Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

Vol. 78 Wednesday, No. 191 October 2, 2013

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR telecommunications device for the deaf agencies renewed the CCA in 2009 (TDD), call the Federal Information (Conservation Committee 2009, entire). Fish and Wildlife Service Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Coordination under the CCA resulted in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the establishment of two Conservation 50 CFR Part 17 Areas that protected the CPSD tiger Executive Summary [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2012–0053; beetle from ORV use—Conservation Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0020; Why we need to publish this Areas A and B (see Habitat and Factor 4500030113] document. Under the Endangered A for more information on the Species Act, a species may warrant Conservation Areas). RIN 1018–AY11; AZ39 protection through listing if it is In our 2010 Candidate Notice of Review, we identified the CPSD tiger Endangered and Threatened Wildlife endangered or threatened throughout all beetle as a species for which listing as and Plants; Withdrawal of the or a significant portion of its range. an endangered or threatened species Proposed Rule To List Coral Pink Sand Listing a species as an endangered or was warranted (with a listing priority Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designate threatened species can only be number of 2) but precluded by our work Critical Habitat completed by issuing a rule. Accordingly, we had issued a proposed on higher priority listing actions (75 FR AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, rule to list this species. However, this 69222, November 10, 2010). In the 2011 Interior. document withdraws that proposed rule Candidate Notice of Review, we ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. because we have determined that threats announced that we were not updating have been reduced such that listing is our assessment for this species, because SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and not necessary for this species. we received funding to develop a Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the The basis for our action. Under the proposed listing rule (76 FR 66370, proposed rule to list the Coral Pink Endangered Species Act, we can October 26, 2011). Sand Dunes tiger beetle, Cicindela determine that a species is an On October 2, 2012, we proposed to albissima, as a threatened species under endangered or threatened species based list the CPSD tiger beetle as a threatened the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as on any of five factors: (A) The present species with designated critical habitat amended (Act), and designate critical or threatened destruction, modification, under the Act (77 FR 60208). habitat for the species. This withdrawal or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Publication of the proposed rule opened is based on our conclusion that the Overutilization for commercial, a 60-day comment period that closed on threats to the species as identified in the recreational, scientific, or educational December 3, 2012. Following proposed rule no longer are as purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) publication of our proposed rule, the significant as believed at the time of the The inadequacy of existing regulatory conservation committee reconvened to proposed rule. We base this conclusion mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or evaluate current species’ survey and on our analysis of current and future manmade factors affecting its continued distribution information and reassess threats and conservation efforts. We find existence. We have determined that the conservation commitments in the the best scientific and commercial data threats have been reduced such that 2009 CCA. Based on this evaluation, the conservation committee agreed to available indicate that the threats to the listing is not necessary for this species. species and its habitat have been Peer review and public comment. We expand Conservation Area A, which is reduced below the statutory definition sought comments from independent already subject to management under a of threatened or endangered. Therefore, specialists to ensure that our proposed CCA, and provide protected habitat we are withdrawing our proposal to list listing designation is based on islands for the species in the intervening dunes between Conservation Areas A the species as threatened with critical scientifically sound data, assumptions, and B as they are defined in the CCA. habitat. and analyses. We invited these peer The 2009 Conservation Agreement was DATES: The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewers to comment on our listing amended accordingly in 2013 (2013 proposal. We also considered all withdrawing the proposed rule CCA Amendment) (see Factor A. The comments and information received published October 2, 2012 (77 FR Present or Threatened Destruction, during the comment periods. 60208) as of October 2, 2013. Modification, or Curtailment of Its ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our Background Habitat or Range). proposed rule, comments, and On May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26308), we supplementary documents are available Previous Federal Actions announced the reopening of the public on the Internet at http:// Please refer to the proposed listing comment period on our October 2, 2012, www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos. rule for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes proposed listing decision and proposed FWS–R6–ES–2012–0053 and FWS–R6– (CPSD) tiger beetle (77 FR 60208, designation of critical habitat for the ES–2013–0020. Comments and October 2, 2012) for a detailed species. At this time we also announced materials received, as well as supporting description of the previous Federal the availability of a draft economic documentation used in the preparation actions concerning this species. analysis (DEA), a draft environmental of this withdrawal, are also available for In 1997, the Service, Bureau of Land assessment (EA), the 2013 Amendment public inspection, by appointment, Management (BLM), Utah Department of to the 2009 Conservation Agreement during normal business hours at: U.S. Natural Resource’s Division of State and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Parks and Recreation (Utah State Parks), Dunes tiger beetle (2013 CCA Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 and Kane County signed a Candidate Amendment), and an amended required West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley Conservation Agreement (CCA) and determinations section of the proposal City, Utah 84119; telephone 801–975– formed a conservation committee with (78 FR 26308). We also announced the 3330; or facsimile 801–975–3331. the dual goals of protecting CPSD tiger availability of 2012 CPSD tiger beetle FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: beetle habitat and balancing the needs survey results that were not available Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah of this rare species with off-road vehicle when the proposed rule was being Ecological Services Field Office (see (ORV) use in the area (Conservation written and the plans to hold a public ADDRESSES section). If you use a Committee 1997, pp. 4–5). These information meeting and public hearing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61083

on May 22, 2013, in Kanab, Utah (78 FR Arizona state line and 13 km (8 mi) west vegetation and larval burrows, dune 26308). of Kanab, Utah (see Figure 1 below in migration characteristics that permit Population Distribution). The CPSD are vegetation to develop and persist within Taxonomy and Species Description about 13 km (8 mi) long, averaging 1.1 dune swales, proper sediment supply, The CPSD tiger beetle is a member of km (0.7 mi) in width, and 1,416 ha and a proper wind regime (Fenster et al. the family Cicindelidae and genus (3,500 ac) in surface area. 2012, pp. 2–4). Cicindela. There are 109 species of tiger The CPSD consist of a series of high, Rainfall and associated soil moisture beetles in the genus Cicindela in the mostly barren, dry dune ridges is a critical factor for CPSD tiger beetles United States and Canada (Pearson et al. separated by lower, moister, and more (Knisley and Juliano 1988, entire) and is 2006, p. 4). The CPSD tiger beetle occurs vegetated interdunal swales (low places likely the most important natural only at the CPSD geologic feature in between sand dune crests) (Romey and environmental factor affecting southern Utah and is separated from its Knisley 2002, p. 170). Wind action, population dynamics of the species. closest related subspecies, the Great primarily blowing from south to north, Rainfall and the associated increase in Sand Dunes tiger beetle (C. theatina), by created and continues to shape the soil moisture have a positive effect on over 600 kilometers (km) (378 miles CPSD, using sand from nearby eroding CPSD tiger beetle oviposition (egg (mi)) (Rumpp 1961, p. 182). It shares the Navajo sandstone (Doelling and Davis depositing) and survivorship (Knisley typical characteristics of other members 1989, p. 3). Wind velocity decreases as and Hill 2001, p. 391). The areas in the of the maritima group (a group of it moves across the sand dunes (from dune field with the highest level of soil closely related species of sand dune south to north), resulting in a dynamic moisture and where soil moisture is tiger beetles) and is most similar in and less vegetated southern CPSD area closer to the surface contain the highest morphology to other subspecies of that transitions to a less dynamic, more densities of CPSD tiger beetle larvae Cicindela limbata (no common name). It heavily vegetated, higher elevation (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 22), was originally described as C. limbata northern CPSD area (Ford et al. 2010, indicating that both proximity to albissima (Rumpp 1961, p. 181). pp. 387–392). moisture and overall soil moisture are However, more recent genetic analysis The CPSD are in a semiarid climatic important to the CPSD tiger beetle’s life revealed that the CPSD tiger beetle is zone (Ford et al. 2010, p. 381). The cycle. Experimental supplemental different from all other members in the nearest weather station, in Kanab, has a watering has resulted in significantly maritima group; consequently, we now mean annual temperature of 12.4 more adults and larvae, more consider it a distinct species, Cicindela °Celsius (°C) (54.4°Fahrenheit (°F)) and oviposition events, increased larval albissima (Morgan et al. 2000, p. 1111). mean annual precipitation of 33.8 survival, and faster larval development This is the accepted taxonomic centimeters (cm) (13.3 in) (Ford et al. compared to unwatered control plots classification (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 2010, p. 381). The northern 607 ha (Knisley and Gowan 2011, pp. 18–22). 77). (1,500 ac) of CPSD is Federal land CPSD tiger beetle adults are 11 to 15 managed by the BLM. The southern 809 Population Distribution millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 0.6 inches (in)) ha (2,000 ac) of the CPSD is within The CPSD tiger beetle occurs in size and have striking coloration. The Utah’s CPSD State Park. sporadically throughout the CPSD large wing cases (known as elytra) are Adult CPSD tiger beetles use most of geologic feature, but only consistently predominantly white except for a thin the dune areas from the swales to the exists in two populations—central and reddish band that runs down the length upper dune slopes. Larval CPSD tiger northern—which are separated by 4.8 of the center. Much of the body and legs beetles are more restricted to vegetated km (3 mi) (Figure 1; Knisley 2012, pers. are covered in white hairs. The upper swale areas (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. comm.). The total range of the species thorax (middle region) has a metallic 386), where the vegetation supports the is approximately 202 ha (500 ac) in size sheen, and the eyes are particularly larval prey base of flies, ants, and other (Morgan et al. 2000, p. 1109). large (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 77). prey (Conservation Committee 2009, p. The central population is the largest 14). Larval CPSD tiger beetle habitat is and is self-sustaining, but at relatively Habitat typically dominated by the leguminous moderate numbers (see Population Size Tiger beetles can occur in many plants Sophora stenophylla (silvery and Dynamics, below). The northern different habitats, including riparian sophora) and Psoralidium lanceolatum population comprises a small number of habitats, beaches, dunes, woodlands, (dune scurfpea), and several grasses, adults and larvae (Knisley 2001, p. 9), grasslands, and other open areas including Sporobolus cryptandrus (sand which are typically found in only a few (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 177). Most tiger dropseed) and Achnatherum individual swales (Knisley and Gowan beetle species are habitat-specific and hymenoides (Indian ricegrass). Larvae 2013, pp. 8–11). In the proposed rule, consequently are useful as indicators of also are closely associated with a we stated that the northern population habitat quality (Knisley and Hill 1992, federally threatened plant species, likely persists because of adults p. 140). The CPSD tiger beetle, like its Asclepius welshii (Welsh’s milkvetch) dispersing from the central population close relatives the Great Sand Dunes (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 385), for (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 9). tiger beetle (Cicindela theatina) from the which the entire CPSD area is However, we received information from Great Sand Dunes of Colorado, C. l. designated critical habitat (52 FR 41435, a peer reviewer indicating it may limbata from the western Great Plains, October 28, 1987). sustain itself at low numbers via natural and the St. Anthony Dunes tiger beetle We do not have comprehensive reproduction, and thus not be reliant on (C. arenicola) from the St. Anthony analysis or occupancy modeling that dispersers from the central population Dunes of Idaho, is restricted to sand predicts the habitat preferences of the (see Peer Review; Knisley 2013, pers. dune habitat. CPSD tiger beetle. However, a comm.). At this time, we do not have The species’ current range extends preliminary habitat assessment enough information to determine which along the CPSD geologic feature. The indicated that the beetle exists where scenario is correct or if it is a CPSD is a geologic feature named for the there is abundant prey and larvae, large combination of the two. Regardless, we deep pink color of its sand dunes (Ford swale areas capable of supporting the do not consider the northern population et al. 2010, p. 380). The CPSD are appropriate vegetation, swale sediment to be self-sustaining because only a located 5 km (3.1 mi) north of the Utah– characteristics appropriate for small number of adults and larvae have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

been found at this location since 1998, CPSD tiger beetles (see Climate Change are from opportunistic and inconsistent and insect populations typically need to and Drought under Factor E.). surveys. No CPSD tiger beetles were have larger populations to be considered Low densities of adult CPSD tiger observed in this area during 2012 self-sustaining (Thomas 1990, p. 325; beetles occur in the dune area between surveys. Regardless, the 4.8-km (3-mi) see Small Population Effects under the central and northern populations long area of dune between the two Factor E.). Therefore, we conclude that (Figure 1; Hill and Knisley 1993, p. 9; populations provides habitat for the the area between the central and Knisley 2012, pers. comm.), and suitable species and may provide a dispersal northern populations can provide a swale habitat likely exists in this area. corridor between populations (see Adult corridor for dispersal (Knisley 2013, This area has not been extensively Dispersal below; Knisley and Gowan pers. comm.), and has the potential to surveyed on a regular basis, and 2011, p. 9). provide habitat for colonization by observations of the species in this area BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61085

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C CPSD tiger beetles from ORV use (see northern populations of CPSD tiger As previously mentioned (see Factor A, The Present or Threatened beetles (see Figure 1). Previous Federal Actions), an Destruction, Modification, or Life History interagency CCA (as amended in 2013) Curtailment of its Habitat or Range for established Conservation Areas A and B more information). These Conservation Similar to other tiger beetles, the and intervening habitat islands between Areas generally overlap the central and CPSD tiger beetle goes through several the two conservation areas to protect the developmental stages. These include an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP02OC13.000 61086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

egg, three larval stages (known as instars into fall, and then hibernate in Vogler 2001, p. 131), so heat refuge is ‘‘instars,’’ with each instar separated by burrows during the winter important (Shutlz and Hadley 1987, p. molting), pupa, and adult (Knisley and (Conservation Committee 1997, p. 3). 363). During peak spring and fall Shultz 1997, p. 13). The third instar stage can take 9 months activity, when it is sunny, adult CPSD CPSD tiger beetle oviposition occurs to over a year to reach full development tiger beetles are usually active early (9 in a manner typical of most tiger beetles, (Conservation Committee 1997, p. 3). a.m.–2 p.m.) and again in late afternoon which can include several different After the third instar is fully developed, (4 p.m.–7 p.m.) (Hill and Knisley 1993, methods. For one method, the female is the CPSD tiger beetle plugs its burrow pp. 13–14). They dig and reside in positioned vertically and digs a small opening and transforms into a pupa burrows to avoid unfavorable weather hole with the ovipositor at the end of (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 34). During conditions such as hot mid-afternoons her body and places an egg in the small the pupal period (stage between third or cool or rainy daytime conditions (Hill hole, typically about 6.35 mm (0.25 in) instar and adult emergence), the beetle and Knisley 1993, p. 14). Shade deep. Eggs can also be laid by the female undergoes a metamorphosis where provided by vegetative cover is within the burrows that tiger beetles many of the adult physical structures important for CPSD tiger beetle typically dig during the hot part of the develop (i.e., wings and flight muscles) thermoregulation during warm periods day and at night. These burrows are (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 34). Adults (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). about 25.4–50.8 mm (1–2 in) deep and emerge soon after this metamorphosis. Adult Dispersal 50.8 mm (2 in) long. This method puts The CPSD tiger beetle completes its the eggs deeper in the soil than the first entire life cycle from egg to adult Dispersal is the movement of egg-laying method and can more easily reproduction to death within 2 or 3 individuals from one habitat area to deposit eggs in moist soil (Knisley 2013, years (Knisley and Hill 1997, p. 3). another. The ability to disperse is often pers. comm.). important to tiger beetle species because Moist soil appears necessary for egg Adult Behavior and Ecology many species inhabit areas such as sand laying; however, we have no specific Adults are active on sunny days along dunes or riverbanks that are prone to information on CPSD tiger beetle egg the dunes and swale edges. The majority disturbance and physical change survival or how various factors might of recently metamorphosed adult CPSD (Pearson and Vogler 2001, pp. 130–142; affect eggs since the eggs are almost tiger beetles emerge from their burrows see Factor E (Sand Dune Movement)). In impossible to find (about 1 mm (0.04 in) in late March to early April, reach peak the proposed rule we stated that we did long and inconspicuous in the sand) abundance by May, begin declining in not have information on the dispersal even when a female is observed laying June, and die by August (Knisley and habits of the CPSD tiger beetle, so we them (Knisley 2013, pers. comm.). For Hill 2001, p. 387). A small proportion of evaluated information for surrogate these reasons, we do not know how a second adult cohort emerges in early species that occupy unstable habitats many eggs are laid by tiger beetles in September and remains active into similar to the CPSD geologic formation. their natural environment or the October before digging overwintering Peer review comments on our proposed environmental conditions that affect burrows (Knisley and Hill 2001, pp. rule (see Peer Review) indicate that eggs in the field (Knisley 2013, pers. 387–388). limited dispersal information exists for comm.). In the lab, various species of Adult tiger beetles are active the species. Available information beetles lay from 20 to 300 eggs and predators, attacking and eating prey shows CPSD tiger beetle adults CPSD tiger beetles lay 30–50 eggs per with their large and powerful mandibles commonly move up to 800 m (2,625 ft) female over several weeks (Knisley (mouthparts). They can run or fly within the dune field over a period of 2013, pers. comm.). Most or all eggs are rapidly over the sand surface to capture 1 or 2 weeks (Knisley and Gowan, 2004; viable and will hatch under suitable or scavenge for prey arthropods. Adults entire; Knisley 2013, pers. comm.), but conditions, particularly moist soil. feed primarily on ants, flies, and other we do not know the mechanisms by Many eggs will hatch only after small arthropods (Hill and Knisley which this dispersal affects population sufficient rains, since, as with many 1993, p. 13). persistence. Information on the insects, the egg coat needs to absorb CPSD tiger beetle behavior and dispersal habits of other species is moisture to hatch (Knisley 2013, pers. distribution, like other tiger beetles, is provided below for comparative comm.) largely determined by their purposes. First instar larvae appear in late thermoregulation needs. Adult tiger The Maricopa tiger beetle, Cicindela spring after hatching from eggs that beetles dedicate up to 56 percent of oregona maricopa, is an example of a were oviposited in sand the previous their daily activity towards behavior species that uses dispersal mechanisms late summer or fall (Knisley and Hill that controls their internal body to persist in an unstable environment. 1997, p. 2). The first instar larvae dig temperature (Pearson and Vogler 2001, The Maricopa tiger beetle inhabits moist small vertical burrows from the sand p. 135). These behaviors include sandy habitat on the banks of small surface down 6 to 9 cm (2.4 to 3.5 in) basking (positioning the body to streams and creeks (Pearson and Vogler into the sand substrate (Conservation maximize exposure to solar radiation); 2001, p. 141). Flash flooding Committee 2009, p. 14). After several seeking out wet, cool substrate or shade; periodically scours away this sandy weeks of feeding at the surface, the first and burrowing (Pearson and Vogler habitat and most of the existing instar larva plugs its burrow opening, 2001, p. 136). Tiger beetles require a population (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. sheds its skin (molts), and becomes a high body temperature for maximal 141). These floods redistribute the larger second instar larva (Conservation predatory activity, and at low body scoured sand elsewhere, and surviving Committee 1997, p. 2). The second temperatures they become sluggish adult tiger beetles quickly disperse and instar stage lasts several months (again (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 131). Thus, colonize the newly available habitat emerging from its burrow and feeding at the numbers of adult CPSD tiger beetles (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 141). the surface for a brief period) before observed on rainy or cool, cloudy days Similarly for the CPSD tiger beetle, the developing into a third instar, with most are very low (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. CPSD geologic formation is continually reaching this stage by mid- to late 388). Tiger beetles maintain body changing as winds redistribute the summer (Conservation Committee 1997, temperatures near their lethal limits of sands, creating and destroying swale p. 2). Larvae continue as second or third 47 to 49 °C (116 to 120 °F) (Pearson and habitat and dispersal habitat within and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61087

between Conservation Areas A and B mornings before the soil becomes dry adult CPSD tiger beetle population size (see Factor E Sand Dune Movement and warm from the sun and again in late estimate. In our proposed rule, we below). afternoon and evening after the soil has presented an adult population size Often, tiger beetle populations depend cooled (Conservation Committee 2009, estimate based solely on data collected upon dispersal among separated p. 14). from the central population from 1992 populations for the survival of Adult females determine the larval to 1997, and after 1997 the adult individual populations and the species microhabitat by their selection of an population size estimate was based on (Knisley et al. 2005, p. 557). The oviposition site (Knisley and Gowan both populations. Information reported extirpation of at least one population of 2011, p. 6). Recently hatched larvae to us in the peer review process (see the Northeastern Beach tiger beetle, construct burrows in the sand at the site Peer Review) revealed that it was not Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis, (federally of oviposition and subsequently pass appropriate to report population listed as a threatened species) is through three larval stages before estimates from both of these periods on partially attributed to the lack of nearby pupating and emerging to the adult form populations and associated dispersal (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14). the same graph due to changes in habitats (Knisley et al. 2005, p. 557). Most larvae occur within the swale population sampling methods (Knisley Similarly, in the CPSD geologic feature, bottoms and up the lower slopes of the and Gowan 2013, pp. 7–9). Furthermore, the northern population of the CPSD dunes, particularly where the soil or the currently used (1998–2013) removal tiger beetle may persist because of subsoil is moist most of the time method for population estimates is very dispersal from the central population, (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 11; Knisley reliable while the previously used across the CPSD (Knisley and Gowan and Gowan 2011, p. 22). The swale (1992–1997) mark–recapture method 2011, p. 9), although as we learned in vegetation supports the larval prey base significantly overestimated abundance, the peer review of our proposed rule of ants, flies, and other prey often 2–3 fold. Consequently, since the this dependency is uncertain (see (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14). estimates made in 1992 to 1997 are Population Distribution; Peer Review). Larvae most often remain in the same overestimates, comparisons of In like fashion, the resilience of the burrow throughout their development population size before and after 1998 central population would be greatly and only rarely move outside of their are not valid (Knisley and Gowan 2013, increased if the northern population burrow to dig a new burrow in a more pp. 7–9). In this document, we focus on became self-sustaining with a higher favorable location (Knisley and Hill population estimates from 1998 forward population number, and thus could 1996, p. 11). because of these reasons, and because more easily and frequently contribute to this time period encompasses the lowest Population Size and Dynamics the central population by dispersing and highest population estimates across the CPSD. Substantial year-to-year population recorded. variation is typical of many desert Larval Behavior and Ecology arthropods that are greatly affected by Population numbers fluctuated greatly Larval CPSD tiger beetles are ambush climatic factors such as rainfall (Knisley over the 1998 to 2013 timeframe, predators that wait at the mouth of their and Hill 2001, p. 391). Adult abundance ranging from a high of 2,944 in 2002 to burrow to capture small arthropod prey in any year is a result of many a low of 558 in 2005 (Figure 2). The when it passes nearby. The daily period interacting factors that affect total adult population size estimate in of activity is highly variable and recruitment of the cohort oviposited 2 or 2013 was 2,494 (Knisley 2013, pers. influenced by temperature, moisture 3 years previous (because of a 2- or 3- comm.). Population monitoring results levels, and season (Knisley and Hill year life cycle), and also the indicate a low, yet stable to increasing, 2001, p. 388; Knisley and Gowan 2008, survivorship of the developmental population size since 2003 that p. 20). Larvae can be active much of the stages of that year’s cohort (Knisley contrasts with highly variable day during cool or cloudy spring and 2001, p. 10). population estimates in previous fall days, except during high wind The central and northern populations periods (Knisley and Gowan 2011, pp. periods (Conservation Committee 2009, were monitored for the last 21 and 15 7–8; Knisley and Gowan 2013, p. 8; p. 14). Maximal activity occurs in early years (respectively) to yield a yearly Knisley 2013, pers. comm.).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Population Viability Analysis in the future to direct species During the two comment periods for management options. the proposed rule, we received more The CPSD tiger population viability than 1,000 comment letters directly analysis (PVA) in the proposed rule Summary of Comments and addressing the proposed listing of the demonstrated that reductions in growth Recommendations CPSD tiger beetle with designated rate and carrying capacity (albeit a In the proposed rule published on critical habitat. Submitted comments moderate effect on PVA compared to were both for and against listing the growth rate) increase the probability of October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60208), we requested that all interested parties species with designated critical habitat. extinction for this species (77 FR 60208, During the May 22, 2013, public submit written comments on the October 2, 2012). Since publication of hearing, fewer than 10 individuals or proposal by December 3, 2012. We also the proposed rule, we have further organizations commented on the contacted appropriate Federal and State investigated the appropriateness of proposed rule, all of which were agencies, scientific experts and using PVA models to inform the CPSD opposed to the proposal. All substantive tiger beetle listing decision and organizations, and other interested information provided during the rulemaking process. We have parties and invited them to comment on comment periods has either been determined that PVA analysis should the proposal. A newspaper notice incorporated directly into this not be used as an absolute prediction of inviting general public comment and withdrawal or addressed below. the likelihood of species extinction due advertisement of the information to the intrinsic limitations of any model meeting and public hearing was Peer Review that uses incomplete information to published in the Southern Utah News. In accordance with our peer review predict future events (Reed et al. 2002, We received requests for a public policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR pp. 14–15). Instead, PVA analysis is hearing, which was held in Kanab, 34270), we solicited expert opinion more useful to direct conservation Utah, on May 22, 2013. We reopened from three appropriate and independent actions or decide among a suite of the comment period on May 6, 2013 (78 specialists with scientific expertise that alternative management strategies FR 26308), to accept comments on included familiarity with tiger beetles (Schultz and Hammond 2003, p. 1376; several rule-related documents (see and their habitat, biological needs, and Beissinger et al. 2006, p. 13). Thus, we Previous Federal Actions) and for threats. We received responses from two do not further discuss PVA analysis of comments received during the public of the peer reviewers. CPSD tiger beetle populations, and hearing. The final comment period We reviewed all comments received alternatively will use the modeling tool closed June 5, 2013. from the peer reviewers for substantive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP02OC13.001 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61089

issues and new information regarding already designated for Welsh’s northern area confirmed absence of the listing of the CPSD tiger beetle. Peer milkweed. adults in most of the swales; thus, more reviewer comments are addressed in the Our Response: Critical habitat recent surveys targeted those few swales following summary and incorporated designation is established for individual that supported adults or larvae. The into this withdrawal document as species based on the habitat necessary peer reviewer stated that enough appropriate. for the species’ sustained survival, surveys have been completed in including primary constituent elements Conservation Area B to confirm the Peer Review Comments particular to an individual species. absence of CPSD tiger beetles and (1) Comment: One peer reviewer said However, this document withdraws the habitat in all but a small part of the area, that questions exist about how the proposed listing for the CPSD tiger and that area is marginal habitat. northern population fluctuates or is beetle; therefore, no critical habitat is Our Response: CPSD tiger beetle sustained. The peer reviewer stated that being designated. distribution information was updated dispersal from the central population as (3) Comment: One peer reviewer based on this information (see the factor that sustains the northern indicated that fairly extensive CPSD Population Distribution under population; however, this theory is tiger beetle surveys were conducted in Background). Although the quality of uncertain and there is no solid evidence 2012 for the area between the central the habitat in Conservation Area B may for it except that adults disperse when and northern populations, but no adults not currently allow for large populations the central population numbers are were found. of CPSD tiger beetles to develop, the high. The peer reviewer stated that at Our Response: Published information presence of the species in low numbers these times, more adults are observed in regarding this sampling was not indicates that this area is important to peripheral areas. The peer reviewer put available prior to the time that the conservation of the species. forth an alternative explanation that the proposed rule was finalized for (7) Comment: One peer reviewer fairly consistent numbers of larvae publication. We incorporated the 2012 recommended updating the information (although highly variable) produce and survey information into this final in the proposed rule regarding sustain the presence of small numbers determination. collection of CPSD tiger beetles by (4) Comment: One peer reviewer of adults seen there, and thus the amateur beetle collectors. The reviewer questioned whether the northern northern population could exist is familiar with general amateur occurrence of CPSD tiger beetle should independent of dispersal. The peer collector behavior in the United States be referred to as a population. and stated the following regarding the reviewer noted that regardless of which Our Response: We believe that this theory is correct, the area between these effects of this activity on CPSD tiger occurrence of the species is properly beetles: (1) Amateur collectors have two populations can provide a corridor described in the proposed rule as it is taken adult CPSD tiger beetles in recent for dispersal. The peer reviewer further a localized grouping of the species that years; (2) there are many tiger beetle stated that monitoring information has been observed separately from the collectors out there, possibly a hundred shows CPSD tiger beetles can disperse central population for over the last 15 or more and perhaps increasing; (3) as far as 800 m (2,625 ft) within a week years. However, we do not consider the most want to collect all of the U.S. or less and that no information is northern population to be self- species, and it is virtually impossible for available to indicate how important the sustaining because only a small number State park personnel to prevent this; area between A and B is for dispersal, of adults and larvae have been found at however, it is likely that most collectors so it is uncertain if and how many this location since 1998, and insect will take only a small number of adults adults might be killed by ORV activity populations typically need to have with limited effects on the population. in these areas. larger populations to be considered self- Our Response: CPSD tiger beetle Our Response: Although the northern sustaining (see Small Population Effects amateur collecting information was population is not self-sustaining, it under Factor E.). updated based on this information (see provides an important component to the (5) Comment: One peer reviewer Factor B.). conservation of CPSD tiger beetle. At provided information that CPSD tiger (8) Comment: One peer reviewer this time, we do not have enough beetles are present in smaller numbers questioned if it was necessary to protect information to determine whether the south and east of Conservation Area A. Conservation Area B given the small northern population maintains itself at The reviewer noted the proposed rule numbers of tiger beetles in this area. a low level via natural reproduction and incorrectly indicated that CPSD tiger Our Response: Although the proposed recruitment, or is sustained by beetles are absent from the south-central rule states that the CPSD tiger beetle dispersing CPSD tiger beetles from the and southeastern portions of population at Conservation Area B is central population (see Population Conservation Area A and the general not self-sustaining, the species is still Distribution under Background). area south of Conservation Area A. present in this area and should continue Regardless, the habitat between Our Response: CPSD tiger beetle to receive the protection provided by Conservation Areas A and B provides distribution was considered in the 2013 Conservation Area B. Continuing to important habitat for the species for CCA Amendment and updated for this protect the species in this location dispersal and potential colonization and determination and withdrawal of the results in improved long-term habitat will be important to offset the effects of proposed rule. conditions for the CPSD tiger beetle, climate change. A dispersal corridor is, (6) Comment: One peer reviewer resulting in increased species’ therefore, being permanently protected stated that the information in the resiliency, which makes the species less in this area by 14 habitat polygons,that proposed rule regarding surveys in susceptible to threats such as climate were established through the 2013 CCA northern swales is not fully accurate; change and drought, demographic and Amendment (see Ongoing and Future regular surveys were completed in the environmental stochasticity, and Conservation Efforts). northern area swales, and adults or catastrophic events (see Factor E. (2) Comment: One peer reviewer larvae were found each year for the past Climate Change and Drought and Small asked why the Service needed to 5–7 years including 2012. The peer Population Effects). Continued designate critical habitat for the CPSD reviewer noted that in the 1990s, protection of Conservation Area B is tiger beetle when critical habitat is extensive surveys over the whole discussed in this withdrawal document

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and included as a conservation measure expand the natural range of the beetle CPSD feature. Although the entirety of in the 2013 CCA Amendment (see beyond the CPSD geologic feature. the D swales is not incorporated into Background, Ongoing and Future Our Response: We agree that range Conservation Area A, the conservation Conservation Efforts, and PECE expansion should be pursued as a goal committee agreed to protect this swale Analysis). for CPSD tiger beetle conservation, and habitat as isolated polygons. Swales 6 (9) Comment: One peer reviewer actions to achieve this objective are and 7 will be protected in an isolated stated that the area between detailed in the 2013 CCA Amendment. polygon as will swale 8 and 9, and a Conservation A and B has not been (13) Comment: One peer reviewer portion of swale 12 will be protected. confirmed as a dispersal corridor. concluded that the protected areas The remainder of the swales and the Our Response: The proposed rule described in the proposed rule (now lands in between them will be stated that this area it is likely a called ‘‘Conservation Area A’’ and incorporated into Conservation Area A. dispersal corridor. We have updated ‘‘Conservation Area B’’, with Area A (15) Comment: One peer reviewer this information to reflect that we are being the most important) should be noted that because the dune field is uncertain to what level this area acts as expanded to provide adequate dynamic, the boundaries of newly a dispersal corridor, but that based on protection from ORV use. However, this protected habitat will need to be the life history of similar tiger beetle reviewer also concluded that the beetle adjusted over time as specific dunes species, this area should be protected would still face extinction due to become either more or less suitable for for CPSD tiger beetle dispersal and naturally small population sizes and tiger beetles. The peer reviewer stated colonization. Further, the establishment limited habitat, and the additional that continued monitoring of the and monitoring of the additional habitat protection provided by the expanded distribution and abundance of the polygons in this area will provide conservation areas would not materially beetle, with the potential to expand or additional information on the improve the species’ chances for reduce the areas off-limits to ORVs, is importance and usage of this area by the survival. necessary, and adaptive management of Our Response: We agree that CPSD tiger beetle. tiger beetle habitat is key to reducing expansion of CPSD tiger beetle (10) Comment: One peer reviewer extinction risk. protective areas should be pursued as a Our Response: We agree with this concluded that the CPSD tiger beetle goal for the species’ conservation, and approach for CPSD tiger beetle must receive significant protection actions to achieve this objective are conservation and adaptive management. because of its small population size and included and being implemented by the Actions to achieve this objective are very limited geographical range. The 2013 CCA Amendment. However, as detailed in the 2013 CCA Amendment peer reviewer stated that over the past discussed in the proposed rule and this (see Ongoing and Future Conservation decade, populations have been as low as withdrawal document, we do not Efforts). several hundred individuals and the consider small population size alone to (16) Comment: One peer reviewer core habitat for this population consists be a threat. A species that has always noted that the description and analysis of just a few dune swales located within been rare, yet continues to survive, of the biology, habitat, population the CPSD geologic feature. The peer could be well equipped to continue to trends, historical and current reviewer noted this core habitat is exist into the future. Many naturally distribution of the species, and factors currently protected from ORV use, but rare species have persisted for long affecting the species contained in the this does not negate the inherent risk periods within small geographic areas, proposed rule are accurate. The peer posed by small population size and and many naturally rare species exhibit reviewer further stated that the limited habitat. traits that allow them to persist despite proposed rule cites all the necessary and Our Response: The Service agrees that their small population sizes. pertinent literature to support the the CPSD tiger beetle should receive Consequently, the fact that a species is subsequent assumptions, arguments, protection in part because of its small rare does not necessarily indicate that it and conclusions. population size and very limited may be in danger of extinction. Our Response: Comment noted. geographical range. Conservation (14) Comment: One peer reviewer actions have been developed and recommended that the Service expand State and County Comments implemented as part of the 2013 CCA Conservation Area A to include: (1) The (17) Comment: The Utah Governor’s Amendment to address the risk posed two dune ridges to the south (termed Office does not agree that listing the by ORV use, small population size, and ‘‘the D swales’’ in recent reports by species and designating critical habitat limited habitat. In addition, as a result Knisley and Gowan); and (2) swales is necessary to ensure the protection of of the existing conservation efforts, immediately to the east and north, the CPSD tiger beetle. The Utah CPSD tiger beetle numbers have numbered as follows in the 2013 CCA Governor’s Office stated that instead, generally been increasing for the past 8 Amendment: 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, conservation of the species should years. 21, 22, 23, 25, and 27. The peer reviewer continue under direction of the 1997 (11) Comment: One peer reviewer further stated that these swales should CCA, its reauthorization in 2009, and stated that the critical habitat identified not be protected as individual the 2013 Amendment to this agreement. in the proposed rule is correct, with the ‘‘islands.’’ Instead, they should be The Utah Governor’s Office provided most critical habitat currently located in included in one expanded, contiguous examples of the effectiveness of the the southern end of the area conservation area (i.e., the boundary CCAs, including: establishment of two (‘‘Conservation Area A’’). should be established around the entire conservation areas that prohibit ORV Our Response: This document set of swales). use; annual monitoring; species life- withdraws the proposed listing of the Our Response: Generally, this history research; watering research; CPSD tiger beetle. Therefore, critical recommendation is being adopted as genetics studies; population viability habitat will not be designated for this part of the 2013 CCA Amendment, analysis; protection for the species via species. although not all swales will be BLM and Utah State Parks law (12) Comment: One peer reviewer and incorporated into Conservation A so enforcement; an educational program; another commenter recommended that that safe travel corridors can be and development of a translocation the Service explore opportunities to maintained for ORV users within the protocol. The Utah Governor’s Office

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61091

also stated that the collaborative completion of the Coral Pink Sand reasoned that the sum of this partnership of the CCA has Dunes tiger beetle rulemaking within information is especially important for demonstrated a track record of the standard timeline set forth in the assessing habitat disturbance. Overall, addressing threats to the CPSD tiger Act. In addition, the time period by we used the best scientific and beetle based on the best available which the public can request a public commercial information available for information, and thus listing is not hearing (45 days following publication the purpose of making a listing necessary to ensure the species’ of a proposal) is specified in the Act and determination for the CPSD tiger beetle, continued existence into the future. cannot be extended. For these reasons, and we concluded that the species does Our Response: The Service is we were not able to provide a 90-day not require listing as a threatened or signatory to the 1997 CCA and 2009 extension to the original proposed rule endangered species under the Act. reauthorization, and we have worked comment period. However, on May 6, (20) Comment: One commenter closely with the other signatories to 2013, we published in the Federal concluded that our determination to develop and implement the additional Register a notice of availability of the protect the dune area between conservation measures in the 2013 CCA draft economic analysis for the Conservation Areas A and B is based on Amendment. We agree that the 2009 proposed rule as well as other speculative, anecdotal, and CCA and the 2013 CCA Amendment documents pertinent to the listing. We opportunistic information. The provide significant conservation actions also reopened the comment period on commenter stated that, by the scientists’ to benefit CPSD tiger beetle. As part of the proposed rule for 30 days, and thus own admission, little study of the areas this rulemaking process, we conducted we accepted additional comments on outside the two conservation areas has an evaluation consistent with our Policy the CPSD tiger beetle rulemaking. The been done in the past 20 years. for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts two comment periods included: (1) However, the commenter notes that the When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) October 2, 2012, to December 3, 2013; Service supposes that beetles might be (68 FR 15100) to evaluate the 2013 CCA and (2) May 6, 2013, to June 5, 2013. killed by ORVs operating between the Amendment. PECE analysis was After the publication of the proposed two conservation areas, thus ORVs performed on the conservation actions rule in early October 2012, the Service cause impacts to population dispersal. in the 2013 CCA Amendment to received an informal request from Kane The commenter questioned the evidence determine if these actions, which have County Commissioners for a public to support the existence of a dispersal yet to be implemented or to show hearing. In response to this request, we corridor between Conservation Areas A effectiveness, will contribute to making held an informational meeting and a and B. The commenter indicated that listing CPSD tiger beetle as a threatened public hearing on May 22, 2013, in furthermore, the Service previously or endangered species unnecessary. The Kanab, Utah. Notification of the meeting stated in their Candidate Notice of results of that analysis determined that and the hearing was provided in the Review (CNOR) for the species that, there will be certainty of Federal Register and the Southern Utah ‘‘The majority of traffic is concentrated implementation (for those measures not News newspaper, which covers the in the play areas, and ORV use in these already implemented) and certainty of local area. areas has no direct impact on the tiger effectiveness for the conservation The Service realized that we cited a beetle. The play areas have never been actions specified in the 2013 CCA significant number of sources for this observed to support beetles, and likely Amendment. Thus, we have determined rulemaking, and we wanted to ensure did not have suitable habitat prior to that the measures will be effective at that those who wished to meaningfully ORV use due to vegetative succession, eliminating or reducing threats to the comment had access to this information. high winds and dune movement. CPSD tiger beetle and the species no Thus, during the first comment period Therefore, ORV use is likely only longer meets the definition of a (October 2012) the Service made directly impacting the areas threatened or endangered species. available on the Federal eRulemaking immediately surrounding the (18) Comment: Utah congressional Portal all information sources cited in Conservation Areas.’’ representatives requested that we: (1) the proposed rule. These documents can Our Response: As stated in our Extend the original comment period for be found at: http://www.regulations.gov response to Comment (1), additional the proposed rule by 90 days; (2) extend with a search for Docket No. FWS–R6– information has been included in this the date by which the public can request ES–2012–0053. determination and withdrawal a hearing on the proposal until 60 days (19) Comment: One commenter cites document (see Background) stating that into the 90-day extension; and (3) make Knisley (2011, entire) as concluding that it is unclear if the Conservation Area B all the resources cited in the proposed there is a lack of scientific evidence of population is being maintained via rule readily available on the Service the impacts of human-caused dispersal from Conservation Area A. Web site. disturbances on CPSD tiger beetles, and Regardless of whether the northern Our Response: The Service is available information is largely population maintains itself via natural committed to working closely with the anecdotal and observational. In reproduction and recruitment, by public, governmental agencies, and addition, the commenter indicated that dispersing CPSD tiger beetles from the nongovernmental groups to make the proposed rule acknowledges that the central population, or by some certain that all comments, concerns, and last 9 years of population data suggests combination of the two, the dispersal relevant information are considered in that the threat of ORV use will not cause corridor provides important habitat for our rulemaking process. However, imminent extinction of the CPSD tiger the species for dispersal and potential court-mandated deadlines and statutory beetle. The commenter was concerned colonization and will be important to limitations of the Act limit the temporal that the listing of the CPSD tiger beetle offset the effects of climate change. The flexibility we have to administer this could result in the closure or restriction dispersal corridor area between rulemaking process. For example, the of over 70 percent of the dunes to ORVs. Conservation Area A and B is, therefore, Service’s multi-district litigation Our Response: Although Knisley being permanently protected by 14 new settlement (In re Endangered Species (2011, entire) stated that there is habitat polygons that will be established Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. relatively little literature or studies on as part of the 2013 CCA Amendment. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 the effects of anthropogenic Both this withdrawal document and the (D.D.C May 10, 2011)) mandates disturbances on tiger beetles, he also 2013 CCA Amendment incorporate new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

information that became available after longer relevant because we are (25) Comment: Kane County asked us the publication of the CNOR in 2011. withdrawing our proposed rule to list to discuss the survival rates of the CPSD (21) Comment: State lawmakers are the CPSD tiger beetle. tiger beetle eggs that are laid in the late concerned that in the past researchers (23) Comment: Multiple commenters summer and hatched in the spring of the have been studying the CPSD tiger stated that the economy of southern following year, as well as the number of beetle without any input from the land Utah depends heavily upon tourism and eggs that are viable/fertilized when they managers with regard to the information that limiting or closing the CPSD State are laid. They also asked for information they need in order to make sound Park to ORVs could have a significant on the level of predation of the eggs or management decisions. The commenters adverse effect on the economies of the loss from disease or parasites. noted that working collectively, the Kanab and Kane County. Commenters Our Response: We are not aware of Service, BLM, Utah State Parks, and stated that economic effects should be any additional published information Kane County can implement strategies evaluated more thoroughly. In addition, regarding CPSD tiger beetle egg ecology and management objectives to improve commenters stated that the majority of beyond what was provided in the the CPSD tiger beetle population. The CPSD State Park visitors come to proposed rule. However, additional commenters recommended that the participate in riding or observing ORVs information regarding CPSD tiger beetle Service withdraw the proposal to list across the sand dunes and surrounding egg ecology was provided by Dr. Barry the CPSD tiger beetle and continue areas and significant restriction of ORV Knisley via personal communication using the existing CCA as an adaptive use at CPSD would force the State of and has been incorporated into this final management strategy to improve CPSD Utah to close CPSD State Park. determination and withdrawal tiger beetle populations. Commenters indicated such a closure document (see Life History under Our Response: Management, research, would significantly impact the Background). and education efforts for the CPSD tiger economies in the surrounding region. (26) Comment: Some commenters beetle have been coordinated with land Commenters stated estimates of total noted that the Environmental managers. For more than 15 years, CPSD positive economic impact of the CPSD Assessment that the Service prepared tiger beetle management, research, and State Park vary from $733,584 to for the critical habitat designation stated education efforts have been funded by $780,050. that the Service does not have BLM and executed in coordination with information on the dispersal habits of Our Response: As discussed in the BLM and Utah State Parks land the CPSD tiger beetle, and it only economic analysis, ORV restrictions managers as well as the conservation presented population monitoring resulting from the proposed listing of committee that is composed of these information from the central and the species and designation of critical agencies as well as the Service and Kane northern populations. The commenters habitat are not expected to result in County. As part of the rulemaking recommend that additional study process, we used the PECE process to changes in visitation to CPSD State should be done on the CPSD tiger beetle evaluate the 2013 CCA Amendment. We Park. Future shifting of dunes has the dispersal habits and population determined that the CCA measures will potential to restrict access such that dynamics and that, if a decision to list be effective at eliminating or reducing ORV visitation would be expected to the species under the Act were made threats to the CPSD tiger beetle and the decrease. If ORV use decreased now, it would be with incomplete species no longer meets the definition of sufficiently to cause CPSD State Park to information. a threatened or endangered species. close, the resultant loss of $780,050 in Our Response: The Act requires us to (22) Comment: State lawmakers stated economic output associated with CPSD use the best commercial and scientific that decisions that will have such a State Park is less than two-tenths of 1 information available to make listing major impact on the land managers and percent of the county’s total output. determinations. The best available the local economy should not be made Thus, limiting or closing ORV use information is often incomplete. As in a regulatory vacuum. They stated that would not significantly affect the such, dispersal habitat of other tiger they would have liked greater county’s economy, although individual beetle species comprised the best transparency during the drafting of the businesses may be impacted more than information available at the time and CCA, which could have precluded the others. Regardless, this document was used to infer what the dispersal need for the proposed rule. State withdraws our proposed rule to list the characteristics are of the CPSD tiger lawmakers also expressed concern that CPSD tiger beetle and designate critical beetle. Similarly, past monitoring of the the current dune field was not habitat for the species. species primarily occurred at the central considered as an exclusion area for (24) Comment: Kane County asked if and northern populations. Additional critical habitat. the boundary lines along the southern studies are being planned through the Our Response: Throughout the and northern portion of Conservation 2013 CCA Amendment to better assess Service’s process to evaluate the CPSD Area A, as delineated by Figure 4 of the the dispersal habits and population tiger beetle for listing and designation of 2012 Conservation Studies Final Report, dynamics of the CPSD tiger beetle. critical habitat, the public has had were intended to eliminate ORV traffic (27) Comment: The commenters opportunity to provide input. The from traveling along the east side of the referred to Page 14, section 2.1.9 of the Service requested information from the habitat areas. Environmental Assessment and asked public as part of our evaluation, Our Response: The recommendation what are the other natural or manmade including two public comment periods of the researchers who wrote the report factors that are specifically referred to following the publication of our was to eliminate ORV traffic from and how are these evaluated by the EA proposed listing and critical habitat rule traveling along the east side of or the process of managing the CPSD (77 FR 60208 and 78 FR 26308). The Conservation Area A. However, this tiger beetle through the CCAs. drafting of the 1997, 2009, and 2013 closure was not incorporated into the Our Response: This section of the CCAs were also transparent processes 2013 CCA Amendment due to concerns Environmental Assessment that was that involved the signatory agencies of for human safety, and the related prepared for the critical habitat Kane County, Utah State Parks, BLM, expansion of Conservation Area A has designation is a summary of the and the Service. The comment relative allowed for the continued use of ORVs significant threats identified in the to critical habitat designation is no in these areas. proposed rule that are affecting the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61093

CPSD tiger beetle. The phrase ‘‘other the species was not necessary to Our Response: The purpose of the natural or manmade factors affecting its conserve this species. economic analysis is to evaluate the continued existence’’ refers to listing (30) Comment: One commenter found potential economic impacts associated Factor E, and includes: (1) Sand dune the economic analysis seriously flawed with the proposed critical habitat movement; (2) climate change and in that it focuses mainly on the costs of designation for CPSD tiger beetle. The drought; (3) small population effects; the Act’s Section 7 consultations, analysis considers current and future and (4) cumulative effects of all threats development of incidental take permits impacts to both the economic efficiency that may impact the species. In this (federal and state enforcement), and and distribution that may result from withdrawal, we determined that these consumer surplus losses. The efforts to protect the CPSD tiger beetle ‘‘other natural or manmade factors’’ are commenter requests that the analysis and its habitat. not a threat to the CPSD tiger beetle. investigate and analyze the effects on (33) Comment: One commenter stated These factors are being managed and local businesses in Kane County and that the revenue generated by ORV use their threat is reduced through the 2013 surrounding areas. in Kane County, and particularly at the CCA Amendment by protecting key Our Response: Although the primary CPSD State Park, should be evaluated in occupied, dispersal, and future purpose of the economic analysis is to more detail than is presented in the colonization habitats for the species identify and value the direct economic analysis. throughout the CPSD geologic feature. coextensive impacts of the listing and Our Response: The economic analysis (28) Comment: The commenters critical habitat designation, the analysis provides information regarding the stated that the area proposed as also considers the indirect impact of the revenue generated by ORV use in Utah designated critical habitat includes the proposed action on the regional on page 3–8. It should be noted that the entirety of the northern 80 percent of economy in Section 3.2 and small proposed action had the potential to the CPSD geologic feature, but much of businesses in Section 6 (USFWS 2013, restrict ORV use but did not propose to this area does not currently support the entire). The analysis recognizes that eliminate ORV use. However, under this CPSD tiger beetle. They requested an particular businesses catering withdrawal, the species is not being explanation of why the entirety of this exclusively to ORV users may listed under the Act and critical habitat area was proposed as critical habitat. experience larger impacts relative to is not being designated. Our Response: CPSD tiger beetles are other businesses; however, the total (34) Comment: The commenter finds primarily found in conservation areas in impact to the county is not expected to the definition of ‘‘surplus losses’’ in the the northern and central areas of the be significant because (1) the proposed economic analysis to be highly CPSD geologic feature; however, the action has the potential to restrict ORV subjective and of little value when species is found in significant numbers use but does not eliminate ORV use, (2) determining financial losses to local outside of Conservation Area A and any decline in visitation to CPSD State businesses. thought to disperse from the central area Park has the potential to increase Our Response: The definition of and to the northern area. Because CPSD tiger visitation to other ORV areas resulting methodology for consumer surplus loss beetle habitat is dynamic and changes in benefits to businesses in those areas, estimates presented in the economic based on the effects of wind-driven and (3) the county contains several analysis are widely recognized in the dune movement, the habitat adjacent to other tourism attractions that account field of economic analysis. Consumer occupied swales was included in the for the majority of the local tourism- surplus loss measures losses only to proposed critical habitat designation. In based economy. consumers, not to businesses. The addition, habitat between the central (31) Comment: The commenter states objective of the economic analysis is to and northern populations was included that the conservation benefits section of determine the economic impact of the in the proposed critical habitat the Environmental Assessment implies proposed rule. The proposed action was designation to include habitat that could that the decision has already been made not anticipated to have a significant be used for dispersal and could be to close the CPSD State Park to ORV impact overall on local businesses given colonized by new populations, thus traffic. The commenter requests that the limited number of visitors and providing redundancy for current prior to finalizing the Economic businesses impacted (see Section 3.2). populations and resiliency to climate Analysis, the Environmental However, under this withdrawal, the change and drought. Regardless, we Assessment should have been reviewed species is not being listed under the Act have determined that it is appropriate to for its analysis and conclusions. and critical habitat is not being withdraw the proposed listing rule for Our Response: It should be noted that designated. the CPSD tiger beetle, and critical the proposed rule did not suggest (35) Comment: The commenter habitat will not be designated for this eliminating ORV use. The conservation requests clarification of the following species. benefits section of the draft statement from the economic analysis: (29) Comment: Commenters expressed environmental assessment does not ‘‘costs associated with uncertainty and concern that designation of critical indicate the extent to which ORVs misperception of the regulatory burden habitat may not include all habitat would be restricted as it had not yet imposed by critical habitat designation’’ eventually determined as necessary to been determined. However, the and a definition of ‘‘misperception of recover the species. proposed rule to list the CPSD tiger regulatory burden.’’ Our Response: As explained in the beetle is being withdrawn, and critical Our Response: The misperception of proposed rule, proposed designated habitat is not being designated. The regulatory burden refers to the critical habitat for this species was 2013 CCA Amendment provides some difference between the actual delineated to include the physical and increased ORV restrictions and restrictions imposed as a result of the biological features that are essential to protection for the CPSD tiger beetle. proposed critical habitat designation the conservation of the CPSD tiger (32) Comment: One commenter and the way the public perceives the beetle. Furthermore, the species was suggested that the purpose of the restrictions. In some cases, the public never known to occur outside of the economic analysis is to determine what may perceive restrictions to be above CPSD geologic feature, and we is best for the CPSD tiger beetle and still and beyond the actual restrictions concluded that designating critical allow all forms of recreation on the implemented as a result of the proposed habitat outside of the historical range of CPSD. action. Costs associated with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

uncertainty and misperception of the of the CPSD tiger beetle is located in and its habitat, thus making the species regulatory burden imposed by critical Conservation Area B, which is a 150-ha more resilient to climate-related factors. habitat refers to any economic impacts (370-ac) protected area within the WSA. Likewise, increasing the number of resulting from this difference in actual Our decision in this document is to populations of the species on the versus perceived restrictions. withdraw the proposed rule to list the landscape increases the species’ (36) Comment: The commenter states CPSD tiger beetle; therefore, the critical redundancy by allowing for that the economic analysis did not habitat designation is also withdrawn. geographically distinct populations that include contact with business owners (39) Comment: The BLM stated that have the potential of being acted on (motels/hotels, gas stations, mechanics, the Service’s not warranted 12-month separately by climatic threats. The 2013 restaurants, or ATV rental businesses) in finding on four Great Basin butterflies CCA amendment addresses all threat Kane County, or else did not provide gave significant consideration to BLM’s factors and provides appropriate documentation of those contacted. management regulations and policies, conservation actions to address ORV use Our Response: We contacted 10 which included: (1) Numerous laws, and impacts to habitat caused by hotels, 1 RV Park, and 2 ORV rental regulations, and policies that have been climate change businesses in Kanab, UT, to collect developed to assist the agency in (41) Comment: BLM agrees that the information for the economic analysis. management of their lands, including population trend is currently stable to Only three of the hotels responded to National Environmental Policy Act increasing. BLM does not think that the our calls. (NEPA) analysis; (2) BLM’s usage of assumption can be made that the overall trend since 1992 is in decline as there Federal Agency Comments Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to provide a framework and programmatic was a major change in inventory and (37) Comment: The BLM stated that monitoring methods in 1997. BLM states implementation of the CCA has been an guidance for site-specific activity plans regarding livestock grazing, oil and gas that any discussion on population effective tool in the management and trends should be based only on data recovery of the CPSD tiger beetle. They development, travel management, wildlife habitat management and other obtained since 1997, as the method used indicated as habitat management prior to that time tended to overestimate changes become necessary, such as activities; and (3) BLM policy and guidance for species of concern population numbers and cannot be adjustments in conservation area compared to the current inventory occurring on BLM-administered lands boundaries due to shifting dunes or tiger method. BLM notes that as Dr. Kinsley as addressed under BLM’s 6840 Manual beetle population migration, these notes in his reports, comparisons of ‘‘Special Status Species Management’’. actions are easily accommodated by the population size before and after 1998 As a result of the conservation benefit CCA. The BLM is concerned that, are not valid. should the beetle become listed, the that these regulations and policies Our Response: We agree with this management flexibility currently provide to CPSD tiger beetle, the Service interpretation of CPSD population data provided by the CCA would be should not list the species. and have adjusted our analysis unavailable and replaced by the more Our Response: The Service described accordingly (see Population Size and formal mandates of the Act. the BLM’s management regulations and Dynamics in Background). Our Response: The Service makes policies in the proposed rule and (42) Comment: BLM suggested that listing determinations solely on the acknowledged the conservation benefits the Service provide information with basis of the best scientific and these actions provide to the CPSD tiger Figure 2 in the proposed rule, which commercial data available after beetle. We are withdrawing the shows annual and monthly conducting a review of the status of the proposed rule to list the CPSD tiger precipitation amounts. They stated that species and after taking into account beetle in large part due to conservation the correlation between precipitation efforts to protect the species. Thus, the measures that are ongoing and have and beetle populations is striking and issue of future management flexibility been implemented through the CCA, lends credibility to the thesis that cannot be taken into consideration as including the most recent 2013 CCA climate is the primary factor in beetle part of the determination. Regardless, amendment, as described in this population trends. BLM is planning to our decision in this document is to withdrawal. install a climate monitoring station at withdraw the listing proposal for the (40) Comment: The BLM agrees that the CPSD feature to ensure availability CPSD tiger beetle. The beetle will ORV use is a factor affecting CPSD tiger of more accurate climate data. continue to be managed under the 2013 beetle population numbers and habitat. Our Response: We agree that CCA Amendment. However, the BLM stated greater precipitation is a significant natural (38) Comment: The BLM noted that credence should be given to climate- environmental factor affecting the the proposed designated critical habitat related factors that are beyond the species, and we support the addition of located on BLM-administered lands is control of any management agency, climatic data in the future to associate located within the Moquith Mountain especially rainfall. The BLM cited Dr. with CPSD tiger beetle population Wilderness Study Area (WSA). They Knisley’s 2008 study, ‘‘As a result of our trends. We believe our rulemaking stated that ORV use is restricted in the long term studies with this beetle and process properly evaluated the potential WSA to open dune areas, and no land additional experience with tiger beetles, effects of precipitation and climate disturbances or uses that would affect we have become convinced that rainfall change. the wilderness characteristics of the area is the primary factor controlling (43) Comment: BLM concludes that are allowed. They indicated that it can population size and the changing ORV use is a rather minor impact reasonably be assumed that no BLM- dynamics.’’ compared to natural climatic events and authorized activities would adversely Our Response: Although rainfall patterns. They stated that the discussion modify the proposed critical habitat for amounts, drought, and other climate- in the proposed rule leads the reader to the CPSD tiger beetle. related factors cannot be directly understand that ORV use is the major Our Response: The proposed rule affected by management actions, cause of population decline, which is states that the northern portion of the corresponding conservation actions not the case. The BLM indicated that the CPSD feature is located within the such as controlling ORV use can have a issue is further complicated by the WSA, and that the northern population positive effect on the CPSD tiger beetle discussion on page 60217 (first column,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61095

second paragraph) in which the Service 2013 CCA Amendment, as discussed in Public Comments states that, ‘‘We do not have specific this document. (50) Comment: Commenters stated data regarding the level of impact ORVs (48) Comment: BLM asked for that the Service relied upon insufficient have on the CPSD tiger beetle in the clarification on information the Service evidence to analyze threats to the CPSD unprotected area between Conservation provided in the proposed rule (Page tiger beetle and that the Service Area A and B.’’ They stated that more 60229), stating that, ‘‘The remaining 460 selectively overlooked uncertainties and study is needed to determine the actual ha (1,138 ac.) are open to ORV use.’’ The data gaps as well as evidence of impact that ORV use has on the beetle. BLM does not believe this statement is increases in the species’ population. Our Response: ORV use was the most technically correct. They stated that the Comments reflected dissatisfaction with significant human-induced threat to 2000 amendment to the Vermilion the use of population monitoring CPSD tiger beetle that was identified in Management Framework Plan affirmed information that did not cover the entire the proposed rule. It is true that we do allowable ORV traffic over open sand CPSD geologic feature; that sampling not have specific data regarding the dunes within the Moquith Mountain methods had changed during the period level of impact of ORVs. We agree that WSA but outside of the conservation of record reported and this was not precipitation is a significant natural area for the beetle. They also stated that disclosed; and that the population environmental factor affecting the the 2008 Kanab Resource Management viability analysis was used as a basis for species. However, we have determined Plan continued that action, but also listing. that neither factor results in a need to specified that ‘‘all vehicles on the dunes Our Response: We acknowledge that list the species as threatened or are required to stay at least 10 feet from the science regarding the CPSD tiger endangered, and we are withdrawing vegetation.’’ beetle may not be complete, but we our proposed rule. Our Response: Within the CPSD must base our decisions on the best (44) Comment: BLM asked what the feature, BLM-managed lands include scientific information available when precipitation pattern was the year 150 ha (370 ac) that are closed to ORV making listing determinations under the preceding the information provided on use; and approximately 445 ha (1,100 Act. We corrected the discrepancy Page 60217 of the proposed rule that, ac) that are available for ORV use portraying data that were collected ‘‘The year following removal of ORV outside of the Conservation Area B on using different methods, and it is use, the tiger beetle density on this BLM lands, but with the stipulation that included in this withdrawal. In our swale more than doubled to 150 beetles. ORVs stay on open dunes and maintain proposed rule and this final . . .’’ BLM wondered if the a 3-m (10-ft) buffer around vegetation. determination, we used the best precipitation pattern could have been a BLM and Utah State Parks sufficiently available scientific information to factor in the increase of beetle numbers. enforce ORV restrictions for support our decision. Any new Our Response: We have included the Conservation Areas A and B. However, information that was provided, such as precipitation information in our enforcement is minimal on lands that the 2012 surveys, was incorporated into discussion of ORV use in this document are not designated for protection with the information in Species Information, (see ORV use under Factor A.). carsonite posts and primarily relies on above. The appropriateness of including (45) Comment: The BLM stated that voluntary compliance. Thus, we have PVA analysis in our decision is the data in Table 1 of the proposed rule no record of enforcement effort or addressed above as well (see Population is out of date and should be updated success of the buffer around vegetation, Viability Analysis under Background). with new survey information that used but Service staff have observed ORV (51) Comment: Multiple commenters more accurate monitoring procedures tracks though vegetation and within the stated that the allegations of climate implemented in 1998. vegetation buffer distance. change-based threats are speculative, Our Response: In the proposed rule, (49) Comment: BLM assumed that Dr. artificially conflated with harms from Table 1 presents information regarding Knisley would be one of the peer review ORV use, and not supported by the number of adult CPSD tiger beetles experts and indicated they fully support record. found injured or killed (by ORVs) before his inclusion as a peer reviewer. They Our Response: In summary, climate and after high ORV use holiday stated that Dr. Knisley has a long history change is occurring and there is strong weekends. More recent data are not of quality work with the beetle, and scientific support for projections that available, but we believe the available BLM trusts his findings. The BLM warming will continue through the 21st data are an accurate portrayal of the recommended that the other peer review century (see Climate Change and direct impacts to CPSD tiger beetle that experts be chosen from local Drought under Factor E.). Regional can be expected from ORVs. universities who have experience projections indicate the Southwest, (46) Comment: BLM agrees with the working with the CPSD tiger beetle. including southern Utah, may discussion and conclusions for Factors They asked that the Service notify them experience the greatest temperature B and C in the proposed rule. of the selected peer reviewers and their increase of any area in the lower 48 Our Response: Comment noted. findings. States. Because of increased (47) Comment: BLM concurs with the Our Response: We asked Dr. Knisley, temperature, Utah soils are expected to discussion of sand dune movement in Dr. Charles Gowan, and Dr. Leon Higley dry more rapidly and this is likely to the proposed rule. They stated that it to provide peer review of the CPSD tiger result in reduced soil moisture levels in will be necessary to continually adjust beetle proposed rule, and Dr. Knisley CPSD tiger beetle habitat. This analysis the boundaries on the Conservation and Dr. Gowan provided their reviews is well documented and supported in Areas to compensate for dune of the rule. Their comments are part of the proposed and this final movement. BLM believes that this is the rulemaking record and are available determination. In addition, the best done through continued to the public through the http:// proposed rule thoroughly explains the implementation of the CCA and the www.regulations.gov Web site. This effects ORVs can have to CPSD tiger flexibility that it provides. withdrawal also incorporates beetle habitat and the species reliance Our Response: Adaptive management information and addresses the on soils with the correct moisture levels. of conservation boundaries in response comments provided by the peer Please see the discussion on Climate to dune movement is included in the reviewers. Change and Drought, below, for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

additional discussion. However, our use has been addressed in the 2013 CCA processes that are intended to account conclusion is that the effects of climate Amendment by creating additional for dune movement (see Table 2). change are not a threat to the CPSD tiger protective habitat surrounding (58) Comment: One commenter stated beetle, and we are withdrawing our Conservation Area A (24 ha (59 ac)), and that carsonite posts and the potential proposal to list the species. in polygons between Conservation threat of being ticketed by an (52) Comment: A commenter stated Areas A and B (106 ha (263 ac)) that will overworked ranger are not sufficient that the Act does not authorize the allow for CPSD tiger beetle dispersal barriers to ORV use. The same Service to list a species that is not in and colonization. See answer to commenter expressed concern that need of recovery. Comment (48), Factor D. The funding of the CCA could be cut, Our Response: Under the Act, we can Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory discontinued, or weakened. determine that a species is an Mechanisms, and Ongoing and Future Our Response: Demarcation of endangered or threatened species based Conservation Efforts for additional Conservation Area A with carsonite on any of five factors: (A) The present information. posts has been effective at protecting or threatened destruction, modification, (55) Comment: One commenter stated CPSD tiger beetle for the last 15 years, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) that the 2013 CCA Amendment should and we are confident that this method Overutilization for commercial, be adequate to protect CPSD tiger beetle will be effective for new locations as recreational, scientific, or educational if the proposed open area on the east well. Conservation actions directed by purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) side of Conservation Area A is reduced the 1997 and 2009 versions of the CCA The inadequacy of existing regulatory to a carefully sited and clearly have been consistently funded by the mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or demarcated trail, no more than two Service, BLM, and Utah State Parks manmade factors affecting its continued vehicles wide, through the area of since the CCA was signed, funding has existence. However, our analysis of unstable dunes on the east side, that is been committed for the next 10 years as these factors shows that the species does laid out with direction of Dr. Knisley part of the 2013 CCA Amendment, and not warrant listing as threatened or and the Service, with the cooperation of we are confident that it will continue endangered, and we are withdrawing CPSD State Park and a representative of into the future. Since signing of the our proposal to list the species. the ORV community. original CCA in 1997, the document was (53) Comment: One commenter stated Our Response: We did not demarcate renewed on a standard timeline (2009) that if the Service lists the CPSD tiger an ORV trail on the east side of and has since become even stronger and beetle as threatened and counts climate Conservation Area A as part of the provided more conservation with the change as among the threats to the conservation actions of the 2013 CCA 2013 amendment. species, then the Service should Amendment. This option was discussed consider proposing a special rule under but deemed unsafe for ORV use by (59) Comment: Commenters urge the section 4(d) of the Act to exclude CPSD Park personnel. Service to continue ongoing discussions otherwise lawful activities, such as (56) Comment: One commenter stated with the BLM, Utah State Parks, and greenhouse gas emissions, from those that Dr. Knisley’s methods are Kane County Commissioners about actions that others may allege to pioneering, consistent, detailed, updating the existing Conservation constitute as ‘‘take’’ of the CPSD tiger reliable, and as thorough as possible Agreement. The commenters stated that beetle. given limited time and budget. The any protections necessary for the CPSD Our Response: A special rule under commenter stated that his work area are best developed through this section 4(d) can be issued for species supports the conclusion that the species process, and this process serves the listed as threatened species under the is habitat limited and that its habitat is local community best. Act; however, we are withdrawing our subject to change and has changed over Our Response: We agree. The 2013 proposal to list the CPSD tiger beetle as the period of study. CCA Amendment was signed by these a threatened species. Our Response: We have included the entities in March 2013 and discussions (54) Comment: Several commenters analysis of much of Dr. Knisley’s CPSD will continue on an annual basis to stated that the CPSD tiger beetle should tiger beetle work in our proposed rule further conservation of the CPSD tiger be listed with designated critical habitat and this withdrawal of the proposed beetle through associated monitoring, as detailed in the proposed rule, and rule. research, education, and habitat that the previous CCA as well as the (57) Comment: One commenter protection actions. 2013 CCA Amendment do not fully concluded that it is clear that the dunes (60) Comment: One commenter stated address the threat of ORV use. These are moving, and cited Dr. Knisley’s that the area currently under commenters indicated that extensive work over the past decade as evidence consideration for designation as critical ORV use is permitted across the of consistent movement of the dune habitat exceeds the area that is majority of CPSD State Park and in the crests. This commenter believed that absolutely necessary to conserve CPSD areas between the ‘islands of habitat’ (as restricting critical habitat to the tiger beetle. specified in the 2013 CCA Amendment) currently occupied habitat would not Our Response: The area considered in located between the two populations. allow the freedom of the dunes to move the proposed rule for critical habitat The commenters stated the use of ORVs as natural forces dictate. The commenter designation included those areas that is also permitted (although restricted) opined that to protect the dunes provide sufficient elements of physical on the BLM lands surrounding the ecosystem, including the CPSD tiger or biological features necessary to northern population. The commenters beetle and all of the resources upon support CPSD tiger beetle life-history believe the tiger beetle remains which it depends, the dunes must have processes. However, we have vulnerable to impacts from illegal ORV room to move and a source of sand and withdrawn our proposal to list the CPSD use, both in its occupied habitat and in wind consistent with the history of the tiger beetle and designate critical the area between the two populations. ecosystem over ecological time. habitat. The 2013 CCA Amendment Our Response: At the time of Our Response: We are withdrawing provides sufficient habitat protection to publication of the proposed rule, threats our proposed listing and critical habitat reduce threats to the species from ORV to CPSD tiger beetle included negative designation. The 2013 CCA Amendment use, small population size, drought, and effects of ORV use. The threat of ORV includes adaptive management climate change.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61097

(61) Comment: One commenter published on October 2, 2012 (77 FR (c) Research efforts clearly defined the shared that, 20 years ago, motorized 60208). CPSD tiger beetle lifecycle and observed versus non-motorized use at the CPSD (2) The addition of the Ongoing and population fluctuations relative to feature was divided 50/50; however, Future Conservation Efforts section fluctuations in rainfall. more recently, a 2001 CPSD State Park prior to the Summary of Factors (d) A 2-year field study was visitor survey indicated a conflict Affecting the Species section, below. completed that indicates supplemental between motorized and non-motorized The conservation agreements are no watering has a significant and positive use, stating that 80 to 90 percent of longer discussed in detail in Factor D. effect on recruitment of new CPSD tiger visitors were offended by issues Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory beetle larvae, their survival, and their involving safety, tracks, and noise. The Mechanisms, but are included in the speed of development. commenter noted that as reported in the Ongoing and Future Conservation (e) Genetic studies were conducted Southern Utah News (September 19, Efforts section. and demonstrated that the CPSD tiger 2001), visitor surveys indicate visitors (3) The Service reevaluated beetle is an independent species, rather oppose motorized use at the Sand population sampling information and than the subspecies it was considered Dunes. The commenter said the article has adjusted how sampling information when the original 1997 CCA partnership further stated that, although motorized is reported. This information is was established. (f) A population viability analysis was use constitutes the majority of activity included in the Background section. on holiday weekends, visitor developed to determine the likelihood expectation is for a more pristine Ongoing and Future Conservation of extinction and the range of habitat experience like they have at the Grand Efforts required for the species to persist. The population viability model will serve as Canyon and Zion National Parks. The Below we summarize the 2009 CCA a useful tool to evaluate, adapt, and commenter indicated that these data and the 2013 CCA Amendment that prioritize conservation strategies. make clear that motorized use within provide conservation benefits to the (g) Educational materials were the CPSD State Park and the Moquith CPSD tiger beetle. We describe the developed and are displayed and Mountain WSA is not the economic significant conservation efforts that are distributed at the CPSD State Park and driver of the area. The commenter already occurring and those that are additionally stated that, based on these BLM office. expected to occur in the future. We have (h) A protocol for translocation was data, it is likely that economic benefit also completed an analysis of the newly may actually flow from critical habitat developed and beetles were translocated initiated efforts pursuant to our PECE in a pilot effort to establish a more designation as a substantial number of policy on the 2013 CCA Amendment non-motorized users begin to revisit secure population at Conservation Area (Conservation Committee 2013, entire). B. both the CPSD State Park and the After the CPSD tiger beetle became a Moquith Mountain WSA as a result of (i) The BLM Kanab Field Office candidate species in 1997, a variety of revised its land use plan and included restricted ORV use. conservation initiatives were put in Our Response: The Service has direction to implement measures place to conserve the species’ habitat, limited information regarding user identified in the CCA for CPSD tiger while continuing ORV activities in the conflicts or preferences at the CPSD beetle management. area. The document that served as the dune geologic feature; however, this Despite the positive accomplishments foundation for the conservation of CPSD issue is outside of the scope of our of the 1997 CCA and 2009 CCA, the rulemaking process. Please see tiger beetle was the 1997 CCA, which proposed rule identified several threats Comment (23) for information on the was renewed in 2009 and amended in that were still negatively acting on economic benefits of motorized use in 2013 (Conservation Committee 1997, CPSD tiger beetle and its habitat. the CPSD to the economy of Kane entire; Conservation Committee 2009, Residual threats identified in the County. Nevertheless, the proposed entire; Conservation Committee 2013, proposed rule included: (1) Continued listing is withdrawn by this document entire). This CCA provided the habitat loss and degradation caused by and therefore no critical habitat will be conservation framework necessary for ORV use; (2) small population effects, designated. the development of several collaborative such as vulnerability to random chance conservation efforts that have benefited events; (3) the effects of climate change Summary of Changes From the the CPSD tiger beetle. The proposed rule and drought; (4) and cumulative Proposed Rule details these conservation measures in interaction of the individual factors Based upon our review of the public several locations within the document listed above (77 FR 60208, October 2, comments, comments from other (77 FR 60208). In summary, the 1997 2012). The proposed rule also Federal and State agencies, peer review and 2009 CCAs coordinated or enacted determined that existing regulatory comments, issues addressed at the conservation efforts over the last 15 mechanisms were not adequately public hearing, and any new relevant years including: addressing the ORV-related threats to information that may have become (a) Two conservation areas were the species. available since the publication of the established. Conservation Area A was Based on information provided in the proposal, we reevaluated our proposed 207 ac (84 ha), and Conservation Area proposed rule, discussions with rule and made changes as appropriate. B was 150 ha (370 ac) at the time of the researchers, and onsite evaluations with Other than minor clarifications and 2009 CCA. ORVs were not allowed in the CCA partners, signatory agencies incorporation of additional information these areas, and Utah State Parks and established a 2013 amendment to the on the species’ biology, this BLM staff have enforced this restriction. 2009 CCA. This amendment outlined determination differs from the proposal These conservation areas have protected several new conservation actions that by: significant CPSD tiger beetle habitat will be enacted to address the threats (1) Based on our analyses, the Service from ORV impacts. that were identified in our October 2, has determined that the CPSD tiger (b) Annual monitoring was conducted 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60208) beetle should not be listed as a to evaluate population status, and (Table 1). The 2013 CCA Amendment threatened species. This document habitat and population response to evaluated the most recent tiger beetle withdraws the proposed rule as conservation actions. survey information and peer review

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

comments from our proposed rule and habitats—the expansion of Conservation 263 ac (106 ha), between Conservation concluded that modifications to the Area A protects 88 percent of the central Areas A and B (see Figure 1), with the boundaries of the Conservation Areas population’s habitat. Posting of new intent of providing dispersal habitat for are needed to ensure continued habitat began in summer 2013 and will the species. Additional conservation protection of the tiger beetle from be completed by the end of the year. measures of the 2013 CCA Amendment ongoing threats (see Figure 1; Table 1; The Amendment also commits to are listed in Table 1 and were evaluated Conservation Committee 2013, entire). evaluating areas farther to the south of for certainty of implementation and Current survey information identified Conservation Area A where adults and certainty of effectiveness with the PECE the species occurring in significant larvae were found in 2012—this process process. The Service’s detailed PECE numbers south and east of the was initiated in the spring of 2013, and analysis on the 2013 CCA Amendment Conservation Area A boundary, as defined by the 2009 CCA (Knisley and the conservation committee is is available for review at http:// Gowan 2013, entire). Therefore, the evaluating the need to provide www.regulations.gov and http:// 2013 CCA Amendment will enlarge additional protection to some of this www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ Conservation Area A from 207 ac (81 ha) habitat. In addition, the 2013 CCA invertebrates/ to 266 ac (108 ha) (see Figure 1) to Amendment provides protection for coralpinksanddunestigerbeetle/ protect most of the known occupied islands of habitat, totaling an additional index.html.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CPSD TIGER BEETLE 2013 CCA AMENDMENT [Conservation Committee 2013, entire]

Threat Conservation measure Status

Habitat loss/degradation and mortality associ- • Utah State Parks agrees to expand the • Posting of the new Conservation Area A ated with ORV use boundary of Conservation Area A to protect boundary began in summer 2013 and will additional habitat while addressing diversity be completed by the end of the year. in recreation and maintaining safety stand- • Posting of 14 new habitat patches began in ards for dune visitors. This area will be per- summer 2013 and will be completed by the manently expanded in 2013 from 207 ac end of the year. (84 ha) to 266 ac (108 ha) (Figure 1), thus • Habitat south of Conservation Area A was increasing protection of tiger beetle occu- identified for protection by the Conservation pied swales from 48 percent to 88 percent Committee in spring 2013. Will have final for the central population. All new or ex- configuration and be posted by end of panded habitat areas will be demarcated 2013. with carsonite marking posts to facilitate • Analysis of historical dune imagery will compliance by CPSD State Park visitors. ocurr in combination with 3-year boundary analysis. Baseline dune analysis has been completed by Fenster et al. (2012). • Plans to perform vegetation treatments have been discussed informally, but this ac- tion will be a low priority until new habitat areas are posted. • Conservation boundaries will be reassessed in 2016. • Utah State Parks and the BLM will protect • Enforcement of conservation areas is ongo- vegetated habitat islands of connectivity be- ing. tween the central and northern conservation areas and monitor to ensure compliance. This action will occur in 2013 and will pro- tect 263 ac (106 ha) of additional sand dune habitat comprising 14 individual habi- tat patches (Figure 1), which range in size from 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) to 37.1 ac (15 ha) each. All new or expanded habitat areas will be demarcated with carsonite marking posts to facilitate compliance by CPSD State Park visitors. • CPSD tiger beetle adults and larvae were found south of Conservation Area A in 2012. The conservation committee visited this area in spring of 2013 to determine which additional habitats will be protected to support the tiger beetle (Figure 1). All conservation committee members agreed that several swales should be protected. The exact size and configuration of these protected areas are currently being deter- mined by CPSD tiger beetle researchers and members of the conservation com- mittee. All new or expanded habitat will be finalized by late 2013 and demarcated with carsonite posts to facilitate compliance by CPSD State Park visitors.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61099

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CPSD TIGER BEETLE 2013 CCA AMENDMENT—Continued [Conservation Committee 2013, entire]

Threat Conservation measure Status

• The conservation committee will analyze available historical aerial imagery, and other data, to better understand dune movement and associated vegetation changes as they relate to beetle occupation and suitable habitat over time. Knowledge of dune movement patterns will be used in adaptive management planning to accommodate dune changes and the need to alter con- servation area boundaries. • The conservation committee will conduct experimental vegetation treatments within existing conservation areas to determine if this could be an effective mechanism to in- crease suitable habitat. • The conservation committee will revisit con- servation area boundaries on a routine cycle (every 3 years) and make necessary adjustments to these boundaries as a result of shifting dunes, vegetation changes, pop- ulation increases and decreases, and re- sulting changes to suitable habitat. • Utah State Parks and the BLM will continue efforts in law enforcement, education, and outreach. Vulnerability to stochastic events due to small • We are not aware of any additional popu- • Utah DNR has successfully advertised (pro- population size. lations of CPSD tiger beetle outside of the posal submitted) a request-for-proposals to CPSD formation. However, the conserva- begin effort to search for potential habitat tion committee believes it is appropriate to within 50 mile radius. continue surveys for this species in the • Annual monitoring which happens each area. The conservation committee will iden- spring will include newly protected habitat tify potential habitat within a 50-mile radius and will include translocation efforts as ap- of the CPSD formation using aerial imagery propriate. and survey for CPSD tiger beetle presence and habitat suitability. If appropriate habitat is found, the area will be considered for ex- perimental introduction. • The conservation committee will increase research effort in experimental translocations in Conservation Area B and evaluate new habitat islands for appro- priateness for reintroduction efforts. • The conservation committee will introduce individuals into suitable habitats (potential sites have been identified between Con- servation Areas A and B), monitor these sites, and revise translocation activities via an adaptive management process. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms • Utah State Parks and the BLM have done a • Status of habitat protection actions as de- creditable job of enforcing the protection scribed above will regulate ORV use. boundaries of Conservation Areas A and B • Enforcement of conservation areas is ongo- for approximately the last 15 years. This ing amendment increases the size of Con- servation Area A by 59 ac (24 ha), and the conservation committee will consider further protection of habitats to the south of Con- servation Area A (see Habitat loss/degrada- tion and mortality associated with ORV use, above). In addition, the 2013 CCA Amend- ment establishes 14 habitat patches to sup- port dispersal of tiger beetles between Con- servation Areas A and B, increasing the total protected area by an additional 263 ac (106 ha). Because these signatory agencies have complied with the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the last 15 years, it can reasonably be concluded that the BLM and Utah State Parks will continue to properly enforce the boundaries of all protected areas.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CPSD TIGER BEETLE 2013 CCA AMENDMENT—Continued [Conservation Committee 2013, entire]

Threat Conservation measure Status

Climate change and drought ...... • The BLM began installing a weather station • Weather station was installed in summer onsite in spring 2013 to better correlate 2013 and is providing data. weather patterns with CPSD tiger beetle • Posting of 14 new habitat patches began in abundance (note—this action will be com- summer 2013 and will be completed by the pleted in fall 2013). Understanding the ef- end of the year. fects of weather patterns on CPSD tiger beetle populations will help the conserva- tion committee develop adaptive manage- ment strategies by identifying important habitat use areas during particularly dry or warm years. • The establishment of 14 additional habitat patches totaling 263 ac (106 ha) will occur at higher elevations in the sand dune area, and at locations that provide significant vegetated habitat. This has the potential to offset the drying and warming effects of cli- mate change and drought on CPSD tiger beetle habitat. In addition, these habitat polygons will provide dispersal habitat and connectivity between Conservation Areas A and B. This will better allow the tiger beetle to disperse to potentially cooler and wetter habitat that occurs in Conservation Area B. Cumulative effects of the above ...... • Addressing the threats listed above inde- • Some conservation actions have been com- pendently will prevent these threats from pleted, some are ongoing, and the most acting cumulatively. significant ones (habitat protection) will be completed by the end of 2013. See above for more information regarding status of in- dividual actions.

PECE Analysis than endangered, we must find that the plan is not required to have absolute conservation effort is sufficiently certain certainty of implementation and The purpose of PECE is to ensure to be (1) implemented, and (2) effective, effectiveness in order to contribute to a consistent and adequate evaluation of so as to have contributed to the listing determination. Rather, we need recently formalized conservation efforts elimination or adequate reduction of to be certain that the conservation when making listing decisions. The one or more threats to the species efforts will be implemented and policy provides guidance on how to identified through the section 4(a)(1) effective such that the threats to the evaluate conservation efforts that have analysis. The elimination or adequate species are reduced or eliminated. not yet been implemented or have not reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR yet demonstrated effectiveness. The lead to a determination that the species 15100, March 28, 2003), we evaluated evaluation focuses on the certainty that does not meet the definition of the certainty of implementation (for the conservation efforts will be threatened or endangered, or is those measures not already implemented and effectiveness of the threatened rather than endangered. implemented) and effectiveness of conservation efforts. The policy presents An agreement or plan may contain conservation measures pertaining to the nine criteria for evaluating the certainty numerous conservation efforts, not all of CPSD tiger beetle. We have determined of implementation and six criteria for which are sufficiently certain to be that the measures will be effective at evaluating the certainty of effectiveness implemented and effective. Those eliminating or reducing threats to the for conservation efforts. These criteria conservation efforts that are not species because they protect occupied are not considered comprehensive sufficiently certain to be implemented and suitable habitat, provide habitat and evaluation criteria. The certainty of and effective cannot contribute to a additional management information to implementation and the effectiveness of determination that listing is address the effects of climate change a formalized conservation effort may unnecessary, or a determination to list and drought, and institute on-the- also depend on species-specific, habitat- as threatened rather than endangered. ground changes to better manage and specific, location-specific, and effort- Regardless of the adoption of a regulate protected habitat and ORV use. specific factors. We consider all conservation agreement or plan, We have a high degree of certainty that appropriate factors in evaluating however, if the best available scientific the measures will be implemented formalized conservation efforts. The and commercial data indicate that the because the conservation committee specific circumstances will also species meets the definition of partners have an impressive track record determine the amount of information ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened of implementing conservation measures necessary to satisfy these criteria. species’’ on the day of the listing and CCAs for this species since 1997. To consider that a formalized decision, then we must proceed with Over approximately the past 15 years of conservation effort contributes to appropriate rulemaking activity under implementation, BLM and Utah State forming a basis for not listing a species, section 4 of the Act. Further, it is Parks have effectively implemented or listing a species as threatened rather important to note that a conservation conservation measures from the 1997

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61101

CCA and have monitored the CPSD tiger Summary of Factors Affecting the extirpated several tiger beetle beetle population, conducted Species populations. For example, ORV use and translocation and other research, Section 4 of the Act and its pedestrian traffic extirpated the established and enforced protection implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) Northeastern Beach tiger beetle, areas, and educated the public on the set forth the procedures for adding Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis, in several occurrence and importance of the species to the Federal Lists of localities (Knisley 2011, p. 45). species at the CPSD formation. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Similarly, within several years of the Assateague Island National Seashore New conservation measures are and Plants. A species may be (Maryland, USA) opening for ORV use, prescribed by the 2013 CCA determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more the White Beach tiger beetle, C. d. Amendment and are already being media, was extirpated from all but those implemented, such as establishment of of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or areas where ORVs were restricted additional protected habitat areas and threatened destruction, modification, or (Knisley and Hill 1992, pp. 138–139). deployment of a weather station (see curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Additionally, ORV use is responsible for Table 1 in Ongoing and Future overutilization for commercial, eliminating tiger beetle populations in Conservation Efforts for more recreational, scientific, or educational coastal southern California (Hairy- information on status of conservation purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) necked tiger beetle, C. hirticollis efforts). The 2013 CCA Amendment has the inadequacy of existing regulatory gravida), Oregon and Washington sufficient annual monitoring and mechanisms; or (E) other natural or (Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle, C. h. reporting requirements to ensure that all manmade factors affecting its continued siuslawensis), and Idaho (St. Anthony of the conservation measures are existence. Listing actions may be Dune tiger beetle, C. arenicola) (Knisley implemented as planned, and are warranted based on any of the above 2011, p. 45). effective at removing threats to the threat factors, singly or in combination. CPSD Tiger Beetle Mortality—ORVs CPSD tiger beetle and its habitat. The Each of these factors is discussed below. run over and thereby kill and injure collaboration between the Service, Kane Factor A. The Present or Threatened CPSD tiger beetles (Hill and Knisley County, Utah Parks, and BLM requires Destruction, Modification, or 1993, p. 14; Knisley and Gowan 2008, regular committee meetings and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range p. 23). The likelihood of being injured involvement of all parties in order to or killed increases if adult CPSD tiger fully implement the conservation ORV Use beetle are run over on wet or compact agreement. Based on the successes of Loss of habitat is the leading cause of substrates (e.g., moist swales) as previous actions of the conservation species extinction (Pimm and Raven compared to soft sands (e.g., dune faces) committee, we have a high level of 2000, p. 843). Insects are highly (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 390). The certainty that the conservation measures vulnerable to extinction through habitat likelihood of being hit by ORVs also in the 2013 CCA Amendment will be loss (McKinney 1997, pp. 501–507), and increases based on the level of ORV use. implemented (for those measures not ORV use has significantly impacted For example, the numbers of adult CPSD tiger beetles found injured or already begun) and effective, and thus several species of tiger beetle killed by ORVs increases substantially they can be considered as part of the nationwide. More specifically, ORV use during periods of heavy use, such as basis for our final listing determination has significantly impacted the CPSD tiger beetle’s habitat, range, and the during the Memorial Day holiday (Table for the CPSD tiger beetle. beetle itself by directly killing beetles, 2; Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 390). We Our full analysis of the 2013 CCA damaging vegetation that supports prey have no information quantifying the Amendment pursuant to PECE can be items, directly killing prey items, and direct injury or mortality that ORVs found at http://www.regulations.gov. reducing soil moisture. cause to eggs or larval CPSD tiger beetle Nationwide Context—Nationwide, because these stages are underground ORV use has drastically reduced or and not easily monitored.

TABLE 2—A COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF ADULT CORAL PINK SAND DUNES TIGER BEETLES FOUND INJURED OR KILLED (BY OFF-ROAD VEHICLES) BEFORE AND AFTER A HIGH ORV USE HOLIDAY WEEKEND (MEMORIAL DAY) FROM 1993 TO 1998 (NO SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 1995) [Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 390]

Before Memorial Day Weekend After Memorial Day Weekend Year Number Number Total number observed killed Total number observed killed observed or injured observed or injured

1993 ...... (1) (1) 179 14 1994 ...... 363 0 125 6 1996 ...... 231 2 287 41 1997 ...... 256 2 64 6 1998 ...... 168 1 278 8 1 No data.

We do not have specific data Areas A and B. It is likely that many of central population and the northern regarding the level of impact ORVs have the beetles run over by ORVs in this population was likely negatively on CPSD tiger beetles in the previously area were injured or killed. Thus, the impacted by ORVs. The result of these unprotected area between Conservation ability of adults to disperse between the ORV impacts is that the habitat between

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

the central and northern populations 2008, p. 19). Food limitation is at least surface) to greater evaporative pressure has not provided a sufficient dispersal partly caused by ORV use. ORVs reduce (Shultz 1988, p. 28; Knisley and Gowan corridor for beetles or habitat for CPSD tiger beetle prey density and prey 2008, p. 10). It also reduces soil colonization (see Population species diversity in the CPSD (Knisley moisture by increasing soil compaction Distribution). Thus, the proposed rule and Gowan 2006, p. 19). Ants, a primary (Adams et al. 1982, p. 167). Compaction concluded that BLM protection of only prey item, occur in much lower reduces water infiltration and reduces Conservation Area B, and the absence of densities in areas frequented by ORVs moisture retention in soils (Belnap protection in the dispersal corridor, than in areas with no ORV traffic 1995, p. 39). would result in the continued threat of (Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 23). In As we discussed earlier (see Habitat), ORV use to the CPSD tiger beetle. addition, low ORV use areas in the soil moisture is essential to the CPSD However, the 2013 CCA Amendment CPSD geologic feature have a higher tiger beetle’s life history. Extreme drying provides for additional protected habitat diversity of prey species and higher or desiccation kills tiger beetles (Knisley surrounding Conservation Area A and numbers of prey items than high ORV and Juliano 1988, p. 1990). In a dry for islands of habitat between use areas (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. environment, such as the CPSD geologic Conservation Areas A and B, thus 389). feature, organisms are constantly alleviating this threat to CPSD tiger Prey availability significantly affects struggling to acquire and maintain beetles (see Ongoing and Future the number of larvae produced by adult enough water to survive. Reduced water Conservation Efforts). tiger beetles (Pearson and Knisley 1985, Impacts to Vegetation—As discussed p. 165) and the survival of larval tiger availability is limiting to tiger beetles in above (see Background, Habitat) larval beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1988, p. CPSD, as evidenced by the fact that CPSD tiger beetles are more restricted to 1990). Low prey densities can result in experimental water supplementation vegetated swale areas where the prolonged development and decreased increased larval CPSD tiger beetle vegetation supports the larval prey base survivorship in larval tiger beetles and survival by 10 percent (Knisley and of flies, ants, and other prey species. reduced size in adults, which lowers Gowan 2008 p. 20). CPSD areas Although adult CPSD tiger beetles are fecundity in females (Pearson and protected from ORV use have more mobile and can hunt prey species Knisley 1985, p. 165; Knisley and significantly higher soil moistures and over a wider range of habitat types, Juliano 1988, p. 1990). Low prey higher numbers of CPSD tiger beetles vegetated swale habitat is still necessary densities also require larval and adult than adjacent ORV use areas (Knisley to support adult prey items (see tiger beetles to spend more time and Gowan 2008, pp. 10–11), therefore Background, Habitat). The effects of searching for food. For larval tiger the protection of Conservation Areas A ORVs on vegetation are well beetles, this means more time near and B, as well as the islands of habitats documented and include crushing and burrow entrances searching for prey, between these two areas, reduces the uprooting of foliage and root systems resulting in increased susceptibility to threat associated with the loss of soil and the accompanying erosion and parasitism and predators (Pearson and moisture from ORVs. drying of soils (Ouren et al. 2007, pp. 4– Knisley 1985, p. 166). Similarly, adults Population Level Effects—Available 5; Switalski and Jones 2012, p. 14). The that spend more time out of their information shows the effects of ORV protection of Conservation Areas A and burrows searching for food have an use on CPSD tiger beetle population B, and islands of habitat between the increased susceptibility to predation. numbers. For example, swales adjacent Conservation Areas includes the The 2013 CCA Amendment protects the to but outside of Conservation Area A protection of vegetated swale habitat, majority of known CPSD tiger beetle are similar in all apparent thus reducing the threat of ORV impacts occupied habitat, thus reducing the environmental conditions to swales to vegetation. threat of ORV impacts to prey within Conservation Area A with the Prey Mortality—Food limitation has a availability. exception of ORV impacts. However, significant impact on tiger beetle Reduction of Soil Moisture—ORV use CPSD tiger beetle abundance in ORV- growth, survival, and fecundity, degrades larval habitat by reducing soil impacted occupied swales is especially for desert species. Adult moisture. ORV use can reduce soil consistently lower than adjacent CPSD tiger beetles are, in some years, moisture by churning up soils and protected occupied swales, potentially extremely food limited and exhibit exposing the moisture that is locked because of ORV impacts (Figure 3). reduced fecundity (Knisley and Gowan between soil particles (beneath the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61103

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C The year following removal of ORV use, Gowan 2011, p. 11). This action For example, one swale with ORV use the tiger beetle density on this swale provides an example of how the had population counts of 60 or more more than doubled to 150 beetles, conservation committee has used CPSD tiger beetles in most years which also is the highest number adaptive management to benefit the (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 11). Utah recorded for the swale (Knisley and CPSD tiger beetle and demonstrates a State Park staff, at the recommendation Gowan 2011, p. 11). This increase could rapid population response to removed of the conservation committee, not be attributed to an increase in ORV disturbance. The increased protected this swale from ORV use in moisture as rainfall levels were low and protection for Conservation Area A and 2010 (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 11). declining at this time (Knisley and islands of habitat between Conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP02OC13.002 61104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Areas A and B provided by the 2013 through direct mortality and injury, and levels that are unaltered by ORV use. CCA Amendment reduces the potential by reducing prey base and soil moisture. Additionally, protected areas will not threat of ORV use to population-level We still conclude that ORV use can have ORV use that results in direct effects. In fact, it is likely the increased substantially reduce habitat qualities killing of CPSD tiger beetles or their protection will result in increased tiger essential to the CPSD tiger beetle’s life prey. Quality habitat and the absence of beetle populations in these areas. cycle (e.g., soil moisture and prey ORV use will allow for CPSD tiger CCA Protections—The 2009 CCA availability) (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. beetle populations to continue to grow conservation actions evaluated in the 389; Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 10– in number and provide resilience to the proposed rule protected the entirety of 11). Reduction in habitat quality can effects of climate change, drought, and the northern population of CPSD tiger reduce reproductive success and the small population size (see Factor E. beetle but only 48 percent of the swale tiger beetle population growth rate (e.g., Other Natural or Manmade Factors habitat occupied by the CPSD tiger Klok and de Roos 1998, pp. 205–206). Affecting Its Continued Existence). beetle in the central population and In the proposed rule, we acknowledged Thus, the best scientific and commercial none of the dispersal corridor habitat the very important protections of information available indicates that the (see Table 1). Since the publication of Conservation Areas A and B from ORV destruction, modification, or the proposed rule, the 2013 CCA use. However, despite these curtailment of the CPSD tiger beetle’s Amendment has been signed and the conservation efforts, we determined at habitat or range due to ORV use is not conservation committee has committed that time that only 48 percent of a threat to the species now or in the to: (1) Expanding Conservation Area A occupied swale habitat in the central future. boundaries to protect 88 percent of the population was protected, and none of Factor B. Overutilization for central population from ORV use; (2) the dispersal corridor habitat was Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or protecting a total of 263 ac (106 ha) of protected (Figure 3, Knisley and Gowan Educational Purposes vegetated habitat islands of connectivity 2009, p. 8). In addition, we concluded between the central and northern that the degradation of habitat (both Tiger beetles are one of the most conservation areas from ORV use and occupied and potential) by ORV use sought-after groups of insects by monitoring to ensure compliance; and reduced the ability of the population to amateur collectors because of the (3) visiting the area south of expand or disperse in areas outside of unique metallic colors and patterns Conservation Area A (where significant the Conservation Areas and thereby present in the various species and numbers of CPSD tiger beetle larvae and reduced the population’s carrying subspecies, as well as their fascinating adults have been found) in spring of capacity. habits (Pearson et al. 2006, pp. 3–5). 2013 to determine what additional Since the publication of the proposed Interest in the genus Cicindela is habitats should be protected from ORV rule, the CPSD tiger beetle conservation reflected in the scientific journal use to support the tiger beetle. The size committee signed the 2013 CCA entitled ‘‘Cicindela,’’ which is and configuration of any protected areas Amendment that now provides an published quarterly (since 1969) and is south of Conservation Area A will be adequate amount of protected habitat for exclusively devoted to the genus. In determined during the 2013 field season both the central and northern certain circumstances, collection of with input from all members of the populations of CPSD tiger beetle and the these insects can add valuable conservation committee. dispersal and colonization habitat information regarding biogeography, All new or expanded protected between the two populations. Specific taxonomy, and life history of the habitat areas will be demarcated with protections include increasing the species. However, some collection is carsonite posts to facilitate compliance Conservation Area A boundary to purely recreational and adds little to no by CPSD State Park visitors. The protect 88 percent of CPSD tiger beetle value to the scientific understanding or conservation committee will revisit occupied habitat at the central conservation of tiger beetles. conservation area boundaries on a population, and an additional 263 ac Collection of adult CPSD tiger beetles routine cycle (every 3 years) and make (106 ha) of CPSD habitat between the before they mate and lay their eggs may necessary adjustments as a result of Conservation Areas A and B. We are result in reduced population size of shifting dunes, vegetation changes, also working with our partners to subsequent generations. In the proposed population increase and decreases, and evaluate and potentially protect rule, we reported that the magnitude of resulting changes to suitable habitat. additional occupied habitat south of recreational collection cannot be Historical ORV use has reduced Conservation Area A. accurately determined for the CPSD available habitat and the CPSD tiger We conclude that, by restricting ORV tiger beetle, but it is likely that some beetle population size. This has use to areas outside of 88 percent of number of adults were taken in the past. previously resulted in a population that CPSD tiger beetle occupied habitat at We further reported that as agreed to in faces threats from minor stochastic the central population, all of the the CCA, CPSD State Park and BLM events and minor environmental occupied habitat of the northern personnel now enforce restrictions on perturbations. However, we find that population, and 263 ac (106 ha) of the recreational collecting of CPSD tiger recent protections agreed to and dispersal corridor (see Ongoing and beetles, and consequently, collection implemented by the 2013 CCA Future Conservation Efforts), the species levels were expected to be low Amendment now provide an adequate will have a sufficient amount of quality (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 17). amount of habitat protected from ORV habitat to persist into the future. This However, a peer reviewer and use to allow the conservation of the protection is being provided through the prominent tiger beetle researcher stated central and northern populations of 2013 CCA Amendment’s commitment to that amateur collectors have taken adult CPSD tiger beetle and the dispersal and eliminate ORV use in Conservation tiger beetle from CPSD in recent years, colonization habitat between the two Areas A and B and on islands of habitat and that there are many tiger beetle populations. within the dispersal corridor. These collectors out there, possibly 100 or habitat areas will be protected and be more nationwide, and perhaps the Summary of Factor A able to sustain sufficient vegetation that number could be increasing (see Peer The proposed rule identified ORV use supports prey items for larval and adult Review). But the peer reviewer expected as a threat to the CPSD tiger beetle CPSD tiger beetle, and soil moisture that most collectors will take small

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61105

numbers of adults and considers 14). These wasps deposit their larvae in Committee 2009, entire), and further collecting of adult CPSD tiger beetles to the burrows of larval tiger beetles. The amended the agreement in 2013 have a limited effect on the population wasp larvae then consume the tiger (Conservation Committee 2013, entire). (Knisley 2013, pers. comm.). beetle larvae. Despite documented The 2009 CCA recommended Although scientific collection is not parasitism to larval CPSD tiger beetle, conservation objectives and actions restricted by any formal permitting effects to the species are low and not designed to protect and conserve the process, only one researcher has considered a threat to the CPSD tiger CPSD tiger beetle. Despite the positive collected CPSD tiger beetles in beetle (Conservation Committee 1997, p. and ongoing accomplishments of the approximately the last 14 years. Over 7). 2009 CCA, the proposed rule identified this time period, approximately 70 several threats that were still negatively adults were collected (Knisley 2012, Summary of Factor C acting on CPSD tiger beetle and its pers. comm.). The adults were collected We have found no information that habitat (see Ongoing and Future in late May after they had mated and indicates that disease negatively affects Conservation Efforts). Based on oviposited eggs (Knisley 2012, pers. the CPSD tiger beetle population. There information provided in the proposed comm.). is some information documenting rule, discussions with researchers, and mortality of CPSD tiger beetles by onsite evaluations with the CCA Summary of Factor B natural predators and parasites; partners, signatory agencies established CPSD tiger beetles are not overutilized however, not to a level that significantly a 2013 amendment to the 2009 CCA. for commercial, recreational, scientific, affects the species. Thus, disease, This amendment outlined several new or educational purposes. A limited parasites, and predation are not a threat conservation actions that will be number of CPSD tiger beetles are to the species now or likely to become enacted to address the threats that were collected from wild populations for so in the future. identified in the Service’s October 2, recreational purposes; however, CPSD 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60208) (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing State Park and BLM personnel enforce Table 2). The degree to which the 2009 Regulatory Mechanisms restrictions on recreational collecting. CCA and the 2013 CCA Amendment Collection of CPSD tiger beetles for The Act requires us to examine the have ameliorated identified threats is scientific investigation and some inadequacy of existing regulatory discussed above and is also discussed recreational purposes occurs on mechanisms with respect to extant below. occasion, but the level of collection is threats that place CPSD tiger beetle in Protection for the tiger beetle in small. The best scientific and danger of becoming either an Conservation Area A is codified and commercial information available endangered or threatened species. enforced according to the CPSD State indicates that overutilization for Regulatory mechanisms affecting the Park’s special closure (Conservation commercial, recreational, scientific, or species fall into three general categories: Committee 1997, p. 13) and Utah’s educational purposes is not a threat to (1) Land management; (2) State Administrative Code R 651–633. Of the the CPSD tiger beetle now nor will be mechanisms; and (3) Federal 809-ha (2,000-ac) CPSD State Park, the in the future. mechanisms. conservation actions agreed to in the 2013 CCA Amendment will protect 266 Factor C. Disease or Predation Land Management ac (108 ha) of occupied habitat at We know of no diseases that are a The CPSD geologic feature is Conservation Area A, or 88 percent of threat to the CPSD tiger beetle. Natural approximately 1,416 ha (3,500 ac). The CPSD tiger occupied swale habitat in mortality through predation and southern 809 ha (2,000 ac) of the CPSD the central population. In addition, parasitism accounts for some individual is within the CPSD State Park and is CPSD tiger beetle adults and larvae were loss of adult and larval CPSD tiger categorized as public land with a found to the south of Conservation Area beetles (Knisley and Hill 1994, p. 16). recreational emphasis (Conservation A in 2012. The conservation committee Known predators of adult tiger beetles Committee 2009, p. 17). The State Park’s visited this area in spring of 2013 to include birds, shrews (Soricidae), mission, as described in the most recent determine any additional habitats that raccoons (Procyon lotor), lizards general management plan (Franklin et should be protected to support the tiger (Lacertilia), toads (Bufonidae), ants al. 2005, p. 3), is ‘‘to provide visitors beetle. The size and configuration of any (Formicidae), robber flies (Asilidae), and […] recreation experiences while protected areas will be determined dragonflies (Anisoptera) (Knisley and preserving and interpreting the park’s during the remainder of the 2013 field Shultz 1997, pp. 57–59). natural, scenic, and recreation season with input from all members of Known tiger beetle parasites include resources.’’ The northern 1,500 ac (607 the conservation committee. ant-like wasps of the family Tiphiidae, ha) is Federal land managed by the Through regulatory protections especially the genera Methoca, Karlissa, BLM’s Kanab Field Office (BLM 2000, p. established as an outcome of the 1997 and Pterombrus, and flies of the genus 14). The northern area is partly within CCA, and maintained in the 2013 CCA Anthrax (Knisley and Shultz 1997, pp. the Moquith Mountain Wilderness Amendment, Conservation Area B 53–57). Parasites predominantly target Study Area (WSA). Public education for provides protection to the northern larval tiger beetles (Pearson and Vogler both areas includes signage, brochures, population’s entire habitat as we have 2001, pp. 170–171). There are two and interpretive programs. defined its boundary (see Figure 1). In known natural parasites of larval CPSD As discussed in the proposed rule and this area, 370 ac (150 ha) is closed to tiger beetles. Bee flies (Bombyliidae) are stated previously in this document (see ORV use to protect a small population known to flick their eggs into beetle Factor A; Ongoing and Future of CPSD tiger beetles. Under the original burrows (Knisley and Hill 1995, p. 14). Conservation Efforts), the Utah 1997 CCA, approximately 445 ha (1,100 When these eggs hatch, the larval Department of Natural Resources (which ac) was available for ORV use outside of parasite feeds on beetle bodily fluids, oversees the Utah State Parks), the BLM, the Conservation Area B on BLM lands often resulting in death of the tiger the Service, and Kane County developed (within the dispersal corridor), but with beetle larvae. Wasps of the genus and signed a CCA in 1997 (Conservation the stipulation that ORVs stay on open Methoca also can parasitize CPSD tiger Committee 1997), renewed the dunes and maintain a 3-m (10-ft) buffer beetle larvae (Knisley and Hill 1995, p. agreement in 2009 (Conservation around vegetation. BLM and Utah State

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Parks have the authority to issue a ticket 2). The expanded protection provided sand dune area, and thus the State Code to ORV users who do not comply with by the 2013 CCA Amendment results in protects tiger beetle habitat in this area. closed areas that are identified with improved long-term habitat conditions In addition, State Code will now carsonite posts (essentially all of for the CPSD tiger beetle, resulting in provide protection to the islands of Conservation Areas A and B, and all increased species’ resiliency, which habitat within the portion of the protected habitat polygons between makes the species less susceptible to dispersal corridor that is on State Park these two areas) (Conservation other threats such as climate change and land. CPSD State Park’s dual purpose Committee 1997, p. 13). drought, demographic and mission statement of providing At the time of the proposed rule, we environmental stochasticity, and recreational experiences while had no record of enforcement effort or catastrophic events (see Factor E. preserving natural resources (Franklin et success of the closures at either Climate Change and Drought and Small al. 2005, p. 3) has assisted with the Conservation Area A or B, or the degree Population Effects). Previously (see the conservation of CPSD tiger beetle of compliance with the 3-m no-ride Background: Population Distribution), because the State Park has closed areas buffer around vegetation on BLM land. the central population of CPSD tiger (Conservation Area A) to ORV use to Since that time we have visited the beetle occupied a smaller portion of protect CPSD tiger beetle. CPSD dune feature and discussed the Conservation Area A, and based on As described above, the 2009 CCA issue of compliance with BLM and Utah population and habitat sampling results and 2013 CCA Amendment provide State Parks staff. Our visits to the area to date, we believed it was not likely long-term protection of the tiger beetle. have observed almost no ORV tracks that the species would expand to other The 2013 CCA Amendment expands within Conservation Areas A or B but a areas in Conservation Area A due to protection based on our current moderate amount of tracks in the insufficient habitat conditions. With the knowledge of the species’ distribution. vicinity of some of the vegetated areas additional protections of the 2013 CCA Although the CCAs are not regulatory on BLM lands that are not in Amendment, Conservation Area A will mechanisms, the State has shown a Conservation Area B. BLM and State protect additional occupied habitat that consistent commitment and ability to Park enforcement officers indicate that is already being used by the species but implement the protective measures, by violation of areas that are currently is at levels that are artificially low due using its regulatory authorities to protected is not a problem and that the to the effects of ORVs (see Population restrict motorized use through its large majority of ORV users voluntarily Viability Analysis and Factor A). Administrative Code Process. Therefore, comply with closed areas (Anderson In the proposed rule, we we conclude that adequate State 2013, pers. comm.). recommended that the population at regulatory mechanisms are in place to At the time of the proposed rule there Conservation Area B be managed such reduce threats to the CPSD tiger beetle. was no protection from ORV use for the that it becomes self-sustaining (see Federal Mechanisms CPSD tiger beetle in the dispersal Population Viability Analysis and corridor between Conservation Areas A Factor A). Overall, it remains unclear The FLPMA is the primary Federal and B. As explained above (see Adult from a biological or regulatory law governing most land uses on BLM- Dispersal), this area is potentially perspective what will be necessary to administered lands. Section 102(a)(8) of important for dispersal of tiger beetles achieve this. It is possible that, by FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife or habitat occupancy in the areas expanding Conservation Area A, the and fish resources as being among the between Conservation Area A to central population will increase such uses for which these lands are to be Conservation Area B. As part of the that it will be sufficient to provide managed. Regulations pursuant to 2013 CCA Amendment, Utah Parks and adequate numbers of dispersers to FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 the BLM will protect vegetated habitat bolster the population at Conservation U.S.C. 181 et seq.) that address wildlife islands of connectivity between the Area B, thus making it self-sustaining. habitat protection on BLM-administered southern and northern conservation This should now be achievable since the land include 43 CFR 3162.3–1 and 43 areas and monitor to ensure compliance. conservation committee agreed to put CFR 3162.5–1; 43 CFR 4120 et seq.; and This action was initiated in 2013 and additional regulatory measures in place 43 CFR 4180 et seq. Cumulatively, BLM protects 263 ac (106 ha) of additional to protect the dispersal corridor between regulations allow the agency to formally sand dune habitat comprising 14 Conservation Areas A and B to allow for recognize sensitive species for special individual habitat patches (Figure 4), a safe and sufficient level of CPSD tiger management and protection, include which range in size from 2.6 to 37.1 ac beetle dispersal between the two areas. them as such in their land management (1.0 to 15 ha) each. In addition, the additional 263 ac (106 plans, and to enforce protective closures Overall, the 2013 CCA Amendment ha) of protected habitat in the dispersal of posted species habitat. See below for increased protected habitat to include corridor will be available to CPSD tiger more information. 88 percent of the occupied swale habitat beetle for colonization. The BLM manages the CPSD tiger of the central population, and an Although the CCAs are not regulatory beetle as a ‘‘sensitive species,’’ that is additional 263 ac (106 ha) of habitat mechanisms by themselves, the managed under BLM Manual 6840— between Conservation Areas A and B. In signatory agencies have implemented Special Status Species Management addition, the conservation committee is the conservation actions specified in the (BLM 2008, entire). The BLM Manual considering protection of additional CCA through the use of regulatory 6840 requires that Resource occupied swale habitat south of mechanisms since 1997, including the Management Plans (RMPs) should Conservation Area A. legal restriction of ORVs from occupied address sensitive species, and that In general, a species’ resiliency to habitats and dispersal corridor. implementation ‘‘should consider all demographic and environmental site-specific methods and procedures perturbations is related to its ability to State Mechanisms needed to bring species and their disperse within and across habitats, to Utah’s Administrative Code R 651– habitats to the condition under which track the preferred climate space, and to 633 prohibits motorized vehicle use in management under the Bureau sensitive expand rapidly following disturbance as designated nonmotorized sand dune species policies would no longer be dictated by its reproductive rates and areas of CPSD State Park. Conservation necessary’’ (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). The dispersal ability (Williams et al. 2008, p. Area A is a designated nonmotorized BLM will continue to manage the CPSD

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61107

tiger beetle as a sensitive species under species will be managed consistent with the effects of climate change and the BLM Manual 6840 (Bolander 2013, species and habitat management monitoring of the species’ use of this pers. comm.). As a designated sensitive objectives in land use and area will inform any adaptive species under BLM Manual 6840, CPSD implementation plans to promote their management for the species. tiger beetle conservation must be conservation and to minimize the NEPA may provide additional addressed in the development and likelihood and need for listing under the protection to CPSD tiger beetle and its implementation of RMPs on BLM lands. ESA’’ (BLM 2008, pp. 26, 32, 41, 64, and habitat. As explained previously, The RMPs are the basis for all actions 65). As such, BLM manual 6840 Federal land management agencies, and authorizations involving BLM- establishes management policy and such as the BLM, have legislation that administered lands and resources. They direction for BLM’s continued specifies how their lands are managed establish allowable resource uses, involvement in the CCA and its for sensitive species. The NEPA resource condition goals and objectives membership on the conservation provides authority for the Service to to be attained, program constraints and committee (Conservation Committee assume a cooperating agency role for general management practices needed to 2009, p. 7). Federal projects undergoing evaluation attain the goals and objectives, general With respect to regulatory for significant impacts to the human implementation sequences, and mechanisms that address climate environment. This includes intervals and standards for monitoring change, on December 15, 2009, the participating in updates to RMPs. As a and evaluating the plan to determine its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperating agency, we have the effectiveness and the need for published in the Federal Register (74 opportunity to provide amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601 et FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment recommendations to the action agency seq.). and Cause or Contribute Findings for to avoid impacts or enhance The RMPs provide a framework and Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) conservation for CPSD tiger beetle and programmatic guidance for activity of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the its habitat where it occurs on Federal plans, which are site-specific plans EPA Administrator found that the land. For projects where we are not a written to implement decisions made in current and projected concentrations of cooperating agency, we often review an RMP. Activity plan decisions the six long-lived and directly emitted proposed actions and provide normally require additional planning greenhouse gases (GHGs)—carbon recommendations to minimize and and NEPA analysis (see below). If an dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife RMP contains specific direction hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, resources. However, acceptance of our regarding sensitive species habitat, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the NEPA recommendations is not required conservation, or management, it atmosphere threaten the public health and is at the discretion of the action represents an enforceable regulatory and welfare of current and future agency. mechanism to ensure that the species generations; and that the combined Summary of Factor D and its habitats are considered during emissions of these GHGs from new permitting and other decisionmaking motor vehicles and new motor vehicle The BLM and Utah State Parks use regarding BLM lands. engines contribute to the GHG pollution their regulatory authorities to The 2008 Kanab RMP establishes that threatens public health and welfare implement their commitments in the guidance and objectives for the (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has 2009 CCA, and the 2013 CCA management of the northern portion of concluded that the GHGs linked to Amendment. State management of land CPSD (BLM 2008, entire). In the RMP, climate change are pollutants, whose in Conservation Area A provides the BLM commits to ‘‘implement emissions can now be subject to the protection for 88 percent of CPSD tiger conservation actions identified in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) beetle occupied habitat in the central Conservation Agreement and Strategy (see 74 FR 66496). However, specific population. By the end of 2013, State for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger regulations to limit GHG emissions were and Federally managed lands between beetle, including maintaining the proposed in 2010 and have not been Conservation Areas A and B will established 370-acre conservation area’’ finalized and, therefore, cannot be provide an additional 263 ac (106 ha) of (BLM 2008, p. 32). In addition to considered an existing regulatory protected habitat for CPSD tiger beetle maintaining Conservation Area B, the mechanism. At present, we have no for dispersal and colonization. Federal BLM has funded and continues to fund basis to conclude that implementation land management by the BLM in the CPSD tiger beetle monitoring and of the Clean Air Act in the future (40 northern portion of CPSD geologic research activities. BLM was signatory years, based on global climate feature includes 150 ha (370 ac) of to the 2013 CCA Amendment and projections) will substantially reduce protected habitat and fully protects the agreed to provide the continued the current rate of global climate change northern population. Utah’s protection of Conservation Area B and through regulation of GHG emissions. Administrative Code prohibits expanded protection on BLM lands However, the establishment of 263 ac motorized vehicle use in designated within the dispersal corridor between (106 ha) of protected habitat on BLM nonmotorized sand dune areas of CPSD Conservation Areas A and B (see and Utah State Parks managed lands State Park (Conservation Area A and Ongoing and Future Conservation between Conservation Area A and B habitat islands within the dispersal Efforts). Although CCAs are not a will occur in locations of the CPSD corridor), and the BLM’s federal regulatory mechanism per se, CCAs can dune feature that are at a significantly sensitive species and RMP authorities implement conservation measures via higher elevation than habitat in the protect CPSD tiger beetle habitat in regulatory mechanisms, and the BLM central population. The northern half of Conservation Area B and habitat islands has used its regulatory authority to the CPSD dune feature is also more within the dispersal corridor. implement the specific protections for densely vegetated and (see Habitat in While the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the CPSD tiger beetle as outlined in the Background) should be able to provide authority to limit GHGs linked to CCA via its 2008 RMP. better habitat as the effects of climate climate change, our analysis concludes BLM Manual 6840—Special Status change are seen in the CPSD area. As a that current regulation of these gases is Species Management (BLM 2008, entire) result, establishment of this new habitat not adequate to reduce the current rate also states that ‘‘Bureau sensitive will allow CPSD tiger beetle to adjust to of global climate change. However,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

establishment of newly protected Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the Scientists use a variety of climate habitat between Conservation Areas A mean and variability of different types models, which include consideration of and B (as managed by State and Federal of weather conditions over time, with 30 natural processes and variability, as regulatory agencies) will allow CPSD years being a typical period for such well as various scenarios of potential tiger beetle to adjust habitat usage to measurements, although shorter or levels and timing of GHG emissions, to areas that are more resilient to the longer periods also may be used (IPCC evaluate the causes of changes already effects of climate change. 2007a, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate observed and to project future changes As evidenced by the discussion change’’ thus refers to a change in the in temperature and other climate above, the species is adequately mean or variability of one or more conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, protected by the existing regulatory measures of climate (e.g., temperature or entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, mechanisms; thus, we conclude that the precipitation) that persists for an 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). existing regulatory mechanisms are not extended period, typically decades or All combinations of models and inadequate, now or in the future. longer, whether the change is due to emissions scenarios yield very similar Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade natural variability, human activity, or projections of average global warming Factors Affecting Its Continued both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). until about 2030. Although projections Existence Scientific measurements spanning of the magnitude and rate of warming several decades demonstrate that differ after about 2030, the overall Natural and manmade factors changes in climate are occurring, and trajectory of all the projections is one of affecting the CPSD tiger beetle include: that the rate of change has been faster increased global warming through the (1) Sand dune movement; (2) climate since the 1950s. Based on extensive end of this century, even for projections change and drought; (3) small analyses of global average surface air based on scenarios that assume that population effects; and (4) cumulative temperature, the most widely used GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. effects of all threats that may impact the measure of change, the IPCC concluded Thus, there is strong scientific support species. that warming of the global climate for projections that warming will Sand Dune Movement system over the past several decades is continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change Movement of the swales due to sand ‘‘unequivocal’’ (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). In other words, the IPCC concluded that will be influenced substantially by the dune movement naturally occurs in the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, CPSD system as wind action continues there is no question that the world’s climate system is warming. pp. 44–45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760– to shape the dunes. Major dune 764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555– ridgelines moved approximately 22 m Examples of other changes include substantial increases in precipitation in 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (72 ft) (Knisley and Gowan 2005, p. 4) In addition to basing their projections some regions of the world and decreases between 2001 and 2002, and most on scientific analyses, the IPCC reports in other regions (for these and ridgelines moved 45 m (150 ft) between projections using a framework for 2002 and 2010 (Knisley and Gowan additional examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. treatment of uncertainties (e.g., they 2011, p. 25). Dune movement can result 30; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35–54, 82– define ‘‘very likely’’ to mean greater in a change in suitable habitat 85). Various environmental changes than 90 percent probability, and conditions for the CPSD tiger beetle (e.g., shifts in the ranges of plant and ‘‘likely’’ to mean greater than 66 percent (Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 21–22). animal species, increasing ground probability; see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. For example, dune movement has instability in permafrost regions, 22–23). Some of the IPCC’s key buried previously occupied swale conditions more favorable to the spread projections of global climate and its habitat (Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. of invasive species and of some related effects include: (1) It is virtually 21–22). It is likely that dune movement diseases, changes in amount and timing certain there will be warmer and more is uncovering potential habitat as well; of water availability) are occurring in frequent hot days and nights over most however, comprehensive surveys to association with changes in climate (see of the earth’s land areas; (2) it is very determine this have not been conducted IPCC 2007a, pp. 2–4, 30–33; and Global likely there will be increased frequency (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). Wind Climate Change Impacts in the United of warm spells and heat waves over action created and continues to shape States 2009, pp. 27, 79–88). most land areas; (3) it is very likely that the current CPSD (Ford et al. 2010, p. Results of scientific analyses the frequency of heavy precipitation 387), and we have no evidence to presented by the IPCC show that most events, or the proportion of total rainfall suggest that the rate of dune movement of the observed increase in global from heavy falls, will increase over most is increasing. Because CPSD tiger beetle average temperature since the mid-20th areas; and (4) it is likely the area presumably evolved in this century cannot be explained by natural affected by droughts will increase, that environment, it is likely that the species variability in climate and is ‘‘very intense tropical cyclone activity will is adapted to the continual movement of likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90 increase, and that there will be dunes. We have no evidence percent or higher probability) due to the increased incidence of extreme high sea demonstrating that dune movement is a observed increase in GHG level (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). threat to the species now or is likely to concentrations in the atmosphere as a More recently, the IPCC published become so in the future; however, result of human activities, particularly additional information that provides additional study of dune movement is carbon dioxide emissions from fossil further insight into observed changes recommended. fuel use (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5–6 and since 1950, as well as projections of figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et extreme climate events at global and Climate Change and Drought al. 2007, pp. 21–35). Further broad regional scales for the middle and Our analyses under the Act include confirmation of the role of GHGs comes end of this century (IPCC 2011, entire). consideration of environmental changes from analyses by Huber and Knutti Various changes in climate may have resulting from ongoing and projected (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is direct or indirect effects on species. changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ extremely likely that approximately 75 These may be positive, neutral, or and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the percent of global warming since 1950 negative, and they may change over Intergovernmental Panel on Climate has been caused by human activities. time, depending on the species and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61109

other relevant considerations, such as increases in global average temperature several years of higher than average interactions of climate with other exceed 1.5 to 2.5 ßC (3 to 5 ßF) (IPCC rainfall (Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 8). variables such as habitat fragmentation 2007a, p. 48). These observed population responses to (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; Regional projections indicate the rainfall are most likely caused by IPCC 2007b, pp. 8–14, 18–19; Forister et Southwest, including southern Utah, reductions and increases in prey and al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et may experience the greatest temperature soil moisture. Prey is more abundant al. 2011). In addition to considering increase of any area in the lower 48 during wet years, and this abundance individual species, scientists are States (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). Drought reduces the effects of starvation, evaluating possible climate change- probability is predicted to increase in decreases development time, and related impacts to, and responses of, the Southwest (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129– increases fecundity (Knisley and Hill ecological systems, habitat conditions, 134), with summers warming more than 2001, p. 391). Soil moisture seems to and groups of species; these studies winters, and annual temperature have the greatest effect on oviposition include acknowledgement of increasing approximately 2.2 °C (4 °F) and larval survival. As stated in Factor uncertainty (e.g., Deutsch et al. 2008; by 2050 (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). A, reduced water availability is limiting Berg et al. 2009; Euskirchen et al. 2009; Additionally, the number of days over to tiger beetles in CPSD, and this is McKechnie and Wolf 2009; Sinervo et 32 °C (90 °F) could double by the end evidenced by the fact that in one al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; of the century (Karl et al. 2009, p. 34). experiment water supplementation McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and Projections also show declines in increased larval CPSD tiger beetle Schindler 2011). snowpack across the West, with the survival by 10 percent (Knisley and Many analyses involve elements that most dramatic declines at lower Gowan 2006, p. 7). are common to climate change elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 ft)) To help the species adapt and be vulnerability assessments. In relation to (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). A 10 to 30 resilient to changing climates, the 2013 climate change, vulnerability refers to percent decrease in precipitation in CCA Amendment protects an additional the degree to which a species (or mid-latitude western North America is 263 ac (106 ha) (see Ongoing and Future system) is susceptible to, and unable to projected by the year 2050, based on an Conservation Efforts) of CPSD tiger cope with, adverse effects of climate ensemble of 12 climate models (Milly et beetle habitat in the northern area of the change, including climate variability al. 2005, p. 1). Overall, future CPSD feature at a high elevation and and extremes. Vulnerability is a projections for the Southwest include where swale habitat exists with dense function of the type, magnitude, and increased temperatures; more intense vegetation. This northern area of the rate of climate change and variation to and longer-lasting heat waves; and CPSD area will be more resistant to the which a species is exposed, its increased probability of drought warming and drying effects of climate sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity exacerbated by higher temperatures, change as temperatures in this area will (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. heavier downpours, increased flooding, be somewhat cooler than where the 2011, pp. 19–22). No single method for and increased erosion (Karl et al. 2009, majority of CPSD tiger beetle are conducting such analyses applies to all pp. 129–134). currently found at the central situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We Utah is projected to warm more than population. In addition, many swale use our expert judgment and the average for the entire globe habitats in this area are over-vegetated appropriate analytical approaches to (Governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory and drying related to climate change weigh relevant information, including Council on Climate Change (GBRAC) would be expected to reduce vegetation uncertainty, in our consideration of 2008, p. 14). The expected amounts as the effects of climate change various aspects of climate change. consequences of this warming are fewer take place in the future. This scenario is As is the case with all stressors that frost days, longer growing seasons, and expected to result in habitat that is more we assess, even if we conclude that a more heat waves (GBRAC 2008, p. 14). moderately vegetated and thus more species is currently affected or is likely For Utah, the projected increase in appropriate CPSD tiger beetle habitat. to be affected in a negative way by one annual mean temperature by year 2100 Also, expanded habitat in the vicinity of or more climate-related impacts, it does is about 4.5 °C (8 °F) (GBRAC 2008, p. the central population as a result of the not necessarily follow that the species 14). Because of increased temperature, 2013 CCA Amendment will result in a meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered Utah soils are expected to dry more larger population, which will make the species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ rapidly (GBRAC 2008, p. 20); this is species more resilient to climate change. under the Act. If a species is listed as likely to result in reduced soil moisture In summary, the limited geographic an endangered or threatened species, levels in CPSD tiger beetle habitat. range of CPSD tiger beetle to sand dunes knowledge regarding its vulnerability to, Utah is projected to have more and swales within the CPSD geologic and known or anticipated impacts from, frequent heavy precipitation events, feature somewhat limits the ability of climate-associated changes in separated by longer dry spells as a result the species to adapt by shifting its range environmental conditions can be used of climate change (GBRAC 2008, p. 15). in response to changing climatic to help devise appropriate strategies for Drought is a localized dry spell. Drought conditions. CPSD tiger beetle survival its recovery. conditions are a potential stressor to the and reproduction, as described above, The IPCC predicts that the resiliency CPSD tiger beetle, as rainfall indirectly are highly dependent upon soil of many ecosystems is likely to be controls population size and the moisture, which in turn is dependent exceeded this century by an changing dynamics of the species upon climatic conditions (precipitation unprecedented combination of climate (Knisley and Gowan 2009, p. 8). and temperature). Climate change is change, associated disturbances (e.g., Previous drought-like conditions have predicted to increase temperatures and flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects), resulted in drastic CPSD tiger beetle increase the likelihood and duration of and other global drivers (IPCC 2007, pp. population declines. For example, low drought conditions in Utah. Both of 31–33). With medium confidence, IPCC rainfall amounts from 2001 to 2003 these effects will reduce soil moisture in predicts that approximately 20 to 30 resulted in reduced adult numbers in CPSD and could impact the CPSD tiger percent of plant and animal species 2004 and 2005 (Knisley and Gowan beetle. However, newly protected CPSD assessed by the IPCC so far are likely to 2008, p. 8). Conversely, high adult tiger beetle habitat will be located in the be at an increased risk of extinction if numbers in 1996 and 2002 followed higher elevation northern portion of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

park. Swale habitats in this area will caused by random catastrophes (Shaffer by providing additional protected provide protected dispersal habitat 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993, p. 912). The habitat to allow the species to adjust to between Conservation Areas A and B proposed rule stated that the CPSD tiger drought and climate change. In and will also provide habitat for beetle was vulnerable to extinction due addition, the estimated adult CPSD tiger colonization and population expansion. to: (1) Demographic stochasticity due to beetle population has been increasing in Some of this habitat is currently over- its small population size; (2) size over the last 8 years, and it was vegetated and not currently suitable environmental stochasticity due to estimated at 2,494 in 2013. This is close habitat for the CPSD tiger beetle, but continued small perturbations caused to its largest estimated size (2,944), will become less vegetated and thus by ongoing modification and which occurred in 2002 (see more suitable for the species as curtailment of its habitat and range from Background). Thus, we do not consider temperatures warm and dry the area. ORV use; and (3) the chance of random small population size a threat to the For these reasons, we conclude that catastrophe such as an extended species, now or in the future. environmental changes resulting from drought. However, the enactment of the Cumulative Effects climate change, including drought, will 2013 CCA Amendment has provided be moderated as a result of conservation conservation actions that address these Some of the threats discussed in this measures in the 2013 CCA Amendment potential threats. The CPSD tiger beetle finding could work in concert with one and we do not consider climate change population has been increasing in another to cumulatively create to be a threat to the species, now or in population size for the last 8 years and situations that potentially impact the the future. is of sufficient size to provide dispersers CPSD tiger beetle beyond the scope of into newly protected habitat; newly the threats that we have already Small Population Effects protected habitat will remove the threat analyzed. However, we believe that the Here we consider that the CPSD tiger of ORV use; and the effects of drought suite of conservation measures in the beetle has one of the smallest and climate change will be offset by 1997/2009 CCA and the 2013 CCA geographical ranges of any known insect protected habitat that occurs at higher Amendment address and alleviate all of (Romey and Knisley 2002, p. 170). It is elevations that are cooler and have an the threats to the CPSD tiger beetle restricted to the CPSD geologic feature over-abundance of vegetation. adequately for the species to persist into and occupies only 202 ha (500 ac) Small populations also can be the future. Additional habitat protection (Morgan et al. 2000, p. 1109). vulnerable due to a lack of genetic areas have removed the threat of ORV A species may be considered rare diversity (Shaffer 1981, p. 132). We have use and will allow the CPSD tiger beetle because of a limited geographical range, no information regarding genetic population to increase in numbers in specialized habitat, or small population diversity of CPSD tiger beetle. A habitat where they are currently present size (Primack 1998, p. 176). In the minimum viable population (MVP) will but in low numbers. Population absence of information identifying vary depending on the species. An MVP increases will make the species more threats to a species and linking those of 1,000 may be adequate for species of resilient to the effects of climate change threats to the rarity of a species, we do normal genetic variability, and an MVP and small populations. In addition, not consider rarity alone to be a threat. of 10,000 should permit long-term increased protected habitat will allow A species that has always been rare, yet persistence and continued genetic the species to better disperse between continues to survive, could be well diversity (Thomas 1990, p. 325). These the two existing populations, and newly equipped to continue to exist into the estimates should be increased by at least protected habitat that exists between the future. Many naturally rare species have 1 order of magnitude (to 10,000 and two conservation areas is now available persisted for long periods within small 100,000) for insects, because they for colonization. geographic areas, and many naturally usually have greater population Summary of Factor E rare species exhibit traits that allow variability (Thomas 1990, p. 326). Based them to persist despite their small upon available information, CPSD tiger Wind action created and continues to population sizes. Consequently, the fact beetle likely does not meet these shape the CPSD geologic feature (Ford et that a species is rare does not minimum population criteria for al. 2010, p. 387). Sand dune movement necessarily indicate that it may be in maintaining genetic diversity because naturally occurs in this system as wind danger of extinction. the estimated population size ranges action continues to shape the dunes. CPSD tiger beetle has a very limited from 558 to 2,944 individuals. However, Dune movement can result in a change occupied range and a very small the conservation measures that expand in suitable habitat conditions (Knisley population size (558 adults in 2005 to Conservation Area A, and create 263 ac and Gowan 2008, pp. 21–22); however, a high of 2,944 adults in 2002). It has of protected habitat between it is likely that dune movement is several characteristics typical of species Conservation Areas A and B, are uncovering potential habitat as well as vulnerable to extinction including: (1) A expected to bolster CPSD tiger beetle covering previously occupied habitat very narrow geographic range; (2) only population numbers, increase the (e.g., Gregory 1950, p. 188). CPSD tiger one known self-sustaining population; species’ resiliency, and thus offset the beetle evolved in a dynamic dune- and (3) a small population size. species’ potential vulnerability to a lack dominated system, and we have no Extinction may be caused by of genetic diversity. evidence to suggest that the rate of dune demographic stochasticity due to In summary, we do not find that small movement is increasing or decreasing. chance realizations of individual population size on its own is a threat to Thus, we have no information probabilities of death and reproduction, CPSD tiger beetle. Despite, the species’ indicating that dune movement is a particularly in small populations relatively small population size, the threat to this species, now or is likely to (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993, pp. 2009 CCA and the 2013 CCA become so in the future. 911–912). Environmental stochasticity Amendment conservation actions will Utah is projected to have increased can result in extinction through a series reduce the species vulnerability to temperatures and more frequent heavy of small or moderate perturbations that extinction due to demographic precipitation events, separated by longer affect birth and death rates within a stochasticity, environmental dry spells, as a result of climate change population (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande stochasticity, and random catastrophe (GBRAC 2008, p. 15). Utah soils are 1993, p. 912). Lastly, extinction can be by removing the threat of ORV use, and expected to dry more rapidly as a result

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 61111

of increased temperatures (GBRAC concludes that addressing the threats conservation efforts have reduced the 2008, p. 20). Drought duration and identified in the proposed rule magnitude of potential impacts in the intensity in CPSD will likely increase in independently will prevent these threats future such that the species no longer the future, magnifying the soil moisture from acting cumulatively. meets the definition of a threatened or reductions expected from temperature endangered species. Determination increases alone. Precipitation and soil In our proposed rule, we identified moisture levels currently limit the CPSD As required by the Act, we considered direct (killing of CPSD tiger beetles) and tiger beetle population in the CPSD the five factors in assessing whether the indirect effects (habitat loss due to (Knisley and Gowan 2006, p. 7), and CPSD tiger beetle meets the definition of drying, impacts to vegetation, killing of reductions in soil moisture associated a threatened or endangered species. We prey items) of ORV use, small with climate change and drought could examined the best scientific and population effects, and the effects of further reduce the CPSD tiger beetle commercial information available climate change and drought as threats to population size. However, a suite of regarding the past, present, and future the continued existence of the CPSD conservation measures in the 2009 CCA threats faced by the species. Based on tiger beetle. Our conclusion was based and the 2013 CCA Amendment address our review of the best available on information about past and current the threats of climate change and scientific and commercial information, impacts to tiger beetle habitat due to drought by providing protected we find that the current and future these stressors, information about dispersal habitat, at different elevations, threats are not of sufficient imminence, continued and future ORV use within between Conservation Areas A and B intensity, or magnitude to indicate that tiger beetle habitat, and the lack of and also providing habitat for the CPSD tiger beetle is in danger of dispersal areas and high-elevation population expansion. Some of this extinction (endangered), or likely to colonization areas protected from these habitat is currently over-vegetated, and become endangered within the stressors. not currently suitable habitat for the foreseeable future (threatened), Since the time of our proposed listing, species. This will change as throughout all or a significant portion of the conservation committee has made a temperatures warm and dry the area— its range. Therefore, the CPSD tiger significant effort to develop and CPSD tiger beetles prefer areas that are beetle does not meet the definition of a implement additional conservation not over-vegetated. In addition, the 2013 threatened or endangered species, and measures (2013 CCA Amendment) for CCA Amendment includes a we are withdrawing the proposed rule the CPSD tiger beetle. The 2009 CCA conservation action to perform to list the CPSD tiger beetle as a contains conservation measures that vegetation treatments, which would threatened species. Our rationale for have been implemented by the Utah more quickly transition these areas to this finding is outlined below. State Parks, BLM, Kane County, and the more suitable habitat. Based on the The CPSD tiger beetle is not in danger Service, and have reduced or eliminated analysis in Factor E, we find of extinction now because the threats to the CPSD tiger beetle (see environmental changes resulting from population has an increasing trend over Ongoing and Future Conservation climate change and drought will not the past 8 years, and it has persisted in Efforts). In addition, through the 2013 become threats to the CPSD tiger beetle its current distribution and has been CCA Amendment, the conservation in the future. thus far resilient to random natural committee has implemented several The restricted range of the species impacts. Conservation measures conservation measures that address the does not constitute a threat in itself. currently being enacted will expand threat of ORV use by increasing However, the species’ small population protected habitat in the central protected habitat surrounding size makes the species more vulnerable population area and also increase Conservation Area A; designating to extinction due to demographic additional protected habitat for protected habitat areas between stochasticity, environmental dispersal and colonization, which is Conservation Areas A and B; reassessing stochasticity, and random catastrophe, expected to increase resilience to future conservation area boundaries on a when combined with the specific random natural impacts. Further, its routine cycle (every 3 years) to account threats of ORV use, drought, and climate distribution encompasses and is for shifting dunes, vegetation changes, change. However, the enactment of the representative of the known genetic population increases and decreases, and 2013 CCA Amendment has provided diversity of the species. As such, the resulting changes to suitable habitat; conservation actions that address these species has not currently declined to the and by continuing Utah State Parks and potential threats. Newly protected point that it is subject to impacts from BLM law enforcement, education, and habitat is of sufficient size to provide stochastic events that would result in a outreach. dispersal habitat, protection of the change in the status of the species as a When the 2009 and 2013 CCA habitat will remove the threat of ORV whole. In other words, if the species measures are considered together, use, and the effects of drought and continues to persist in its current Conservation Area A will protect CPSD climate change will be offset by distribution and in the additional areas tiger beetle occupied swales by protected habitat that occurs at higher into which it is expected to colonize restricting ORV use from 88 percent of elevations that are cooler and have an and disperse, we conclude that it will the species’ central population’s over-abundance of vegetation. have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, occupied habitat. In addition, ORVs will Furthermore, the CPSD tiger beetle and representation to persist now and in be restricted from using a number of population has been increasing in the foreseeable future. habitat islands within the dispersal population size for the last 8 years. In our proposed rule, we identified corridor between Conservation Areas A Therefore, we do not consider small several threats that we expected to and B. This protection will increase the population size to be a threat to the significantly impact the status of the resiliency of the CPSD tiger beetle and species, now or in the future. species as a whole into the foreseeable offset the threat of small population Threats can work in concert with one future, which was an appropriate effects by providing additional habitat another to cumulatively create conclusion based on the best available for the species to increase in number at conditions that will impact CPSD tiger scientific and commercial information the central population, and also by beetle beyond the scope of each available at that time. However, since providing habitat for colonization and individual threat. However, the Service that time, significant ongoing and new dispersal between Conservation Areas A

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and B. The additional colonization and estimated at 2,494 in 2013. This is close CCA Amendment, and our evaluation of dispersal habitat occurs in areas that are to its largest estimated size (2,944), any other information we receive. These higher and more heavily vegetated than which occurred in 2002. monitoring requirements will not only habitat for the central population, and We also have high certainty that the inform us of the amount of CPSD tiger thus will offset the threat of climate suite of conservation measures in the beetle habitat conserved and reclaimed, change and drought. 2009 CCA and the 2013 CCA but will also help inform us of the status Conservation measures that are Amendment will be effective at of the CPSD tiger beetle population. identified in the 2013 CCA Amendment reducing and eliminating threats to the Additional information will continue to can be viewed as having regulatory CPSD tiger beetle to the point that the be accepted on all aspects of the species. authority because the signatory agencies species no longer meets the definition of We encourage interested parties, outside that have implementation authority threatened or endangered species. Our of those parties already signatories to have the regulatory controls in place to certainty arises from the fact that the the 2009 CCA and the 2013 CCA assure that these measures will be population has been increasing for the Amendment, to become involved in the adequately implemented. In addition, past 8 years, and that the primary effect conservation of the species. independently addressing and of both plans is to move current and If at any time data indicate that the eliminating the significance of each of future ORV impacts outside of occupied protective status under the Act should the threats identified in the proposed and potential swale habitat. Further, the be reinstated, for example, we become rule will prevent them from acting agreements have annual monitoring and aware of declining enforcement of or cumulatively. reporting requirements to ensure that all participation in the CCA or CCA As summarized in the Ongoing and of the conservation measures are amendment or noncompliance with the Future Conservation Efforts and PECE implemented as planned, and are conservation measures, or if there are Analysis sections above, we have a high effective at removing threats to the degree of certainty that the 2009 CCA CPSD tiger beetle and its habitat. Non- new threats or increasing stressors that and the 2013 CCA Amendment will compliance ORV issues will be rise to the level of a threat, we can continue to be implemented. See Table discussed at annual meetings and the initiate listing procedures, including, if 1 under Ongoing and Future adaptive management process will be appropriate, emergency listing pursuant Conservation Efforts for the status of the used to address any identified issues to section 4(b)(7) of the Act. 2013 CCA Amendment conservation until they are resolved. Potential References Cited actions. Our level of certainty is high solutions to ORV non-compliance because: Signatory agencies have been include increasing enforcement, A complete list of all references cited compliant with implementation of the increasing posting of closed areas, and in this document is available on the conservation actions of the original 1997 educational programs. The collaboration Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at CCA and its 2009 reauthorization; the between the Service and other Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2012–0035 or authorities for expending funds are in stakeholders requires regular meetings upon request from the Field Supervisor, place and CPSD tiger beetle research and involvement of all parties in order Utah Ecological Services Field Office and population monitoring has been to implement the agreement fully. (see ADDRESSES section). funded by signatory agencies for the last In summary, we conclude that the Authors 20+ years; signatory agencies have been conservation efforts have sufficient responsive to designating additional certainty of implementation and The primary authors of this document protected habitat for the species; effectiveness that they can be relied are the staff members of the Utah monitoring and documentation of upon in this final listing determination. Ecological Services Field Office (see compliance with the conservation Further, we conclude that conservation ADDRESSES). measures are in place; annual reports of efforts have reduced or eliminated monitoring have been completed; current and future threats to the CPSD Authority adaptive management will be used to tiger beetle to the point that the species The authority for this action is the reassess conservation boundaries on a is no longer in danger of extinction now Endangered Species Act of 1979, as regular basis; and all parties have the or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). legal authorities to carry out their we are withdrawing our proposed rule Dated: September 12, 2013. responsibilities under the 2009 CCA and to list the CPSD tiger beetle as a the 2013 CCA Amendment. In addition, threatened species. Daniel M. Ashe, the estimated adult CPSD tiger beetle We will continue to monitor the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. population has been increasing in size status of the species through monitoring [FR Doc. 2013–23165 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] over the last 8 years, and it was requirements in the 2009 CCA and 2013 BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02OCP3.SGM 02OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3