Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 78 (Monday, April 26, 2021)

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 78 (Monday, April 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21994-22005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08459]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD95

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), a plant
endemic to the upper Piedmont region of western North Carolina and
upstate South Carolina, from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants (List). This determination is based on a thorough
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which
indicate that the threats to the species have been eliminated or
reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of
a threatened species, and does not meet the definition of an endangered
species, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We
also announce the availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. We seek information, data,
and comments from the public regarding this proposal to delist this
species and on the draft PDM plan.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
25, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by June 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: The proposed rule, draft PDM plan, and
supporting documents (including the species status assessment (SSA)
report, references cited, and 5-year review) are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office,
160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC 28801; telephone 828-258-3939. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments and information from other concerned governmental agencies
(including, but not limited to, State and Federal agencies and city or
county governments), Native American tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments on:
(1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to
dwarf-flowered heartleaf, particularly any data on the possible effects
of climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of
State protection and management that would be provided to this plant as
a delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf that may negatively impact or benefit the
species; and
(4) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach detailed in it.
Please include sufficient information

[[Page 21995]]

with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other
publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available
for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing. For the immediate
future, we will provide these public hearings using webinars that will
be announced on the Service's website, in addition to the Federal
Register. The use of these virtual public hearings is consistent with
our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Peer Review

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 of
classification actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of
seven appropriate specialists regarding the species status assessment
(SSA) report, which informed this proposed rule. Out of the seven
reviews requested, we received no responses. The purpose of peer review
is to ensure our determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses.
Because we will consider all comments and information received
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is
still in danger of extinction, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal, as
long as we: (a) Base the decisions on the best scientific and
commercial data available after considering all of the relevant
factors; (2) do not rely on factors Congress has not intended us to
consider; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our
conclusion.

Previous Federal Actions

On April 14, 1989, we listed dwarf-flowered heartleaf as threatened
due to residential and industrial development, conversion of habitat to
pasture or small ponds, timber harvesting, and cattle grazing (54 FR
14964). A recovery plan for the species was never completed. However,
over the last 30 years, the Service has worked closely with partners to
recover this species. The Service initiated the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf SSA report to aid in determining the appropriateness of
reclassifying the species.

Supporting Documents

A species status assessment team prepared an SSA report for the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation 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.

Proposed Delisting Determination

Background

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a plant species endemic to the upper
Piedmont region of western North Carolina and upstate South Carolina.
It is a low-growing herbaceous plant in the birthwort family
(Aristolochiaceae). Although dwarf-flowered heartleaf is restricted in
range, it is not as rare as once thought (Service 2010, p. 15; North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 2016, p. 4). When dwarf-
flowered heartleaf was federally listed in 1989, the listing rule
described 24 extant populations (and one extirpated population)
distributed across eight counties in the upper Piedmont of North and
South Carolina. As of 2018, the distribution of this species consisted
of 78 populations distributed across 13 counties in these two States.
In North Carolina, it is found in Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba,
Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Polk, and Rutherford Counties. In
South Carolina, it is found in Cherokee, Greenville, and Spartanburg
Counties.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is historically known to have a restricted
range due to its habitat requirements. The habitat where dwarf-flowered
heartleaf exists is limited in size and scope due to a multitude of
factors including soil type, moisture availability, and slope aspect
(Padgett 2004, p. 81). This unique combination of factors limits not
only the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf, but also the size of any
population.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in Piedmont uplands on acidic
sandy-loam soils that are very deep and moderately permeable (Gaddy
1981, p. 7; 1987, pp. 186-196). Typical habitats for this species
include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests
that are frequently associated with mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
(Padgett 2004, p. 114; Weakley 2015, p. 129; Service 2015, entire), or
in moist soils adjacent to creeks or streamheads, or along lakes and
rivers. Plants grow larger and have more frequent flowering in
floodplains along rivers, lakes, and streams (Newberry 1993, entire). A
habitat suitability study was conducted to quantify the habitat
requirements for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, which may be used to help
identify the species when not in flower (relative to other Hexastylis
species' habitat preferences), find new populations, or identify
suitable sites for transplants (Wagner 2013, pp. 30-32). The unit of
measurement for population size in this species is a ``clump''
(rosette).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is presented in the
SSA report (Service 2018, entire; available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2019-0081).

[[Page 21996]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying or
delisting a species. In other words, for species that are already
listed as endangered or threatened, the analysis for delisting due to
recovery must include an evaluation of the threats that existed at the
time of listing, the threats currently facing the species, and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future. 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 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 likely response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its effects
on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the
threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services 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 status review for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does
not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should
be proposed for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants (i.e., ``delisting''). It does, however, 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
on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081.

Summary of SSA Analysis

To assess dwarf-flowered heartleaf viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes causing earlier spring flowering). In general, the more
resilient and redundant a species is and the more representation it
has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under
changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. In the next stage, we assessed the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. In the final stage, we made predictions about
the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available
information to characterize the species' viability (i.e., its ability
to sustain populations in the wild over time). We used this

[[Page 21997]]

information to inform this proposed rule.

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.

Current Condition

Resiliency

For dwarf-flowered heartleaf to maintain viability, its
populations, or some portion thereof, must be resilient. Resiliency is
assessed at the level of populations and reflects a species' ability to
withstand stochastic events (events arising from random factors).
Resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as
random fluctuations in reproductive rates and fecundity (demographic
stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity),
and the effects of anthropogenic activities. Stochastic factors that
have the potential to affect dwarf-flowered heartleaf include habitat
impacts, climate change, and exotic, invasive species. Factors
influencing the resiliency of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations
include population size, available habitat, and elements of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf ecology that determine whether populations can
maximize habitat occupancy.
The Natural Heritage Programs (NHP) collect information on
occurrences of rare plants, animals, natural communities, and animal
assemblages. Collectively, these are referred to as ``elements of
natural diversity'' or simply as ``elements.'' Locations of these
elements are referred to as ``element occurrences'' (EO records). In
recent years, NatureServe and its member NHPs have devised mapping
standards to balance the need for fine-scale, highly site-specific EO
records (required for monitoring and management) with the need to
aggregate these records in meaningful units of conservation interest
that may approximate biological populations (NatureServe 2004, n.p.).
We regard the NHP database as the best repository for known locations
of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Service 2010, p. 41). Populations are
composed of both multiple sub-EOs and stand-alone EO records. For the
purpose of assessing resiliency, 78 populations observed since 2005
were assessed due to the high confidence in their persistence. These
new populations are results of additional survey efforts.
To determine overall resiliency for populations, we used EO
viability ranks and expert opinion to bin population size classes into
corresponding resiliency categories. EO viability ranks for the species
include excellent, good, fair, poor, extant, historical, and failed to
find. The primary factor in determining these ranks is EO size (as
quantified by number of clumps). Condition of habitat (vegetation
community and structure) and landscape context (extent of suitable
habitat and physical factors) are incorporated secondarily. Recent
reports (Robinson 2016, p. 7; Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 4) focus
monitoring studies on populations with greater than 1,000 individuals
(assumed to be very viable). Because we do not have habitat-level
information for every population we assessed, we synthesized available
population size information and created four resiliency categories as
follows:
Very high--populations with more than 1,000 individuals;
very high probability of persistence for 20-30 years at or above the
current population size.
High--populations with 500 to 1,000 individuals;
moderately high probability of persistence for 20-30 years at or above
the current population size.
Moderate--populations with 100 to 500 individuals; low
probability of persistence for 20-30 years at or above the current
population size.
Low--populations with fewer than 100 individuals; low
probability of persistence for 20-30 years at or above the current
population size, and moderately high probability of extirpation.
Of the 78 populations assessed, 28 have very high resiliency, 5
have high resiliency, 26 have moderate resiliency, and 19 have low
resiliency.

Redundancy

Redundancy is also assessed at the species level and reflects a
species' ability to withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare
destructive natural event or episode involving many populations) by
spreading the risk of such an event across multiple, resilient
populations. We measured redundancy for dwarf-flowered heartleaf by the
number and distribution of resilient populations across the range of
the species. It is important to note that dwarf-flowered heartleaf has
a naturally limited range, so measures of redundancy reflect the
distribution within a relatively small area. Redundancy for dwarf-
flowered heartleaf is the total number and resiliency of population
segments and their distribution across the species' range.
We consider a catastrophe to be any population-level disturbance
with the potential to negatively influence population resiliency
outside of normal environmental and demographic stochasticity.
Disturbances often act quickly, and often with devastating effects;
however, they can occur over long periods of time. A disturbance that
occurs as a relatively discrete event in time, such as a hurricane, is
referred to as a ``pulse'' disturbance, while more gradual or
cumulative pressures on a system are referred to as ``press''
disturbances. Both types of disturbances are part of the natural
variability of dwarf-flowered heartleaf ecological systems, and must be
considered when assessing redundancy. While there is certainly a
variety of potential pulse disturbances for the species (timber
harvest, hydrological alterations, road and right-of-way construction),
the primary potential catastrophic disturbances are press disturbances
from long-term climate change, which have great potential to affect
ecosystem processes and communities by altering the underlying abiotic
conditions such as temperature and precipitation changes (DeWan et al.
2010, pp. 7-10).

Representation

Because we lack genetic and ecological diversity data to
characterize representation for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, we decided
delineating representative units was not appropriate for this species.
However, in the absence of species-specific genetic and ecological
diversity information, we evaluated representation based on the extent
and variability of habitat characteristics across the geographical
range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in two types of habitat
throughout the range. Typical habitats for this species include mesic
to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests that are
frequently associated with mountain laurel (Padgett 2004, entire;
Weakley 2015, entire; USFWS 2015, entire), or moist soils adjacent to
creeks, streamheads, or along lakes and rivers. This variation in
habitat type provides species representation in drier and wetter
habitats, demonstrating the species' ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We

[[Page 21998]]

incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we
characterize the current and future condition of the species. Our
assessment of the current and future conditions encompasses and
incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and
future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and
evaluates the effects of all the 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 cumulative effects of the factors and
replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Summary of Threats and Conservation Measures That Affect the Species

The NCNHP assessed threats in the populations they monitored from
2012 through 2016 (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 7-8, 17-20). Threats
that were observed, inferred, or suspected to have an impact on
populations were recorded and assigned a ranking based on field
observations of severity, scope, and immediacy. The rank (A through G)
for each threat factor determined an overall value for each threat
observed at each population. Threats observed during these years
included development; incompatible forestry practices; agriculture;
trampling; invasive, exotic species; sedimentation; erosion; and road
construction. In this rule, we discuss the major threats affecting the
species, which include development, climate change and invasive, exotic
species.

Development

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations occur in rapidly growing urban
areas within numerous counties in North and South Carolina. At the time
of listing, the species was determined to be most threatened by habitat
loss due to the conversion of land to residential, commercial, and
industrial use in these areas. Populations occurring in more rural
areas are also threatened by habitat alteration or loss from land
conversion to pasture or other agricultural uses, cattle grazing,
intensive timber harvesting, residential construction, and construction
of small ponds (Robinson 2016, p. 10; Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 5).
The most recent 5-year review for the species identified the most
recurrent source of habitat destruction as road and bridge improvement
projects which is the most common trigger for consultations under
section 7 of the Act involving dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Ten of the 27
largest populations (containing more than 1,000 rosettes) have been the
subject of section 7 consultations. Collectively, these projects have
adversely impacted or were expected to impact approximately 22,135
rosettes (Service 2018, p. 31). In most cases, the section 7 process
resulted in avoidance or minimization of adverse effects through
relocation of plants and/or commitments of on-site protection.
Significant portions of other populations have been purchased by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as off-site
conservation measures in association with these consultations. The
purpose of this purchase is to protect the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Other forms of economic development have also resulted in the
destruction or modification of habitats occupied by dwarf-flowered
heartleaf; in many cases, these activities have also required section 7
consultations with the Service. Examples include the maintenance or
expansion of hydroelectric and drinking water reservoirs, construction
of an industrial development complex, and maintenance activities at a
regional airport. Collectively, these activities involved the loss or
relocation of several thousand rosettes.
Development was identified as a threat at five of 10 North Carolina
populations monitored by NCNHP (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 17-19).
The five populations include two stand-alone EOs and three parent EOs
with 18 sub-EOs. Of the two stand-alone EOs, one has a development
threat rank of A (moderate to severe, imminent threat for most (more
than 60 percent) of population, occurrences, or area) and one has a
rank of B (moderate to severe, imminent threat for a significant
portion (20-60 percent) of the population, occurrences, or area). Of
the 18 sub-EOs, nine have development identified as a threat. Of the
nine sub-EOs, one has a development threat rank of A, one has a rank of
B, one has a rank of E (moderate to severe threat for a small
proportion of population, occurrences, or area), and six have a rank of
F (low severity threat for most or a significant proportion of
population, occurrences, or area). The two stand-alone EOs and two sub-
EOs with the highest threat ranks (A and B) are located in four
populations. Based on the most recent monitoring data, one is
increasing, two are stable, and one is decreasing (Robinson and Padgett
2016, p. 11). Even where development is ranked as a high threat,
impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf are not a certain outcome.
Development was identified as a threat at one of three South
Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP, and the population has a
development threat rank of E (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 20). Based
on the most recent monitoring data, the population is stable (Robinson
and Padgett 2016, p. 11).
The data indicate that dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations can
persist and increase in the presence of development. From 2012 to 2016,
there were insignificant changes in the severity of the threat observed
in the field from development (NCNHP 2016, p. 8). The North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act (North Carolina General Statutes,
sections 106-202.12 et seq.) lists native plants as threatened,
endangered, or species of concern, and provides limited protection from
collection and trade of listed plants. However, this statute does not
protect the species or its habitat from destruction in conjunction with
development projects or otherwise legal activities. In North Carolina,
the NCNHP designates ``natural areas'', which are sites with biological
diversity significance due to the presence of rare species or unique
natural communities. The NCNHP works with many conservation partners
(state and federal agencies, conservation organization, land trusts,
etc.) to implement voluntary protection. Through partnerships, the most
important natural areas are purchased for permanent conservation. If a
natural area is not available for purchase, ecological significance can
be recognized by a voluntary registry agreement. Registry agreements
consist of Registered Heritage Areas (RHAs), which are voluntary
conservation agreements between the landowner and NCNHP to preserve the
natural area and biological diversity of the property. The NCNHP has
four registry agreements that include dwarf-flowered heartleaf. In
South Carolina, plants are protected only from disturbance where they
occur on those properties owned by the State and specifically managed
as South Carolina Heritage Preserves (South Carolina Code of State
Regulations, chapter 123, sections 123-200 through 123-204). Heritage
Preserves are protected areas that play a critical role in conserving
rare species and natural habitats. There is one Heritage Preserve in
South Carolina, which protects one population of the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
The overwhelming majority of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations
have been discovered as a direct result of surveys conducted to ensure
compliance with the Act. The majority of sites that have the potential
to afford long-term protection to the species have been protected as a
result of

[[Page 21999]]

consultations under section 7 of the Act, which directs federal
agencies to avoid and minimize adverse effects to federally listed
species. Through section 7 and other voluntary conservation actions,
approximately 24 (31%) of the 78 current populations are permanently
protected, and another 18 populations (23%) are partially protected,
greatly minimizing the likelihood of impacts due to development.
Together, these two groups of populations make up over 50% of the areas
under some form of protective mechanism in the absence of the ESA
protections.

Invasive, Exotic Species

Invasive, exotic plant species occur across the range of this
species. Plants such as English ivy (Hedera helix), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) are known at several sites
that contain dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Service 2011, p. 15). Invasive,
exotic species were identified as a threat at eight of 10 North
Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp.
17-19). The eight populations include four stand-alone EOs and four
parent EOs with 19 sub-EOs. Of the four stand-alone EOs, one has an
invasive threat rank of B (moderate to severe, imminent threat for a
significant portion (20-60 percent) of the population, occurrences, or
area), two have a rank of F (low severity threat for most or a
significant proportion of population, occurrences, or area), and one
has a rank of G (low severity threat for a small proportion of
population, occurrences, or area). Of the 19 sub-EOs, 9 have invasive,
exotic species identified as a threat. Of the nine sub-EOs, one has an
invasive threat rank of A (moderate to severe, imminent threat for most
(more than 60 percent) of population, occurrences, or area), four have
a rank of B, two have a rank of E (moderate to severe threat for a
small proportion of population, occurrences, or area), and two have a
rank of G. The one stand-alone E.O. and five sub-EOs with the highest
threat ranks (A and B) are located in three populations. Based on the
most recent monitoring data, one is increasing, one is stable, and one
is decreasing (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11). Even where nonnative
species are ranked as a high threat, impact to dwarf-flowered heartleaf
is not a certain outcome.
Invasive, exotic species were identified as a threat at all (three)
South Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP, and all sites had an
invasive threat rank of F (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 20). Based on
the most recent monitoring data, all populations are stable (Robinson
and Padgett 2016, p. 11).
In short, the data indicate that dwarf-flowered heartleaf
populations can persist and increase in the presence of invasive,
exotic species. Despite the long-term presence of invasive, exotic
plants, from 2012 to 2016, there were no changes in the severity of
threats observed in the field enough to elevate the threat ranks of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations evaluated (NCNHP 2016, p. 8).

Climate Change

Accelerated climate change (changes in climate on a scale that
exceeds historical rates of change) is expected to increase the
frequency and extent of drought conditions across the Southeast (Karl
et al. 2009, entire). Increased frequency of severe storms could lead
to impacts if flooding duration or intensity increase as a result.
Increased flooding could decrease habitat suitability through scouring
and changes in soil moisture or wash plants away. Warming in the
Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer (NCCV 2016, n.p.),
which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean
precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased
flooding events (IPCC 2013, p. 7; NCCV 2016, n.p.). Changes in climate
may affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic
conditions experienced by biotic assemblages, resulting in potential
effects on community composition and individual species interactions
(DeWan et al. 2010, p. 7). Although climate change was not a factor
leading to the original listing of the species, it should be recognized
that the greatest threat from climate change may come from synergistic
effects. In recent years, the Southeast has experienced moderate to
severe droughts, which many observers have implicated in population
declines and poor transplant survivorship (NCNHP 2010). A wildfire,
burned portions of one of the largest known populations in 2009
(Foothills Landfill in Caldwell County, NC; Golder and Associates,
2009). However, observation suggests that the species was not
appreciably harmed by this fire (Service 2011, p. 14). Additionally,
the National Park Service (NPS) uses prescribed fire as a vegetation
management tool at Cowpens National Battlefield. The NPS's prescribed
burning activity includes the majority of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
population on site and burning appears to have had no adverse effects
upon growth or flowering (Walker et al. 2009, p. 14).

Future Condition

Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on dwarf-
flowered heartleaf revealed that there are several influences that may
pose risks to the future viability of the species. These risks are
primarily related to invasive species, changes in climate, and habitat
changes from development. We consider ``foreseeable future'' as that
period of time within which a reliable prediction can be made about the
future status of a species. We consider 20 years to be a reasonable
period of time within which reliable predictions can be made for dwarf-
flowered heartleaf. This period of time aligns with the timeframes for
predictions regarding development and growth (see Development below)
and climate change (see Climate Change below). We discuss in greater
detail how we define ``foreseeable future'' for this species below,
under Determination.

Invasive, Exotic Species

As discussed above, invasive, exotic plants were identified as a
threat at the time of listing; however, the threat may not be as
significant as once thought. The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf and assessed threats at each population. Of
monitored sites, only 9 percent of populations (one of 11) where
invasive, exotic species are present are also in decline, indicating
the species has at least some capacity to withstand the presence of
invasive, exotic species. The number of populations has increased
dramatically since listing as a result of increased survey effort and
the invasive, exotic plant threat posed at many of the largest
populations is low (NCNHP 2016, pp. 8, 17-20). Additionally, and as
noted above, the number of populations managed under conservation
ownership has increased. Therefore, we do not believe that competition
from invasive, exotic species will be a significant threat in the
foreseeable future.

Climate Change

Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean
or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2014, entire). Various types

[[Page 22000]]

of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species.
These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2014, entire). In
our analyses, we use the judgment of the experts to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
According to IPCC, ``most plant species cannot naturally shift
their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and
high projected rates of climate change on most landscapes'' (IPCC 2014,
p. 13). The concept of changing climate can be meaningfully assessed
both by looking into the future and reviewing past changes.
As part of the current, worldwide collaboration in climate
modelling under the IPCC, climate assessments of the full dataset of 30
climate models for historical and 21st century comparisons provide
predictions at scales ranging from global to county level in the United
States (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change Viewer
(NCCV) 2019). This global climate information has been recently
downscaled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
scales relevant to our region of interest, and projected into the
future under two different scenarios of possible emissions of
greenhouse gases (Alder and Hostetler 2017, p. 3). Using the NCCV and
assuming the ``representative concentration pathways'' (RCP) greenhouse
gas emission scenario RCP 8.5, we calculated projected annual mean
changes from 1981-2010 to those projected for 2025-2049 for maximum
temperature (+2.9-3.1 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) in NC and +2.9 [deg]F
in SC), precipitation (+0.2 inches per month for NC and SC), soil
storage (-0.1--0.2 inch for NC and -0.1 inch SC), and evaporative
deficit (no change for NC or SC) in all counties where dwarf-flowered
heartleaf occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). We also calculated
projected annual mean changes for the RCP 4.5 scenario using the same
timeframes for maximum temperature (+2.5-2.7 [deg]F in NC and SC),
precipitation (+0.01 inch per month for NC and SC), soil storage (-0.1-
-.02 inch for NC and -0.1 inch for SC), and evaporative deficit (no
change for NC or SC) in all counties where dwarf-flowered heartleaf
occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these results, all
13 counties within the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be
subjected to higher temperatures (annual mean increase of 2.6 [deg]F
(RCP 4.5) or 2.9 [deg]F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher precipitation
(annual mean increase of 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 inch per
month (RCP 8.5)) relative to the period of 1981-2010. Because the
average annual increase in precipitation is predicted to be only
slight, the loss in soil storage is likely primarily the result of
higher predicted temperatures.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a long-lived perennial species. Several
populations have been revisited after decades and the species was still
stable. For example, one population in Rutherford County was first
observed in 1957, and was still extant when next observed in 2001
(NCNHP 2018, n.p.). In their analyses of life-history traits in
relation to potential vulnerability to variability in demographic vital
rates caused by increased variability in climatic patterns, researchers
concluded that longer-lived species should be less influenced by
climate-driven increases in demographic variability (Morris et al.
2008, p. 22; Dalgleish et al. 2010, p. 216).
Within the family Aristolochiaeae, more than 50 percent of the
plant lineage is myrmecochorous (seed dispersal by ants) (Lengyel et
al. 2010, p. 49). Likewise, dwarf-flowered heartleaf employs
myrmecochory as a method for seed dispersal (Gaddy 1986, entire). While
species with ant-dispersed seeds have slower migration rates than
species with seeds that are adhesive or ingested (Brunet and Von Oheimb
1998, p. 429), myrmecochory provides for multiple adaptive advantages
for plants. Ants can disperse seeds to sites that might be nutrient-
enhanced or where plant fitness will be higher. Additionally, ants bury
seeds, which may protect them from fire and drought (Boyd 2001, p.
235), two conditions exacerbated by climate change (Karl et al. 2009,
entire). Accelerated climate change is expected to increase the
frequency and extent of drought conditions across the Southeast (Karl
et al. 2009, p. 111).
Populations are located within various ecological settings within
the species' range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs on Piedmont uplands
on acidic sandy-loam soils that are very deep and moderately permeable
(Gaddy 1981, p. 7; 1987, pp. 186-196). Typical habitats for this
species include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous
forests that are frequently associated with mountain laurel (Padgett
2004, p. 114; Weakley 2015, p. 129), or moist soils adjacent to creeks
or streamheads, or along lakes and rivers. This variation in habitat
type provides species representation in drier and wetter habitats,
demonstrating the species' ability to adapt to different environmental
conditions that could be brought on by changing climate.

Development

As discussed above, development was identified as a threat at the
time of listing; however, the threat is not be as significant as once
thought. The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf
and assessed threats at each population. Of monitored sites, only 12
percent of populations (one of eight) where development is identified
as a threat are also in decline, indicating the species has at least
some capacity to withstand the threat of development. The number of
populations has increased dramatically since listing and the
development threat posed at many of the largest populations is low
(NCNHP 2016, pp. 8, 17-20).
In addition, we use three scenarios, projected out to the year
2040. We selected this timeframe because it gives us the ability to
reliably predict into the future and to capture the uncertainty related
to the potential impacts to each population's resiliency: Status quo,
targeted conservation, and high development. Based on the life span of
the species, expert input, development as the key risk factor to the
species, and uncertainty about future conditions, we chose to project
populations out to the year 2040 under each scenario as described in
the SSA (p. 34). Results of future projections within each scenario are
focused on current populations and potential habitat identified by the
Maxent model as described below.
In constructing our scenarios, we considered two main influences by
which species viability projections could be affected: Location of
additional populations (positive influence) and habitat loss and
fragmentation due to urban development (negative influence). Habitat
quantity can be negatively impacted by development or land use change
(particularly on private lands) or positively impacted by land
acquisition, restoration, and/or introductions into unoccupied sites
that already have suitable habitat.
We use the Slope, Land cover, Exclusion, Urbanization,
Transportation, and Hillshade (SLEUTH) model to determine areas
predicted to be urbanized by 2040, a time period for which the models
provide reliable data. The SLEUTH model has been successfully applied
worldwide over the last 15 years to simulate land use change, including
urbanization (Clarke 1995, entire). The

[[Page 22001]]

SLEUTH model predictions are broken down by probabilities of
urbanization, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. We chose 80 percent
probability as our cutoff, as this cutoff has been used by USGS and by
us in other SSAs, and this threshold represents a highly likely outlook
for urbanization of the landscape. To forecast viability using urban
development projections, we assessed the following:
Percent increase in projected development within current
populations; and
Percent increase in projected development within areas
delineated as potential habitat by the Maxent habitat model.
We know that certain dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have been
extirpated as the result of urban development in the past through loss
of habitat. However, there are no data available on the relationships
between urbanization and indirect impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Because of this unknown, we attempted to capture potential impacts in
two ways. First, our scenarios reflect a range of potential impacts
from nearby urban development. Also, we used two thresholds for percent
increase in urban development to capture potential deleterious effects:
25 percent and 50 percent. Our assumptions were that very small
increases in development are unlikely to negatively impact populations;
development increase of at least 25 percent of the area of current
populations was likely to have some negative impacts; and development
increase of at least 50 percent was likely to have significant impacts
to populations. We also assessed potential positive effects by
integrating the potential location or rediscovery of additional
populations throughout the range into two of our scenarios (targeted
conservation and status quo). This is appropriate for several reasons.
First, discovery of new EOs is common; many of the populations we
consider under Current Conditions, above, include detections that have
occurred within the last few years. Second, we did not include many
older detections (i.e., we only included detections since 2005),
although many of those detections are likely to persist. Several EOs
have been revisited after more than 10 years, and the species was still
present. For example, one such EO was first observed in 1957, next
observed in 2001, and last observed in 2017. It seems as long as
suitable habitat is still present, it is reasonable to assume that the
species is still there. Finally, there is plenty of predicted suitable
habitat present within older EOs based on the Maxent model predictions
that were not included as current populations due to the relatively
long time since last observation.
The first step in identifying additional areas where dwarf-flowered
heartleaf is likely to be found in the future was to identify EOs from
populations that were last observed prior to 2005 (i.e., we define
current populations as those observed between 2005 and present day).
Although our focus is on older EOs, where dwarf-flowered heartleaf is
likely to persist into the future, we also included current EOs (2005-
current day) in our analysis because we were interested in how the
older EOs compared to those known to be persisting on the landscape
since 2005. Also, by including older EOs that are within current
delineated populations, we can investigate whether current populations
might be predicted to contain more plants than the most recent
abundance estimate.
Once these older EOs were identified, we created a 1,000-meter
buffer around the population and calculated a number of useful metrics,
including resiliency category based on the last known abundance
estimate, Maxent habitat model metrics, and the results of the SLEUTH
model to further refine a list of potential sites where the species
would likely be found to persist within our 20-25 year projection
window. Resiliency categories were assessed using last known abundance
in the same way as populations assessed under Current Conditions, above
(i.e., low = fewer than 100 individuals; moderate = 100-500
individuals; high = 500-1,000 individuals; very high = greater than
1,000 individuals). We assessed two habitat metrics for these older
EOs: Average Maxent score and percent Maxent classified as 0.8-1.0
score. Average Maxent score indicates habitat suitability, where in
general, the higher the score, the better the habitat, and was
calculated by taking the mean Maxent score of all potential habitat
within the 1,000-meter buffer. The percent Maxent classified as 0.8-1.0
represents the percentage of all potential habitat within the 1,000-
meter buffer that falls within the highest suitability habitat class.
Together, these two habitat metrics give general estimates of habitat
quantity and quality. Finally, we calculated the total percentage of
the 1,000-meter buffer around each EO that is projected to be urbanized
in the year 2040, which helps capture the primary risk factor of
development when assessing the areas where dwarf-flowered heartleaf is
likely to persist.
Status Quo Scenario
Under the status quo scenario, we estimate that 75 populations will
persist throughout the range, and that there will be a range of impacts
from urbanization that are related to the percentage increase in urban
development and whether a population is protected or not. We assessed
population resiliency under the following assumptions:
Two additional populations are identified as persisting
based on Maxent model metrics, last known abundance category, and total
predicted urbanization from SLEUTH modelling. Six additional EOs within
currently delineated populations not included under Current Conditions,
above, are predicted to persist based on the same metrics.
Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH
model projections focused on current delineated populations:
[cir] Protected areas:
[ssquf] Protected in perpetuity--no negative impacts from
urbanization; and
[ssquf] Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity--population drops one
resilience rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent
threshold.
[cir] Unprotected areas--population drops one resiliency rank if
percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold;
population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in
urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
High Development Scenario
Under the high development scenario, we estimate no additional
populations will persist throughout the range, and that impacts from
urbanization are relatively high, and are also affected by whether a
population is protected or not. We assessed population resiliency under
the following assumptions:
No additional populations are identified as persisting.
Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH
model projections focused on current delineated populations:
[cir] Protected areas:
[ssquf] Protected in perpetuity--population drops one resilience
rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold;
and
[ssquf] Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity--population drops one
resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent
threshold; population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in
urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.

[[Page 22002]]

[cir] Unprotected areas--population drops one resiliency rank if
percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold;
population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in
urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold; extirpation of populations
if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 90 percent threshold.
Targeted Conservation Scenario
Under the targeted conservation scenario, we estimate it is likely
that several additional populations (i.e., more than in the status quo
scenario) will persist throughout the range. This scenario accounts for
resilience (which is linked to abundance), habitat suitability (as
predicted by the model), projected urban development (from SLEUTH), and
protection status. Conservation is happening through various partners--
State, land trusts or other non-profits, private individuals, etc. The
range of impacts from urbanization are the same as in the status quo
scenario. We assessed population resiliency under the following
assumptions:
Six populations are identified as persisting based on
Maxent model metrics, last known abundance category, and total
predicted urbanization from SLEUTH modelling. Six additional EOs within
currently delineated populations not included under Current Conditions,
above, are predicted to persist based on the same metrics.
Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH
model projections focused on current delineated populations:
[cir] Protected areas:
[ssquf] Protected in perpetuity--no impacts from urbanization; and
[ssquf] Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity--population drops one
resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent
threshold.
[cir] Unprotected areas--population drops one resiliency rank if
percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold;
population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in
urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.

Future Resiliency

Status Quo Scenario
In the status quo scenario, we predict 75 of the 78 populations of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be extant in 2040. The predicted
resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: Very high (27);
high (6); moderate (23); low (17); and 2 additional populations
identified as persisting, with an unknown resiliency. Six EOs within
currently delineated populations not included under Current Conditions,
above, are predicted to persist, but resiliency is unchanged because
each of the populations are already predicted to be of very high
resiliency. When comparing future population resiliency to current
condition, a few populations drop in their resiliency category. One
current population of very high resiliency is predicted to drop to high
resiliency; two moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop
to low resiliency; and five populations (one currently moderate and
four currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban
development.
High Development Scenario
In the high development scenario, we predict 72 of the 78
populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will remain extant in 2040. The
predicted resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: Very
high (27); high (4); moderate (25); and low (16). No additional
populations are identified as persisting. When comparing future
population resiliency to current condition, a few populations drop in
their resiliency category. One current population of very high
resiliency is predicted to drop to moderate resiliency; one high
resiliency population is predicted to drop to moderate resiliency; two
moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop to low
resiliency; and six populations (one currently moderate and five
currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban development.
Targeted Conservation Scenario
In the targeted conservation scenario, we predicted 79 populations
of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be extant in 2040. The predicted
resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: Very high (27);
high (6); moderate (23); low (17); and 6 additional populations
identified as persisting, with an unknown resiliency. Six EOs within
currently delineated populations not included under Current Conditions,
above, are predicted to persist, but resiliency is unchanged because
each of the populations are already predicted to be of very high
resiliency. When comparing future population resiliency to current
condition a few populations drop in their resiliency category. One
current population of very high resiliency is predicted to drop to high
resiliency; two moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop
to low resiliency; and five populations (one currently moderate and
four currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban
development.

Viability Summary

Urban development is predicted to have negative impacts on several
of the current populations under all of our scenarios. However, this
loss of resiliency and extirpation of a few populations is offset in
the status quo and targeted conservation scenarios by the persistence
of several additional populations. In the high development scenario,
there is a predicted loss of six populations, with loss of resiliency
in several additional populations. However, in all three scenarios, the
majority of the populations are expected to persist in 2040 at a level
of at least moderate resiliency.
Given the relatively high number of populations across each
scenario, redundancy remains similar to current conditions. That is to
say, there appears to be adequate redundancy within the range of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf to withstand the impacts of localized press
catastrophic disturbances; however, the species' range is relatively
small, making it potentially vulnerable to long-term catastrophic
events, such as oil spills over the next 20 to 30 years.
Based on the assumption that dwarf-flowered heartleaf has a very
limited range, and after consulting with experts, we decided that
delineating representative units was not appropriate. It is worth
noting that in two of our scenarios (status quo and targeted
conservation), additional populations are found to persist in South
Carolina, an area where there are relatively few current populations.
There are opportunities to find additional populations based on the
amount of predicted unoccupied potential habitat. Although we did not
delineate representative units, our scenarios do not predict declines
in species representation.

[[Page 22003]]

Table of Viability Summary for Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf Under Three Future Scenarios (Projected to Year 2040)
and Compared to Current Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Targeted
Current Status quo development conservation
condition scenario scenario scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very High Resiliency............................ 28 27 27 27
High Resiliency................................. 5 6 4 6
Moderate Resiliency............................. 26 23 25 23
Low Resiliency.................................. 19 17 16 17
Extirpated...................................... n/a 5 6 5
Persisting...................................... n/a 2 0 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Populations........................... 78 75 72 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf Status

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' For a more detailed discussion on the factors considered when
determining whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species'' and our analysis on how we
determine the foreseeable future in making these decisions, see
Regulatory Framework, above.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have assessed the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf. We carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats to dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Of the 78 populations, 75
percent are characterized as being either very high, high, or
moderately resilient, and many are stable or increasing in trend.
When dwarf-flowered heartleaf was listed (54 FR 14964; April 14,
1989), the two prominent threats identified were invasive, exotic
plants and habitat loss or destruction. As discussed above, invasive,
exotic species are not as significant a threat to dwarf-flowered
heartleaf as originally thought. Only one of the 11 monitored
populations where invasive, exotic species occur was identified as
declining. Additionally, dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the capacity to
withstand habitat loss and destruction due to development. The species
currently has significant redundancy (78 populations), resilient
populations (33 of 78 evaluated populations with high or very high
viability), and representation in two different ecological settings.
Even under our high development scenario, only two high or very high
viability populations are predicted to have lower viability as a result
of development. Therefore, we do not believe that competition from
invasive, exotic species or habitat loss and destruction are
significant threats to the species. Additionally, since listing, there
has been a nearly four-fold increase in the number of known
populations. Of the 78 populations evaluated in the SSA, 24 (31%) have
permanent protection and 18 (23%) have partial protection through
voluntary agreements or other commitments of management (e.g., N.C.
Department of Transportation). We conclude that the species is
currently not in danger of extinction throughout its range.
In order to more closely examine the future threat posed by habitat
loss or destruction, the Service analyzed three different development
scenarios into the future to 2040. Under all scenarios evaluated, the
number of currently known populations (78) remaining in highly, very
highly, and moderately resilient condition is 56 (compared to 59 under
current conditions). Only a small number (five or six) of currently low
resilient populations are predicted to become extirpated under all
scenarios evaluated. The species will continue to occur across its
range, redundancy will remain high to moderately high, and
representation will continue in its current condition providing current
levels of adaptive capacity. Of the 78 populations evaluated in the
SSA, 24 (31%) have permanent protection and 18 (23%) have partial
protection through voluntary agreements or other commitments of
management (e.g., N.C. Department of Transportation), reducing the
likelihood of development impacting those populations. Recent
examination of the species also identified climate change and invasive
species as potential future threats. The broadened range (8 counties to
13) and significantly increased population numbers (24 to 78) since
listing in 1989 indicate that the species benefits from sufficient
redundancy and resiliency to withstand perturbations from climate
change as well as from invasive species. Based on this analysis, we
conclude that the species is neither currently in danger of extinction,
nor likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is
any portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1)
the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that
portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to
address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first.
We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which
question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect
to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the
other question for that portion of the species' range.

[[Page 22004]]

For dwarf-flowered heartleaf we chose to evaluate the status
question (i.e., identifying portions where dwarf-flowered heartleaf may
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future) first. We considered whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically
meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: Development,
invasive and exotic species, and climate change, including cumulative
effects.
The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf
throughout the species' range. Eleven of the 13 populations had
invasive, exotic species identified as a threat, indicating that
invasive, exotic species are found throughout the range and not
concentrated in any specific location. Climate change effects, as
discussed previously, are very uniform throughout the range (NCCV
2019). The opportunity for habitat loss and destruction due to
development is higher on privately owned lands that could be sold for
future development (Clarke 1995, entire). Of the 78 populations
evaluated, we determined that 31 percent are permanently protected and
another 23 percent are partially protected (i.e., voluntary landowner
agreements). The unprotected populations are spread throughout the
species' range and not geographically clustered together. While there
is some variability in the habitats occupied by dwarf-flowered
heartleaf across its range, the basic ecological components required
for the species to complete its life cycle are present throughout the
habitats occupied by the 78 populations of the species. Accordingly, we
found no concentration of threats in any portion of the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf range at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no
portions of the species' range where the species has a different status
from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portions of the species' range
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable
future throughout a significant portion of its range. This approach is
consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp.
3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf does not meet
the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we
propose to remove dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to
remove dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than
5 years the status of all species that are delisted. Post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a
delisted species 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 an endangered or threatened species 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. At
the conclusion of the monitoring period, we will review all available
information to determine if relisting, the continuation of monitoring,
or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However,
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and,
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
PDM plan's availability for public review at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081. Copies can also be obtained
from the Service's Asheville Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek information, data, and comments
from the public regarding dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the PDM plan. We
are also seeking peer review of the draft PDM plan concurrently with
this comment period. We anticipate finalizing the PDM plan, considering
all public and peer review comments, prior to making a final
determination on the proposed delisting rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Proposed Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are not clearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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

[[Page 22005]]

to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to tribes. There are no tribes or tribal lands affected by this
proposed rule.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0081 and
upon request from the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Southeastern Region Recovery Team and the Asheville
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.12 [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Hexastylis
naniflora'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-08459 Filed 4-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P