[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