21994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

must be made for the appropriate DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR document. You may submit a comment amount, as prescribed in § 201.3(c) of by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ this chapter. The fee for small claims Fish and Wildlife Service (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail expedited registration is intended to to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: accelerate the registration process for a 50 CFR Part 17 FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081, U.S. Fish and qualifying Copyright Claims Board [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081; Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 claimant or counterclaimant that FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– already has a pending registration 3803. application; it is in addition to, and RIN 1018–BD95 We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. does not offset, the fee for copyright Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We will post all comments on http:// registration. and Plants; Removal of the Dwarf- www.regulations.gov. This generally (2) Method of payment. (i) The fee for Flowered Heartleaf From the Federal means that we will post any personal small claims expedited registration must List of Endangered and Threatened information you provide us (see be submitted electronically to the Plants Copyright Claims Board and not through Information Requested, below, for more the Copyright Office’s electronic AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information). registration system (eCO). Interior. Document availability: The proposed (ii) A claimant or counterclaimant ACTION: Proposed rule. rule, draft PDM plan, and supporting shall follow instructions on the documents (including the species status Copyright Office website to make SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and assessment (SSA) report, references electronic payments with credit or debit Wildlife Service (Service), propose to cited, and 5-year review) are available at cards, or directly from their bank remove the dwarf-flowered heartleaf http://www.regulations.gov under accounts by means of automated (Hexastylis naniflora), a plant endemic Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081. clearing house (ACH) debit transactions. to the upper Piedmont region of western FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants may not use a deposit North Carolina and upstate South Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish account to make payments for small Carolina, from the Federal List of and Wildlife Service, Asheville claims expedited registration. Endangered and Threatened Plants Ecological Services Field Office, 160 (3) No refunds. The small claims (List). This determination is based on a Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC 28801; expedited registration fee is not thorough review of the best available telephone 828–258–3939. Persons who refundable, unless the small claims scientific and commercial data, which use a telecommunications device for the expedited registration request is denied indicate that the threats to the species deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay under paragraph (d) of this section. have been eliminated or reduced to the Service at 800–877–8339. point that the species no longer meets (d) Denied requests. If the applicant SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the definition of a threatened species, failed to pay the required fee or if the and does not meet the definition of an Information Requested Copyright Office determines that endangered species, under the expedited registration under this section We intend that any final action Endangered Species Act of 1973, as would be unduly burdensome, the resulting from this proposed rule will be amended (Act). We also announce the Office will notify the applicant that the based on the best scientific and availability of a draft post-delisting request has been denied and that the commercial data available and be as monitoring (PDM) plan for the dwarf- copyright registration claim will be accurate and as effective as possible. flowered heartleaf. We seek information, examined on a regular basis. Therefore, we request comments and data, and comments from the public (e) Granted requests. If the request for information from other concerned regarding this proposal to delist this governmental agencies (including, but expedited registration under this section species and on the draft PDM plan. is granted, the Office will make every not limited to, State and Federal DATES: attempt to examine the application or We will accept comments agencies and city or county the document within ten business days received or postmarked on or before governments), Native American tribes, after notice of the request is delivered June 25, 2021. Comments submitted the scientific community, industry, or by the Copyright Claims Board to the electronically using the Federal any other interested party concerning Copyright Office’s Office of Registration eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, this proposed rule. We particularly seek Policy and Practice, although the below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. comments on: Copyright Office cannot guarantee that Eastern Time on the closing date. We (1) Information concerning the all applications or all documents will be must receive requests for a public biology and ecology of dwarf-flowered registered or recorded within that hearing, in writing, at the address heartleaf; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION timeframe. shown in (2) Relevant data concerning any CONTACT by June 10, 2021. (f) Identical registration standards. threats (or lack thereof) to dwarf- The Copyright Office will apply the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments flowered heartleaf, particularly any data same practices and procedures set out in on this proposed rule by one of the on the possible effects of climate change the part when examining a copyright following methods: as it relates to habitat, as well as the registration claim, regardless of whether (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal extent of State protection and the applicant asks for small claims eRulemaking Portal: http:// management that would be provided to expedited registration. www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, this plant as a delisted species; enter FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081, which is (3) Current or planned activities Dated: April 20, 2021. the docket number for this rulemaking. within the geographic range of dwarf- Regan A. Smith, Then, click on the Search button. On the flowered heartleaf that may negatively General Counsel and Associate Register of resulting page, in the Search panel on impact or benefit the species; and Copyrights. the left side of the screen, under the (4) The draft PDM plan and the [FR Doc. 2021–08570 Filed 4–23–21; 8:45 am] Document Type heading, check the methods and approach detailed in it. BILLING CODE 1410–30–P Proposed Rule box to locate this Please include sufficient information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 21995

with your submission (such as scientific review of classification actions under growing herbaceous plant in the journal articles or other publications) to the Act, we sought the expert opinions birthwort family (Aristolochiaceae). allow us to verify any scientific or of seven appropriate specialists Although dwarf-flowered heartleaf is commercial information you include. regarding the species status assessment restricted in range, it is not as rare as Please note that submissions merely (SSA) report, which informed this once thought (Service 2010, p. 15; North stating support for, or opposition to, the proposed rule. Out of the seven reviews Carolina Natural Heritage Program action under consideration without requested, we received no responses. (NCNHP) 2016, p. 4). When dwarf- providing supporting information, The purpose of peer review is to ensure flowered heartleaf was federally listed although noted, will not be considered our determination is based on in 1989, the listing rule described 24 in making a determination, as section scientifically sound data, assumptions, extant populations (and one extirpated 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that and analyses. population) distributed across eight determinations as to whether any Because we will consider all counties in the upper Piedmont of North species is an endangered or a threatened comments and information received and South Carolina. As of 2018, the species must be made ‘‘solely on the during the comment period, our final distribution of this species consisted of basis of the best scientific and determinations may differ from this 78 populations distributed across 13 commercial data available.’’ proposal. Based on the new information counties in these two States. In North You may submit your comments and we receive (and any comments on that Carolina, it is found in Alexander, materials concerning this proposed rule new information), we may conclude that Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Cleveland, by one of the methods listed in the species is still in danger of Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Polk, and ADDRESSES. We request that you send extinction, either now or in the Rutherford Counties. In South Carolina, comments only by the methods foreseeable future. Such final decisions it is found in Cherokee, Greenville, and described in ADDRESSES. would be a logical outgrowth of this Spartanburg Counties. If you submit information via http:// proposal, as long as we: (a) Base the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is www.regulations.gov, your entire decisions on the best scientific and historically known to have a restricted submission—including any personal commercial data available after range due to its habitat requirements. identifying information—will be posted considering all of the relevant factors; The habitat where dwarf-flowered on the website. If your submission is (2) do not rely on factors Congress has heartleaf exists is limited in size and made via a hardcopy that includes not intended us to consider; and (3) scope due to a multitude of factors personal identifying information, you articulate a rational connection between including soil type, moisture may request at the top of your document the facts found and the conclusions availability, and slope aspect (Padgett that we withhold this information from made, including why we changed our 2004, p. 81). This unique combination public review. However, we cannot conclusion. of factors limits not only the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf, but also the guarantee that we will be able to do so. Previous Federal Actions We will post all hardcopy submissions size of any population. on http://www.regulations.gov. On April 14, 1989, we listed dwarf- Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in Comments and materials we receive, flowered heartleaf as threatened due to Piedmont uplands on acidic sandy-loam as well as supporting documentation residential and industrial development, soils that are very deep and moderately used in preparing this proposed rule, conversion of habitat to pasture or small permeable (Gaddy 1981, p. 7; 1987, pp. will be available for public inspection ponds, timber harvesting, and cattle 186–196). Typical habitats for this on http://www.regulations.gov. grazing (54 FR 14964). A recovery plan species include mesic to dry bluffs, for the species was never completed. slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests Public Hearing However, over the last 30 years, the that are frequently associated with Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides Service has worked closely with mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) for a public hearing on this proposal, if partners to recover this species. The (Padgett 2004, p. 114; Weakley 2015, p. requested. Requests must be received by Service initiated the dwarf-flowered 129; Service 2015, entire), or in moist the date specified in DATES. Such heartleaf SSA report to aid in soils adjacent to creeks or streamheads, requests must be sent to the address determining the appropriateness of or along lakes and rivers. Plants grow shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION reclassifying the species. larger and have more frequent flowering CONTACT. We will schedule a public Supporting Documents in floodplains along rivers, lakes, and hearing on this proposal, if requested, streams (Newberry 1993, entire). A and announce the date, time, and place A species status assessment team habitat suitability study was conducted of the hearing, as well as how to obtain prepared an SSA report for the dwarf- to quantify the habitat requirements for reasonable accommodations, in the flowered heartleaf. The SSA team was dwarf-flowered heartleaf, which may be Federal Register at least 15 days before composed of Service biologists, in used to help identify the species when the hearing. For the immediate future, consultation with other species experts. not in flower (relative to other we will provide these public hearings The SSA report represents a Hexastylis species’ habitat preferences), using webinars that will be announced compilation of the best scientific and find new populations, or identify on the Service’s website, in addition to commercial data available concerning suitable sites for transplants (Wagner the Federal Register. The use of these the status of the species, including the 2013, pp. 30–32). The unit of virtual public hearings is consistent impacts of past, present, and future measurement for population size in this with our regulation at 50 CFR factors (both negative and beneficial) species is a ‘‘clump’’ (rosette). 424.16(c)(3). affecting the species. A thorough review of the taxonomy, Proposed Delisting Determination life history, ecology, and overall Peer Review viability of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf In accordance with our joint policy on Background is presented in the SSA report (Service peer review published in the Federal Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a plant 2018, entire; available at https:// Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) species endemic to the upper Piedmont www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http:// and our August 22, 2016, memorandum region of western North Carolina and www.regulations.gov under Docket No. updating and clarifying the role of peer upstate South Carolina. It is a low- FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 21996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory and Analytical Framework However, the mere identification of review for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, any threat(s) does not necessarily mean including an assessment of the potential Regulatory Framework that the species meets the statutory threats to the species. The SSA report Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or does not represent a decision by the and its implementing regulations (50 a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining Service on whether the species should CFR part 424) set forth the procedures whether a species meets either be proposed for removal from the List of for determining whether a species is an definition, we must evaluate all Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened identified threats by considering the ‘‘delisting’’). It does, however, provide species.’’ The Act defines an likely response by the species, and the the scientific basis that informs our endangered species as a species that is effects of the threats—in light of those regulatory decision, which involves the ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all actions and conditions that will further application of standards within or a significant portion of its range,’’ and ameliorate the threats—on an the Act and its implementing a threatened species as a species that is individual, population, and species regulations and policies. The following ‘‘likely to become an endangered level. We evaluate each threat and its is a summary of the key results and species within the foreseeable future effects on the species, then analyze the conclusions from the SSA report; the throughout all or a significant portion of cumulative effect of all of the threats on full SSA report can be found on the its range.’’ The Act requires that we the species as a whole. We also consider Southeast Region website at https:// determine whether any species is an the cumulative effect of the threats in www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http:// ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened light of those actions and conditions www.regulations.gov under Docket No. species’’ because of any of the following that will have positive effects on the FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081. species, such as any existing regulatory factors: Summary of SSA Analysis (A) The present or threatened mechanisms or conservation efforts. The destruction, modification, or Secretary determines whether the To assess dwarf-flowered heartleaf curtailment of its habitat or range; species meets the definition of an viability, we used the three conservation (B) Overutilization for commercial, ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened biology principles of resiliency, recreational, scientific, or educational species’’ only after conducting this redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, purposes; cumulative analysis and describing the resiliency supports the ability of the (C) Disease or predation; expected effect on the species now and species to withstand environmental and (D) The inadequacy of existing in the foreseeable future. The Act does not define the term demographic stochasticity (for example, regulatory mechanisms; or ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in wet or dry, warm or cold years), (E) Other natural or manmade factors the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened redundancy supports the ability of the affecting its continued existence. species.’’ Our implementing regulations species to withstand catastrophic events We must consider these same five at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a (for example, droughts, large pollution factors in reclassifying or delisting a framework for evaluating the foreseeable events), and representation supports the species. In other words, for species that future on a case-by-case basis. The term ability of the species to adapt over time are already listed as endangered or ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far to long-term changes in the environment threatened, the analysis for delisting into the future as the Services can (for example, climate changes causing due to recovery must include an reasonably determine that both the earlier spring flowering). In general, the evaluation of the threats that existed at future threats and the species’ responses more resilient and redundant a species the time of listing, the threats currently to those threats are likely. In other is and the more representation it has, facing the species, and the threats that words, the foreseeable future is the the more likely it is to sustain are reasonably likely to affect the period of time in which we can make populations over time, even under species in the foreseeable future. These reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not changing environmental conditions. factors represent broad categories of mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to Using these principles, we identified the natural or human-caused actions or provide a reasonable degree of species’ ecological requirements for conditions that could have an effect on confidence in the prediction. Thus, a survival and reproduction at the a species’ continued existence. In prediction is reliable if it is reasonable individual, population, and species evaluating these actions and conditions, to depend on it when making decisions. levels, and described the beneficial and we look for those that may have a It is not always possible or necessary risk factors influencing the species’ negative effect on individuals of the to define foreseeable future as a viability. species, as well as other actions or particular number of years. Analysis of The SSA process can be categorized conditions that may ameliorate any the foreseeable future uses the best into three sequential stages. During the negative effects or may have positive scientific and commercial data available first stage, we evaluated the individual effects. and should consider the timeframes species’ life-history needs. In the next We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer, in applicable to the relevant threats and to stage, we assessed the historical and general, to actions or conditions that are the species’ likely responses to those current condition of the species’ known to or are reasonably likely to threats in view of its life-history demographics and habitat negatively affect individuals of a characteristics. Data that are typically characteristics, including an species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes relevant to assessing the species’ explanation of how the species arrived actions or conditions that have a direct biological response include species- at its current condition. In the final impact on individuals (direct impacts), specific factors such as lifespan, stage, we made predictions about the as well as those that affect individuals reproductive rates or productivity, species’ responses to positive and through alteration of their habitat or certain behaviors, and other negative environmental and required resources (stressors). The term demographic factors. anthropogenic influences. This process ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either used the best available information to together or separately—the source of the Analytical Framework characterize the species’ viability (i.e., action or condition or the action or The SSA report documents the results its ability to sustain populations in the condition itself. of our comprehensive biological status wild over time). We used this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 21997

information to inform this proposed These new populations are results of resiliency of population segments and rule. additional survey efforts. their distribution across the species’ To determine overall resiliency for range. Summary of Biological Status and populations, we used EO viability ranks We consider a catastrophe to be any Threats and expert opinion to bin population population-level disturbance with the In this discussion, we review the size classes into corresponding potential to negatively influence biological condition of the species and resiliency categories. EO viability ranks population resiliency outside of normal its resources, and the threats that for the species include excellent, good, environmental and demographic influence the species’ current and future fair, poor, extant, historical, and failed stochasticity. Disturbances often act condition, in order to assess the species’ to find. The primary factor in quickly, and often with devastating overall viability and the risks to that determining these ranks is EO size (as effects; however, they can occur over viability. quantified by number of clumps). long periods of time. A disturbance that Condition of habitat (vegetation occurs as a relatively discrete event in Current Condition community and structure) and time, such as a hurricane, is referred to Resiliency landscape context (extent of suitable as a ‘‘pulse’’ disturbance, while more habitat and physical factors) are gradual or cumulative pressures on a For dwarf-flowered heartleaf to incorporated secondarily. Recent reports system are referred to as ‘‘press’’ maintain viability, its populations, or (Robinson 2016, p. 7; Robinson and disturbances. Both types of disturbances some portion thereof, must be resilient. Padgett 2016, p. 4) focus monitoring are part of the natural variability of Resiliency is assessed at the level of studies on populations with greater than dwarf-flowered heartleaf ecological populations and reflects a species’ 1,000 individuals (assumed to be very systems, and must be considered when ability to withstand stochastic events viable). Because we do not have habitat- assessing redundancy. While there is (events arising from random factors). level information for every population certainly a variety of potential pulse Resilient populations are better able to we assessed, we synthesized available disturbances for the species (timber withstand disturbances such as random population size information and created harvest, hydrological alterations, road fluctuations in reproductive rates and four resiliency categories as follows: and right-of-way construction), the fecundity (demographic stochasticity), • Very high—populations with more primary potential catastrophic variations in rainfall (environmental than 1,000 individuals; very high disturbances are press disturbances stochasticity), and the effects of probability of persistence for 20–30 from long-term climate change, which anthropogenic activities. Stochastic years at or above the current population have great potential to affect ecosystem factors that have the potential to affect size. processes and communities by altering • dwarf-flowered heartleaf include habitat High—populations with 500 to the underlying abiotic conditions such impacts, climate change, and exotic, 1,000 individuals; moderately high as temperature and precipitation invasive species. Factors influencing the probability of persistence for 20–30 changes (DeWan et al. 2010, pp. 7–10). resiliency of dwarf-flowered heartleaf years at or above the current population Representation populations include population size, size. • Because we lack genetic and available habitat, and elements of dwarf- Moderate—populations with 100 to ecological diversity data to characterize flowered heartleaf ecology that 500 individuals; low probability of representation for dwarf-flowered determine whether populations can persistence for 20–30 years at or above heartleaf, we decided delineating maximize habitat occupancy. the current population size. • Low—populations with fewer than representative units was not appropriate The Natural Heritage Programs (NHP) 100 individuals; low probability of for this species. However, in the absence collect information on occurrences of persistence for 20–30 years at or above of species-specific genetic and rare plants, animals, natural the current population size, and ecological diversity information, we communities, and animal assemblages. moderately high probability of evaluated representation based on the Collectively, these are referred to as extirpation. extent and variability of habitat ‘‘elements of natural diversity’’ or Of the 78 populations assessed, 28 characteristics across the geographical simply as ‘‘elements.’’ Locations of have very high resiliency, 5 have high range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs these elements are referred to as resiliency, 26 have moderate resiliency, in two types of habitat throughout the ‘‘element occurrences’’ (EO records). In and 19 have low resiliency. range. Typical habitats for this species recent years, NatureServe and its include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or member NHPs have devised mapping Redundancy ravines in deciduous forests that are standards to balance the need for fine- Redundancy is also assessed at the frequently associated with mountain scale, highly site-specific EO records species level and reflects a species’ laurel (Padgett 2004, entire; Weakley (required for monitoring and ability to withstand catastrophic events 2015, entire; USFWS 2015, entire), or management) with the need to aggregate (such as a rare destructive natural event moist soils adjacent to creeks, these records in meaningful units of or episode involving many populations) streamheads, or along lakes and rivers. conservation interest that may by spreading the risk of such an event This variation in habitat type provides approximate biological populations across multiple, resilient populations. species representation in drier and (NatureServe 2004, n.p.). We regard the We measured redundancy for dwarf- wetter habitats, demonstrating the NHP database as the best repository for flowered heartleaf by the number and species’ ability to adapt to changing known locations of the dwarf-flowered distribution of resilient populations environmental conditions. heartleaf (Service 2010, p. 41). across the range of the species. It is We note that, by using the SSA Populations are composed of both important to note that dwarf-flowered framework to guide our analysis of the multiple sub-EOs and stand-alone EO heartleaf has a naturally limited range, scientific information documented in records. For the purpose of assessing so measures of redundancy reflect the the SSA report, we have not only resiliency, 78 populations observed distribution within a relatively small analyzed individual effects on the since 2005 were assessed due to the area. Redundancy for dwarf-flowered species, but we have also analyzed their high confidence in their persistence. heartleaf is the total number and potential cumulative effects. We

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 21998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

incorporate the cumulative effects into of the 27 largest populations (containing populations monitored by NCNHP, and our SSA analysis when we characterize more than 1,000 rosettes) have been the the population has a development threat the current and future condition of the subject of section 7 consultations. rank of E (Robinson and Padgett 2016, species. Our assessment of the current Collectively, these projects have p. 20). Based on the most recent and future conditions encompasses and adversely impacted or were expected to monitoring data, the population is stable incorporates the threats individually impact approximately 22,135 rosettes (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11). and cumulatively. Our current and (Service 2018, p. 31). In most cases, the The data indicate that dwarf-flowered future condition assessment is iterative section 7 process resulted in avoidance heartleaf populations can persist and because it accumulates and evaluates or minimization of adverse effects increase in the presence of the effects of all the factors that may be through relocation of plants and/or development. From 2012 to 2016, there influencing the species, including commitments of on-site protection. were insignificant changes in the threats and conservation efforts. Significant portions of other severity of the threat observed in the Because the SSA framework considers populations have been purchased by the field from development (NCNHP 2016, not just the presence of the factors, but North Carolina Department of p. 8). The North Carolina Plant to what degree they collectively Transportation (NCDOT) as off-site Protection and Conservation Act (North influence risk to the entire species, our conservation measures in association Carolina General Statutes, sections 106– assessment integrates the cumulative with these consultations. The purpose 202.12 et seq.) lists native plants as effects of the factors and replaces a of this purchase is to protect the dwarf- threatened, endangered, or species of standalone cumulative effects analysis. flowered heartleaf. Other forms of concern, and provides limited economic development have also protection from collection and trade of Summary of Threats and Conservation resulted in the destruction or listed plants. However, this statute does Measures That Affect the Species modification of habitats occupied by not protect the species or its habitat The NCNHP assessed threats in the dwarf-flowered heartleaf; in many cases, from destruction in conjunction with populations they monitored from 2012 these activities have also required development projects or otherwise legal through 2016 (Robinson and Padgett section 7 consultations with the Service. activities. In North Carolina, the NCNHP 2016, pp. 7–8, 17–20). Threats that were Examples include the maintenance or designates ‘‘natural areas’’, which are observed, inferred, or suspected to have expansion of hydroelectric and drinking sites with biological diversity an impact on populations were recorded water reservoirs, construction of an significance due to the presence of rare and assigned a ranking based on field industrial development complex, and species or unique natural communities. observations of severity, scope, and maintenance activities at a regional The NCNHP works with many immediacy. The rank (A through G) for airport. Collectively, these activities conservation partners (state and federal each threat factor determined an overall involved the loss or relocation of several agencies, conservation organization, value for each threat observed at each thousand rosettes. land trusts, etc.) to implement voluntary population. Threats observed during Development was identified as a protection. Through partnerships, the these years included development; threat at five of 10 North Carolina most important natural areas are incompatible forestry practices; populations monitored by NCNHP purchased for permanent conservation. agriculture; trampling; invasive, exotic (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 17–19). If a natural area is not available for species; sedimentation; erosion; and The five populations include two stand- purchase, ecological significance can be road construction. In this rule, we alone EOs and three parent EOs with 18 recognized by a voluntary registry discuss the major threats affecting the sub-EOs. Of the two stand-alone EOs, agreement. Registry agreements consist species, which include development, one has a development threat rank of A of Registered Heritage Areas (RHAs), climate change and invasive, exotic (moderate to severe, imminent threat for which are voluntary conservation species. most (more than 60 percent) of agreements between the landowner and population, occurrences, or area) and NCNHP to preserve the natural area and Development one has a rank of B (moderate to severe, biological diversity of the property. The Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations imminent threat for a significant portion NCNHP has four registry agreements occur in rapidly growing urban areas (20–60 percent) of the population, that include dwarf-flowered heartleaf. In within numerous counties in North and occurrences, or area). Of the 18 sub-EOs, South Carolina, plants are protected South Carolina. At the time of listing, nine have development identified as a only from disturbance where they occur the species was determined to be most threat. Of the nine sub-EOs, one has a on those properties owned by the State threatened by habitat loss due to the development threat rank of A, one has and specifically managed as South conversion of land to residential, a rank of B, one has a rank of E Carolina Heritage Preserves (South commercial, and industrial use in these (moderate to severe threat for a small Carolina Code of State Regulations, areas. Populations occurring in more proportion of population, occurrences, chapter 123, sections 123–200 through rural areas are also threatened by habitat or area), and six have a rank of F (low 123–204). Heritage Preserves are alteration or loss from land conversion severity threat for most or a significant protected areas that play a critical role to pasture or other agricultural uses, proportion of population, occurrences, in conserving rare species and natural cattle grazing, intensive timber or area). The two stand-alone EOs and habitats. There is one Heritage Preserve harvesting, residential construction, and two sub-EOs with the highest threat in South Carolina, which protects one construction of small ponds (Robinson ranks (A and B) are located in four population of the dwarf-flowered 2016, p. 10; Robinson and Padgett 2016, populations. Based on the most recent heartleaf. p. 5). monitoring data, one is increasing, two The overwhelming majority of dwarf- The most recent 5-year review for the are stable, and one is decreasing flowered heartleaf populations have species identified the most recurrent (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11). been discovered as a direct result of source of habitat destruction as road and Even where development is ranked as a surveys conducted to ensure bridge improvement projects which is high threat, impacts to dwarf-flowered compliance with the Act. The majority the most common trigger for heartleaf are not a certain outcome. of sites that have the potential to afford consultations under section 7 of the Act Development was identified as a long-term protection to the species have involving dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Ten threat at one of three South Carolina been protected as a result of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 21999

consultations under section 7 of the Act, 2016, p. 20). Based on the most recent growth or flowering (Walker et al. 2009, which directs federal agencies to avoid monitoring data, all populations are p. 14). and minimize adverse effects to stable (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. Future Condition federally listed species. Through section 11). 7 and other voluntary conservation In short, the data indicate that dwarf- Our analysis of the past, current, and actions, approximately 24 (31%) of the flowered heartleaf populations can future influences on dwarf-flowered 78 current populations are permanently persist and increase in the presence of heartleaf revealed that there are several protected, and another 18 populations invasive, exotic species. Despite the influences that may pose risks to the (23%) are partially protected, greatly long-term presence of invasive, exotic future viability of the species. These minimizing the likelihood of impacts plants, from 2012 to 2016, there were no risks are primarily related to invasive due to development. Together, these changes in the severity of threats species, changes in climate, and habitat two groups of populations make up over observed in the field enough to elevate changes from development. We consider 50% of the areas under some form of the threat ranks of dwarf-flowered ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as that period of time within which a reliable prediction protective mechanism in the absence of heartleaf populations evaluated can be made about the future status of the ESA protections. (NCNHP 2016, p. 8). a species. We consider 20 years to be a Invasive, Exotic Species Climate Change reasonable period of time within which Invasive, exotic plant species occur reliable predictions can be made for Accelerated climate change (changes across the range of this species. Plants dwarf-flowered heartleaf. This period of such as English ivy (Hedera helix), in climate on a scale that exceeds time aligns with the timeframes for Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), historical rates of change) is expected to predictions regarding development and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera increase the frequency and extent of growth (see Development below) and japonica), and Japanese stiltgrass drought conditions across the Southeast climate change (see Climate Change (Microstegium vimineum) are known at (Karl et al. 2009, entire). Increased below). We discuss in greater detail how several sites that contain dwarf-flowered frequency of severe storms could lead to we define ‘‘foreseeable future’’ for this heartleaf (Service 2011, p. 15). Invasive, impacts if flooding duration or intensity species below, under Determination. exotic species were identified as a threat increase as a result. Increased flooding Invasive, Exotic Species at eight of 10 North Carolina could decrease habitat suitability populations monitored by NCNHP through scouring and changes in soil As discussed above, invasive, exotic (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 17–19). moisture or wash plants away. Warming plants were identified as a threat at the The eight populations include four in the Southeast is expected to be time of listing; however, the threat may stand-alone EOs and four parent EOs greatest in the summer (NCCV 2016, not be as significant as once thought. with 19 sub-EOs. Of the four stand- n.p.), which is predicted to increase The NCNHP monitored 13 populations alone EOs, one has an invasive threat drought frequency, while annual mean of dwarf-flowered heartleaf and assessed rank of B (moderate to severe, imminent precipitation is expected to increase threats at each population. Of monitored threat for a significant portion (20–60 slightly, leading to increased flooding sites, only 9 percent of populations (one percent) of the population, occurrences, events (IPCC 2013, p. 7; NCCV 2016, of 11) where invasive, exotic species are or area), two have a rank of F (low n.p.). Changes in climate may affect present are also in decline, indicating severity threat for most or a significant ecosystem processes and communities the species has at least some capacity to proportion of population, occurrences, by altering the abiotic conditions withstand the presence of invasive, or area), and one has a rank of G (low experienced by biotic assemblages, exotic species. The number of severity threat for a small proportion of resulting in potential effects on populations has increased dramatically population, occurrences, or area). Of the community composition and individual since listing as a result of increased 19 sub-EOs, 9 have invasive, exotic species interactions (DeWan et al. 2010, survey effort and the invasive, exotic species identified as a threat. Of the p. 7). Although climate change was not plant threat posed at many of the largest nine sub-EOs, one has an invasive threat a factor leading to the original listing of populations is low (NCNHP 2016, pp. 8, rank of A (moderate to severe, imminent the species, it should be recognized that 17–20). Additionally, and as noted threat for most (more than 60 percent) the greatest threat from climate change above, the number of populations of population, occurrences, or area), may come from synergistic effects. In managed under conservation ownership four have a rank of B, two have a rank recent years, the Southeast has has increased. Therefore, we do not of E (moderate to severe threat for a experienced moderate to severe believe that competition from invasive, small proportion of population, droughts, which many observers have exotic species will be a significant threat occurrences, or area), and two have a implicated in population declines and in the foreseeable future. rank of G. The one stand-alone E.O. and poor transplant survivorship (NCNHP five sub-EOs with the highest threat 2010). A wildfire, burned portions of Climate Change ranks (A and B) are located in three one of the largest known populations in Our analyses under the Act include populations. Based on the most recent 2009 (Foothills Landfill in Caldwell consideration of ongoing and projected monitoring data, one is increasing, one County, NC; Golder and Associates, changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ is stable, and one is decreasing 2009). However, observation suggests and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11). that the species was not appreciably Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Even where nonnative species are harmed by this fire (Service 2011, p. 14). Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate ranked as a high threat, impact to dwarf- Additionally, the National Park Service change’’ thus refers to a change in the flowered heartleaf is not a certain (NPS) uses prescribed fire as a mean or variability of one or more outcome. vegetation management tool at Cowpens measures of climate (e.g., temperature or Invasive, exotic species were National Battlefield. The NPS’s precipitation) that persists for an identified as a threat at all (three) South prescribed burning activity includes the extended period, typically decades or Carolina populations monitored by majority of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf longer, whether the change is due to NCNHP, and all sites had an invasive population on site and burning appears natural variability, human activity, or threat rank of F (Robinson and Padgett to have had no adverse effects upon both (IPCC 2014, entire). Various types

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 22000 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

of changes in climate can have direct or of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be in habitat type provides species indirect effects on species. These effects subjected to higher temperatures representation in drier and wetter may be positive, neutral, or negative, (annual mean increase of 2.6 °F (RCP habitats, demonstrating the species’ and they may change over time, 4.5) or 2.9 °F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly ability to adapt to different depending on the species and other higher precipitation (annual mean environmental conditions that could be relevant considerations, such as the increase of 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) brought on by changing climate. effects of interactions of climate with or 0.2 inch per month (RCP 8.5)) relative Development other variables (e.g., habitat to the period of 1981–2010. Because the fragmentation) (IPCC 2014, entire). In average annual increase in precipitation As discussed above, development was our analyses, we use the judgment of the is predicted to be only slight, the loss in identified as a threat at the time of experts to weigh relevant information, soil storage is likely primarily the result listing; however, the threat is not be as including uncertainty, in our of higher predicted temperatures. significant as once thought. The NCNHP consideration of various aspects of Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a long- monitored 13 populations of dwarf- climate change. lived perennial species. Several flowered heartleaf and assessed threats According to IPCC, ‘‘most plant populations have been revisited after at each population. Of monitored sites, species cannot naturally shift their decades and the species was still stable. only 12 percent of populations (one of geographical ranges sufficiently fast to For example, one population in eight) where development is identified keep up with current and high projected Rutherford County was first observed in as a threat are also in decline, indicating rates of climate change on most 1957, and was still extant when next the species has at least some capacity to landscapes’’ (IPCC 2014, p. 13). The observed in 2001 (NCNHP 2018, n.p.). withstand the threat of development. concept of changing climate can be In their analyses of life-history traits in The number of populations has meaningfully assessed both by looking relation to potential vulnerability to increased dramatically since listing and into the future and reviewing past variability in demographic vital rates the development threat posed at many changes. caused by increased variability in of the largest populations is low As part of the current, worldwide climatic patterns, researchers concluded (NCNHP 2016, pp. 8, 17–20). collaboration in climate modelling that longer-lived species should be less In addition, we use three scenarios, under the IPCC, climate assessments of influenced by climate-driven increases projected out to the year 2040. We the full dataset of 30 climate models for in demographic variability (Morris et al. selected this timeframe because it gives historical and 21st century comparisons 2008, p. 22; Dalgleish et al. 2010, p. us the ability to reliably predict into the provide predictions at scales ranging 216). future and to capture the uncertainty from global to county level in the Within the family Aristolochiaeae, related to the potential impacts to each United States (U.S. Geological Survey more than 50 percent of the plant population’s resiliency: Status quo, (USGS) National Climate Change Viewer lineage is myrmecochorous (seed targeted conservation, and high (NCCV) 2019). This global climate dispersal by ants) (Lengyel et al. 2010, development. Based on the life span of information has been recently p. 49). Likewise, dwarf-flowered the species, expert input, development downscaled by the National Aeronautics heartleaf employs myrmecochory as a as the key risk factor to the species, and and Space Administration to scales method for seed dispersal (Gaddy 1986, uncertainty about future conditions, we relevant to our region of interest, and entire). While species with ant- chose to project populations out to the projected into the future under two dispersed seeds have slower migration year 2040 under each scenario as different scenarios of possible emissions rates than species with seeds that are described in the SSA (p. 34). Results of of greenhouse gases (Alder and adhesive or ingested (Brunet and Von future projections within each scenario Hostetler 2017, p. 3). Using the NCCV Oheimb 1998, p. 429), myrmecochory are focused on current populations and and assuming the ‘‘representative provides for multiple adaptive potential habitat identified by the concentration pathways’’ (RCP) advantages for plants. Ants can disperse Maxent model as described below. greenhouse gas emission scenario RCP seeds to sites that might be nutrient- In constructing our scenarios, we 8.5, we calculated projected annual enhanced or where plant fitness will be considered two main influences by mean changes from 1981–2010 to those higher. Additionally, ants bury seeds, which species viability projections projected for 2025–2049 for maximum which may protect them from fire and could be affected: Location of additional temperature (+2.9–3.1 degrees drought (Boyd 2001, p. 235), two populations (positive influence) and Fahrenheit (°F) in NC and +2.9 °F in conditions exacerbated by climate habitat loss and fragmentation due to SC), precipitation (+0.2 inches per change (Karl et al. 2009, entire). urban development (negative influence). month for NC and SC), soil storage Accelerated climate change is expected Habitat quantity can be negatively (¥0.1–¥0.2 inch for NC and ¥0.1 inch to increase the frequency and extent of impacted by development or land use SC), and evaporative deficit (no change drought conditions across the Southeast change (particularly on private lands) or for NC or SC) in all counties where (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). positively impacted by land acquisition, dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs (Adler Populations are located within restoration, and/or introductions into and Hostetler 2017, entire). We also various ecological settings within the unoccupied sites that already have calculated projected annual mean species’ range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf suitable habitat. changes for the RCP 4.5 scenario using occurs on Piedmont uplands on acidic We use the Slope, Land cover, the same timeframes for maximum sandy-loam soils that are very deep and Exclusion, Urbanization, temperature (+2.5–2.7 °F in NC and SC), moderately permeable (Gaddy 1981, p. Transportation, and Hillshade precipitation (+0.01 inch per month for 7; 1987, pp. 186–196). Typical habitats (SLEUTH) model to determine areas NC and SC), soil storage (¥0.1–¥.02 for this species include mesic to dry predicted to be urbanized by 2040, a inch for NC and ¥0.1 inch for SC), and bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous time period for which the models evaporative deficit (no change for NC or forests that are frequently associated provide reliable data. The SLEUTH SC) in all counties where dwarf- with mountain laurel (Padgett 2004, p. model has been successfully applied flowered heartleaf occurs (Adler and 114; Weakley 2015, p. 129), or moist worldwide over the last 15 years to Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these soils adjacent to creeks or streamheads, simulate land use change, including results, all 13 counties within the range or along lakes and rivers. This variation urbanization (Clarke 1995, entire). The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 22001

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 22002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Æ Unprotected areas—population flowered heartleaf will be extant in the populations are already predicted to drops one resiliency rank if percent 2040. The predicted resiliency of the be of very high resiliency. When increase in urbanization exceeds 25 extant populations are as follows: Very comparing future population resiliency percent threshold; population drops two high (27); high (6); moderate (23); low to current condition a few populations resiliency ranks if percent increase in (17); and 2 additional populations drop in their resiliency category. One urbanization exceeds 50 percent identified as persisting, with an current population of very high threshold; extirpation of populations if unknown resiliency. Six EOs within resiliency is predicted to drop to high percent increase in urbanization currently delineated populations not resiliency; two moderate resiliency exceeds 90 percent threshold. included under Current Conditions, populations are predicted to drop to low above, are predicted to persist, but Targeted Conservation Scenario resiliency; and five populations (one resiliency is unchanged because each of currently moderate and four currently Under the targeted conservation the populations are already predicted to low) are predicted to be extirpated due scenario, we estimate it is likely that be of very high resiliency. When to urban development. several additional populations (i.e., comparing future population resiliency more than in the status quo scenario) to current condition, a few populations Viability Summary will persist throughout the range. This drop in their resiliency category. One Urban development is predicted to scenario accounts for resilience (which current population of very high have negative impacts on several of the is linked to abundance), habitat resiliency is predicted to drop to high current populations under all of our suitability (as predicted by the model), resiliency; two moderate resiliency scenarios. However, this loss of projected urban development (from populations are predicted to drop to low resiliency and extirpation of a few SLEUTH), and protection status. resiliency; and five populations (one populations is offset in the status quo Conservation is happening through currently moderate and four currently and targeted conservation scenarios by various partners—State, land trusts or low) are predicted to be extirpated due the persistence of several additional other non-profits, private individuals, to urban development. populations. In the high development etc. The range of impacts from High Development Scenario scenario, there is a predicted loss of six urbanization are the same as in the populations, with loss of resiliency in status quo scenario. We assessed In the high development scenario, we several additional populations. population resiliency under the predict 72 of the 78 populations of However, in all three scenarios, the following assumptions: dwarf-flowered heartleaf will remain majority of the populations are expected • Six populations are identified as extant in 2040. The predicted resiliency to persist in 2040 at a level of at least persisting based on Maxent model of the extant populations are as follows: moderate resiliency. metrics, last known abundance category, Very high (27); high (4); moderate (25); and total predicted urbanization from and low (16). No additional populations Given the relatively high number of SLEUTH modelling. Six additional EOs are identified as persisting. When populations across each scenario, within currently delineated populations comparing future population resiliency redundancy remains similar to current not included under Current Conditions, to current condition, a few populations conditions. That is to say, there appears above, are predicted to persist based on drop in their resiliency category. One to be adequate redundancy within the the same metrics. current population of very high range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf to • Potential impacts of urban resiliency is predicted to drop to withstand the impacts of localized press development based on SLEUTH model moderate resiliency; one high resiliency catastrophic disturbances; however, the projections focused on current population is predicted to drop to species’ range is relatively small, delineated populations: moderate resiliency; two moderate making it potentially vulnerable to long- Æ Protected areas: resiliency populations are predicted to term catastrophic events, such as oil D Protected in perpetuity—no impacts drop to low resiliency; and six spills over the next 20 to 30 years. from urbanization; and populations (one currently moderate Based on the assumption that dwarf- D Voluntary protection/non- and five currently low) are predicted to flowered heartleaf has a very limited perpetuity—population drops one be extirpated due to urban development. range, and after consulting with experts, resiliency rank if percent increase in we decided that delineating urbanization exceeds 50 percent Targeted Conservation Scenario representative units was not threshold. In the targeted conservation scenario, appropriate. It is worth noting that in Æ Unprotected areas—population we predicted 79 populations of dwarf- two of our scenarios (status quo and drops one resiliency rank if percent flowered heartleaf will be extant in targeted conservation), additional increase in urbanization exceeds 25 2040. The predicted resiliency of the populations are found to persist in percent threshold; population drops two extant populations are as follows: Very South Carolina, an area where there are resiliency ranks if percent increase in high (27); high (6); moderate (23); low relatively few current populations. urbanization exceeds 50 percent (17); and 6 additional populations There are opportunities to find threshold. identified as persisting, with an additional populations based on the Future Resiliency unknown resiliency. Six EOs within amount of predicted unoccupied currently delineated populations not potential habitat. Although we did not Status Quo Scenario included under Current Conditions, delineate representative units, our In the status quo scenario, we predict above, are predicted to persist, but scenarios do not predict declines in 75 of the 78 populations of dwarf- resiliency is unchanged because each of species representation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 identified as declining. Additionally, through voluntary agreements or other Heartleaf Status dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the commitments of management (e.g., N.C. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) capacity to withstand habitat loss and Department of Transportation), reducing and its implementing regulations (50 destruction due to development. The the likelihood of development CFR part 424) set forth the procedures species currently has significant impacting those populations. Recent for determining whether a species meets redundancy (78 populations), resilient examination of the species also the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ populations (33 of 78 evaluated identified climate change and invasive or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines populations with high or very high species as potential future threats. The an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species viability), and representation in two broadened range (8 counties to 13) and that is ‘‘in danger of extinction different ecological settings. Even under significantly increased population throughout all or a significant portion of our high development scenario, only numbers (24 to 78) since listing in 1989 its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as two high or very high viability indicate that the species benefits from a species that is ‘‘likely to become an populations are predicted to have lower sufficient redundancy and resiliency to endangered species within the viability as a result of development. withstand perturbations from climate foreseeable future throughout all or a Therefore, we do not believe that change as well as from invasive species. significant portion of its range.’’ For a competition from invasive, exotic Based on this analysis, we conclude that more detailed discussion on the factors species or habitat loss and destruction the species is neither currently in considered when determining whether a are significant threats to the species. danger of extinction, nor likely to species meets the definition of Additionally, since listing, there has become so within the foreseeable future. been a nearly four-fold increase in the ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened Status Throughout a Significant Portion number of known populations. Of the species’’ and our analysis on how we of Its Range determine the foreseeable future in 78 populations evaluated in the SSA, 24 making these decisions, see Regulatory (31%) have permanent protection and Under the Act and our implementing Framework, above. 18 (23%) have partial protection regulations, a species may warrant through voluntary agreements or other listing if it is in danger of extinction or Status Throughout All of Its Range commitments of management (e.g., N.C. likely to become so in the foreseeable After evaluating threats to the species Department of Transportation). We future throughout all or a significant and assessing the cumulative effect of conclude that the species is currently portion of its range. Having determined the threats under the section 4(a)(1) not in danger of extinction throughout that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not factors, we have assessed the best its range. in danger of extinction or likely to scientific and commercial information In order to more closely examine the become so in the foreseeable future available regarding the past, present, future threat posed by habitat loss or throughout all of its range, we now and future threats faced by the dwarf- destruction, the Service analyzed three consider whether it may be in danger of flowered heartleaf. We carefully different development scenarios into the extinction or likely to become so in the assessed the best scientific and future to 2040. Under all scenarios foreseeable future in a significant commercial information available evaluated, the number of currently portion of its range—that is, whether regarding the past, present, and future known populations (78) remaining in there is any portion of the species’ range threats to dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Of highly, very highly, and moderately for which it is true that both (1) the the 78 populations, 75 percent are resilient condition is 56 (compared to 59 portion is significant; and, (2) the characterized as being either very high, under current conditions). Only a small species is in danger of extinction now high, or moderately resilient, and many number (five or six) of currently low or likely to become so in the foreseeable are stable or increasing in trend. resilient populations are predicted to future in that portion. Depending on the When dwarf-flowered heartleaf was become extirpated under all scenarios case, it might be more efficient for us to listed (54 FR 14964; April 14, 1989), the evaluated. The species will continue to address the ‘‘significance’’ question or two prominent threats identified were occur across its range, redundancy will the ‘‘status’’ question first. We can invasive, exotic plants and habitat loss remain high to moderately high, and choose to address either question first. or destruction. As discussed above, representation will continue in its Regardless of which question we invasive, exotic species are not as current condition providing current address first, if we reach a negative significant a threat to dwarf-flowered levels of adaptive capacity. Of the 78 answer with respect to the first question heartleaf as originally thought. Only one populations evaluated in the SSA, 24 that we address, we do not need to of the 11 monitored populations where (31%) have permanent protection and evaluate the other question for that invasive, exotic species occur was 18 (23%) have partial protection portion of the species’ range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 22004 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules

For dwarf-flowered heartleaf we chose an endangered species or a threatened Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER to evaluate the status question (i.e., species in accordance with sections 3(6) INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek identifying portions where dwarf- and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we information, data, and comments from flowered heartleaf may be in danger of propose to remove dwarf-flowered the public regarding dwarf-flowered extinction or likely to become so in the heartleaf from the Federal List of heartleaf and the PDM plan. We are also foreseeable future) first. We considered Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 seeking peer review of the draft PDM whether the threats are geographically CFR 17.12(h)). plan concurrently with this comment concentrated in any portion of the Effects of This Proposed Rule period. We anticipate finalizing the species’ range at a biologically PDM plan, considering all public and meaningful scale. We examined the This proposal, if made final, would peer review comments, prior to making following threats: Development, revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove dwarf- a final determination on the proposed invasive and exotic species, and climate flowered heartleaf from the Federal List delisting rule. change, including cumulative effects. of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The NCNHP monitored 13 The prohibitions and conservation Required Determinations populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf measures provided by the Act, Clarity of the Proposed Rule throughout the species’ range. Eleven of particularly through sections 7 and 9, the 13 populations had invasive, exotic would no longer apply to this species. We are required by Executive Orders species identified as a threat, indicating Federal agencies would no longer be 12866 and 12988 and by the that invasive, exotic species are found required to consult with the Service Presidential Memorandum of June 1, throughout the range and not under section 7 of the Act in the event 1998, to write all rules in plain concentrated in any specific location. that activities they authorize, fund, or language. This means that each rule we Climate change effects, as discussed carry out may affect dwarf-flowered publish must: previously, are very uniform throughout heartleaf. (1) Be logically organized; (2) Use the active voice to address the range (NCCV 2019). The opportunity Post-Delisting Monitoring for habitat loss and destruction due to readers directly; development is higher on privately Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us (3) Use clear language rather than owned lands that could be sold for to monitor for not less than 5 years the jargon; future development (Clarke 1995, status of all species that are delisted. (4) Be divided into short sections and entire). Of the 78 populations evaluated, Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers sentences; and we determined that 31 percent are to activities undertaken to verify that a (5) Use lists and tables wherever permanently protected and another 23 delisted species remains secure from the possible. percent are partially protected (i.e., risk of extinction after the protections of If you feel that we have not met these voluntary landowner agreements). The the Act no longer apply. The primary requirements, send us comments by one unprotected populations are spread goal of PDM is to monitor the species to of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To throughout the species’ range and not ensure that its status does not better help us revise the rule, your geographically clustered together. While deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, comments should be as specific as there is some variability in the habitats to take measures to halt the decline so possible. For example, you should tell occupied by dwarf-flowered heartleaf that proposing it as an endangered or us the numbers of the sections or across its range, the basic ecological threatened species is not again needed. paragraphs that are not clearly written, components required for the species to If at any time during the monitoring which sections or sentences are too complete its life cycle are present period, data indicate that protective long, the sections where you feel lists or throughout the habitats occupied by the status under the Act should be tables would be useful, etc. reinstated, we can initiate listing 78 populations of the species. National Environmental Policy Act Accordingly, we found no concentration procedures, including, if appropriate, of threats in any portion of the dwarf- emergency listing. At the conclusion of We have determined that we do not flowered heartleaf range at a biologically the monitoring period, we will review need to prepare an environmental meaningful scale. Thus, there are no all available information to determine if assessment or environmental impact portions of the species’ range where the relisting, the continuation of statement, as defined in the National species has a different status from its monitoring, or the termination of Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. rangewide status. Therefore, no portions monitoring is appropriate. 4321 et seq.), in connection with of the species’ range provides a basis for Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly regulations adopted pursuant to section determining that the species is in danger requires that we cooperate with the 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We of extinction or likely to become an States in development and published a notice outlining our reasons endangered species in the foreseeable implementation of PDM programs. for this determination in the Federal future throughout a significant portion However, we remain ultimately Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR of its range. This approach is consistent responsible for compliance with section 49244). 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively with the courts’ holdings in Desert Government-to-Government engaged in all phases of PDM. We also Survivors v. Department of the Interior, Relationship With Tribes No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL seek active participation of other 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and entities that are expected to assume In accordance with the President’s Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, responsibilities for the species’ memorandum of April 29, 1994, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. conservation after delisting. ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 2017). Concurrent with this proposed with Native American Tribal delisting rule, we announce the draft Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive Determination of Status PDM plan’s availability for public Order 13175 (Consultation and Our review of the best available review at http://www.regulations.gov Coordination with Indian Tribal scientific and commercial information under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES– Governments), and the Department of indicates that the dwarf-flowered 2019–0081. Copies can also be obtained the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we heartleaf does not meet the definition of from the Service’s Asheville Ecological readily acknowledge our responsibility

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 22005

to communicate meaningfully with 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, ACTION: Reopening of comment periods; recognized Federal Tribes on a as set forth below: announcement of public hearing. government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 PART 17—ENDANGERED AND SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust the public comment periods on two ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Responsibilities, and the Endangered proposed rules to allow all interested continues to read as follows: Species Act), we readily acknowledge parties additional time to comment, and our responsibilities to work directly Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– to conduct a public hearing. The two with tribes in developing programs for 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise relevant proposed rules are our noted. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that September 30, 2020, proposed rule to tribal lands are not subject to the same § 17.12 [Amended] reclassify the endangered Virgin Islands tree boa (Chilabothrus granti) as a controls as Federal public lands, to ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the threatened species with a rule issued remain sensitive to Indian culture, and entry for ‘‘Hexastylis naniflora’’ under to make information available to tribes. ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ from the List under section 4(d) of the Endangered There are no tribes or tribal lands of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended; affected by this proposed rule. and our October 21, 2020, proposed rule Martha Williams, to reclassify the endangered plant References Cited Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Eugenia woodburyana (no common A complete list of references cited is Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish name) as a threatened species with a and Wildlife Service. available on the internet at http:// rule issued under section 4(d) of the www.regulations.gov under Docket No. [FR Doc. 2021–08459 Filed 4–23–21; 8:45 am] Act. Comments previously submitted FWS–R4–ES–2019–0081 and upon BILLING CODE 4333–15–P need not be resubmitted and will be request from the Asheville Ecological fully considered in preparation of the FOR FURTHER final rules. Services Field Office (see DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INFORMATION CONTACT, above). DATES: Written comments: The comment Fish and Wildlife Service periods for the proposed rules Authors published on September 30, 2020, at 85 The primary authors of this proposed 50 CFR Part 17 FR 61700, and October 21, 2020, at 85 rule are staff members of the Service’s FR 66906, are reopened. We will accept Southeastern Region Recovery Team [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0069, FWS– comments received or postmarked on or R4–ES–2019–0070; FXES11130900000–189– before May 26, 2021. and the Asheville Ecological Services FF0932000] Field Office. Public hearing: On May 12, 2021, we RIN 1018–BE14; 1018–BD01 will hold a public hearing from 6 to 8 List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 p.m., Atlantic Time, using the Zoom Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Endangered and threatened species, platform (for more information, see Boa From Endangered to Threatened Exports, Imports, Reporting and Public Hearing, below). With a Section 4(d) Rule; recordkeeping requirements, ADDRESSES: Reclassification of Eugenia Availability of documents: Transportation. woodburyana as Threatened and You may obtain copies of the proposed Proposed Regulation Promulgation Section 4(d) Rule rules and their associated documents on the internet at http:// Accordingly, we propose to amend AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, www.regulations.gov under the part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title Interior. following docket numbers:

Proposed rule Docket number

Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Boa From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule (published FWS–R4–ES–2019–0069. September 30, 2020, at 85 FR 61700). Reclassification of Eugenia woodburyana as Threatened and Section 4(d) Rule (published October 21, 2020, at FWS–R4–ES–2019–0070. 85 FR 66906).

Comment submission: You may the correct document before submitting methods described above. We will post submit written comments by one of the your comments. all comments on http:// following methods: (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail www.regulations.gov. This generally (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: means that we will post any personal eRulemaking Portal: http:// [Enter appropriate docket number; see information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, table above], U.S. Fish and Wildlife information). enter the appropriate docket number Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg (see table above). Then, click on the Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Search button. On the resulting page, in Please note that comments submitted Edwin E. Mun˜ iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. the Search panel on the left side of the electronically using the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean screen, under the Document Type eRulemaking Portal must be received by Ecological Services Field Office, at heading, click on the Proposed Rule box 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing either: Road 301 Km 5.1, Corozo Ward, ´ to locate the document. You may submit date, and comments submitted by U.S. Boqueron, PR 00622; or P.O. Box 491, ´ a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment mail must be postmarked by that date to Boqueron, PR 00622. Telephone 787– ensure consideration. We request that 405–3641. Persons who use a Now!’’ Please ensure you have located you send comments only by the telecommunications device for the deaf

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Apr 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1