[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25197-25209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09106]



[[Page 25197]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE54


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Nelson's 
Checker-Mallow From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicates that the threats to 
Nelson's checker-mallow have been eliminated or reduced to the point 
that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to Nelson's checker-mallow. We 
request information and comments from the public regarding this 
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for 
Nelson's checker-mallow.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 
27, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by June 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN 
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). Then, 
click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel 
on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check 
the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents, including references cited, the 5-year review, 
the recovery plan, the species status assessment (SSA) report, and the 
draft PDM plan, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Project Leader, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th 
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone: 503-231-6179. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not remove Nelson's checker-mallow 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., ``delist'' the 
species).
    (2) New information on the historical and current status, range, 
distribution, and population size of Nelson's checker-mallow.
    (3) New information on the known and potential threats to Nelson's 
checker-mallow.
    (4) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and 
habitat of Nelson's checker-mallow.
    (5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
Nelson's checker-mallow that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on 
the species.
    (6) The draft PDM plan for Nelson's checker-mallow.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information received 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species 
should remained listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the 
species should be reclassified from threatened to endangered.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place

[[Page 25198]]

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
Nelson's checker-mallow. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists; the SSA team also consulted with other experts on the 
species. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer 
Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16, 
2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June 
2012), we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information 
contained in Nelson's checker-mallow SSA report. We sent the SSA report 
to four independent peer reviewers and received no responses. The SSA 
report was also submitted to our Federal, State, municipal, Tribal, and 
conservation partners for scientific review. We received review from 
two partners, representing a Federal agency and a nonprofit 
conservation partner. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated 
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the final SSA 
report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 12, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR 
8235) a final rule listing Nelson's checker-mallow as a threatened 
species. We finalized the Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of 
Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which includes Nelson's 
checker-mallow, in 2010 (Service 2010, entire). We conducted a 5-year 
status review in 2012 and did not recommend reclassification (Service 
2012, entire). On May 7, 2018, we announced in the Federal Register (83 
FR 20088) our initiation of a subsequent 5-year review for the species. 
We completed the status review in 2021 and therein recommended 
delisting the species.

Proposed Delisting Determination

Background

    Nelson's checker-mallow is an herbaceous perennial plant in the 
mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces 30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink 
flowers, arranged on an elongated, branched stalk. Plants produce 
short, thick, twisted rhizomes (creeping underground stems), as well as 
a system of fine roots extending from a taproot (a stout main root) 
(Service 2010, pp. F-3-F-4).
    Nelson's checker-mallow is found in the Willamette Valley and the 
Coast Range of Oregon and Washington. It occupies a variety of prairie 
habitats and soil types, but is typically associated with open sites. 
In the Willamette Valley, the species occasionally occurs in the 
understory of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among woody 
shrubs, but more frequently occupies native prairie remnants, including 
those at the margins of sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides, fence 
rows, drainage swales, and fallow fields (Glad et al. 1994, pp. 314-
321). In the Coast Range, Nelson's checker-mallow populations typically 
occur in open, wet to dry meadows, in intermittent stream channels, and 
along margins of coniferous forests (Glad et al. 1987, pp. 259-262).
    Once established, Nelson's checker-mallow plants are hardy; if 
plants become established at a site, they usually persist (Bartow 2020, 
pers. comm.). Their long taproot allows them to access subsurface water 
sources, and individual plants are long-lived (Dillon 2021, pers. 
comm.). In addition, regeneration from the taproot is possible after 
the above-ground and upper taproot portions of the plant have been 
removed (Dillon 2021, pers. comm.).
    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of 
Nelson's checker-mallow is presented in the SSA report, version 1.0 
(Service 2021, entire).

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the List.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we 
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the 
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and 
Southwestern Washington (recovery plan) divides the geographic area 
covered by included species into recovery zones, which provides a 
framework for recovering the species' historical ranges. Nelson's 
checker-mallow historically occupied seven recovery zones: SW 
Washington, Portland, Coast Range, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis 
East, and Corvallis West. The following discussion provides an 
assessment of the species' status relative to the five delisting 
criteria outlined in the recovery plan.

[[Page 25199]]

Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and Abundance
    The recovery plan specifies that the distribution of populations 
should reflect the extent of the species' historical geographic 
distribution to the extent practicable and identifies goals for a 
minimum number of populations and target number of plants per recovery 
zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in one population in the Portland 
recovery zone; 10,000 plants in two populations in the SW Washington, 
Salem East, and Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000 plants in three 
populations in the Coast Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants in four 
populations in the Salem West and Corvallis West recovery zones. The 
recovery plan further specifies that, with the exception of the 
Portland recovery zone, these targets may be achieved with a 
combination of at least two populations that number at least 2,000 
individuals; and scattered independent populations must number at least 
200 individuals. The rangewide delisting goal is 100,000 plants 
occurring in 20 populations.
    Currently, a total of 334,968 individual plants are distributed 
across the historical range of the species. Considering only sites that 
meet the minimum threshold of 200 individuals required to be considered 
an independent population, there are 332,935 individual plants, found 
in 42 populations and distributed across six of the seven recovery 
zones.
    Two recovery zones, Corvallis West and Salem West, meet both the 
abundance and distribution goals outlined in the recovery plan. 
Collectively, these two recovery zones contain 71 percent of the 
populations (30 populations) and 95 percent of the individual plants 
(313,662 plants) known to exist. A third zone, Salem East, contains 
9,519 plants, occurring in three populations, essentially meeting the 
distribution and abundance goals of 10,000 plants distributed among two 
populations. Three of the remaining zones, Coast Range, Portland, and 
SW Washington, have the minimum number of populations but do not meet 
the recovery goals for abundance. The remaining zone, Corvallis East, 
does not have any populations that meet the minimum population 
threshold of 200 individual plants.
    Rangewide, the abundance and distribution goal of 100,000 plants in 
20 populations has been exceeded. Although the plants and populations 
are not distributed among recovery zones precisely as identified in the 
recovery plan, they are relatively well distributed throughout the 
historical range of the species. Therefore, we conclude that the intent 
of this criterion, which is to minimize extinction risk by ensuring a 
sufficient number and distribution of plants and populations, has been 
satisfied.
Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend and Evidence of Reproduction
    The recovery plan notes that the number of individuals in the 
population (or area of foliar cover) shall have been stable or 
increasing over a period of at least 15 years. Stable does not mean 
that the population size is static over time; over a period of 15 
years, the number of individuals in the population may exhibit natural 
year-to-year variability, but the trend must not be declining. 
Populations must show evidence of reproduction by seed set or presence 
of seedlings.
    Tracking trends for individual Nelson's checker-mallow sites and 
populations over time is confounded by irregular surveys and varying 
methodologies. However, the overall abundance of Nelson's checker-
mallow has increased markedly since listing. Rangewide, the number of 
populations with greater than 200 plants, and the total number of 
plants, continues to increase. In addition, more sites have a large 
number of individuals than at the time of listing. At the time of 
listing in 1993, 19 sites had more than 100 plants, and only 5 sites 
had more than 1,000 plants. In 2012, 26 sites had more than 100 plants, 
and 4 had over 1,000 plants (Service 2012, pp. 17-19). Currently, 28 
sites have more than 100 plants, and 24 sites have more than 1,000 
plants (Service 2021, p. 18). These data indicate an overall positive 
trend since the time of listing, as well as since the 2012 5-year 
review. Additionally, natural reproduction is occurring on most sites 
and overall abundance is increasing throughout the recovery zones. 
Given that the number of individual plants and the number of large 
populations continue to demonstrate a positive trend, we conclude that 
this criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality and Management
    The recovery plan specifies that sites supporting populations of 
Nelson's checker-mallow must meet three criteria related to habitat 
quality and management:
    1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting populations of Nelson's 
checker-mallow must be managed for high-quality prairie habitat, which 
consists of a diversity of native, non-woody plant species; low 
frequency of aggressive, nonnative plant species and encroaching woody 
species; and essential habitat elements for native pollinators.
    2. Security of habitat. A substantial portion of the habitat for 
the populations should either be owned or managed by a government 
agency or private conservation organization that identifies maintenance 
of the species and the prairie ecosystem upon which it depends as the 
primary management objective for the site, or the site must be 
protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement or covenant 
that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the 
species.
    3. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population 
must be managed appropriately to ensure the maintenance or restoration 
of quality prairie habitat and to control threats to the species. Use 
of herbicides, mowing, burning, or livestock grazing in management 
should be implemented with appropriate methods and timing to avoid 
impacts to listed plant species. Management should be coordinated with 
adjacent landowners to minimize effects of pesticide drift, changes in 
hydrology, timber harvest, or road/utility maintenance. Species that 
may hybridize with Nelson's checker-mallow should be managed as 
appropriate to avoid contact with these taxa. Other potential threats 
relating to scientific research, overcollection, vandalism, 
recreational impacts, or natural herbivory/parasitism should be 
successfully managed so as not to significantly impair recovery of the 
species. Management and monitoring plans must be approved by the 
Service and should include standardized monitoring and performance 
criteria that will be used to assess the plans' effectiveness following 
implementation and to allow for adaptive management, as necessary. 
Management plans should include a focus on protecting habitat 
heterogeneity within protected sites and across a range of elevations 
and aspects to buffer the potential effects of climate change.
    We can gauge the degree to which this criterion has been met by 
considering the management and ownership of sites that contain Nelson's 
checker-mallow. Of sites that have greater than 200 plants and, 
therefore, meet the definition of an independent population, 38 have 
formal management plans that address habitat quality and threats. 
Similarly, 26 populations are in public ownership and thus are 
considered protected; one additional site is owned and protected by a 
nongovernmental conservation organization, while 11 privately owned

[[Page 25200]]

sites are protected by conservation easements. Four Nelson's checker-
mallow sites have no protection and lack management plans. Together, 
these four sites account for less than 1 percent of the total number of 
Nelson's checker-mallow plants. That a majority of sites known to 
support Nelson's checker-mallow are managed in accordance with a formal 
management plan and are protected by virtue of ownership or 
conservation easement ameliorates concerns associated with the quality, 
security, and threat to prairie habitat. Therefore, we conclude that 
this recovery criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is Stored in a Facility 
Approved by the Center for Plant Conservation
    The recovery plan specifies that stored genetic material in the 
form of seeds must represent the species' geographic distribution and 
genetic diversity through collections across the full range of the 
species. Collections from large populations are particularly important 
as reservoirs of genetic variability within the species.
    Nelson's checker-mallow seeds are currently stored at four separate 
repositories. The majority of stored seeds are located at the Corvallis 
Plant Materials Center (PMC) operated by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) in Corvallis, Oregon. Approximately 408 kilograms (900 pounds) 
of seeds, or about 112,500,000 seeds, are stored at this facility. 
Seeds in this collection were sourced primarily from production fields, 
which are maintained specifically to produce seed, and are used for 
habitat restoration, population augmentation, and out-planting 
throughout the range of the species. In addition, approximately 29,000 
seeds are stored at the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank at Portland State 
University in Portland, Oregon. This collection was sourced from Lane, 
Linn, Benton, Marion, Polk, Yamhill, and Tillamook Counties in Oregon, 
and Lewis County in Washington. A third, smaller collection of Nelson's 
checker-mallow seeds is held at the Miller Seed Vault, at the 
University of Washington's Botanical Gardens in Seattle, Washington. 
Approximately 705 seeds from locations in Washington are stored there. 
In addition to storage in these three regional repositories, a subset 
of seed from the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and the Miller Seed Vault 
has been sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource 
Preservation at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. 
Both the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank and Colorado State University 
facility are certified by the Center for Plant Conservation. 
Collectively, stored seed represents the geographic range of Nelson's 
checker-mallow, and part of this stored seed is in Center for Plant 
Conservation-certified facilities. Therefore, we conclude that this 
criterion has been met.
Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting Monitoring Plans and Agreements 
to Continue Post-Delisting Monitoring Are in Place and Ready for 
Implementation at the Time of Delisting
    The recovery plan specifies that monitoring of populations 
following delisting will verify the ongoing recovery of the species, 
provide a basis for determining whether the species should be again 
placed under the protection of the Act, and provide a means of 
assessing the continuing effectiveness of management actions.
    A draft PDM plan for Nelson's checker-mallow has been developed 
that outlines an approach to monitoring Nelson's checker-mallow for a 
period of 6 years after the species is delisted. It addresses the 
current status of the species and provides details associated with 
monitoring methods and implementation, including site selection, data 
analysis, monitoring schedules, and reporting expectations. It also 
describes potential outcomes in the context of how secure the species 
remains after delisting. In addition, the draft PDM plan outlines roles 
and responsibilities and estimates associated costs. The draft PDM plan 
is available at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The 
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following factors:

    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.

    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five 
factors in delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c) and (e)).
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.

[[Page 25201]]

    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for removal from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants (``delisted''). However, it does 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0154 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    To assess Nelson's checker-mallow viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the species' life-history needs. 
The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current 
condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, 
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current 
condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about 
the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and 
anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the 
best available information to characterize viability as the ability of 
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this 
information to inform our regulatory decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Ecological Needs

    Populations of Nelson's checker-mallow usually occupy open habitats 
that are free from encroachment of trees and shrubs. In the absence of 
disturbance to set back succession, prairie habitat is subject to woody 
species encroachment, gradually transitioning into shrub or woodland 
habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as fire or fall mowing, are 
necessary to maintain the open, high-light prairie habitats that 
Nelson's checker-mallow populations thrive in. Resilient Nelson's 
checker-mallow populations need a sufficient number of individuals to 
withstand stochastic events and disturbances. The minimum viable 
population size for Nelson's checker-mallow is not identified. However, 
the Recovery Plan specifies that independent populations should number 
at least 200 individuals (Service 2010, pp. IV-20) which provides a 
basis for evaluating population status.
    For Nelson's checker-mallow to be considered viable, the species 
must be able to withstand catastrophic events and adapt to 
environmental changes. This can be achieved with a sufficient number of 
resilient populations distributed across its geographic range and 
representing the range of ecological settings in which the species is 
known to exist. The minimum number of populations required for Nelson's 
checker-mallow has not been determined. However, distribution and 
abundance goals laid out in the Recovery Plan (Service 2010, pp. IV-35-
IV-36) and described in the Recovery Criteria section, above, provide a 
benchmark for evaluating the species.

Factors Influencing the Species

    At the time of listing in 1993, the primary threats to Nelson's 
checker-mallow were habitat loss due to land-use conversion for 
agriculture, competition from invasive plants, and roadside management 
activities. Other factors identified as potentially affecting prairie 
habitat were woody encroachment, hydrological alteration, recreational 
use, and trampling. Planned construction and expansion of a reservoir 
on Walker Creek (a tributary to the Nestucca River) was identified as a 
future threat as associated inundation would result in the loss of many 
plants, including the largest population of the species known to exist 
at the time. The listing rule (58 FR 8235; February 12, 1993) also 
noted the potentially negative effects of overcollection for scientific 
and horticultural purposes, predation by weevils, and small population 
size; some inadequacies in regulatory mechanisms were also identified. 
Subsequent to listing, climate change and hybridization were identified 
as potential threats to the viability of Nelson's checker-mallow.
    We considered all of these threats when considering whether the 
species continues to warrant protection under the Act. The threat of 
inundation never materialized; the proposed reservoir was not 
constructed, given the designation of Walker Creek as part of Oregon's 
State Scenic Waterway program in 1992, and as part of the National Wild 
and Scenic Rivers program in 2019 (Oregon Department of Parks and 
Recreation 2021). We previously determined that overcollection does not 
occur to such a degree that it has a population-level effect and that 
regulatory mechanisms are adequately reducing the effects of threats 
that could act at a population

[[Page 25202]]

scale (Service 2012, pp. 22-28). Weevil predation occasionally impacts 
individual plants and may locally affect some populations. However, it 
is seasonal in nature and unpredictable, and we did not find that it 
occurs at spatial and temporal scales large enough to affect the 
overall status of the species.
    Many small populations of Nelson's checker-mallow remain 
distributed throughout the species' range. However, the number of large 
populations has increased significantly since the species was listed in 
1993. Based on our assessment, presently 24 sites have more than 1,000 
plants. This represents a significant improvement relative to the time 
of listing, when only five sites had more than 1,000 plants (Service 
2012, pp. 17-19). Therefore, we conclude that small population size no 
longer puts the species at risk of extinction. The potential for 
hybridization among species of the same genus remains present. However, 
we found that the best available data indicates that hybridization does 
not pose a threat to the overall status of the species. Additional 
discussion of these threats is available in the recovery plan (Service 
2010, pp. II-30-II-31; chapter III entire) and in the 2012 5-year 
review (Service 2012, pp. 22-28).
    The stressors identified as having a population-level effects, and 
therefore included in our assessment of current and future condition, 
are habitat-related stressors and climate change. The loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation of prairie habitats have cascading 
effects that result in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic 
diversity, reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of 
population structure, and increased susceptibility to local population 
extirpation caused by environmental catastrophes. Collectively, this 
contributes to reduced viability through reductions in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation. Climate change acts primarily through 
changes in habitat quality. The discussion below details the causes and 
consequences of these stressors on Nelson's checker-mallow.
Alteration of Natural and Human-Mediated Disturbance Processes
    Change in community structure due to plant succession has been a 
serious long-term stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow. Habitats 
occupied by this species contain native grassland species, as well as 
numerous introduced taxa, and are prone to transition to a later seral 
stage of vegetative development. The natural transition of prairie to 
forest in the absence of disturbance such as fire can lead to the loss 
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p. 24). However, active 
management of habitat through mowing and prescribed burning is 
effective in reducing Nelson's checker-mallow's exposure to this 
stressor.
Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and Urban Use
    Agricultural and urban development has modified and destroyed 
prairie habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely distributed patches 
(Service 2012, p. 24). Urban development in particular results in 
permanent loss of habitat and is of special concern where existing 
prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban areas (Service 2010, p. III-
2). The greatest habitat losses due to land conversion are historical, 
although periodic additional losses of habitat on private lands may 
occur. Exposure of Nelson's checker-mallow populations to this stressor 
is mitigated by protections associated with public land ownership, 
conservation measures described later in this document, and State 
regulations requiring mitigation and restoration of degraded habitat.
Invasion by Nonnative Plants
    Habitats occupied by Nelson's checker-mallow contain a mix of 
native and nonnative species. As described above, alteration of 
disturbance processes results in woody encroachment of prairie 
habitats. Nonnative woody species have been of particular concern, as 
they can rapidly proliferate and degrade open prairie sites (Service 
2012, p. 24). In addition, nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may 
effectively limit recruitment (Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE) 
2017, p. 1). Although invasion by nonnative plants remains a primary 
stressor to Nelson's checker-mallow populations, management practices 
including mowing, burning, and shrub removal are an effective approach 
to mediating these effects.
Climate Change
    In the Pacific Northwest, temperature increases of 3 to 6 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C) (5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) are 
predicted by the end of the 21st century (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 
414). Although winter precipitation is predicted to increase, increased 
summer temperatures are expected to cause increased evapotranspiration, 
resulting in reduced growing season soil moisture (Bachelet et al. 
2011, p. 414) and ultimately affecting prairie habitat quality. 
Detailed quantitative estimates of the effects of these conditions on 
Nelson's checker-mallow populations are not available. However, 
vulnerability assessments show the species to be moderately vulnerable 
to the effects of climate change when simulations from four ``bookend'' 
global circulation models and three emission scenarios are aggregated 
(Steel et al. 2011, p. 91).
    In order for the species to be resilient to changing environmental 
conditions and remain viable into the future, maintenance of large 
populations in heterogenous habitats across the range of the species is 
required (Service 2010, p. IV-6). Management activities that maintain 
open prairie habitats, including mowing, burning, and shrub removal, 
have resulted in an increase in the number of large populations 
throughout the range of the species. As described below, the majority 
of Nelson's checker-mallow sites are managed in accordance with 
conservation programs that ensure maintenance of prairie conditions and 
promote the existence of viable Nelson's checker-mallow populations 
into the future.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Despite permanent habitat loss and modification, habitat 
restoration and protection projects have been implemented on both 
public and private lands throughout the range of Nelson's checker-
mallow. These projects offset some of the permanent habitat losses and, 
as a result, Nelson's checker-mallow habitat is increasing (Bartow 
2020, pers. comm.). The Wetland Reserve Program and other Farm Bill 
programs administered by the USDA's NRCS have been widely implemented 
in the Willamette Valley. Other programs, such as the Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Act's section 10 
programs (i.e., safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans), 
are also available to landowners. These programs are focused on habitat 
restoration and protection and have contributed significantly to 
improving the status of Nelson's checker-mallow. These gains are 
particularly evident in the Corvallis West and Salem West recovery 
zones.
    Rangewide, the majority of sites known to support Nelson's checker-
mallow benefit from some type of conservation measure, by virtue of 
ownership and/or habitat management agreements. These conservation 
measures offer benefits to the species well into the future. For 
instance, of 66 sites, 44 are owned by a public entity, which offers 
indefinite protection from prairie habitat conversion to other uses. 
Fifty-seven sites are managed in accordance with the conservation 
programs described above, which

[[Page 25203]]

ensure maintenance of prairie conditions required by Nelson's checker-
mallow. The terms of these agreements vary, but they are typically 
valid for 10 to 30 years, with some extending into perpetuity. 
Collectively, these management regimes ensure habitat protections at a 
decades-long scale for most sites.

Current Condition

    We assessed the current condition of Nelson's checker-mallow by 
using the best available information to estimate resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation. We sourced data for this analysis 
primarily from the Threatened and Endangered Plant Geodatabase (version 
12/31/2019), developed by the Institute for Applied Ecology under a 
cooperative agreement with the Service for the purposes of tracking the 
status of species listed under the Act in the Willamette Valley. 
Additional data were compiled from supplementary reports (IAE 2019), 
location-specific records, and other information in our files. We use 
the term ``site'' rather than ``population'' to refer to our analytical 
units throughout our current and future conditions analyses to avoid 
confusion; the recovery plan defines an independent population as one 
that contains more than 200 individual plants, but we evaluated sites 
of all sizes.
Resiliency
    Resiliency, the ability of populations to withstand stochastic 
events, is commonly determined as a function of metrics such as 
population size, growth rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We 
evaluated the current resiliency of Nelson's checker-mallow populations 
on the basis of abundance, as well as measurable habitat 
characteristics that represent the habitat-related stressors discussed 
above. The four specific metrics we included in our assessment of 
population resiliency (abundance, prairie habitat condition, site 
management, and site protection) are discussed in more detail below. A 
complete description of our analytical approach to current conditions 
is available in the SSA report. Abundance was scored based upon the 
total number of plants within a site, based on the most recent survey. 
Sites were scored as 1 (Low: Fewer than 200 plants), 2 (Moderate: 200-
1,999 plants), or 3 (High: Equal to or more than 2,000 plants). These 
categorical thresholds correspond to recovery goals, which state that 
recovery targets may be achieved with a combination of at least two 
populations that number at least 2,000 individuals and that scattered 
independent populations must number at least 200 individuals.
    Prairie habitat condition is a measure of overall habitat quality 
and was calculated using four distinct habitat metrics that are likely 
to influence population resiliency: Percent woody cover, percent native 
cover, native plant richness (number of unique species present), and 
invasive plant cover. For each site where data on these criteria are 
available, we assigned a score of 1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), or 3 (Good) for 
each habitat metric. We then determined overall prairie habitat 
condition for each site by averaging individual habitat metric scores. 
Additional detail about scoring categories for each individual metric 
is available in the SSA report.
    Site management reflects the potential for prairie habitat 
degradation due to natural succession in the absence of natural and 
anthropogenic disturbance regimes. Site management may also be 
influential in mediating the effects of climate change through the 
maintenance of large populations in heterogenous habitats, and 
distributed across the range of the species. To account for existing 
site management that serves to offset these stressors, we assigned each 
site a score of 1 (Poor: Not managed for prairie conditions or 
unknown), 2 (Fair: Generally managed for prairie conditions but no 
management plan in place), or 3 (Good: Managed for prairie conditions 
with a management plan in place).
    Site protection is a measure of the potential for losing Nelson's 
checker-mallow sites to agricultural and urban development. We used 
site ownership and the existence of conservation agreements to assess 
how well each site is protected from development, assigning each site a 
score of 1 (Poor: Private ownership with no conservation easement or 
similar program), 2 (Fair: Private ownership with conservation easement 
or similar program), or 3 (Good: Public ownership or private 
conservation organization ownership).
    To estimate resiliency for each site, we calculated a condition 
score by averaging the scores for abundance, mean prairie habitat 
condition, site management, and site protection. We weighted management 
twice as much as the other factors due to its relative importance to 
long-term population resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV-5). Based on 
overall scores, current condition of each site was classified as high 
(score of greater than or equal to 2.5), moderate (score of 1.75-2.49), 
or low (score of less than 1.75).
    Currently, we know of 66 sites containing Nelson's checker-mallow. 
Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are in high condition, while 29 
of them (44 percent) are in moderate condition. Rangewide, only 6 sites 
(9 percent) are in low condition. These results demonstrate relatively 
high resiliency across the range of Nelson's checker-mallow.
Redundancy
    Redundancy is defined as a species' ability to withstand 
catastrophic events and is determined as a function of the number of 
populations, as well as their distribution and connectivity. The 
historical distribution of populations of Nelson's checker-mallow is 
largely unknown. Throughout its range, Nelson's checker-mallow is 
restricted to remnant prairie habitats that are highly fragmented due 
to a history of land conversion and natural succession following 
alterations to disturbance cycles. However, since the time of listing, 
habitat restoration, reintroductions, and habitat protection have 
collectively improved the status of the species. Among the 66 known 
sites, 334,968 plants are distributed across six of the seven recovery 
zones, demonstrating overall good redundancy.
Representation
    Representation refers to the ability of a species to adapt to 
change, and is based upon considerations of geographic, genetic, 
ecological, and niche diversity. Because we lack information about the 
genetic diversity of the species, we rely on geographical and 
ecological diversity in our assessment of representation. Populations 
of Nelson's checker-mallow are currently distributed in six of the 
seven recovery zones and occur in both the Willamette Valley and in the 
Coast Range. The species occupies a range of prairie sites with various 
soil textures and moisture levels and occurs in a wide range of plant 
communities including meadows, marshes, wetlands, riparian/tree shrub 
forests, and disturbed areas. This indicates that the species has the 
capacity to adapt to a variety of environmental conditions and has good 
representation.

Future Viability

    To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we 
considered the factors that will influence the species in the 
foreseeable future. We define the foreseeable future as 25 to 50 years. 
This interval was chosen because it encompasses the length of time over 
which we conclude we can make reliable predictions about the 
anticipated effect of climate change. In addition, this period of time 
is sufficient to observe population trends

[[Page 25204]]

for the species, based on its life-history characteristics. It also 
captures the terms of many of the management plans and conservation 
easements that are in effect at Nelson's checker-mallow sites.
    We determined that, in the future, Nelson's checker-mallow will 
continue to be influenced by the factors that have historically 
influenced and are currently influencing the species, albeit at 
different relative rates. Therefore, in our analysis of future 
viability, we considered habitat-related changes and climate change. We 
considered the specific sources of habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation (alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance 
processes, habitat conversion to agricultural and urban use, and 
invasion by nonnative plants) in light of ongoing conservation support, 
including habitat management and site protection.
    We make several assumptions about ongoing conservation support in 
the foreseeable future. Support for the conservation of Nelson's 
checker-mallow has been high among government agencies, nongovernmental 
conservation organizations, and some private landowners. We assume that 
priority recovery and management actions for the species will continue 
at approximately the current pace and that the species will continue to 
benefit from this ongoing conservation support. We base this assumption 
on the inclusion of Nelson's checker-mallow in a recovery plan that 
includes several other listed plants and insects, and that emphasizes 
restoration and maintenance of prairie habitat for the benefit of 
numerous species.
    Management of existing sites for the restoration or maintenance of 
open prairie conditions is expected to continue. All of the protected 
sites have some level of management plan. These management plans vary 
in scope and complexity across ownerships, but all provide at least a 
basic level of habitat management that will benefit Nelson's checker-
mallow. We anticipate that efforts to formalize new management plans 
where they do not currently exist, and to update existing management 
plans in response to changing conditions, will continue. Again, we base 
this assumption on the fact that prairie habitat is managed for 
multiple species, some of which are listed as endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. This provides an impetus for continued 
formalized management of these sites and maintenance of Nelson's 
checker-mallow habitat.
    The majority of Nelson's checker-mallow sites are protected through 
ownership by public agencies or nongovernmental conservation 
organizations, or through conservation easements. We assume that sites 
owned by public agencies or conservation organizations will remain so 
owned. We also assume that conservation easements will continue to 
provide protections where they currently exist, given that the terms 
typically range from 30 years to perpetuity. Ongoing efforts to protect 
additional sites through land acquisitions or enrollment in 
conservation easements are expected to continue and may result in the 
protection of additional sites. Although sites not protected by virtue 
of ownership or conservation easement may be at risk due to development 
in the future, these sites are in the minority and their status is 
reflected in our analysis.
Resiliency
    To assess the future viability of Nelson's checker-mallow, we 
considered a single scenario where we assumed that climate change will 
result in a dramatic reduction in abundance across the species' range 
but site management and protection will remain intact, as discussed 
above. We then reassessed population condition, applying the same 
methodology used for assessing current condition.
    Published assessments do not provide detailed quantitative 
estimates of the effects of climate change on Nelson's checker-mallow 
populations. In order to evaluate the effects of climate change on 
individual sites, we characterized a worst-case future scenario in 
terms we could use in our analysis of future condition. In consultation 
with species experts and conservation partners, we defined the worst-
case scenario as one where increased mortality and decreased 
recruitment culminate in a 50 percent reduction in abundance at all 
sites. We consider this a worst-case scenario because a 50 percent 
reduction represents the upper boundary of plausibility; the actual 
effects of climate change on population sizes are likely to be more 
moderate. Nevertheless, assuming a 50 percent reduction provides a 
generous margin of error if the assumptions described above are 
violated. We acknowledge that uniform response across the species' 
range is not likely, and that some populations may fare better than 
others under future conditions. However, this approach serves to 
demonstrate future viability under challenging future conditions.
    In the scenario described above, resiliency declined only modestly, 
with 60 sites remaining in high or moderate condition (see Figure 1, 
below). The number of sites in high overall condition decreased from 31 
to 25, relative to current condition, while the number of sites in 
moderate condition increased from 29 to 35. Sites experiencing reduced 
condition are relatively well distributed throughout the range of the 
species, with one site occurring in the Coast Range recovery zone, 
three sites occurring in the Corvallis West recovery zone, one site 
occurring in the Portland recovery zone, and one site occurring in the 
Salem West recovery zone. The number of sites in overall low condition 
(six sites) does not change in our foreseeable future.
    These changes in overall future condition are driven by changes in 
abundance. In our future scenario, six additional sites fall below 200 
individual plants and, therefore, receive a low score for abundance. 
Sites with low abundance are more vulnerable to stochastic events and 
carry a higher risk for extirpation in the future. However, the 
relative importance of site management and protection in guarding 
against habitat loss and maintaining resiliency is reflected in the 
relatively modest downward shift in overall future condition, relative 
to current condition (see Figure 2, below).
Redundancy
    Our analysis of future condition indicates that redundancy will be 
maintained in the foreseeable future; 66 extant sites will remain well 
distributed throughout the current known range of the species. 
Consequently, no major changes in the species' ability to withstand 
catastrophes in the future is expected.
Representation
    The distribution of extant Nelson's checker-mallow sites does not 
change under the parameters of our future condition analysis. 
Consequently, changes in ecological diversity are not projected to 
materialize as a result of climate change, and the species is likely to 
continue to occupy prairie habitat throughout its range and retain its 
adaptive capacity.

[[Page 25205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP22.003


[[Page 25206]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP22.004

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    Collectively, our analysis of the resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation demonstrates that in 25 to 50 years, the viability of 
Nelson's checker-mallow will not be significantly reduced. We note 
that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the 
scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only 
analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed 
their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative 
effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and 
future condition of the species. To assess the current and future 
condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis that 
encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors

[[Page 25207]]

that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Determination of Nelson's Checker-Mallow's Status

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

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating the threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that the primary drivers of the status of Nelson's 
checker-mallow have been habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
due to alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance processes 
that maintain open prairie habitat, land conversion to agricultural and 
urban use, and invasion by nonnative plants. The best available 
information does not indicate that habitat loss due to inundation 
(Factor A), overcollection (Factor B), predation (Factor C), small 
population size (Factor E), or hybridization (Factor E) are threats to 
the viability of the species. To summarize, the threat of inundation 
never materialized as the proposed reservoir was not constructed; 
overcollection does not occur to such a degree that it has a 
population-level effect; weevil predation does occasionally impact 
individual plants and may locally affect some populations, but it does 
not occur at spatial and temporal scales large enough to affect the 
overall status of the species; many small populations of Nelson's 
checker-mallow remain distributed throughout the species' range, but 
the number of large populations has increased significantly since the 
species was listed; and the potential for hybridization among other 
species in the same genus remains present, but does not pose a threat 
to the overall status of the species. A variety of regulatory 
mechanisms adequately reduce the effects of any threats that act at a 
population scale (Factor D).
    The habitat-related threats other than inundation identified above 
as drivers of Nelson's checker-mallow status are still present on the 
landscape. However, their magnitude and scope have decreased from 
historical levels and have been offset by a variety of management and 
conservation measures in the nearly 30 years since Nelson's checker-
mallow was listed. Active maintenance of prairie habitat through mowing 
and prescribed burning has demonstrably reduced the threat posed by 
alteration of disturbance processes and associated woody encroachment 
(Factor A). The threat of invasive plants (Factor A) has also been 
significantly reduced as a result of active management. Rangewide, 
formalized management plans exist for 57 of the 66 sites known to 
contain Nelson's checker-mallow, a number that is expected to remain 
relatively constant into the foreseeable future. Similarly, 60 Nelson's 
checker-mallow sites are either in public ownership, have been acquired 
by nongovernmental conservation organizations, or are enrolled in 
conservation easement programs (Factor D), which has substantially 
reduced the risk of habitat and population losses due to land-use 
conversion (Factor A). The number of sites protected from conversion to 
agricultural or urban use is expected to remain relatively constant in 
the future. In sum, despite the continued presence of habitat-related 
threats on the landscape, advances in site management and protection 
have led to a significant reduction in threats and overall improvement 
in the status of the species since listing.
    When Nelson's checker-mallow was listed, we estimated that the 
species occurred at 48 sites distributed among five population centers 
(historically interbreeding populations). Only five sites contained 
more than 1,000 individuals, and 30 percent of the known individuals of 
the species were threatened with inundation due to the planned 
construction of a dam. Currently, 334,968 individual plants are 
distributed across the historical range of the species. They occur at 
66 sites, 24 of which have at least 1,000 Nelson's checker-mallow 
plants. Our analysis of current condition, based on abundance, habitat 
quality, site management, and site protection, shows that 60 of those 
sites are in either moderate or high condition, indicating relatively 
high resiliency. The sites are distributed among six of the seven 
recovery zones and occur in varied geographical and ecological 
settings, demonstrating overall good redundancy and representation.
    Subsequent to listing, climate change and its potential to 
negatively affect prairie habitat was identified as a potential threat 
to Nelson's checker-mallow. We considered the potential consequences of 
climate change on the species and evaluated a worst-case future 
scenario that included a 50 percent reduction in the size of all known 
populations across the range of the species. Even in the face of such a 
severe population reduction, the species retained appreciable levels of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation, with only six sites showing 
a reduction in resiliency and with geographical and ecological 
distribution fully maintained.
    We recognize that some habitat-related threats remain present and 
that they have ongoing impacts to Nelson's checker-mallow. We 
acknowledge that the specific effects of climate change on Nelson's 
checker-mallow and its habitat are uncertain but may have a negative 
impact. However, we found that current and expected patterns in site 
protection and habitat management are sufficient to prevent affects to 
the species such that it would meet the Act's definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. Thus, after assessing the 
best available information, we determine that Nelson's checker-mallow 
is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that Nelson's checker-mallow is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any 
portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
now or likely

[[Page 25208]]

to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on 
the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for Nelson's checker-mallow, we choose 
to address the status question first--we consider information 
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the 
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range 
where the species is endangered or threatened.
    For Nelson's checker-mallow, we considered whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a 
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due to alteration of 
natural and human-mediated disturbance processes that maintain open 
prairie habitat, land conversion to agricultural and urban use, and 
invasion by nonnative plants; and climate change.
    The threat of habitat loss from alteration of disturbance 
processes, land-use conversion, and invasion of nonnative plants has 
decreased in all portions of the species' range since the time listing, 
due to land protection efforts and active habitat management. Although 
these residual threats influence the species variably across its range, 
there is no portion of the range where there is currently a 
concentration of threats at a biologically meaningful scale, relative 
to other areas of the range. In the foreseeable future, climate change 
may interact synergistically with other threats to negatively affect 
habitat quality. We acknowledge that uniform response across the 
species' range is not likely, and that some populations may fare worse 
than others under future conditions. However, the best available 
information does not indicate that any portion of the species' range 
will deteriorate disproportionately in the foreseeable future. We 
anticipate that any negative consequence of co-occurring threats will 
be successfully addressed through the same active management actions 
that have contributed to the ongoing recovery of Nelson's checker-
mallow and that are expected to continue into the future.
    We found no concentration of threats in any portion of the Nelson's 
checker-mallow range at a biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no 
portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we 
find the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. 
This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. 
Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 
3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), because, in reaching this conclusion, we 
did not need to consider whether any portions are significant and, 
therefore, did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy's definition 
of ``significant'' that those court decisions held were invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that Nelson's checker-mallow does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we 
propose to remove the Nelson's checker-mallow from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing Nelson's checker-mallow from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures 
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no 
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be 
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the 
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect 
Nelson's checker-mallow. There is no critical habitat designated for 
this species, so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. PDM refers to 
activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery 
remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the 
Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species 
to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is 
detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as 
endangered or threatened is not again needed.
    If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that 
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    We are proposing to delist Nelson's checker-mallow based on our 
analysis in the SSA report, expert opinions, and conservation actions 
taken. Since delisting would be, in part, due to conservation actions 
taken by stakeholders, we have prepared a draft PDM plan for Nelson's 
checker-mallow. The draft PDM plan discusses the current status of the 
taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring if we delist 
the taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of Nelson's 
checker-mallow at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes 
frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods 
and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers 
will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5) 
outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule 
for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is 
our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered 
status of Nelson's checker-mallow. We will seek public and peer 
reviewer comments on the draft PDM plan, including its objectives and 
procedures (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and Information 
Requested, above), with the publication of this proposed rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

[[Page 25209]]

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under 
the Endangered Species Act. We published a document outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We do not believe that any Tribes 
would be affected if we adopt this rule as proposed. There are 
currently no Nelson's checker-mallow sites on Tribal lands, although 
some sites may lie within the usual and accustomed places for Tribal 
collection and gathering of resources. We welcome input from 
potentially affected Tribes on this proposal.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), by removing the entry for 
``Sidalcea nelsoniana'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-09106 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P