based on overall
scores, current condition of each site
was classified as high (score of greater
than or equal to 2.5), moderate (score of
1.75–2.49), or low (score of less than
1.75).
Currently, we know of 66 sites
containing Nelson’s checker-mallow.
Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are
in high condition, while 29 of them (44
percent) are in moderate condition.
Range-wide, only six sites (9 percent)
are in low condition (Service 2021, pp.
21–26). If this analysis were limited to
the 42 independent populations (having
200 plants or more), 31 populations (74
percent) would score as high condition,
7 populations (17 percent) would score
as moderate condition, and 4
populations (9 percent) would score as
low. These results demonstrate
relatively high resiliency across the
range of Nelson’s checker-mallow.
Redundancy
Redundancy is defined as a species’
ability to withstand catastrophic events
and is determined as a function of the
number of populations, as well as their
distribution and connectivity. The
historical distribution of Nelson’s
checker-mallow populations is largely
unknown. Throughout its range,
Nelson’s checker-mallow is restricted to
remnant prairie habitats that are highly
fragmented due to a history of land
conversion and natural succession
following alterations to disturbance
cycles. However, since the time of
listing in 1993, habitat restoration,
reintroductions, and habitat protection
have collectively improved the status of
the species. Among the 42 independent
populations, more than 330,000
individual plants are distributed across
6 of the 7 recovery zones (Service 2021,
pp. 15, 27), demonstrating overall good
redundancy.
Representation
Representation refers to the ability of
a species to adapt to change, and is
based upon considerations of
geographic, genetic, ecological, and
niche diversity. Because we lack
information about the genetic diversity
of the species, we rely on geographical
and ecological diversity in our
assessment of representation.
Populations (sites with 200 plants or
more) of Nelson’s checker-mallow are
currently distributed in 6 of the 7
recovery zones and occur in both the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Willamette Valley and in the Coast
Range. The species occupies a range of
prairie sites with various soil textures
and moisture levels and occurs in a
wide range of plant communities
including meadows, marshes, wetlands,
riparian/tree shrub forests, and
disturbed areas. This indicates that the
species has the capacity to adapt to a
variety of environmental conditions and
has good representation.
Future Viability
To assess the future viability of
Nelson’s checker-mallow, we
considered the factors that will
influence the species in the foreseeable
future. We define the foreseeable future
as 25 to 50 years. This interval was
chosen because it encompasses the
length of time over which we conclude
we can make reliable predictions about
the anticipated effect of climate change.
In addition, this period of time is
sufficient to observe population trends
for the species, based on its life-history
characteristics. It also captures the terms
of many of the management plans and
conservation easements that are in effect
at Nelson’s checker-mallow sites.
We determined that Nelson’s checkermallow will continue to be influenced
by the factors that have historically
influenced and are currently influencing
the species, albeit at different relative
rates into the future. Therefore, in our
analysis of future viability, we
considered habitat-related changes and
climate change. We considered the
specific sources of habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation
(alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes, habitat
conversion to agricultural and urban
use, and invasion by nonnative plants)
in light of ongoing conservation
support, including habitat management
and site protection.
We make several assumptions about
ongoing conservation support in the
foreseeable future. Support for the
conservation of Nelson’s checkermallow has been high among
government agencies, nongovernmental
conservation organizations, and some
private landowners. We assume that
management of existing sites and
priority recovery and management
actions for the species will continue at
approximately the current pace, and
that the species will continue to benefit
from this ongoing conservation support.
We base this assumption on the number
of Nelson’s checker-mallow sites that
have long-term or perpetual
management agreements. These plans
vary in scope and complexity across
ownerships, but all provide at least a
basic level of habitat management that
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
will benefit Nelson’s checker-mallow.
We expect adaptive management in
response to changing conditions at sites
with current plans, and efforts to
develop new management plans at sites
without plans. This is based on the
commitment of the wide variety of
conservation partners with whom we
collaborate on similar prairie habitat
conservation efforts. These partners
typically tier their conservation efforts
to the 2010 recovery plan that includes
Nelson’s checker-mallow with several
other listed plants and insects,
emphasizing restoration and
maintenance of prairie habitat for the
benefit of numerous species. This
provides an impetus for continued
formalized management of these sites
and maintenance of Nelson’s checkermallow habitat.
Although sites not protected by virtue
of ownership or conservation easement
may be at risk due to development in
the future, these sites are in the minority
and their unprotected status is reflected
in our analysis.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Resiliency
To assess the future viability of
Nelson’s checker-mallow, we
considered a single scenario where we
assumed that climate change will result
in a dramatic reduction in abundance
across the species’ range but site
management and protection will remain
intact, as discussed above. We then
reassessed population condition,
applying the same methodology used for
assessing current condition.
Published assessments do not provide
detailed quantitative estimates of the
effects of climate change on Nelson’s
checker-mallow populations. To
evaluate the effects of climate change on
individual sites, we characterized a
worst-case future scenario in terms we
could use in our analysis of future
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
condition. In consultation with species
experts and conservation partners, we
defined the worst-case scenario as one
where increased mortality and
decreased recruitment culminate in a 50
percent reduction in abundance at all
sites. We consider a 50 percent
reduction to represent the upper
boundary of plausibility as the actual
effects of climate change on population
sizes are likely to be more moderate
based on climate change vulnerability
assessment modeling (Steel et al. 2011,
p. 30), and sites are expected to be
protected and adaptively managed as
described above. Nevertheless,
assuming a 50 percent reduction
provides a generous margin of error if
these assumptions are violated. We
acknowledge that a uniform response to
climate change across the species’ range
is not likely, and that some populations
may fare better than others under future
conditions. However, this approach
serves to demonstrate future viability
under challenging future conditions.
In the scenario described above,
resiliency declined modestly, with 60
sites remaining in high or moderate
condition (see figure 1, below). The
number of sites in high overall
condition decreased from 31 to 25,
relative to current condition, while the
number of sites in moderate condition
increased from 29 to 35. Sites reduced
to moderate condition are relatively
well-distributed throughout the range of
the species, with one site occurring in
the Coast Range recovery zone, three
sites occurring in the Corvallis West
recovery zone, one site occurring in the
Portland recovery zone, and one site
occurring in the Salem West recovery
zone. The number of sites in overall low
condition (six sites) does not change in
the foreseeable future.
These changes in overall future
condition are driven by changes in
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71499
abundance. In our future scenario, 6
additional sites fall below 200
individual plants and, therefore, receive
a low score for abundance. Sites with
low abundance are more vulnerable to
stochastic events and carry a higher risk
for extirpation in the future. If we only
consider sites that retain independent
populations with 200 plants or more,
the number of populations in high
condition decrease from 31 to 27, the
number in moderate condition remain at
7, and the number in low condition
decrease from 4 to 2 for future overall
condition. The relative importance of
site management and protection in
guarding against habitat loss and
maintaining site resiliency even in sites
with small numbers of plants is
reflected in the relatively modest
downward shift in overall future
condition, relative to current condition
(see figure 2, below).
Redundancy
Our analysis of future condition
indicates that redundancy will be
maintained in the foreseeable future; 66
extant sites will remain well-distributed
throughout the current known range of
the species. Consequently, no major
changes in the species’ ability to
withstand catastrophes in the future is
expected.
Representation
The distribution of extant Nelson’s
checker-mallow sites does not change
under the parameters of our future
condition analysis. Consequently,
changes in ecological diversity are not
projected to materialize as a result of
climate change, and the species is likely
to continue to occupy prairie habitat
throughout its range and retain its
adaptive capacity.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
71500
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Nelson's Checker-mallow Sites
Future Condition of Current Distribution
WASHINGTON
Enlargecl
area
OREGON
WASHINGTON
COAST RANGE
•
OREGON
SO Miles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
ER17OC23.009
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Figure 1. Overall future condition of all Nelson's checker-mallow sites.
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
71501
Nelson's Checker-mallow Sites
Future Condition Assessment Factors
tow
• · ··Moderate
••
l-ligh
Figure 2. Future condition of Nelson's checker-mallow sites, by the individual assessment
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
Collectively, our analysis of the
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation demonstrates that in 25
to 50 years, the viability of Nelson’s
checker-mallow will not be significantly
reduced.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
We note that, by using the SSA
framework to guide our analysis of the
scientific information documented in
the SSA report, we have analyzed the
cumulative effects of identified threats
and conservation actions on the species.
To assess the current and future
condition of the species, we evaluate the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species,
including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework
considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire
species, our assessment integrates the
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
ER17OC23.010
metrics: Area of prairie habitat, site management, site protection, and abundance.
71502
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
cumulative effects of the factors and
replaces a standalone cumulative effects
analysis.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms
Despite permanent habitat loss and
modification, habitat restoration and
protection projects have been
implemented on both public and private
lands throughout the range of Nelson’s
checker-mallow. These projects offset
some of the permanent habitat losses
and, as a result, Nelson’s checkermallow habitat is increasing (Bartow
2020, pers. comm.), particularly in the
Corvallis West and Salem West recovery
zones. The Wetland Reserve Program
and other Farm Bill programs
administered by the USDA’s NRCS have
been widely implemented in the
Willamette Valley. Other programs,
such as the Service’s Partners for Fish
and Wildlife program and the Act’s
section 10 programs (i.e., safe harbor
agreements and habitat conservation
plans), are also available to landowners.
These programs are focused on habitat
restoration and protection and have
contributed significantly to improving
the status of Nelson’s checker-mallow.
Range-wide, the majority of the 66
sites known to support Nelson’s
checker-mallow benefit from some type
of conservation measure, by virtue of
ownership or habitat management
agreements or both. Fifty-seven of the 66
total Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are
managed in accordance with the
conservation programs described above,
which ensure maintenance of prairie
conditions required by the species. Of
these sites, 44 are owned by a public
entity. Regarding the 42 independent
populations (having 200 plants or
more), 38 have formal management
plans, 26 of which are in public
ownership, which offers protection from
prairie habitat conversion to other uses.
The terms of management agreements
vary, but they are typically valid for 10
to 30 years, with some extending into
perpetuity. Collectively, these
management regimes ensure habitat
protections at a decades-long scale for
most sites.
Determination of Nelson’s CheckerMallow’s Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the Act’s definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. The Act
defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a
species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
requires that we determine whether a
species meets the definition of
endangered species or threatened
species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D)
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) factors, we found that the
primary drivers of the status of Nelson’s
checker-mallow have been habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation due to
alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that
maintain open prairie habitat, land
conversion to agricultural and urban
use, and invasion by nonnative plants
(Factor A). The best available
information indicates that, while still
present to some degree, overcollection
(Factor B), predation (Factor C), small
population size (Factor E), and
hybridization (Factor E) are no longer
threats to the viability of the species.
Potential inundation of the largest and
most vigorous population (Walker Flat)
by reservoir development was seen as a
major threat at the time of listing. The
threat of inundation never materialized
as the proposed reservoir was not
constructed and is highly unlikely in
the future due to the regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) discussed above.
Other habitat threats (i.e., alteration of
disturbance processes and associated
woody encroachment, the threat of
invasive plants, land use conversion)
are still present on the landscape;
however, the magnitude and scope of
these threats have decreased from
historical levels, and have been offset by
a variety of management and
conservation measures in the 30 years
since Nelson’s checker-mallow was
listed. Active maintenance of prairie
habitat through mowing and prescribed
burning has demonstrably reduced the
threat posed by alteration of disturbance
processes and associated woody
encroachment (Factor A). The threat of
invasive plants (Factor A) has also been
significantly reduced as a result of
active management.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Range-wide, 58 of the 66 sites known
to contain Nelson’s checker-mallow
have formalized management plans.
This number of formalized management
plans is expected to remain relatively
constant into the foreseeable future.
Similarly, 60 Nelson’s checker-mallow
sites are either in public ownership,
have been acquired by nongovernmental
conservation organizations, or are
enrolled in conservation easement
programs (Factor D), which has
substantially reduced the risk of habitat
and population losses due to land-use
conversion (Factor A). The number of
sites protected from conversion to
agricultural or urban use due to public
or conservation organization ownership
is expected to remain relatively constant
in the future. In sum, despite the
continued presence of habitat-related
threats on the landscape, advances in
site management and protection have
led to a significant reduction in threats
and overall improvement in the status of
the species since listing.
When Nelson’s checker-mallow was
listed, we estimated that the species
occurred at 48 sites, only 5 of which
contained more than 1,000 individuals,
and 30 percent of the known
individuals of the species were
threatened with inundation due to the
planned construction of a dam. At the
time of the SSA report, 334,968
individual plants were distributed
across the historical range of the
species. They occurred at 66 sites, 24 of
which have at least 1,000 individuals,
and inundation was no longer
considered a likely threat. Our analysis
of current conditions, based on
abundance, habitat quality, site
management, and site protection, shows
that 60 of those sites are in either
moderate or high condition, indicating
relatively high resiliency. The sites are
distributed among six of the seven
recovery zones and occur in varied
geographical and ecological settings,
demonstrating overall high redundancy
and representation. Recent surveys also
show increasing trends in plant
abundance across the species’ range,
with the total number of plants
increasing to 426,032 in 2022 (Service
2022, pp. 2–3).
Subsequent to listing, climate change
and its potential to negatively affect
prairie habitat was identified as a
potential threat to Nelson’s checkermallow. We considered the potential
consequences of climate change on the
species and evaluated a worst-case
future scenario that included a 50
percent reduction in the size of all
known populations across the range of
the species in the next 25 to 50 years.
Even with such severe population
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
reduction, the species retained
appreciable levels of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, with
only six sites showing a reduction in
resiliency, and the maintenance of
geographical and ecological distribution
of the species.
We recognize that some habitatrelated threats remain present, and they
have ongoing impacts to Nelson’s
checker-mallow populations. We
acknowledge that the specific effects of
climate change on Nelson’s checkermallow and its habitat are uncertain and
may have a negative impact. However,
we found that current and expected
patterns in site protection and habitat
management (Factor D) are sufficient to
prevent effects to the species such that
it would meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we determine
that Nelson’s checker-mallow is not in
danger of extinction now or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The
court in Center for Biological Diversity
v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C.
2020) (Everson), vacated the provision
of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its
Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s
Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’
and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (Final Policy;
79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided
if the Services determine that a species
is threatened throughout all of its range,
the Services will not analyze whether
the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating
whether the species is endangered or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future in a significant
portion of its range—that is, whether
there is any portion of the species’ range
for which it is true that both (1) the
portion is significant, and (2) the species
is in danger of extinction now or likely
to become so within the foreseeable
future in that portion. Depending on the
case, it might be more efficient for us to
address the ‘‘significance’’ question or
the ‘‘status’’ question first. We can
choose to address either question first.
Regardless of which question we
address first, if we reach a negative
answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
evaluate the other question for that
portion of the species’ range.
Following the court’s holding in
Everson, we now consider whether there
are any significant portions of the
species’ range where the species is in
danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered) or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future (i.e.,
threatened). In undertaking this analysis
for Nelson’s checker-mallow, we choose
to address the status question first—we
consider information pertaining to the
geographic distribution of both the
species and the threats that the species
faces to identify any portions of the
range where the species may be
endangered or threatened.
We evaluated the range of Nelson’s
checker-mallow to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction now
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in any portion of its range. The
range of a species can theoretically be
divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our
analysis on portions of the species’
range that may meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. For
Nelson’s checker-mallow, we
considered whether the threats or their
effects on the species are greater in any
biologically meaningful portion of the
species’ range than in other portions
such that the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in that
portion.
We examined the following threats:
habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation
due to alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that
maintain open prairie habitat; land
conversion to agricultural and urban
use; invasion by nonnative plants; and
climate change, including cumulative
effects.
The threat of habitat loss from
alteration of disturbance processes,
land-use conversion, and invasion of
nonnative plants has decreased in all
portions of the species’ range since the
time of listing, largely due to land
protection efforts and active habitat
management. Although these residual
threats influence the species variably
across its range, there is no portion of
the range where there is currently a
concentration of threats at a biologically
meaningful scale, relative to other areas
of the range. In the foreseeable future,
climate change may interact
synergistically with other threats to
negatively affect habitat quality. We
acknowledge that uniform response
across the species’ range is not likely,
and that some populations may fare
worse than others under future
conditions. However, the best available
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71503
information does not indicate that any
portion of the species’ range will
deteriorate disproportionately in the
foreseeable future. We anticipate that
any negative consequence of cooccurring threats will be successfully
addressed through the same active
management actions that have
contributed to the ongoing recovery of
Nelson’s checker-mallow and that are
expected to continue into the future.
We found no portion of the Nelson’s
checker-mallow range where the
biological condition of the species
differs from its condition elsewhere in
its range such that the status of the
species differs from its condition
elsewhere in its range.
Therefore, no portion of the species’
range provides a basis for determining
that the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range, and we
determine that the species is not in
danger of extinction now or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future
in any significant portion of its range.
This does not conflict with the courts’
holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp.
3d 1011, 1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell,
248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017), because, in reaching this
conclusion, we did not need to consider
whether any portions are significant
and, therefore, did not apply the aspects
of the Final Policy’s definition of
‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions
held were invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that Nelson’s checker-mallow
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2),
because Nelson’s checker-mallow does
not meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered or a threatened species, we
are removing Nelson’s checker-mallow
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h)
by removing Nelson’s checker-mallow
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the
Act, particularly through sections 7 and
9, will no longer apply to this species.
Federal agencies will no longer be
required to consult with the Service
under section 7 of the Act in the event
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
71504
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out may affect Nelson’s checkermallow. There is no critical habitat
designated for this species, so there is
no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
■
Post-Delisting Monitoring
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
Several Nelson’s checker-mallow sites
occur on Confederated Tribe of Grand
Ronde (Tribe) lands, and some sites may
lie within the usual and accustomed
places for Tribal collection and
gathering of resources. The Tribe has a
plan in place to manage and monitor
Nelson’s checker-mallow and a new
memorandum of understanding with the
Service for data sharing.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us,
in cooperation with the States, to
implement a monitoring program for not
less than 5 years for all species that have
been delisted due to recovery. PDM
refers to activities undertaken to verify
that a species delisted due to recovery
remains secure from the risk of
extinction after the protections of the
Act no longer apply. The primary goal
of PDM is to monitor the species to
ensure that its status does not
deteriorate, and if a decline is detected,
to take measures to halt the decline so
that proposing it as endangered or
threatened is not again needed. If at any
time during the monitoring period data
indicate that protective status under the
Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing.
We are delisting Nelson’s checkermallow due to recovery based on our
analysis in the SSA report, expert
opinions, and conservation actions
taken. We have prepared a PDM plan
that discusses the current status of the
taxon and describes the methods for
monitoring its status. The PDM plan: (1)
summarizes the status of Nelson’s
checker-mallow at the time of delisting;
(2) describes frequency and duration of
monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring
methods and sampling regimes; (4)
defines what triggers will be evaluated
to address the need for additional
monitoring; (5) outlines reporting
requirements and procedures; (6)
provides a schedule for implementing
the PDM plan; and (7) defines
responsibilities. It is our intent to work
with our partners towards maintaining
the recovered status of Nelson’s
checker-mallow. To view a copy of the
PDM plan, see ADDRESSES, above.
Required Determinations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
determining a species’ listing status
under the Endangered Species Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
References Cited
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule
are the staff members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment
Team and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
§ 17.12
[Amended]
2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants by removing the entry for
‘‘Sidalcea nelsoniana’’ under
FLOWERING PLANTS.
■
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–22759 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 230316–0077; RTID 0648–
XD421]
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Herring Fishery;
Adjustment to the 2023 Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason
adjustment.
AGENCY:
NMFS is adjusting the 2023
Atlantic herring specifications for the
remainder of 2023. Herring regulations
specify that NMFS will subtract 1,000
metric tons (mt) from the management
uncertainty buffer and reallocate it to
the herring annual catch limit and Area
1A sub-annual catch limit if NMFS
determines that the New Brunswick
weir fishery landed less than 2,722 mt
of herring through October 1.
DATES: Effective October 12, 2023
through December 31, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria Fenton, Fishery Management
Specialist, 978–281–9196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
published final 2023 specifications for
the Atlantic herring fishery on March
23, 2023 (88 FR 17397), establishing the
2023 annual catch limit (ACL) and
management area sub-ACLs. The
regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(h) specify
that NMFS will subtract 1,000 mt from
the management uncertainty buffer and
reallocate it to the herring ACL and Area
SUMMARY:
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Service’s
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
PO 00000
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM
17OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71491-71504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22759]
[[Page 71491]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154; FF09E22000FXES1113090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE54
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Nelson's
Checker-Mallow From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial data indicates that the threats to Nelson's
checker-mallow have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the
species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
DATES: This rule is effective November 16, 2023.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and supporting documents, including
references cited, the 5-year review, the recovery plan, the species
status assessment (SSA) report, and the post-delisting monitoring (PDM)
plan, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kessina Lee, Project Leader, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone: 503-231-6179.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
On February 12, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR
8235) a final rule listing Nelson's checker-mallow as a threatened
species. In 2010, we finalized the Recovery Plan for the Prairie
Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which includes
Nelson's checker-mallow (Service 2010, entire). We conducted a 5-year
status review in 2012, and did not recommend reclassification (Service
2012, entire). On May 7, 2018, we announced in the Federal Register (83
FR 20088) our initiation of a subsequent 5-year review for the species.
We completed the status review in 2021, and therein recommended
delisting the species. On April 28, 2022, we published in the Federal
Register (87 FR 25197) a proposed rule to remove Nelson's checker-
mallow from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
(List).
Peer Review
An SSA team prepared the SSA report for Nelson's checker-mallow
(Service 2021, entire). The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, and the team consulted with other species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial
data available concerning the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in the Nelson's checker-mallow SSA
report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to
four independent peer reviewers and received no responses. The SSA
report was also submitted to our Federal, State, municipal, Tribal, and
conservation partners for scientific review. We received responses from
two partners, representing a Federal agency and a nonprofit
conservation partner. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report,
which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule and Draft Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan
We considered all comments and information we received during the
comment period on our proposed rule to delist Nelson's checker-mallow
(87 FR 25197; April 28, 2022). This consideration resulted in the
following changes from the proposed rule and draft PDM plan to this
final rule and the updated PDM plan.
In this final rule, we include updated monitoring data and the
results of a partial range-wide survey conducted in 2022, the species'
potential response to climate change, and status of reintroduction
efforts. We also make nonsubstantive, editorial corrections in our
preamble to improve clarity.
We revised the PDM plan by updating the monitoring timetable and
schedule to include periodic surveys over a 10-year timeframe, updating
tables and text to reflect results of recent monitoring efforts, and
making one substitution and one addition to the monitoring site table
to better represent the current distribution of the species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25197), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by June 27, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did
not receive any requests for a public hearing. We received comments
from two individuals addressing the proposed rule, representing one
public commenter and one State agency. These comments are posted at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154. The
public comment opposed the proposed delisting of the Nelson's checker-
mallow but did not provide substantive information that could be
evaluated or incorporated, and we do not address it further here. The
State agency comment also opposed the proposed delisting and provided
substantive information that is addressed below.
Comment (1): The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) commented
that there is an overall lack of sufficient data in the SSA report to
back up claims of population growth trends, reproduction, and
recruitment to support delisting Nelson's checker-mallow. ODA
recommended that the Service consider a more robust, comprehensive,
methodical, and organized approach to annual monitoring of these
vulnerable prairie species, and stated that, based on the SSA report,
it is unclear whether populations of this species are self-sustaining
or are exhibiting explosive population growth due to intensive out-
planting.
Response (1): In accordance with section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), this delisting determination for Nelson's
checker-mallow is based on the best scientific
[[Page 71492]]
and commercial data available. The Service considered population
growth, reproduction, and recruitment of Nelson's checker-mallow in the
SSA report when assessing the species' resiliency. We recognize that
sites are not monitored regularly throughout the entire range, and that
there is interannual variation in abundance at sites. However,
monitoring data from the time of listing through 2022 show an overall
trend of population growth with increasing abundance and an increasing
number of known sites. At the time of listing, there were 49 known
sites, of which 19 had 100 to 999 plants, and 5 had 1,000 plants or
more (Service 2012, pp. 17-19). Of the 66 sites known at the time of
the SSA report, 28 had 100 to 999 plants, and 24 sites had 1,000 plants
or more (Service 2021, pp. 17-18). Restoration activities include
establishment of 51 new sites (i.e., out-plantings) and augmentation of
15 existing sites. At this time, population increases are driven by
restoration activities and not natural recruitment; however, seedlings
have been observed on most (35 of 65) surveyed sites (Silvernail et al.
2016, pp. 21-24).
In 2022, the Service funded a partial range-wide survey (less than
50 percent of known sites) of Nelson's checker-mallow (Service 2022,
entire). Within sites, the survey focused on obtaining an inventory of
larger patches of Nelson's checker-mallow plants, so most smaller and
isolated patches were not included. A total of 62 patches, including
more than 86 percent of the plants known to exist, were surveyed.
Overall, the population remains high with over 369,000 plants counted,
reflecting an overall increase of approximately 30,000 plants since
completion of the SSA report in 2021. Restored sites continue to
contribute more than 90 percent of individuals (Service 2022, p. 5).
Comment (2): ODA commented that while there have been successful
artificial reintroductions, because of the dearth of population trend,
reproduction, and demographic data, there is no sense of how
reintroductions have performed since 2017, when the last range-wide
species survey was undertaken. ODA recommended that the Service
demonstrate long-term viability of these reintroduction efforts through
focused, long-term monitoring before delisting the species.
Response (2): While there have not been more recent range-wide
species surveys since 2017, monitoring of 62 patches in 2022 (including
more than 86 percent of known Nelson's checker-mallow plants)
demonstrated the population remains high and restored sites continue to
contribute more than 90 percent of individuals (Service 2022, p. 5).
In addition, the Service notes in the SSA report that long-term
monitoring data are not currently available for the majority of
Nelson's checker-mallow sites and were not a component of our
resiliency assessment (Service 2021, p. 26). We are required to make
our determinations based on the best available scientific and
commercial data at the time the determination is made. Current data
indicate that since the Nelson's checker-mallow was listed as
threatened in 1993, the species has increased in both number and size
of populations, with a majority of populations under management plans
or public ownership, such that the species is no longer in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Considering the best scientific and
commercial information available, Nelson's checker-mallow also does not
meet the Act's definition of a threatened species. Finally, the PDM
plan outlines a 10-year monitoring plan with specific criteria for site
selection, data collection and analysis methods, and reporting
requirements to track the species' status. The PDM plan also contains
thresholds for population numbers and distribution, and triggers for
management protections to ensure that Nelson's checker-mallow remains
secure from the risk of extinction following delisting.
Comment (3): ODA recommended that the Service increase its
reintroduction efforts in the northern recovery zones given the
statement in the SSA report that Coast Range, Portland, and Southwest
(SW) Washington are known to have the minimum number of populations but
do not meet the recovery goals for abundance.
Response (3): At the time the SSA report was written, recovery
goals for abundance in the Coast Range (15,000 plants), Portland (5,000
plants), and SW Washington (10,000 plants) recovery zones had not been
met. Since that time, more than 11 new introduction sites have been
established across the species' range. While the Coast Range and SW
Washington recovery zones remain below their abundance goals, the
Portland recovery zone now exceeds its abundance goal. Recent surveys
also show increasing trends in plant abundance across the species'
range with the total number of plants increasing from 334,968 at the
time of the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 15) to 426,032 in 2022
(Service 2022, pp. 2-3). Support for the ongoing conservation of
Nelson's checker-mallow has been high among government agencies,
nongovernmental conservation organizations, and some private
landowners. It is anticipated that priority recovery and management
actions, including additional reintroduction efforts, will continue at
approximately the current pace and that the species will continue to
benefit from this ongoing conservation support.
Comment (4): ODA expressed a concern about the species' ability to
adapt to climate change given the recent drought and extreme heat
coupled with the most successful recovery zones occurring at the
southern end of the species' range. They emphasized the need for a
better understanding of the magnitude and urgency of the threats and
that data beyond 2020/2021 would be helpful in understanding the
species' response to future climate conditions.
Response (4): The Service reviews the best scientific and
commercial information available when conducting a threats analysis.
The identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is
not sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a
currently listed species) on the Federal Lists of Endangered or
Threatened Wildlife and Plants is appropriate. In determining whether a
species meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species, we
must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species'
expected response and the effects of the threats--in light of those
actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an
individual, population, and species level, as well as the cumulative
effect of the threats.
In our assessment of future viability of the species in the SSA
report, we considered a worst case scenario that assumed that the
anticipated effects of climate change would result in the reduction of
Nelson's checker-mallow populations by 50 percent within a period of 25
to 50 years (Service 2021, pp. 29-30). However, even under this
scenario, our analysis suggests that loss of resiliency will be modest,
with 60 sites remaining in moderate or high condition, no change in the
number of recovery zones that meet recovery goals, and no major changes
in redundancy or representation expected. Collectively, this suggests
that in 25 to 50 years, viability of the species will not be
significantly reduced (Service 2021, p. 31). In addition, Nelson's
checker-mallow has a deep taproot that allows it to access groundwater
and soil water that may help it survive extended periods of drought. At
present, quantitative estimates of the impacts of increased
temperatures and precipitation changes on Nelson's
[[Page 71493]]
checker-mallow are not available outside of our analysis.
Current data are insufficient to analyze how populations are
affected by year-to-year variation in weather. All species have the
potential to be negatively impacted by climate change. Recovery efforts
have increased this species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation
such that the species is now better able to recover from impacts.
Effects may be further buffered if adaptive management strategies are
implemented at sites under public or conservation organization
ownership. Many of the populations of Nelson's checker-mallow are on
lands that will be managed in perpetuity. While 30 populations are in
the two southernmost zones, there are 12 additional independent
populations dispersed across other recovery zones that were considered
in the analysis of the species' resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. In addition, there are currently more than 900 pounds
of seed in storage with more in production, and reintroduction efforts
are expected to continue as part of prairie restoration at both public
and private sites.
Background
Nelson's checker-mallow is an herbaceous perennial plant in the
mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces 30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink
flowers arranged on an elongated, branched stalk. Plants range from 50
to 150 centimeters (20 to 60 inches) in height. Plants produce short,
thick, twisted rhizomes (creeping underground stems), as well as a
system of fine roots extending from a taproot (a stout main root)
(Service 2010, appendix F, pp. F-3-F-4).
Nelson's checker-mallow is found in the Willamette Valley and the
Coast Range of Oregon and Washington. It occupies a variety of prairie
habitats and soil types but is typically associated with open sites. In
the Willamette Valley, the species occasionally occurs in the
understory of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among woody
shrubs, but more frequently occupies native prairie remnants, including
those at the margins of sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides, fence
rows, drainage swales, and fallow fields (Glad et al. 1994, pp. 314-
321). In the Coast Range, Nelson's checker-mallow typically occurs in
open, wet to dry meadows; in intermittent stream channels; and along
margins of coniferous forests (Glad et al. 1987, pp. 259-262).
Once established, Nelson's checker-mallow plants are hardy; if
plants become established at a site, they usually persist (Bartow 2020,
pers. comm.). Their long taproot allows them to access subsurface water
sources, and individual plants are long-lived (Dillon 2021, pers.
comm.). In addition, regeneration from the taproot is possible after
the aboveground and upper taproot portions of the plant have been
removed (Dillon 2021, pers. comm.).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
Nelson's checker-mallow is presented in version 1.0 of the SSA report
(Service 2021, entire).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the List.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently, and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Washington (recovery plan) divides the geographic area
covered by included species into recovery zones, which provides a
framework for recovering the species' historical ranges. Nelson's
checker-mallow historically occupied seven recovery zones: SW
Washington, Portland, Coast Range, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis
East, and Corvallis West. The following discussion provides an
assessment of the species' status relative to the five delisting
criteria outlined in the recovery plan.
Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and Abundance
The recovery plan specifies that the distribution of populations
should reflect the extent of the species' historical geographic
distribution to the extent practicable and identifies goals for a
minimum number of populations and target number of plants per recovery
zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in 1 population in the Portland recovery
zone; 10,000 plants in 2 populations in the SW Washington, Salem East,
and Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000 plants in 3 populations in
the Coast Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants in 4 populations in
the Salem West and Corvallis West recovery zones.
The recovery plan further specifies that, with the exception of the
Portland recovery zone, this may be achieved with a combination of at
least 2 populations that number at least 2,000 individuals; scattered
independent populations must number at least 200 individuals to add up
to the target number in each zone. The range-wide delisting goal is
100,000 plants occurring in 20 populations.
At the time of the SSA report, a total of 334,968 individual plants
were distributed across the historical range of the species.
Considering only the sites considered independent populations (having
at least 200 plants), there were 332,935 individual plants, found in 42
populations distributed across 6 of the 7 recovery zones (Service 2021,
pp. 15, 27). Recent surveys show continued increases in plant abundance
across the
[[Page 71494]]
species' range, with the total number of plants increasing to 426,032
in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 2-3).
At the time of the SSA report, the Corvallis West and Salem West
recovery zones met both the abundance and distribution goals outlined
in the recovery plan. Collectively, these 2 recovery zones contained 71
percent of the populations (30 populations) and 95 percent of the
individual plants (313,662 plants) known to exist. A third zone, Salem
East, contained 9,519 plants, occurring in three populations,
essentially meeting the distribution and abundance goals of 10,000
plants distributed among 2 populations. Three zones (Coast Range,
Portland, and SW Washington) had the minimum number of populations but
did not meet the recovery goals for abundance. The remaining zone,
Corvallis East, did not have any sites that met the definition of an
independent population.
Surveys in 2022 included a new site in the Corvallis East zone, so
all recovery zones are now occupied (Service 2022, p. 3). Introduced
populations in the Salem East and Portland zones have been established,
and those zones now meet overall abundance goals per the recovery plan.
Overall, the population at the sites that were included in our analysis
for the SSA increased from about 333,000 plants (Service 2021, p. 17)
to about 370,000 plants in 2022 (Service 2022, p. 3).
The abundance and distribution goal of 100,000 plants in 20
populations has been exceeded, with numbers of nearly 333,000 plants in
42 populations, per the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 17) and more than
370,000 plants in those 42 populations in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 2-3).
While the plants and populations are not distributed among recovery
zones precisely as identified in the recovery plan, they are
distributed throughout the historical range of the species. We conclude
that the intent of this criterion, which is to minimize extinction risk
by ensuring a sufficient number and distribution of plants and
populations, has been satisfied.
Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend and Evidence of Reproduction
The recovery plan notes that the number of individuals in the
population (or area of foliar cover) shall have been stable or
increasing over a period of at least 15 years. Stable does not mean
that the population size is static over time; over a period of 15
years, the number of individuals in the population may exhibit natural
year-to-year variability, but the trend must not be declining.
Populations must show evidence of reproduction by seed set or presence
of seedlings.
While taking into account varying methodologies and irregular
population monitoring throughout the species' range, the overall
abundance of Nelson's checker-mallow has increased markedly since
listing in 1993. Range-wide, both the number of independent populations
(having 200 plants or more) and the total number of plants continue to
increase. In addition, more populations have a larger number of
individuals than at the time of listing, as shown in table 1, below
(Service 2012, pp. 17-19; Service 2021, p. 18), and these data indicate
an overall positive trend since the time of listing and since the 2012
5-year review.
Table 1--Number of Sites With More Than 100 Plants and More Than 1,000
Plants for Example Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites with Sites with
Year 100-999 >=1,000
plants plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.......................................... 19 5
2012.......................................... 26 4
2021.......................................... 28 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, seedlings were observed on most sites, as confirmed
on 35 of 65 surveyed sites (Silvernail et al. 2016, pp. 21-24), and
overall abundance is increasing throughout the recovery zones. Given
that the number of individual plants has increased, and large
populations have been successfully established, we conclude that this
criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality and Management
The recovery plan specifies that sites supporting populations of
Nelson's checker-mallow must meet the following three criteria related
to habitat quality and management:
1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting populations of Nelson's
checker-mallow must be managed for high-quality prairie habitat, which
consists of a diversity of native, non-woody plant species; low
frequency of aggressive, nonnative plant species and encroaching woody
species; and essential habitat elements for native pollinators.
2. Security of habitat. A substantial portion of the habitat for
the populations should either be owned or managed by a government
agency or private conservation organization that identifies maintenance
of the species and the prairie ecosystem upon which it depends as the
primary management objective for the site, or the site must be
protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement or covenant
that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the
species.
3. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population
must be managed appropriately to ensure the maintenance or restoration
of quality prairie habitat and to control threats to the species. Use
of herbicides, mowing, burning, or livestock grazing in management
should be implemented with appropriate methods and timing to avoid
impacts to listed plant species. Management should be coordinated with
adjacent landowners to minimize effects of pesticide drift, changes in
hydrology, timber harvest, or road/utility maintenance. Species that
may hybridize with Nelson's checker-mallow should be managed as
appropriate to avoid contact with these taxa. Other potential threats
relating to scientific research, overcollection, vandalism,
recreational impacts, or natural herbivory/parasitism should be
successfully managed so as not to significantly impair recovery of the
species. Management and monitoring plans must be approved by the
Service and should include standardized monitoring and performance
criteria that will be used to assess the plans' effectiveness following
implementation and to allow for adaptive management, as necessary.
Management plans should include a focus on protecting habitat
heterogeneity within protected sites and across a range of elevations
and aspects to buffer the potential effects of climate change.
Of the 42 independent populations of Nelson's checker-mallow
(having 200 plants or more), 38 have formal management plans that
address habitat quality and threats. Of these 38 populations, 26 are in
public ownership and thus are considered protected in perpetuity from
development; one site is owned and protected by a nongovernmental
conservation organization; and the remaining 11 privately owned sites
are protected by conservation easements. Four of the 42 populations,
which account for less than 1 percent of the total number of Nelson's
checker-mallow plants, and 10 percent of the populations, have no
protection and lack management plans. Given that a majority of
populations are managed in accordance with a formal management plan and
are protected by virtue of ownership or conservation easement, we
conclude that this recovery criterion has been met.
[[Page 71495]]
Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is Stored in a Facility
Approved by the Center for Plant Conservation
The recovery plan specifies that stored genetic material in the
form of seeds must represent the species' geographic distribution and
genetic diversity through collections across the full range of the
species. Collections from large populations are particularly important
as reservoirs of genetic variability within the species.
Nelson's checker-mallow seeds are currently stored at four separate
repositories. The majority of stored seeds, approximately 408 kilograms
(900 pounds) or about 112,500,000 seeds, are located at the Corvallis
Plant Materials Center (PMC) operated by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in Corvallis, Oregon. Seeds in this collection were sourced
primarily from production fields, which are maintained specifically to
produce seed, and are used for habitat restoration, population
augmentation, and out-planting throughout the range of the species. In
addition, approximately 29,000 seeds are stored at the Rae Selling
Berry Seed Bank at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. This
collection was sourced from Lane, Linn, Benton, Marion, Polk, Yamhill,
and Tillamook Counties in Oregon, and Lewis County in Washington. A
third, smaller collection of approximately 705 Nelson's checker-mallow
seeds from locations in Washington is held at the Miller Seed Vault at
the University of Washington's Botanical Gardens in Seattle,
Washington.
In addition to storage in these three regional repositories, a
subset of seeds from the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and the Miller
Seed Vault has been sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic
Resource Preservation at Colorado State University in Fort Collins,
Colorado. Both the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and Colorado State
University facility are certified by the Center for Plant Conservation.
Collectively, the stored seed represents the geographic range of
Nelson's checker-mallow, and part of this stored seed is in facilities
certified by the Center for Plant Conservation. Therefore, we conclude
that this criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting Monitoring (PDM) Plans and
Agreements To Continue PDM Are in Place and Ready for Implementation at
the Time of Delisting
The recovery plan specifies that monitoring of populations
following delisting will verify the ongoing recovery of the species,
provide a basis for determining whether the species should be again
placed under the protection of the Act, and provide a means of
assessing the continuing effectiveness of management actions.
The PDM plan for Nelson's checker-mallow outlines an approach to
monitoring Nelson's checker-mallow for a period of 10 years after the
species is delisted. This plan addresses the current status of the
species and provides details associated with monitoring methods and
implementation, including site selection, data analysis, monitoring
schedules, and reporting expectations. It also describes potential
outcomes in the context of how secure the species remains after
delisting. In addition, the PDM plan outlines roles and
responsibilities and estimates associated costs. The PDM plan is
available at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five
factors in delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c) and (e)).
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--at an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting a cumulative analysis and
describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in
[[Page 71496]]
the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating
the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term foreseeable
future extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to
those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. ``Reliable''
does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable
degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable
if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis
that informs our regulatory decision, which involves the further
application of standards within the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies. The following is a summary of the key results
and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found
at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov.
To assess Nelson's checker-mallow viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the species' life-history needs.
The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics,
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current
condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about
the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the
best available information to characterize viability as the ability of
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory decisions.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Ecological Needs
Nelson's checker-mallow usually occupies open habitats that are
free from encroachment of trees and shrubs. In the absence of
disturbance to set back succession, prairie habitat is subject to woody
species encroachment, gradually transitioning into shrub or woodland
habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as fire or fall mowing, are
necessary to maintain the open, high-light prairie habitats that
Nelson's checker-mallow populations thrive in. In addition, resilient
Nelson's checker-mallow populations need a sufficient number of
individuals to withstand stochastic events and disturbances. The
minimum viable population size for Nelson's checker-mallow is not
identified. However, the recovery plan specifies that independent
populations should number at least 200 individuals (Service 2010, p.
IV-20), which provides a basis for evaluating population status.
For Nelson's checker-mallow to be considered viable, the species
must be able to withstand catastrophic events and adapt to
environmental changes. This can be achieved with a sufficient number of
resilient populations distributed across its geographic range and
representing the range of ecological settings in which the species is
known to exist. The minimum number of populations required for Nelson's
checker-mallow has not been determined. However, distribution and
abundance goals laid out in the recovery plan (Service 2010, pp. IV-35-
IV-36) and described under Recovery Criteria, above, provide a
benchmark for evaluating the species.
Factors Influencing the Species
At the time of listing in 1993, the primary threats identified
affecting Nelson's checker-mallow were urban and agricultural
development, ecological succession that results in shrub and tree
encroachment of open prairie habitats, and competition with invasive
weeds. Planned construction and expansion of a reservoir on Walker
Creek (a tributary to the Nestucca River) was identified as a future
threat as associated inundation would result in the loss of many
plants, including the largest population of the species known to exist
at the time. The listing rule (58 FR 8235; February 12, 1993) also
noted the potentially negative effects of overcollection for scientific
and horticultural purposes, predation by weevils, and small population
size. Some inadequacies in regulatory mechanisms were also identified.
Subsequent to listing, climate change and hybridization were also
identified as potential threats to the viability of Nelson's checker-
mallow.
We considered all of these threats when considering whether the
species continues to warrant protection under the Act. The threat of
inundation never materialized; the proposed reservoir was not
constructed, given that Walker Creek was designated as part of Oregon's
State Scenic Waterway program in 1992, and as part of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers program in 2019 (Oregon Department of Parks and
Recreation 2021, p. 1). These two designations make construction of a
reservoir in this area unlikely at this time or in the future due to
additional regulatory requirements. We previously determined that
overcollection does not occur to such a degree that it has a
population-level effect, and that regulatory mechanisms are adequately
reducing the effects of threats that could act at a population scale
(Service 2012, pp. 22-28). Weevil predation
[[Page 71497]]
occasionally impacts individual plants and may locally affect some
populations; however, it is seasonal in nature and unpredictable. We
did not find that weevil predation occurs at spatial and temporal
scales large enough to affect the overall status of Nelson's checker-
mallow given the plant's current population levels.
Many sites with small numbers of Nelson's checker-mallow remain
distributed throughout the species' range. However, the number of
populations with more than 1,000 plants has increased from 5 when the
species was listed in 1993 to 24 populations in 2021 (see table 1,
above; Service 2012, pp. 17-19; Service 2021, p. 18). Therefore, we
conclude that small population size no longer puts the species at risk
of extinction. The potential for hybridization among species of the
same genus remains present. However, we found that the best available
data indicate that hybridization does not pose a threat to the overall
status of the species. Additional discussion of these threats is
available in the recovery plan (Service 2010, pp. II-30-II-31 and
chapter III), the 2012 5-year review (Service 2012, pp. 22-28), and in
the 2021 SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 8-10).
The stressors identified as having population-level effects are
habitat-related stressors and climate change. The loss, degradation,
and fragmentation of prairie habitats have cascading effects that
result in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic diversity, reduced
gene flow among populations, destruction of population structure, and
increased susceptibility to local population extirpation caused by
environmental catastrophes (Service 2010, chapter III). Climate change
acts primarily by altering habitat quality. Collectively, these
stressors can contribute to reduced viability through reductions in
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. The discussion below
details the causes and consequences of these stressors on Nelson's
checker-mallow.
Alteration of Natural and Human-Mediated Disturbance Processes
Change in community structure due to plant succession has been a
serious long-term stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow. Habitats
occupied by this species contain native grassland species, as well as
numerous introduced taxa, and are prone to transition to a later seral
stage of vegetative development. The natural transition of prairie to
forest in the absence of disturbance such as fire can lead to the loss
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p. 24). However, active
management of habitat through mowing and prescribed burning is
effective in reducing Nelson's checker-mallow's exposure to this
stressor.
Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and Urban Use
Agricultural and urban development has modified and destroyed
prairie habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely distributed patches
(Service 2012, p. 24). Urban development in particular results in
permanent loss of habitat and is of special concern where existing
prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban areas (Service 2010, p. III-
2). The greatest habitat losses due to land conversion are historical,
although periodic additional losses of habitat on private lands may
occur. Exposure of Nelson's checker-mallow populations to this stressor
is mitigated by protections associated with public land ownership,
conservation measures described later in this document, and State
regulations requiring mitigation and restoration of degraded habitat
(see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
Invasion by Nonnative Plants
Habitats occupied by Nelson's checker-mallow contain a mix of
native and nonnative species. As described above, alteration of
disturbance processes results in woody encroachment of prairie
habitats. Nonnative woody species have been of particular concern, as
they can rapidly proliferate and degrade open prairie sites (Service
2012, p. 24). In addition, nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may
effectively limit recruitment (Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE)
2017, p. 1). Although invasion by nonnative plants remains a primary
stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow populations, management practices
including mowing, burning, and shrub removal are an effective approach
to mediating these effects.
Climate Change
In the Pacific Northwest, temperature increases of 3 to 6 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) are
predicted by the end of the 21st century (Bachelet et al. 2011, p.
414). Although winter precipitation is predicted to increase, increased
summer temperatures are expected to cause increased evapotranspiration,
resulting in reduced growing season soil moisture (Bachelet et al.
2011, p. 414) and ultimately affecting prairie habitat quality.
Detailed quantitative estimates of the effects of these conditions on
Nelson's checker-mallow populations are not available. However,
vulnerability assessments show the species to be moderately vulnerable
to the effects of climate change (Steel et al. 2011, p. 9).
In order for the species to be resilient to changing environmental
conditions and remain viable into the future, maintenance of large
populations in heterogenous habitats across the range of the species is
required (Service 2010, p. IV-6). Management activities that maintain
open prairie habitats, including mowing, burning, and shrub removal,
have resulted in an increase in the number of large populations
throughout the range of the species. As described below, the majority
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites are managed in accordance with
conservation programs that ensure maintenance of prairie conditions and
promote the existence of viable populations into the future.
Current Condition
We assessed the current condition of Nelson's checker-mallow by
using the best available information to estimate resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. We sourced data for this analysis
primarily from the Threatened and Endangered Plant Geodatabase (version
12/31/2019), developed by IAE under a cooperative agreement with the
Service for the purposes of tracking the status of species listed under
the Act in the Willamette Valley. Additional data were compiled from
supplementary reports (IAE 2019, entire), location-specific records,
and other information in our files. We use the term ``site'' rather
than ``population'' to refer to our analytical units throughout our
current and future conditions analyses to avoid confusion; the recovery
plan defines an independent population as one that contains more than
200 individual plants, but we evaluated sites of all sizes.
Resiliency
Resiliency, the ability of populations to withstand stochastic
events, is commonly determined as a function of metrics such as
population size, growth rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We
evaluated the current resiliency of Nelson's checker-mallow sites on
the basis of abundance, as well as measurable habitat characteristics
that represent the habitat-related stressors discussed above. The four
specific metrics we included in our assessment of resiliency
(abundance, prairie habitat condition, site management, and site
protection) are discussed in more detail below. A complete description
of our analytical approach to current
[[Page 71498]]
conditions is available in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 19-22).
Abundance was scored based upon the total number of plants within a
site, based on the most recent surveys. Sites were scored as 1 (Low:
fewer than 200 plants), 2 (Moderate: 200-1,999 plants), or 3 (High:
equal to or more than 2,000 plants). These categorical thresholds
correspond to recovery goals, which state that recovery targets may be
achieved with a combination of at least 2 populations that number at
least 2,000 individuals and sites with less than 200 plants are not
considered independent populations.
Prairie habitat condition is a measure of overall habitat quality
and was calculated using four distinct habitat metrics that are likely
to influence population resiliency: percent woody cover, percent native
cover, native plant richness (number of unique species present), and
invasive plant cover. For each site where data on these criteria are
available, we assigned a score of 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), or 3 (Good) for
each habitat metric. We then determined overall prairie habitat
condition for each site by averaging individual habitat metric scores.
Additional detail about scoring categories for each individual metric
is available in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 19-22).
Site management reflects the potential for prairie habitat
degradation due to natural succession in the absence of natural and
anthropogenic disturbance regimes. Site management may also be
influential in mediating the effects of climate change through the
maintenance of large populations in heterogenous habitats distributed
across the range of the species. To account for existing site
management that serves to offset these stressors, we assigned each site
a score of 1 (Poor: not managed for prairie conditions or unknown), 2
(Fair: generally managed for prairie conditions but no management plan
in place), or 3 (Good: managed for prairie conditions with a management
plan in place).
Site protection is a measure of the potential for losing Nelson's
checker-mallow sites to agricultural and urban development. We used
site ownership and the existence of conservation agreements to assess
how well each site is protected from development, assigning each site a
score of 1 (Poor: private ownership with no conservation easement or
similar program), 2 (Fair: private ownership with conservation easement
or similar program), or 3 (Good: public ownership or private
conservation organization ownership).
To estimate resiliency for each site, we calculated a condition
score by averaging the scores for abundance, mean prairie habitat
condition, site management, and site protection. We weighted management
twice as much as the other factors due to its relative importance to
long-term population resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV-5; Service 2021,
p. 21). Based on overall scores, current condition of each site was
classified as high (score of greater than or equal to 2.5), moderate
(score of 1.75-2.49), or low (score of less than 1.75).
Currently, we know of 66 sites containing Nelson's checker-mallow.
Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are in high condition, while 29
of them (44 percent) are in moderate condition. Range-wide, only six
sites (9 percent) are in low condition (Service 2021, pp. 21-26). If
this analysis were limited to the 42 independent populations (having
200 plants or more), 31 populations (74 percent) would score as high
condition, 7 populations (17 percent) would score as moderate
condition, and 4 populations (9 percent) would score as low. These
results demonstrate relatively high resiliency across the range of
Nelson's checker-mallow.
Redundancy
Redundancy is defined as a species' ability to withstand
catastrophic events and is determined as a function of the number of
populations, as well as their distribution and connectivity. The
historical distribution of Nelson's checker-mallow populations is
largely unknown. Throughout its range, Nelson's checker-mallow is
restricted to remnant prairie habitats that are highly fragmented due
to a history of land conversion and natural succession following
alterations to disturbance cycles. However, since the time of listing
in 1993, habitat restoration, reintroductions, and habitat protection
have collectively improved the status of the species. Among the 42
independent populations, more than 330,000 individual plants are
distributed across 6 of the 7 recovery zones (Service 2021, pp. 15,
27), demonstrating overall good redundancy.
Representation
Representation refers to the ability of a species to adapt to
change, and is based upon considerations of geographic, genetic,
ecological, and niche diversity. Because we lack information about the
genetic diversity of the species, we rely on geographical and
ecological diversity in our assessment of representation. Populations
(sites with 200 plants or more) of Nelson's checker-mallow are
currently distributed in 6 of the 7 recovery zones and occur in both
the Willamette Valley and in the Coast Range. The species occupies a
range of prairie sites with various soil textures and moisture levels
and occurs in a wide range of plant communities including meadows,
marshes, wetlands, riparian/tree shrub forests, and disturbed areas.
This indicates that the species has the capacity to adapt to a variety
of environmental conditions and has good representation.
Future Viability
To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we
considered the factors that will influence the species in the
foreseeable future. We define the foreseeable future as 25 to 50 years.
This interval was chosen because it encompasses the length of time over
which we conclude we can make reliable predictions about the
anticipated effect of climate change. In addition, this period of time
is sufficient to observe population trends for the species, based on
its life-history characteristics. It also captures the terms of many of
the management plans and conservation easements that are in effect at
Nelson's checker-mallow sites.
We determined that Nelson's checker-mallow will continue to be
influenced by the factors that have historically influenced and are
currently influencing the species, albeit at different relative rates
into the future. Therefore, in our analysis of future viability, we
considered habitat-related changes and climate change. We considered
the specific sources of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation
(alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance processes,
habitat conversion to agricultural and urban use, and invasion by
nonnative plants) in light of ongoing conservation support, including
habitat management and site protection.
We make several assumptions about ongoing conservation support in
the foreseeable future. Support for the conservation of Nelson's
checker-mallow has been high among government agencies, nongovernmental
conservation organizations, and some private landowners. We assume that
management of existing sites and priority recovery and management
actions for the species will continue at approximately the current
pace, and that the species will continue to benefit from this ongoing
conservation support. We base this assumption on the number of Nelson's
checker-mallow sites that have long-term or perpetual management
agreements. These plans vary in scope and complexity across ownerships,
but all provide at least a basic level of habitat management that
[[Page 71499]]
will benefit Nelson's checker-mallow. We expect adaptive management in
response to changing conditions at sites with current plans, and
efforts to develop new management plans at sites without plans. This is
based on the commitment of the wide variety of conservation partners
with whom we collaborate on similar prairie habitat conservation
efforts. These partners typically tier their conservation efforts to
the 2010 recovery plan that includes Nelson's checker-mallow with
several other listed plants and insects, emphasizing restoration and
maintenance of prairie habitat for the benefit of numerous species.
This provides an impetus for continued formalized management of these
sites and maintenance of Nelson's checker-mallow habitat.
Although sites not protected by virtue of ownership or conservation
easement may be at risk due to development in the future, these sites
are in the minority and their unprotected status is reflected in our
analysis.
Resiliency
To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we
considered a single scenario where we assumed that climate change will
result in a dramatic reduction in abundance across the species' range
but site management and protection will remain intact, as discussed
above. We then reassessed population condition, applying the same
methodology used for assessing current condition.
Published assessments do not provide detailed quantitative
estimates of the effects of climate change on Nelson's checker-mallow
populations. To evaluate the effects of climate change on individual
sites, we characterized a worst-case future scenario in terms we could
use in our analysis of future condition. In consultation with species
experts and conservation partners, we defined the worst-case scenario
as one where increased mortality and decreased recruitment culminate in
a 50 percent reduction in abundance at all sites. We consider a 50
percent reduction to represent the upper boundary of plausibility as
the actual effects of climate change on population sizes are likely to
be more moderate based on climate change vulnerability assessment
modeling (Steel et al. 2011, p. 30), and sites are expected to be
protected and adaptively managed as described above. Nevertheless,
assuming a 50 percent reduction provides a generous margin of error if
these assumptions are violated. We acknowledge that a uniform response
to climate change across the species' range is not likely, and that
some populations may fare better than others under future conditions.
However, this approach serves to demonstrate future viability under
challenging future conditions.
In the scenario described above, resiliency declined modestly, with
60 sites remaining in high or moderate condition (see figure 1, below).
The number of sites in high overall condition decreased from 31 to 25,
relative to current condition, while the number of sites in moderate
condition increased from 29 to 35. Sites reduced to moderate condition
are relatively well-distributed throughout the range of the species,
with one site occurring in the Coast Range recovery zone, three sites
occurring in the Corvallis West recovery zone, one site occurring in
the Portland recovery zone, and one site occurring in the Salem West
recovery zone. The number of sites in overall low condition (six sites)
does not change in the foreseeable future.
These changes in overall future condition are driven by changes in
abundance. In our future scenario, 6 additional sites fall below 200
individual plants and, therefore, receive a low score for abundance.
Sites with low abundance are more vulnerable to stochastic events and
carry a higher risk for extirpation in the future. If we only consider
sites that retain independent populations with 200 plants or more, the
number of populations in high condition decrease from 31 to 27, the
number in moderate condition remain at 7, and the number in low
condition decrease from 4 to 2 for future overall condition. The
relative importance of site management and protection in guarding
against habitat loss and maintaining site resiliency even in sites with
small numbers of plants is reflected in the relatively modest downward
shift in overall future condition, relative to current condition (see
figure 2, below).
Redundancy
Our analysis of future condition indicates that redundancy will be
maintained in the foreseeable future; 66 extant sites will remain well-
distributed throughout the current known range of the species.
Consequently, no major changes in the species' ability to withstand
catastrophes in the future is expected.
Representation
The distribution of extant Nelson's checker-mallow sites does not
change under the parameters of our future condition analysis.
Consequently, changes in ecological diversity are not projected to
materialize as a result of climate change, and the species is likely to
continue to occupy prairie habitat throughout its range and retain its
adaptive capacity.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 71500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17OC23.009
[[Page 71501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17OC23.010
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Collectively, our analysis of the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation demonstrates that in 25 to 50 years, the viability of
Nelson's checker-mallow will not be significantly reduced.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the
[[Page 71502]]
cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative
effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Despite permanent habitat loss and modification, habitat
restoration and protection projects have been implemented on both
public and private lands throughout the range of Nelson's checker-
mallow. These projects offset some of the permanent habitat losses and,
as a result, Nelson's checker-mallow habitat is increasing (Bartow
2020, pers. comm.), particularly in the Corvallis West and Salem West
recovery zones. The Wetland Reserve Program and other Farm Bill
programs administered by the USDA's NRCS have been widely implemented
in the Willamette Valley. Other programs, such as the Service's
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Act's section 10
programs (i.e., safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans),
are also available to landowners. These programs are focused on habitat
restoration and protection and have contributed significantly to
improving the status of Nelson's checker-mallow.
Range-wide, the majority of the 66 sites known to support Nelson's
checker-mallow benefit from some type of conservation measure, by
virtue of ownership or habitat management agreements or both. Fifty-
seven of the 66 total Nelson's checker-mallow sites are managed in
accordance with the conservation programs described above, which ensure
maintenance of prairie conditions required by the species. Of these
sites, 44 are owned by a public entity. Regarding the 42 independent
populations (having 200 plants or more), 38 have formal management
plans, 26 of which are in public ownership, which offers protection
from prairie habitat conversion to other uses. The terms of management
agreements vary, but they are typically valid for 10 to 30 years, with
some extending into perpetuity. Collectively, these management regimes
ensure habitat protections at a decades-long scale for most sites.
Determination of Nelson's Checker-Mallow's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the Act's definition of an endangered species
or a threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered
species or threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or
predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that the primary drivers of the status of Nelson's
checker-mallow have been habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation
due to alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance processes
that maintain open prairie habitat, land conversion to agricultural and
urban use, and invasion by nonnative plants (Factor A). The best
available information indicates that, while still present to some
degree, overcollection (Factor B), predation (Factor C), small
population size (Factor E), and hybridization (Factor E) are no longer
threats to the viability of the species.
Potential inundation of the largest and most vigorous population
(Walker Flat) by reservoir development was seen as a major threat at
the time of listing. The threat of inundation never materialized as the
proposed reservoir was not constructed and is highly unlikely in the
future due to the regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) discussed above.
Other habitat threats (i.e., alteration of disturbance processes and
associated woody encroachment, the threat of invasive plants, land use
conversion) are still present on the landscape; however, the magnitude
and scope of these threats have decreased from historical levels, and
have been offset by a variety of management and conservation measures
in the 30 years since Nelson's checker-mallow was listed. Active
maintenance of prairie habitat through mowing and prescribed burning
has demonstrably reduced the threat posed by alteration of disturbance
processes and associated woody encroachment (Factor A). The threat of
invasive plants (Factor A) has also been significantly reduced as a
result of active management.
Range-wide, 58 of the 66 sites known to contain Nelson's checker-
mallow have formalized management plans. This number of formalized
management plans is expected to remain relatively constant into the
foreseeable future. Similarly, 60 Nelson's checker-mallow sites are
either in public ownership, have been acquired by nongovernmental
conservation organizations, or are enrolled in conservation easement
programs (Factor D), which has substantially reduced the risk of
habitat and population losses due to land-use conversion (Factor A).
The number of sites protected from conversion to agricultural or urban
use due to public or conservation organization ownership is expected to
remain relatively constant in the future. In sum, despite the continued
presence of habitat-related threats on the landscape, advances in site
management and protection have led to a significant reduction in
threats and overall improvement in the status of the species since
listing.
When Nelson's checker-mallow was listed, we estimated that the
species occurred at 48 sites, only 5 of which contained more than 1,000
individuals, and 30 percent of the known individuals of the species
were threatened with inundation due to the planned construction of a
dam. At the time of the SSA report, 334,968 individual plants were
distributed across the historical range of the species. They occurred
at 66 sites, 24 of which have at least 1,000 individuals, and
inundation was no longer considered a likely threat. Our analysis of
current conditions, based on abundance, habitat quality, site
management, and site protection, shows that 60 of those sites are in
either moderate or high condition, indicating relatively high
resiliency. The sites are distributed among six of the seven recovery
zones and occur in varied geographical and ecological settings,
demonstrating overall high redundancy and representation. Recent
surveys also show increasing trends in plant abundance across the
species' range, with the total number of plants increasing to 426,032
in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 2-3).
Subsequent to listing, climate change and its potential to
negatively affect prairie habitat was identified as a potential threat
to Nelson's checker-mallow. We considered the potential consequences of
climate change on the species and evaluated a worst-case future
scenario that included a 50 percent reduction in the size of all known
populations across the range of the species in the next 25 to 50 years.
Even with such severe population
[[Page 71503]]
reduction, the species retained appreciable levels of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, with only six sites showing a reduction
in resiliency, and the maintenance of geographical and ecological
distribution of the species.
We recognize that some habitat-related threats remain present, and
they have ongoing impacts to Nelson's checker-mallow populations. We
acknowledge that the specific effects of climate change on Nelson's
checker-mallow and its habitat are uncertain and may have a negative
impact. However, we found that current and expected patterns in site
protection and habitat management (Factor D) are sufficient to prevent
effects to the species such that it would meet the Act's definition of
an endangered species or a threatened species. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we determine that Nelson's checker-
mallow is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision of
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will
not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion
of its range.
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion
of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is
significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered) or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened). In
undertaking this analysis for Nelson's checker-mallow, we choose to
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the
species may be endangered or threatened.
We evaluated the range of Nelson's checker-mallow to determine if
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species'
range that may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species. For Nelson's checker-mallow, we considered whether the threats
or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in that portion.
We examined the following threats: habitat loss, degradation,
fragmentation due to alteration of natural and human-mediated
disturbance processes that maintain open prairie habitat; land
conversion to agricultural and urban use; invasion by nonnative plants;
and climate change, including cumulative effects.
The threat of habitat loss from alteration of disturbance
processes, land-use conversion, and invasion of nonnative plants has
decreased in all portions of the species' range since the time of
listing, largely due to land protection efforts and active habitat
management. Although these residual threats influence the species
variably across its range, there is no portion of the range where there
is currently a concentration of threats at a biologically meaningful
scale, relative to other areas of the range. In the foreseeable future,
climate change may interact synergistically with other threats to
negatively affect habitat quality. We acknowledge that uniform response
across the species' range is not likely, and that some populations may
fare worse than others under future conditions. However, the best
available information does not indicate that any portion of the
species' range will deteriorate disproportionately in the foreseeable
future. We anticipate that any negative consequence of co-occurring
threats will be successfully addressed through the same active
management actions that have contributed to the ongoing recovery of
Nelson's checker-mallow and that are expected to continue into the
future.
We found no portion of the Nelson's checker-mallow range where the
biological condition of the species differs from its condition
elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species differs from
its condition elsewhere in its range.
Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future in a significant portion of
its range, and we determine that the species is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in
any significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017), because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not need to
consider whether any portions are significant and, therefore, did not
apply the aspects of the Final Policy's definition of ``significant''
that those court decisions held were invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that Nelson's checker-mallow does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), because Nelson's checker-mallow
does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered or a threatened
species, we are removing Nelson's checker-mallow from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing Nelson's
checker-mallow from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to this
species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with
the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event
[[Page 71504]]
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Nelson's
checker-mallow. There is no critical habitat designated for this
species, so there is no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. PDM refers to
activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery
remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the
Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species
to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is
detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as
endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any time during the
monitoring period data indicate that protective status under the Act
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing.
We are delisting Nelson's checker-mallow due to recovery based on
our analysis in the SSA report, expert opinions, and conservation
actions taken. We have prepared a PDM plan that discusses the current
status of the taxon and describes the methods for monitoring its
status. The PDM plan: (1) summarizes the status of Nelson's checker-
mallow at the time of delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration
of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and sampling regimes;
(4) defines what triggers will be evaluated to address the need for
additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and
procedures; (6) provides a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and
(7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our
partners towards maintaining the recovered status of Nelson's checker-
mallow. To view a copy of the PDM plan, see ADDRESSES, above.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under
the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48
FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. Several Nelson's checker-mallow sites
occur on Confederated Tribe of Grand Ronde (Tribe) lands, and some
sites may lie within the usual and accustomed places for Tribal
collection and gathering of resources. The Tribe has a plan in place to
manage and monitor Nelson's checker-mallow and a new memorandum of
understanding with the Service for data sharing.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Service's Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby 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.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by removing the entry for ``Sidalcea nelsoniana''
under FLOWERING PLANTS.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22759 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P