59952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

requirements. The 2015 rule merged the driver illness, that arises late in the (List) under the Endangered Species Act concepts of leasing with ‘‘chartering’’ evening or during the night (such as on of 1973, as amended. After review of the (subcontracting). Carriers routinely a multi-day charter or tour trip), or just best available scientific and commercial subcontract work to other registered prior to picking up a group for a charter information, we find that delisting the carriers to handle demand surges, or scheduled service run. coastal California gnatcatcher is not emergencies, or events that require more warranted at this time. FMCSA Decision than the available capacity. DATES: The finding announced in this Subcontractors with their own operating FMCSA plans to issue a rulemaking document was made on August 31, authority have traditionally assumed notice to address the four areas of 2016. responsibility for their own vehicles/ concern listed above. The Agency ADDRESSES: This finding, as well as drivers. Under the 2015 rule, however, believes that less burdensome regulatory supporting documentation we used in a passenger carrier that subcontracted alternatives that would not adversely preparing this finding, is available on work to another carrier would be impact safety could be adopted before the Internet at http:// responsible for that second carrier’s the January 1, 2018. The Agency denies www.regulations.gov at Docket Number compliance with the regulations. the petitions for reconsideration of all FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058. Supporting Petitioners claim that making a carrier other aspects of the final rule. These documentation we used in preparing responsible for the subcontractor’s petitions either would have impaired this finding will also be available for vehicles, drivers, and liability would the purpose of the final rule or did not public inspection, by appointment, make most short-term subcontracts include practical alternatives. during normal business hours at the impossible. The Agency will provide petitioners U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad (2) Amending the CMV requirements with written notification of these Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk for the location of temporary markings decisions at a later date. Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008. for leased/interchanged vehicles. The Please submit any new information, petitioners argued that the frequent Public Roundtable materials, comments, or questions marking changes needed during leases FMCSA will hold a public roundtable concerning this finding to the above or interchanges would be impractical to discuss the four issue areas discussed address. and unnecessary because the above. The public will have an information required is recorded on the opportunity to speak about these issues FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. driver’s records of duty status for and provide the Agency with Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, roadside inspectors and safety information on how to address them. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 investigators to review; carriers will All public comments will be placed in Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA have to depend completely on their the docket of this rulemaking. Details 92008; by telephone at 760–431–9440; drivers to properly change vehicle concerning the schedule and location of or by facsimile at 760–431–5901. If you markings dozens of times per day in the roundtable, as well as procedural use a telecommunications device for the remote locations; and it is unlikely that information for participants, will follow deaf (TDD), please call the Federal a member of the public is going to in a subsequent Federal Register notice. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at understand the significance of the 800–877–8339. Issued on: August 19, 2016. markings in the event that he or she SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: focuses on the temporary ‘‘operated by’’ T.F. Scott Darling, III, Background markings rather than the permanent Administrator. markings on the bus representing the [FR Doc. 2016–20609 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am] Under the Endangered Species Act of vehicle owner. BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 1973, as amended (ESA or Act; 16 (3) Changing the requirement that U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we administer the carriers notify customers within 24 Federal Lists of Endangered and hours when they subcontract service to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Threatened Wildlife and Plants, which other carriers. Petitioners argued that a are set forth in title 50 of the Code of 24-hour deadline is impractical because Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Regulations in part 17 (50 CFR if an emergency maintenance issue 17.11 and 17.12). Under section occurs, it may not be possible to notify 50 CFR Part 17 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, for any petition the customer in a timely manner, that we receive to revise either List by particularly if the issue occurs on the [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058; adding, removing, or reclassifying a FXES11130900000C2–167–FF09E42000] weekend, when the customer’s offices species, we must make a finding within are closed, and the start time is before Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 12 months of the date of receipt if the the customer’s Monday opening time. and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a petition contains substantial scientific (4) Expanding the 48-hour delay in Petition To Delist the Coastal or commercial information supporting preparing a lease to include emergencies California Gnatcatcher the requested action. In this finding, we when passengers are not actually on will determine that the petitioned action board a bus. Sometimes events requiring AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or a replacement vehicle might occur when Interior. (3) warranted, but the immediate there are no passengers on a vehicle, ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition proposal of a regulation is precluded by such as when Amtrak or airline service finding. other pending proposals to determine is suspended or disrupted and buses are whether any species are endangered needed to transport stranded SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and species or threatened species and passengers. A bus operator contracted to Wildlife Service (Service), announce a expeditious progress is being made to provide the rescue service might need to 12-month finding on a petition to add or remove qualified species from obtain additional drivers and vehicles remove the coastal California the Lists. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act from other carriers to meet the demand. gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica requires that we treat a petition for There might be a last minute californica) from the Federal List of which the requested action is found to maintenance or mechanical issue, or Endangered and Threatened Wildlife be warranted but precluded as though

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59953

resubmitted on the date of such finding, and sub-shrub species that are often Habitat Conservation Plan (San Diego that is, requiring a subsequent finding to drought-deciduous (O’Leary 1990, p. 24; County MHCP) in 2013, an increase of be made within 12 months. We must Holland and Keil 1995, p. 163; Rubinoff 28 territories from 2010 despite little publish these 12-month findings in the 2001, p. 1,376). Within the United change in survey area (City of Carlsbad Federal Register. States, the subspecies is restricted to 2013, p. 2); coastal southern California from Previous Federal Actions (3) for Orange County, 12.7 percent Ventura and San Bernardino Counties, occupancy within the Central Reserve Since the coastal California south to the Mexican border. Within and 34.3 percent occupancy in the gnatcatcher was first identified as a Mexico, its range extends from the U.S.- Coastal Reserve (plus 17 other category 2 candidate species in 1982, it Mexico border into coastal Baja incidental observations) (Leatherman has been the subject of numerous California south to approximately El Bioconsulting 2012, p. 5); and Federal Register publications. We Rosario, Mexico, at about 30 degrees (4) 436 occupied sites for the coastal published a final rule to list Polioptila north latitude (Grinnell 1926, p. 499; California gnatcatcher on Marine Corps californica californica as a threatened AOU 1957, p. 451; Miller et al. 1957, Base Camp Pendleton (Camp Pendleton) species under the Act on March 30, p. 204; Atwood 1991, p. 127; Phillips (San Diego County) in 2014, including 1993 (58 FR 16742), and we affirmed 1991, pp. 25–26; Atwood and Bontrager 122 territorial males, 283 pairs, and 31 that determination in 1995 (60 FR 2001, p. 3). family groups, with an additional 53 15693; March 27, 1995). Critical habitat In our 2010 5-year review, we transient individuals identified (Tetra for the subspecies was first established reported an estimate of 1,324 Tech 2015, p. ii). We will continue to via a final rule that published on gnatcatcher pairs over an 111,006-acre work with our partners to gather data on October 24, 2000 (65 FR 63680), and a (ac) (44,923-hectare (ha)) area on lands coastal California gnatcatcher revised final critical habitat rule was owned by city, county, State, and populations and trends. published on December 19, 2007 (72 FR Federal agencies (public and quasi- 72010). The most recent Federal action public lands) of Orange and San Diego Since listing, we have updated prior to 2014 was our 2011 90-day Counties (Service 2010, p. 8). We information regarding the range of the finding on a petition to delist the coastal indicated that this study sampled only subspecies. In our 2010 5-year review California gnatcatcher (76 FR 66255; a portion of the U.S. range of the (Service 2010, pp. 6, 8; Table 1), we October 26, 2011). We concluded at that subspecies (the coastal regions), and presented our estimate of the existing time that the petition did not present that it was limited to 1 year (Winchell range of the coastal California substantial scientific or commercial and Doherty 2008, p. 1,324). gnatcatcher at that time. We also information to indicate that delisting the Standardized, rangewide population updated the extent of the subspecies’ coastal California gnatcatcher may be trends and occupancy estimates for the range in Baja California, Mexico, using warranted (76 FR 66255; October 26, coastal California gnatcatcher (within the coastal sage scrub vegetation map 2011). A summary of all previous the United States or Mexico) are not prepared by Rebman and Roberts (2012, Federal actions can be found at http:// available at this time given the limited p. 22) and observations of California ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ and incomplete survey information as gnatcatchers (all subspecies of Polioptila speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08X. well as the variability in the survey californica) (in Baja California (www.ebird.org; accessed December 15, Species Information methods and reporting. Since the publication of the 2010 5- 2015). This information is combined in The coastal California gnatcatcher year review, we have received the the range map shown in Figure 1. We (Polioptila californica californica) is a following results from limited surveys currently estimate 56 percent of the member of the avian family of the coastal California gnatcatcher range is in the United States and 44 Polioptilidae (Chesser et al. 2010, p. within the U.S. portion of the range: percent of the range is in Baja 736). The bird’s plumage is dark blue- (1) 25 nests (with 11 successes out of California, Mexico. gray above and grayish-white below. 29 nesting attempts) within the Western For additional information on the The tail is mostly black above and Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat general biology and life history of the below. The male has a distinctive black Conservation Plan (Western Riverside coastal California gnatcatcher, please cap, which is absent during the winter. County MSHCP) for the year 2014 in see our most recent 5-year status review Both sexes have a distinctive white eye- eight of the plan’s designated core areas (Service 2010), available at the ring. This subspecies occurs primarily (Biological Monitoring Program 2015, following Web sites: http://ecos.fws.gov/ in or near vegetation categorized as p. 8); speciesProfile/profile/ coastal scrub, including coastal sage (2) 122 pairs and 33 single males (155 speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08X and scrub. This vegetation is typified by low territories) within the City of Carlsbad http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. (less than 3 feet (ft) (1 meter (m)), shrub, (under the San Diego County Multiple BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Coastal California Gnatcatcher Range in the United States and Mexico

San Bernardino County

Riverside County

Imperial County

0

Figure !-Current range of the coastal California gnatcatcher, based on information from our 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, pp. 6, 8; Table 1), the coastal sage scrub vegetation map prepared by Rebman and Riley (2012, p. 22), and observations of California gnatcatchers reported in Baja California, Mexico (www.ebird.org; accessed December 15, 2015).

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Petition History Reliability; Coalition of Labor, On May 29, 2014, we received a Agriculture and Business; Property combined petition from the Center for Owners Association of Riverside Environmental Science, Accuracy, and County; National Association of Home

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP31AU16.000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59955

Builders; and the California Building also contends that available genetic data its geographic range’’ (Thornton and Industry Association (collectively, do not support the coastal California Schiff 2014, p. 32). petitioners), requesting that the coastal gnatcatcher as a distinguishable On December 31, 2014, we published California gnatcatcher be removed from subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, in the Federal Register a 90-day finding the Federal List of Endangered and p. 28). As evidence, the petition cites (79 FR 78775) that the petition Threatened Wildlife (List) under the two published scientific articles in presented substantial information Act. The petition clearly identified itself particular, Zink et al. (2000) and Zink et indicating that delisting may be as such and included the requisite al. (2013), which were included as part warranted. With publication of the identification information for the of the petition. The petition asserts that finding, we initiated a review of the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR these two studies ‘‘constitute the best status of the subspecies. We requested 424.14(a). available scientific data’’ (Thornton and further information from the public on The factors for listing, delisting, or Schiff 2014, p. 28) regarding the issues related to the coastal California reclassifying species are described at 50 subspecific status of the coastal gnatcatcher such as: Taxonomy; biology; CFR 424.11. We may delist a species California gnatcatcher. new morphological or genetic only if the best scientific and The petition discusses the results of information; consideration of the coastal commercial data available substantiate both Zink et al. (2000) and Zink et al. California gnatcatcher as a distinct that it is neither endangered nor (2013). Zink et al. (2000) examined population segment (DPS); and threatened. Delisting may be warranted variation within the mitochondrial DNA information on the methods, results, as a result of: (1) Extinction; (2) (mtDNA) control region and three and conclusions of Zink et al. (2000; recovery; or (3) a determination that the mtDNA genes of the California 2013). In our status review below, we original scientific data used at the time gnatcatcher species as a whole and first examine whether the coastal the species was listed, or interpretation concluded that the genetic information California gnatcatcher is a valid of that data, were in error. did not support recognition of subspecies, and thus a ‘‘species’’ as The petition did not assert that the infraspecific taxa (subspecies) in the defined in section 3 of the Act. coastal California gnatcatcher is extinct, California gnatcatcher, including the According to section 3(16) of the Act, nor do we have information in our files coastal California gnatcatcher we may list any of three categories of indicating that the coastal California subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, vertebrate animals: A species, gnatcatcher is extinct. The petition did pp. 20–23). The petition further asserts subspecies, or a distinct population not assert that the coastal California segment of a vertebrate species of that the genetic analysis presented in gnatcatcher has recovered and is no wildlife. We refer to each of these Zink et al. (2013, entire), based on eight longer an endangered species or categories as a ‘‘listable entity.’’ If we different nuclear markers or loci and a threatened species, nor do we have determine that there is a species, or reduced data set from Zink et al. (2000, information in our files indicating the ‘‘listable entity,’’ for the purposes of the entire), did not identify geographic coastal California gnatcatcher has Act, our status review next evaluates groupings that corresponded with any recovered (further detail on the status of whether the species meets the previously recognized subspecies the coastal California gnatcatcher is definitions of an ‘‘endangered species’’ (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 28). The presented in the Summary of the Five or a ‘‘threatened species’’ because of any petition states that the nuclear DNA Factors section below). The petition also of the five listing factors established did not contain any information analysis in Zink et al. (2013) is under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. regarding threats to the coastal consistent with a conclusion that the In response to our information request California gnatcatcher. range of the California gnatcatcher has associated with the status review of the The petition asserts that the original recently expanded from southern Baja subspecies, we received more than scientific data used at the time the California and that the species ‘‘is not 39,000 letters. Most responders species was classified were in error and divisible into discrete, listable units’’ submitted form letters that opposed that the best available scientific data (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 29). delisting of the coastal California show no support for the taxonomic The petition also provides results gnatcatcher. Some submitted additional recognition of the coastal California from an ecological niche model from reports and references for our gnatcatcher as a distinguishable Zink et al. (2013, pp. 453–454). The consideration. New information subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, study presented results from niche submitted included survey and trend p. 1). The petition’s assertions are divergence models constructed for data for localized areas, information primarily based on the results of genetic California gnatcatchers represented in related to effectiveness of regulatory and ecological analyses published in mesic coastal sage scrub (‘‘northern mechanisms, information on restoration Zink et al. (2013). The petition population’’) versus southern efforts, and information on threats to the maintains that, based on this new populations. The petition asserts that subspecies and its habitat in the United information, the Service cannot the model results indicate that the two States and in Mexico. continue to rely on morphological groups do not exhibit significant niche Additionally, multiple parties measurements to determine whether the divergence if the backgrounds of each submitted critical analyses of coastal California gnatcatcher is a valid environment are taken into account; it information presented in the petition (distinguishable) subspecies (Thornton further states that the results from the and in Zink et al. (2013), including a and Schiff 2014, pp. 31–32). ecological niche model support the then ‘‘in press’’ (prepublication) The petition asserts that the petition’s assertions that there is no scientific paper that was subsequently morphological information originally valid taxonomic subdivision of the published in the journal The Auk: used to distinguish the subspecies is California gnatcatcher (Thornton and Ornithological Advances (McCormack flawed, citing published and Schiff 2014, pp. 29–30). The petition and Maley 2015) that disputed the unpublished critiques, alternative concludes that the best available data methods and results presented in Zink analyses, and other interpretations of indicate that the California gnatcatcher et al. (2013). We received several morphological characteristics of (the species as a whole) ‘‘is not divisible responses from members of the California gnatcatchers (Thornton and into discrete, listable units, but instead scientific community, many of which Schiff 2014, pp. 14–21). The petition is a single historical entity throughout provided critiques of the methods and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59956 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

interpretations of Zink et al. (2013), and their qualifications are available in proposal for the facilitated expert panel including critiques of the statistical the Final Workshop Review Report for workshop submitted by Amec to the analyses of the information presented, the California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Service on May 5, 2015 (revised May 13, the selection and number of loci used in Science Panel Workshop (hereafter 2015), included a summary of the six the genetic analyses, the methods and ‘‘science panel report’’) (Amec 2015, pp. panelists’ experience (ranging from 19 interpretation of the niche model, and 2–3, and Appendix D). This report is to 35 years each) and general areas of the conclusion by Zink et al. (2013) that available as a supporting document we expertise in the fields of molecular a lack of detection of genetic structure used in preparing this finding on the genetics, avian conservation genetics, necessarily meant a lack of taxonomic Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at avian systematics, conservation distinctiveness (Andersen 2015, pers. Docket Number FWS–R8–ES–2014– genetics, population genetics, and avian comm.; Cicero 2015, pers. comm.; 0058. Conflict of interest forms were molecular genetics. One of the panelists Fallon 2015, pers. comm.; Patten 2015, submitted by each panelist. The Service selected by Amec was subsequently pers. comm.). We also received was not involved in any portion of the replaced due to a scheduling conflict. reanalyses of the genetic data used by selection process, nor were we aware of The proposal also included the Zink et al. (2013) (Andersen 2015, pers. the panelists’ identities prior to the qualifications of the facilitator and comm.; McCormack and Maley 2015). workshop. Amec’s Project Manager. We received One commenter expressed support for Prior to the workshop, the Service the panelists’ individual curriculum the petition’s arguments and the prepared a list of relevant literature and vitae with the draft and final workshop conclusions reached by Zink et al. Federal Register documents related to reports. After reviewing the panelists’ (2013) and dismissed the findings of the science and listing history of the individual curriculum vitae, we McCormack and Maley (2015) (Ramey coastal California gnatcatcher. The confirmed the six panelists are qualified 2015, pers. comm.). We received two panelists requested that we provide experts in the fields of molecular responses from Zink dated March 2, summaries of the subspecies’ listing genetics, avian conservation genetics, 2015, and June 8, 2015 (Zink 2015a, history, taxonomy, the Service’s listable avian systematics, conservation pers. comm.; Zink 2015b, pers. comm.), entity and DPS policies, and a summary genetics, population genetics, and avian and we received a response from one of of public comments. All documents molecular genetics. The Project Manager the petitioners dated March 2, 2015 were relayed to the panelists through also noted in Amec’s proposal that (Thornton 2015, pers. comm.), that the Amec Foster Wheeler Project several panelists had requested that directly addressed the critiques Manager. A complete list of information their individual memoranda be submitted by many of the other and references provided is available in presented in the final report without responders. These additional responses the workshop science panel report attribution. Although we did not have and additional supporting materials are (Amec 2015, Appendix B). knowledge of the attribution of the The workshop was held at the available on the Internet at http:// individual memorandums to the six Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on www.regulations.gov at Docket Number panelists, we determined that all August 17–18, 2015. The purpose of the FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058. panelists are subject matter experts Given the diverse and conflicting workshop was to provide a forum for qualified to evaluate the scientific information submitted by the public and the panelists to review the summary information presented in the petition. members of the scientific community in documents provided and to discuss the Additional details about the workshop response to our request for information issues relevant to the taxonomic and process and the panelist discussions are (79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014), we systematic issues for the subspecies (see available in the science panel summary convened a scientific review panel. workshop agenda in Amec 2015, p. A– report (Amec 2015, pp. 5–7). Through a Science Advisory Services 1). During the contracting process, the contract process, the Service contracted Service developed a Statement of Work After the workshop, each panelist Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure and with five suggested questions that the individually prepared a memorandum Environment, Inc. (hereafter Amec panelists consider during the workshop that addressed topics relevant to the Foster Wheeler) to assemble a panel of regarding the taxonomy and systematics scientific information presented in the independent experts to provide issues related to the coastal California petition (for example, Zink et al. 2013) individual input on the available data gnatcatcher. These are provided in the and to the subspecific taxonomic status concerning the subspecies designation Amec Foster Wheeler science panel of the coastal California gnatcatcher. We of the coastal California gnatcatcher. report (Amec 2015, p. A–2). Service discuss the key information from those Amec Foster Wheeler selected six personnel did not participate in the memoranda in the following section. In panelists in accordance with peer workshop discussions or interact with discussing specific supporting review and scientific integrity the panelists, with the exception of a information and other comments guidelines from the Office of brief question-and-answer session on presented in the individual memoranda, Management and Budget’s Final the second day when the panelists we refer to the panelists and their Information Quality Bulletin (OMB requested clarification related to memos by the numbers randomly 2004). The selected panelists each had previous Federal actions and Service assigned to them by Amec Foster between 19 and 35 years of experience policies (for example, the DPS policy). Wheeler (Panelist 1, Panelist 2, etc.) or in their respective fields, which In our Statement of Work, we to the Amec Workshop Report page included avian conservation, indicated that the panelists (to be number (Amec 2015). conservation genetics, taxonomy, selected by Amec) would include avian Key Information From the Science Panel population genetics, and systematics. genetic and taxonomic researchers as Memoranda An experienced facilitator with well as experts in avian expertise in genetics and genetic phylogeographic studies. We also The panelists were not asked to reach techniques was also selected by Amec requested that the Contractor would a consensus. However, all six panelists Foster Wheeler to assist and guide the have sufficient experience and found that the arguments presented by panelists in their discussions during a 2- understanding in the field of genetics in Zink et al. (2000; 2013) were not day workshop. Additional details order to be able to lead and facilitate the convincing, and that the coastal regarding the selection of the panelists discussion of the panelists. The California gnatcatcher is currently a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59957

valid (distinguishable) subspecies. that was subsequently published in The fish, wildlife, or plant; or any distinct Panelists made the following points: Auk: Ornithological Advances in population segment of any vertebrate • The criteria used to distinguish January 2016 (available electronically species as determined by us per our subspecies should include multiple December 2015). The article (Zink et al. Policy Regarding the Recognition of lines of evidence, such as morphology, 2016) presented additional District Vertebrate Population Segments genetics, and ecology. As such, the use interpretation and analysis of the data (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996). of phylogenetic criteria alone to and models from Zink et al. (2013). Zink Our implementing regulations distinguish (or fail to distinguish) the et al. (2016) responded to the criticisms provide further guidance on coastal California gnatcatcher as a of McCormack and Maley (2015) and determining whether a particular taxon subspecies is not appropriate. argued that: (1) Subspecies listed under or population is a species or subspecies • Patterns of differentiation should be the Act should have one major character for the purposes of the Act: ‘‘the applied based on proposed mechanisms that is distinct or diagnostic; (2) the Secretary shall rely on standard of evolution and the geologic age at choice of loci and statistical methods taxonomic distinctions and the which those events occurred, and the used by Zink et al. (2013) to analyze biological expertise of the Department appropriate tools must be applied to nuclear DNA were correct; and (3) and the scientific community adequately test those hypotheses. Based interpretations of the niche analysis in concerning the relevant taxonomic on the biogeographic history of the Zink et al. (2013) are correct, and the group’’ (50 CFR 424.11). For each region, the infraspecific divergence in California gnatcatcher overall has a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the coastal California gnatcatcher is of wide ecological tolerance. Zink et al. mandates that we use the best scientific recent origin (less than 12,000 years (2016) concluded that no evidence for and commercial data available for each before present, see Zink et al. 2000, genetic structure exists among individual species under consideration. 2013); therefore, the subspecies is likely California gnatcatchers, and thus that Given the wide range of taxa and the in the earliest stages of adaptive the coastal California gnatcatcher is not multitude of situations and types of data differentiation. a valid subspecies. Because the in-press that apply to species under review, the • Relatedly, the amount of divergence article was received after the science application of a single set of criteria that in a small number of neutral genetic panel met in August 2015, the would be applicable to all taxa is not markers (genes that are not subject to information presented in this paper was practical or useful. In addition, because selective pressures and, therefore, not available for review by panelists. of the wide variation in kinds of change slowly over time through However, the Service reviewed Zink et available data for a given circumstance, accumulation of random changes) is al. (2016) and took into consideration its we do not assign a priority or weight to likely to be small and unlikely to interpretation of the best available data any particular type of data, but must demonstrate genetic differences between in weighing all the evidence, including consider it in the context of all the subspecies. the data and analyses provided by the available data for a given species. • The genetic analyses conducted by panelists, in making a final For purposes of being able to Zink et al. (2000, 2013) contain determination. Additional information determine what is a listable entity under insufficient information to detect regarding our analysis of Zink et al. the Act, we must necessarily follow a subspecies limits. The panelists stated (2016) is provided in the Listable Entity more operational approach and evaluate that the methods of Zink et al. (2000; Determination section below. and consider all available types of data, 2013) for analyzing the data were not which may or may not include genetic appropriate for detecting recent, Listable Entity Determination information, to determine whether a infraspecific divergence, as likely The petition asserts that the coastal taxon is a distinguishable species or occurred in the case of the coastal California gnatcatcher should be subspecies. As a matter of practice, and California gnatcatcher. delisted. Working within the framework in accordance with our regulations, in • Panelists generally concurred that of the regulations for making delisting deciding which alternative taxonomic genetic studies that examine neutral determinations, as discussed above, the interpretations to recognize, the Service genetic markers should not overturn petition asserts that the original data we will rely on the professional judgment existing subspecies boundaries, used in our recognition of the coastal available within the Service and the especially when divergence is not California gnatcatcher as a subspecies, scientific community to evaluate the detected. and thus a listable entity under the Act, most recent taxonomic studies and other Panelists provided detailed were in error. In determining whether to relevant information available for the information on the limitations of the recognize the coastal California subject species. Therefore, we continue conclusions that can be made based on gnatcatcher as a valid (distinguishable) to make listing decisions based solely the analyses presented in Zink et al. subspecies, we must base our decision on the basis of the best scientific and (2013) and other currently available on the best available scientific and commercial data available for each information. In addition, the panelists commercial data. Additionally, we must species under consideration on a case- concluded that two prior peer reviews provide transparency in application of specific basis. had addressed the morphological data the Act’s definition of species through In making our determination whether on the coastal California gnatcatcher, careful review and analyses of all the we recognize the coastal California and that there was no new information relevant data. Under section 3 of the Act gnatcatcher as a distinguishable in the materials provided or in the and our implementing regulations at 50 subspecies, and thus, whether the petition regarding the morphology of the CFR 424.02, a ‘‘species’’ includes any petitioned action is warranted, we will coastal California gnatcatcher. Several subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, consider all available data that may panelists also provided and any distinct population segment of inform the taxonomy of the coastal recommendations for additional any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife California gnatcatcher, such as ecology, analyses and areas of research for future which interbreeds when mature. As morphology, genetics, and behavior. In taxonomic studies. such, a ‘‘species’’ under the Act may particular, in this review, we focus on In late 2015, Zink et al. submitted to include any taxonomically defined evaluating all new submitted and the Service what was then an in-press species of fish, wildlife, or plant; any available data and analyses, including manuscript (Zink 2015c, pers. comm.) taxonomically defined subspecies of but not limited to the 2014 petition, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

studies by Zink et al. (2000; 2013; 2016), relied on mtDNA evidence in evaluating on the basis of plumage and/or McCormack and Maley (2015), and the other species or subspecies for listing measurements, but are not yet reproductively science panel report (Amec 2015, entire) under the Act (Thornton and Schiff isolated. Varying levels of diagnosability in the context of all the available data. 2014, Exhibit D), we may not discount have been proposed for subspecies, typically ranging from at least 75 to 95 percent. We do not address the petition’s such information here. As discussed Because subspecies represent relatively critiques or its citations to analyses and above, we base each listing decision on young points along an evolutionary time alternative interpretations of Atwood’s the best scientific and commercial data scale, genetic differentiation between morphological data (Thornton and available for the individual species subspecies may not necessarily parallel Schiff 2014, pp. 14–21). In our 2011 90- under consideration. Those data may or phenotypic divergence. Thus, subspecies that day finding (76 FR 66255; October 26, may not include results of genetic are phenotypically but not genetically 2011), we noted that on March 27, 1995, evaluations, including mtDNA analyses. distinct still warrant recognition if the Service published in the Federal Any data from genetic studies must be individuals can be assigned to a subspecies with a high degree of certainty. Register (60 FR 15693) an extensive considered in the context of the suite of review of the Atwood data (including other relevant data available for a In the scientific literature, multiple independent scientific analyses of the particular species. We previously authors have provided definitions with Atwood data) received during the public considered the mtDNA data referenced a wide-ranging variety of criteria for comment periods concerning the in the petition along with other defining or refining the taxonomic rank subspecies classification of the coastal available information in our 2011 of subspecies for avian taxa (for California gnatcatcher. In that 1995 petition finding and concluded that the example, McKitrick and Zink (1988); Federal Register document, we affirmed best available scientific and commercial Amadon and Short (1992); Strickberger our earlier determination that the information supports recognition of the (2000); Helbig et al. (2002); Patten and coastal California gnatcatcher is a valid coastal California gnatcatcher as a Unitt (2002); Avise (2004); Zink (2004); subspecies (58 FR 16742, March 30, distinguishable subspecies. Futuyma (2005); Cicero and Johnson 1993; 58 FR 65088, December 10, 1993) As such, in this determination, we (2006); Haig et al. (2006); Phillimore and affirmed the coastal California focus on the following topics: (1) and Owens (2006); Rising (2007); gnatcatcher’s threatened status under Defining subspecies criteria for the Skalski et al. (2008); Fitzpatrick (2010); the Act. Thus, all of these critiques, coastal California gnatcatcher; (2) Haig and D’Elia (2010); Patten (2010); analyses, and interpretations regarding interpretations of the results of analyses Remsen (2010); and Patten (2015)); Atwood’s findings were previously from genetic studies used in the however, there is no consensus in the considered by the Service in the 1995 petition; and (3) interpretations of the literature for defining subspecies criteria listing determination and the 2011 results of an ecological niche model for avian taxa (Sangster 2014, p. 212). petition decision. The 2014 petition used in the petition. The science panelists who were provided no new information or convened to evaluate the taxonomy and Defining Subspecies Criteria for the analysis related to the morphological systematics of the coastal California Coastal California Gnatcatcher study of the coastal California gnatcatcher provided their individual gnatcatcher. In determining whether to recognize recommendations for criteria used to In our 2011 90-day finding (76 FR the coastal California gnatcatcher as a define subspecies as described in the 66255; October 26, 2011), we provided distinguishable subspecies, we must scientific literature. Most of the a summary of our use of Atwood’s first define the criteria used to make this panelists highlighted the AOU morphological data as a part of a large decision given the available subspecies criteria as the standard for suite of previous studies. We continue information. The petition notes that avian taxa (Amec 2015, Panelist 1, p. to consider those data to be part of the subspecies divisions are often arbitrary 101; Panelist 3, p. 111; Panelist 4, pp. best scientific and commercial data or subjective (Thornton and Schiff 2014, 116–117; Panelist 5, p. 124; Panelist 6, available regarding taxonomy of the pp. 21–22). Indeed, within the p. 135). Panelist 2 provided the coastal California gnatcatcher. ornithological and taxonomic literature, definition of subspecies from Haig et al. Furthermore, on September 15, 1995, there are no universally agreed-upon (2011), which states that, ‘‘subspecies is the U.S. District Court for the District of criteria for delineating, defining, or generally defined as a breeding Columbia dismissed with prejudice the diagnosing subspecies boundaries. population that has measurably lawsuit by the Building Industry Historically, multiple researchers (for distinguishable genotypes or Association of Southern California and example, Mayr (1943); Rand (1948); phenotypes (or both) and occupies a other plaintiffs that sought to overturn Amadon (1949)) proposed that at least distinct geographic area within its the listing of the coastal California 75 percent of the individuals of a species range (Avise 2004, Patten 2010, gnatcatcher. As part of that lawsuit, the subspecies should be separable from Remsen 2010).’’ However, all panelists court ordered the Service to release to other populations by a particular affirmed that multi-evidence criteria the public the underlying data that characteristic. The American should be used for distinguishing the formed the basis for Dr. Atwood’s Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Committee coastal California gnatcatcher as a taxonomic conclusions. Given the on Classification and Nomenclature of subspecies. court’s 1995 ruling upholding the North and Middle American Birds The petition bases its argument for Service’s recognition of the coastal (formerly known as the Check-list delisting on the genetic analyses California gnatcatcher as a valid Committee), the widely recognized presented in Zink et al. (2000) and Zink subspecies, and the fact that no new scientific body responsible for et al. (2013) and the results of the data were presented by petitioners standardizing avian taxonomy in North ecological niche model discussed in regarding morphological characteristics America (Haig et al. 2006, p. 1587), Zink et al. (2013). The conclusions of California gnatcatchers, we do not gives their standard definition of drawn from these analyses are based on further examine the petition’s subspecies with guidance on the authors’ overall frame of reference arguments about morphological data in interpreting criteria (AOU 2015, entire): that the ‘‘gnatcatcher populations and this 12-month finding. Subspecies should represent subspecies are not monophyletic’’ at We also do not discuss the petition’s geographically discrete breeding populations either the geographic or taxonomic level assertions that because the Service has that are diagnosable from other populations of organization (Zink et al. 2016, p. 65),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59959

and that no monophyletic units are described above, we reviewed and However, we did not suggest that the found within the gnatcatcher consistent summarized the available results of nuclear DNA studies would or with any ‘‘hierarchical Linnaean taxon’’ morphological data in detail in previous should be considered determinative of or any other unit based on the Federal actions, including the 2011 90- the coastal California gnatcatcher’s ‘‘traditional 75 percent rule’’ to define day finding (76 FR 66255; October 26, taxonomic status. Rather, we stated that subspecies (Zink et al. 2016, p. 65). In 2011). No new information regarding future consideration of the status of the other words, the petition relies on a the morphological characteristics of taxon ‘‘should wait for analyses of a cladistic classification approach, California gnatcatchers was submitted variety of morphological, genetic generally used for describing species in the petition or in response to our (including nuclear and mtDNA) and rather than subspecies, and which is request for information in our 2014 90- behavioral evidence’’ (76 FR 66258; based entirely on monophyletic day finding (79 FR 78775; December 31, October 26, 2011). Consistent with our taxonomic groups (Mallet 2007, p. 1). 2014). Because there was no new 2011 petition finding, we consider This phylogenetic species concept also morphological information or analyses multi-evidence criteria involving invokes the concept of reciprocal to review, the panelists considered the multiple lines of genetic, morphological, monophyly (exclusive coalescence), in previous peer reviews and summaries of and ecological scientific data to provide which all individuals in a given group morphological data to represent the best the best approach to determining the have a common ancestor not shared by available information and relied on this taxonomic status of the coastal any other group, and all individuals in information in their evaluations (Amec California gnatcatcher. that group should be genetically distinct 2015, p. 4). In the following sections, With regard to the genetic evidence and distinguishable from members of we, therefore, focus our discussion on relied on in the current petition, other populations. the genetic and ecological information multiple commenters from the scientific However, the science panelists presented in the petition to delist the community and members of the science explicitly rejected the use of reciprocal coastal California gnatcatcher. panel expressed concern regarding the monophyly for defining subspecies We note that our evaluation applies nuclear DNA analysis and conclusions status for the coastal California specifically to the coastal California of Zink et al. (2013). Several panelists gnatcatcher (Amec 2015, p. 105). gnatcatcher and not to avian subspecies stated that Zink et al. (2013) chose Reciprocal monophyly is rarely used by in general. Each possible subspecies has markers with slow mutation rates that avian taxonomists, even in defining taxa been subject to unique evolutionary are inappropriate to evaluate the status at the species level, and this approach forces, different methods of selection of the coastal California gnatcatcher, is not shared by the majority of will act on each subspecies (genetic drift given that their lineage diverged scientists (Amec 2015, pp. 126, 104; versus allopatric speciation), and the recently, likely within the last 12,000 Sangster 2014, p. 208). Many scientists potential divergence time (recent versus years (for example, Panelist 6; Amec consider subspecies to be incipient more distant) will, therefore, lead to 2015, p. 147). For example, one science species that are not yet fully different signals, particularly panelist stated that the loci chosen by reproductively isolated (Amec 2015, p. genetically; as such, the methods for Zink et al. (2013) do not in fact meet the 126), and the subspecies of the detecting each will be different (Amec standards recommended by the Service California gnatcatcher have likely not 2015, pp. 101–102). and the 2004 science panel, as described been separated for sufficient time to in the 2011 petition finding (76 FR Analyses of Genetic Data Presented in display characteristics of reciprocal 66255; October 26, 2011), given that loci the Petition monophyly (Amec 2015, p. 106). with high mutation rates were requested Additionally, because there are a The petition relies on the results of a (Amec 2015, p. 126). number of gene lineages contained nuclear DNA analysis presented by Zink We received information from the within any population, if a population et al. (2013) as evidence that delisting panelists and others from the scientific becomes geographically (or genetically) the coastal California gnatcatcher is community (in response to our 90-day divided into two distinguishable warranted based on taxonomic error. As finding (79 FR 78775; December 31, entities, a significant amount of time is described above, this analysis examined 2014)) regarding the statistical methods required before each of the branches eight nuclear loci and concluded that no presented in Zink et al. (2013). For will become ‘‘fixed for different, genetic structure was apparent within example, Panelist 4 stated that the reciprocally monophyletic gene lineages California gnatcatchers. In other words, statistical analysis chosen for the at any single gene’’ (Mallet 2007, p. 7). any differences in California nuclear loci genetic analysis In evaluating the best available gnatcatchers represent a geographic (STRUCTURE) might be inappropriate information regarding the taxonomic cline, and thus all differences occur because this method is not a statistically and systematic status of the coastal gradually along a north-south gradient powerful approach for identifying California gnatcatcher, we disagree with and do not represent sharp distinctions genetic distinctions when divergence the petition’s argument, and conclude between unique groups. The petition (genetic separation between two new that a multi-evidence criteria approach states that Zink et al. (2013) provided groups) is modest, particularly given the is most appropriate for distinguishing the data and analysis requested by the small sample sizes used by Zink et al. subspecies. In accordance with the Service in our 2011 90-day finding (76 (2013) (Amec 2015, p. 118). science panelists and conclusions in the FR 66255; October 26, 2011) (Thornton We also received information scientific literature (Sangster 2014; and Schiff 2014, p. 30) and the best regarding the approach and analysis of McCormack and Maley 2015), we do not available information supporting the the nuclear markers used by Zink et al. accept that reciprocal monophyly is an assertion that the coastal California (2013). Several commenters and appropriate criterion for distinguishing gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies. It members of the science panel found that subspecies of avian taxa in the case of is true that we recognized in the 2011 McCormack and Maley’s (2015) the coastal California gnatcatcher. petition finding that results from reanalysis of the data was more We next examine the available data nuclear DNA analyses are likely to appropriate for considering subspecies regarding factors appropriate for better detect genetic evidence of than the original analysis by Zink et al. evaluating the subspecific status for the population differentiation than mtDNA (2013). Additionally, several panelists coastal California gnatcatcher. As data (76 FR 66258; October 26, 2011). found that the McCormack and Maley

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(2015) analysis did support an observed range of the subspecies to be at by McCormack and Maley (2015, pp. population structure in California approximately 30° N. 382–383), despite the small number of gnatcatchers (Amec 2015, Panelist 2, p. We reaffirm that the best available markers used. 108; Panelist 4, p. 118; Panelist 5, p. information indicates that the 30° N. is We also received information from the 126). However, one panelist (Amec, pp. still the appropriate line to delineate the science community and from the 145–146) criticized both Zink et al. approximate southern limit of the panelists regarding the use of only a (2013) and McCormack and Maley subspecies’ range, and, therefore, the small number of neutral genetic markers (2015) for having too small of a sample genetic analyses based on that boundary by Zink et al. (2013). Two panelists size to reach any conclusions from are appropriate for considering the stated that the observed morphological analysis of nuclear data. We subspecific status. In support of this difference between the northern and acknowledge that the sample sizes for assessment, one science panel member southern populations of California the studies are small; however, as also questioned the division of gnatcatchers is likely only caused by a previously discussed, we must rely subspecies boundaries by Zink et al. very small portion of the genome upon the best available scientific and (2013), stating that the presence of rare (Santure et al. 2013, p. 3959; Poelstra et commercial data for making our alleles north of the 30° N. boundary al. 2014, p. 1414; Amec 2015, pp. 113, conclusions; as such, we take both provides additional supporting 117). Thus, the chance of detecting that interpretations of the study into scientific information that the coastal difference using few neutral genetic consideration in our analysis. California gnatcatcher subspecies is markers is very small. The apparent As previously noted, Zink et al. valid. This panelist further noted that absence of species-wide genetic (2016) presented a rebuttal to many of the choice by Zink et al. (2013) to use structure at a handful of neutral markers the critiques raised by McCormack and the 28° N. boundary does not answer the unconnected to phenotype does not Maley (2015); however, this article was question as to whether genetic structure necessarily indicate the absence of not available when the science panel would have been detected if the important adaptive differences among workshop was convened. Our review of accepted 30° N. latitudinal break was specific groups (Amec 2015, p. 118). the information presented indicates that chosen (Amec 2015, p. 127). Zink et al. The petition contends that use of Zink et al. (2016) do not provide (2016, p. 61) dismiss the significant DNA data can result in more clear and substantial defense to the claims that genetic structure observed in two loci in decisive answers regarding subspecies the markers they selected were the reanalysis of McCormack and Maley limits than morphological inappropriate for analyzing population (2015), stating that their statistical result characteristics (Thornton and Schiff structure of the coastal California ‘‘was driven by an excess of rare alleles 2014, p. 21). We concur with the gnatcatcher. Zink et al. (2016) state that as a result of larger sample sizes in the petition’s assertions and the panelists’ these loci and the mtDNA used in Zink north . . . as well as by population summaries that genetic data can in some et al. (2000) have detected expansion’’ (citing Zink et al. 2013). cases provide clear diagnostic evolutionarily distinct lineages in other However, this assessment does not information regarding the geographic species along the same distribution of address the implication of rare alleles in limits of related populations, which can the coastal California gnatcatcher, such the north, which, as noted by the then be interpreted and applied in as the Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma science panelists and McCormack and assessing taxonomic treatments. lecontei), the curve-billed thrasher (T. Maley (2015), provides evidence of However, we also concur with the curvirostre), and the canyon towhee population structure. In fact, one panel panelists that evaluation of genetic data (Melozone fusca). However, their member noted that the observation of must be thorough, analyzed using comparison is not supported by rare alleles found in McCormack and genetic markers appropriate for the time documentation of any potential genetic, Maley (2015) was especially significant scale of likely divergence, and analyzed morphological, or ecological similarities given that the smaller population size in using appropriate statistical methods. between the coastal California the north has been attributed to the We agree with the panelists that the gnatcatcher and these species that presence of reported population number and type of genes tested by Zink would provide a strong basis for their declines or bottlenecks, which often et al. (2013) were insufficient, and that conclusion that unrelated species with remove rare alleles (Allendorf et al. the analysis relied upon in the petition different life histories and evolutionary 2013, p. 109) (Amec 2015, p. 127). was too limited to ‘‘prove the negative’’; histories might necessarily experience An additional difference in the views that is, we do not agree with the similar rates and patterns of genetic regarding the genetic analysis presented assertion in the petition that the coastal divergence. in Zink et al. (2013) relates to how California gnatcatcher subspecies is not Zink et al. (2016) also contend that scientists interpret negative results. The valid based on analysis of DNA data and the reanalysis of the data presented in petition argues that a lack of structure the original listing was in error. Rather, McCormack and Maley (2015) is invalid detected means that such genetic or we conclude that the best available because the data do not represent the population structure is overall lacking. genetic information, including original subspecies boundary as defined However, negative results (such as independent evaluations from the by Atwood (1988) at 28° N. (Zink et al. failure to detect structure) can be science panelists and reanalyses of data (2016, p. 63) also perform a statistical interpreted as either the true absence of from members of the scientific analysis finding no structure in the genetic structure or as simply community (for example, Andersen population regardless of how it is inconclusive. Several panelists stated 2015, pers. comm.; McCormack and divided). Still, we note that the range of that they found the results of Zink et al. Maley 2015), indicates that there is the coastal California gnatcatcher (2013) to be inconclusive overall. In some genetic evidence for population subspecies as defined by the original addition, one panel member noted that structure in the California gnatcatcher listing in 1993 (58 FR 16742; March 30, the methods used in Zink et al. (2013) and that this evidence provides some 1993) is at 30° N., and several reanalyses might lack adequate statistical power to support for the distinguishability of the of the morphological data (Atwood detect population structure, given that coastal California gnatcatcher as a 1991, entire; Banks and Gardner 1992, relatively few loci were used (Amec subspecies. As discussed above, we entire; Link and Pendleton 1994, entire) 2015, p. 125). This highlights the consider multi-evidence criteria have supported the southern limit of the significance of the detection of structure involving multiple lines of genetic,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59961

morphological, and ecological scientific confound the results (Zink 2016b, pers. different populations of California data to provide the best approach to comm.). In sum, the submitted abstract gnatcatchers and that Zink et al. (2013) determining the taxonomic status of the does not provide sufficient detail and had improperly failed to reject their null coastal California gnatcatcher. information to enable us to adequately hypothesis that the niches and One recommendation made by five of evaluate its conclusions. Therefore, we background areas were equally the six science panelists was that do not consider the abstract to provide divergent. We also received information existing or any newly collected samples the best available information regarding from one member of the public who be reanalyzed using large numbers of the subspecific status of the gnatcatcher. indicated that he was provided the genomic data (AMEC 2015, pp. 102, We will consider the underlying study opportunity to comment on a draft 109, 121–122, 131, 141), particularly, and data, along with all new version of the Zink et al. (2013) paper thousands to tens of thousands of single information provided on the coastal and had identified ‘‘fundamental flaws’’ nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that California gnatcatcher, as we receive it. with the ecological niche model represent a large portion of the genome. analysis that were not addressed in the Ecological Niche Model On July 6, 2016, Zink sent to the Service final publication (Atwood 2015, pers. an accepted abstract to be presented at The petition also relied on the results comm.). the 2016 North American Ornithology of an ecological niche model The science panelists also disagreed Conference in August (Zink 2016b, pers. constructed by Zink et al. (2013). In with the interpretation of the results of comm.). The abstract references a study general, an ecological niche model the ecological niche model presented in in which Va´quez-Miranda and Zink represents an estimation of the different Zink et al. (2013). One panelist cited the examine thousands of SNPs for the niches (for example, existing, potential, lack of clarity as to how the model coastal California gnatcatcher and other occupied) and uses estimates of suitable results were interpreted, and the Baja California bird species. The authors conditions from observations of species’ panelist concluded that the model state that the study results show a lack presence (Peterson et al. 2011, p. 271). results do show differences in the of population structure in the coastal The model is then constructed (usually environments inhabited by the coastal California gnatcatcher (Zink 2016b, with a specialized computer program) California gnatcatcher and the other pers. comm.). by overlaying that occurrence data with subspecies farther south, in support of The science panelists who environmental data such as the conclusions of McCormack and recommended the use of SNPs included temperature, precipitation, elevation, Maley (2015) (Amec 2015, p. 113). several provisos. They cautioned that vegetation type, or other habitat The ecological niche model presented the SNP dataset be analyzed using characteristics. The model then can be by Zink et al. (2013) was constructed samples from individuals across the used for a variety of functions; for using broad-scale bioclimatic variables. range of the California gnatcatcher example, it can be used to predict an Two panelists stated that habitat species, appropriate hypothesis testing entity’s occurrence elsewhere on the variables such as vegetation type, be used, appropriate statistical methods landscape or compare two populations structure, or composition should have be used (for example, testing for outlier or subspecies to determine similarities been used for constructing the niche loci (Funk et al. 2012, p. 493)), and the of occurrence, as was the case for Zink model since these variables incorporate data be released publicly to allow for et al. (2013). The model constructed by a better ecological approach for transparency of analysis (AMEC 2015, Zink et al. (2013) compared temperature distinguishing subspecies (Amec 2015, pp. 104, 121, 131, 141, 151). If incorrect and precipitation data for habitats pp. 119, 148). In addition, our methodology is used, the SNP analysis throughout the range of the California assessment of available vegetation maps will unlikely be able to identify gnatcatcher species as a whole. The from Mexico and documentation adaptive divergent groups, particularly petition asserts, based on the results of provided in the literature (for example, given that the vast majority of SNPs in the ecological niche model that, Rebman and Roberts 2012, p. 25) any dataset will be neutral (Amec et al. although California gnatcatchers in the indicate that there is a clear distinction 2015, p. 131; Funk et al. 2012, p. 492– northern portion of their range inhabit between plant communities in Baja 494). As stated previously, given the a distinctive coastal scrub habitat, no California at about the 30° N. latitude recent genetic separation (divergence) of background environmental differences and, therefore, separate ecological the coastal California gnatcatcher, or climactic differences are present niches; two panelists also emphasized adaptive divergence of its genomic (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 30). Zink the distinction between habitat types structure (that is, those few key genes et al. (2013, p. 456) also stated that the (Amec 2015, pp. 104, 129). responding to local selection pressures) results of their niche model indicate Further support for the interpretation is likely represented in only a few SNP that California gnatcatchers overall of McCormack and Maley (2015) is loci, which can be difficult to locate exhibit broad ecological tolerance. The provided in a new paper by Theimer et even within a large set of SNPs (Amec petition asserted that the lack of al. (2016). In that study, the researchers 2015, p. 121). differentiation in the modeled niches is examined an ecological niche model The underlying study identified by indicative of no evidence for subspecies performed by Zink (2015, pp. 79–82) for Zink (2016b, pers. comm.) has not been divisions based on the variables the southwestern willow flycatcher provided to us and has not been peer- included in the model. (Empidonax traillii extimus). From that reviewed or published. The abstract In response to our request for model, Zink (2015, pp. 83–84) submitted by Zink (2016b, pers. comm.) information in our 90-day finding (79 concluded that the southwestern willow did not include information regarding FR 78775; December 31, 2014), we flycatcher showed no ecological the sampling methods used in the study received differing interpretations of the distinctiveness from other willow or the statistical methods used to ecological niche model from Zink et al. flycatchers. However, Theimer et al. analyze the samples. The division (2013). For example, McCormack and (2016, pp. 292–293) reconstructed the between subspecies of California Maley (2015, p. 384) disagreed with the Zink (2015) ecological niche model gnatcatchers used by Va´quez-Miranda interpretation of the niche model results comparing the southwestern willow and Zink appears to be located farther stating that the model results provided flycatcher and an unrelated species, the south than the recognized boundary for evidence of strong differentiation yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), the subspecies at 30° N., which may between the ecological niches of and found no ecological distinctiveness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59962 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

between the two species. In other that there is a difference in habitat used determined it is a distinguishable words, the model was unable to predict by the populations of the California subspecies, we next evaluate any difference in niche (specific habitat) gnatcatchers north of 30° N. latitude and information regarding its appropriate use between the two unrelated species. the populations farther south, and this status under the Act. habitat difference is consistent with Theimer et al. (2016) state that the Summary of Information Pertaining to both observed morphological reason for this is the use of overly broad the Five Factors environmental data that may fail to differences and the slight genetic detect ecological distinction on a finer variation (as described in Analyses of Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) scale, such as that which might be Genetic Data Presented in the Petition and implementing regulations (50 CFR expected for subspecies or closely above) that occurs at the 30° N. latitude part 424) set forth procedures for adding related species that would be expected that has defined the southern limit of species to, removing species from, or to have some ecological characteristics the range of the coastal California reclassifying species on the Federal in common. Theimer et al. (2016, p. gnatcatcher since the time of listing. Lists of Endangered and Threatened 294) argued that ecological niche Therefore, we conclude that ecological Wildlife and Plants. Under section models needed to include other habitat differences help distinguish the coastal 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be characteristics beyond broad measures California gnatcatcher as a subspecies. determined to be an endangered species or threatened species because of any of of temperature and precipitation that Summary were used for both the southwestern the following five factors: willow flycatcher and the coastal After careful review of the best (A) The present or threatened California gnatcatcher (Zink et al. 2013; available information including destruction, modification, or Zink 2015). The authors further information presented in the petition, curtailment of its habitat or range; concurred with McCormack and Maley information submitted by the public, (B) Overutilization for commercial, (2015) that Zink et al. (2013) had information provided by the science recreational, scientific, or educational improperly failed to reject the null panelists, and all other available purposes; information, we find that the results of (C) Disease or predation; hypothesis for their niche model (D) The inadequacy of existing (Theimer et al. 2016, p. 294). the genetic analyses and niche modeling presented in Zink et al. (2000; 2013; regulatory mechanisms; or In the Zink et al. (2016) article, 2016) do not provide sufficient (E) Other natural or manmade factors published in response to the critique of information to support the petition’s affecting its continued existence. Zink et al. (2013) by McCormack and assertion that the coastal California In making this finding, information Maley (2015), Zink et al. (2016, p. 63) gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies pertaining to the coastal California defended their interpretation of the and was listed in error. While the gnatcatcher in relation to these five California gnatcatcher ecological niche analyses presented by Zink et al. (2013) factors is discussed below. In model, stating that most widespread provide additional information related considering what factors might species occupy different climactic to the genetic characteristics of the constitute threats, we must look beyond niches. They stated that the fact that one California gnatcatcher, there are the mere exposure of the species to the portion of the California gnatcatcher significant concerns with the methods factor to determine whether the species species population occupies mesic used and the interpretations of the responds to the factor in a way that versus xeric habitat does not necessarily results. We reject the petition’s causes actual impacts to the species. If indicate that there are evolved niche argument that subspecies listed under there is exposure to a factor, but no differences (Zink et al. 2016, p. 63). the Act should have one major character response, or only a positive response, Following the publication of the article that is distinct or diagnostic. We concur that factor is not a threat. If there is by Theimer et al. (2016), which, as with the input from the assessments exposure and the species responds discussed above, presented a differing provided by the science panelists and negatively, the factor may be a threat. analysis and interpretation of the niche the information submitted by the We then attempt to determine if that modeling results presented in Zink scientific community and the public in factor rises to the level of a threat, (2015) for the southwestern willow response to our request for information, meaning that it may drive or contribute flycatcher, Zink submitted a draft copy and our determination is based on all to the risk of extinction of the species of a scientific article to the Service on available data that may inform the such that the species warrants listing as July 1, 2016, responding specifically to taxonomy of the coastal California an endangered species or threatened Theimer et al. (2016)’s critique (Zink gnatcatcher. Multi-evidence criteria species as those terms are defined by the 2016a, pers. comm.). In the draft article, involving multiple lines of genetic, Act. This does not necessarily require Zink argues that the reanalysis by morphological, and ecological scientific empirical proof of a threat. The Theimer et al. (2016) only found weak data support our recognition of the combination of exposure and some partitioning between niches and that the coastal California gnatcatcher as a corroborating evidence of how the Zink (2015) study used standard distinguishable subspecies. Therefore, species is likely impacted could suffice. methodology for ecological niche we conclude that the best scientific and The mere identification of factors that models. However, the draft article does commercial information available could impact a species negatively is not not address the larger concern raised by indicate that the coastal California sufficient to compel a finding that Theimer et al. (2016) that the gnatcatcher is a distinguishable listing is appropriate; we require environmental data used for the subspecies, and we continue to evidence that these factors are operative analyses presented in Zink (2015) for recognize it as a listable entity under the threats that act on the species to the the southwestern willow flycatcher as Act (that it is a ‘‘species’’ as defined in point that the species meets the well as our similar concern for the niche section 3 of the Act and is thus eligible definition of an endangered species or model results presented in Zink et al. to be listed as a threatened species or threatened species under the Act. (2013) for the coastal California endangered species). In 2010, we conducted a threats gnatcatcher were too coarse to reliably Having reviewed the best available analysis in our 5-year review for the detect differences in ecological niches. information regarding the taxonomy of coastal California gnatcatcher (Service The best available information indicates the coastal California gnatcatcher and 2010, entire). The following analysis of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59963

factors affecting the species is a reasonably predict the likely future that have undergone severe disturbance summary and update of the information impact of each specific threat over time. (from heavy equipment and earth- presented in the 2010 analysis, which is Overall, we found that, for many threats, moving activities) require decades to incorporated by reference in this the likelihood and severity of future recover (Stylinski and Allen 1999, p. section. We updated the summary impacts became too uncertain to address 550). At the time of listing, we reported presented here, where appropriate, with beyond a 50-year timeframe. For that 58 to 61 percent of coastal sage new information from the literature or example: scrub habitat had been lost in the three received from the public in response to • The Natural Community counties that supported about 99 our request for information in the 90- Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, in percent of the coastal gnatcatcher day finding (79 FR 78775; December 31, conjunction with the Service’s Habitat population in the United States; we 2014). As described above in Conservation Planning (HCP) process further identified urban and agricultural Background, the petitioners did not established under section 10(a)(1)(B) of development as the primary cause for provide information on any of the the Act has established long-term this loss of habitat (58 FR 16751; March factors. However, several respondents to NCCP/HCPs within the U.S. range of the 30, 1993). our request did submit information coastal California gnatcatcher. These Urban development has continued to regarding factors affecting the species. plans address development impacts on occur throughout the range of the Our 2010 5-year review is available the subspecies and its habitat for 50 to coastal California gnatcatcher, and in online at http://www.regulations.gov in 75 years into the future, depending on our 2010 5-year review we concluded Docket Number FWS–R8–ES–2014– the plan terms and conditions. We, that urban development was an ongoing 0058 as a Supporting Document (ID: therefore, consider 50 years a reasonable threat to the subspecies (Service 2010, FWS–R8–ES–2011–0066–0003) and at timeframe for considering future pp. 12–15; 21). For the purposes of this our Environmental Conservation Online impacts. status review, we evaluated the current System Web page http://ecos.fws.gov/ • Laws governing urban development protection status of coastal sage scrub tess_public/profile/ under State environmental laws, such as (the primary habitat type that supports speciesProfile?spcode=B08X or by the California Environmental Quality the coastal California gnatcatcher) request from the Carlsbad Fish and Act and the NCCP Act, have remained within the U.S. range of the subspecies Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER largely unchanged since 1970 and 1991, using geospatial data from the U.S. INFORMATION CONTACT). respectively; thus, we consider existing Geological Survey. We note, however, The following sections include regulatory mechanisms sufficiently that the distribution of the coastal summary evaluations of nine potential stable to support a 25- to 50-year California gnatcatcher within the United threats to the coastal California timeframe. States is not necessarily the same as the gnatcatcher that we identified in the • In analyzing potential impacts from distribution of coastal sage scrub 2010 5-year review as having impacts on disease, predation, grazing, and brood vegetation, because not all coastal sage the subspecies or its habitat throughout parasitism, we considered all available scrub is occupied by coastal California its range in the United States and information regarding any future gnatcatchers at any given time Mexico. Potential threats that may changes that could alter the likelihood (Winchell and Doherty 2014, entire). impact the subspecies are those actions or extent of impacts. We had no such Our analysis for the U.S. portion of the that may affect individuals or habitat information extending beyond a 50-year range found that 16 percent of coastal either currently or in the future, timeframe. sage scrub receives permanent including habitat loss from urban and • Although information exists protection and minimal human use; 35 agricultural development (Factor A), regarding potential impacts from percent is permanently protected from grazing (Factor A), wildland fire (Factor climate change beyond a 50-year urban development but allows multiple A and Factor E), vegetation type timeframe, downscaled climate model uses including off-highway vehicle use conversion (Factor A), climate change projections for this region extend only or mining; and 49 percent has no (Factor A and Factor E), disease (Factor to the 2060s. assured protections preventing urban C), predation (Factor C), fragmentation Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years is development (Service 2016a). (Factor A and Factor E), and brood used to provide the best balance of Currently, much of the subspecies’ parasitism (Factor E). We also evaluate scope of impacts considered versus range in the United States, which the extent to which existing regulatory certainty of those impacts. includes coastal sage scrub as well as other habitat types and some partly mechanisms (Factor D) may ameliorate Urban and Agricultural Development threats associated with the other factors. developed areas, is included in We further note that potential impacts The largest impacts to coastal sage completed NCCP/HCP plans where the associated with overutilization (Factor scrub in California, including within the coastal California gnatcatcher is a B) were evaluated in the 2010 5-year range of the coastal California ‘‘covered species.’’ Other NCCP/HCPs review, but we concluded that this gnatcatcher, both past and present, have within the subspecies’ range in the factor had low or no impacts, overall, been due to the effects of urbanization United States are in various stages of across the subspecies’ range (see Service and agriculture (Cleland et al. 2016, p. development, such as the North County 2010, p. 21). We did not receive any 439). Development for urban use Multiple Species Conservation Plan in information that impacts associated involves clearing of existing vegetation. north-central San Diego County, the with overutilization have changed since Urban development not only results in Orange County Transportation that time. Based on the best available buildings, roads, and other Authority M2 NCCP/HCP, and the scientific and commercial data, we have infrastructure, which are permanent, but Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP in Los not identified any new threats to the also includes ‘‘temporary’’ impacts, Angeles County. Within the coastal California gnatcatcher since the such as pipeline installation or heavy northernmost portion of the subspecies’ 2010 5-year review. equipment activity adjacent to range in Los Angeles and Ventura To provide a temporal component to permanent urban development (Service Counties, the draft Rancho Palos Verdes our evaluation of threats, we first 2010, p. 12). Without active habitat NCCP/HCP is the only plan in determined whether we had data restoration actions, sites formerly development. Though the above list available that would allow us to supporting coastal sage scrub vegetation represents plans that are not yet

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59964 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

permitted or fully implemented, specific California north of 30° N. latitude: (1) mechanisms, especially the State of conservation measures are included in Punta Mazo in 2012, which consists of California’s NCCP process and the these plans that provide protections for a portion of the tidal estuary and sand Federal HCP process (Service 2010, p. the subspecies and its habitat. dune plant community at San Quintı´n 14). We also indicated that the rate of Implementation of existing HCPs and Bay; and (2) La Reserva Natural Valle loss of coastal California gnatcatcher the ongoing development of additional Tranquilo, purchased in 2006 and habitat due to agricultural development NCCP/HCPs have significantly reduced expanded in 2013, a 20,000-ac (9,094- has declined in its southern California the impacts of urban development to ha) reserve south of San Quintı´n (Riley range. More specifically, 1890–1930 was coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in 2016, pers. comm.), which is at the very an intensive agricultural period in the United States by directing urban southern edge of the California floristic California with the expansion of dry development away from some areas of province found in Baja California, at the land farming as well as rapid growth of coastal scrub vegetation while transition from coastal sage scrub/ intensively irrigated fruit and vegetable establishing habitat reserves that chaparral to desert plant communities crops (Preston et al. 2012, p. 282). An provide conservation benefits to the (Meyer et al. 2016, pp. 12–13). Two unknown amount of coastal sage scrub subspecies and other species. These Federal parks are also found in within the U.S. range of the coastal plans are making substantial mountainous areas in northwestern Baja California gnatcatcher was lost or contributions to the conservation of the California. However, collectively, these modified during this time period. subspecies by creating a network of four conservation areas encompass very The post-World War II population managed preserves with linked core little suitable California gnatcatcher boom resulted in the conversion of habitat areas. habitat. No equivalent regulatory many large agricultural areas to urban As reported in our 2010 5-year mechanisms to the NCCP/HCP process and suburban developments in southern review, we estimated that 59 percent of exist in Mexico. In that portion of the California (Preston et al. p. 282). We suitable (modeled) coastal sage scrub subspecies’ range, Federal, State, and used data from the Farmland Mapping habitat would be conserved with full local laws provide limited protections to and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the implementation of four currently coastal California gnatcatcher habitat Division of Land Resource Protection in permitted NCCP/HCPs and one HCP (see the Existing Regulatory the California Department of (Service 2010, p. 15). For that analysis, Mechanisms section below). Conservation (CDC) to evaluate land use modeled habitat consisted of coastal In order to estimate the distribution of changes in California since 1984 (CDC scrub vegetation within the U.S. portion coastal sage scrub in northern Baja 2016). Although not all areas of some of the range of the coastal California California, we created a digital map of counties have been inventoried, a gnatcatcher as defined by reported the coastal sage scrub vegetation defined review of these data for San Diego, observations, elevation, and coastal by and illustrated in Rebman and Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside scrub vegetation (using CDF (2002) Roberts (2012, p. 22). Based on the Counties indicate net losses in prime vegetation data). Using updated digitized version of this published map, farmland, from 1984 to 2012, of 8,508 ac vegetation data (CDF 2015), we prepared we created a boundary of the area in (3,443 ha), 16,874 ac (6,829 ha), 12,326 a new geospatial analysis of the northern Baja California that contains ac (4,988 ha), and 82,611 ac (33,431 ha) previously modeled coastal scrub coastal sage scrub vegetation; this (CDC 2016), respectively, for a total net habitat within the subspecies’ range and acreage totaled approximately 1,862,413 loss of 120,319 ac (48,691 ha). within the planning-area boundaries of ac (753,691 ha). We then prepared a Correspondingly, the reported net gains these NCCP/HCPs (as compared to the coarse estimation of extant coastal sage in urban and built-up land for the same 2010 analysis that estimated acres of scrub vegetation from our delineation of time period and the same counties were habitat expected to be conserved with Rebman and Roberts (2012, p. 22) by 107,988 ac (43,701 ha), 59,264 ac full implementation). Based on our 2016 removing those areas that have been (23,983 ha), 53,113 ac (21,494 ha), and analysis, our revised estimate found that converted to urban and agricultural 161,615 ac (65,403 ha) (CDC 2016), these plans encompass approximately development, as estimated from respectively, for a total net increase of 55 percent of the coastal sage scrub composite aerial images from ESRI 381,980 ac (154,582 ha). These numbers habitat within the U.S. range of the World Imagery (2013). We estimated indicate that, although agricultural coastal California gnatcatcher (Service approximately 1,704,406 ac (689,749 ha) activities have declined in southern 2016a). We also evaluated the amount of of coastal sage scrub habitat in northern California, these former farmlands have land currently within conservation Baja California, from 30° N. to the likely transitioned to urbanized areas reserves established under these plans United States-Mexico border (Service rather than been allowed to revert to or and estimated that approximately 47 2016a). This represents a difference of been restored as native habitats. percent of the plans’ conservation 158,007 ac (63,942 ha), or about 8.5 Because of the limited regulatory targets have been reached (Service percent, from the map prepared by mechanisms in Mexico (see Existing 2016a). This means that 28 percent of Rebman and Roberts (2012, p. 22) of Regulatory Mechanisms section below), habitat in the U.S. portion of the coastal their estimate of coastal sage scrub agricultural activity continues to be a California gnatcatcher’s range is vegetation. Though this figure stressor within the subspecies’ range in currently conserved by NCCP/HCP represents a rough estimate of coastal that country as a result of land clearing plans. sage scrub vegetation in northern Baja for both agriculture and grazing Outside of the United States, urban California as of 2013, it is the only practices, particularly in northwestern development continues and is expected available analysis of change in amount Baja California (for example, Harper et to continue into the future (Harper et al. of coastal sage scrub habitat available to al. 2011, pp. 28 and 31; Meyer et al. 2011, p. 26; Meyer et al. 2016, pp. 10 us at this time. 2016, p. 10). These effects are likely to and 13). Conservation of vegetation In our 2010 5-year review, we continue into the future. within the California floristic province indicated that the threats to the coastal In summary, urban development was of Baja California, Mexico, is receiving California gnatcatcher as a result of identified as a threat at the time of increasing attention (Meyer et al. 2016, agricultural development have been listing and as an ongoing threat in our p. 14). Two privately managed reserves tempered in recent years by 2010 5-year review. Our 2016 evaluation were recently established in Baja implementation of regulatory of conserved lands established within

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59965

the U.S. range of the subspecies threat to the subspecies (Service 2010, (see also van Mantgem et al. 2015, p. indicates that approximately 55 percent pp. 18, 21). Data from the FMMP 136). Moreover, the quality of the of suitable coastal California gnatcatcher indicate that there have been substantial habitat where recolonization occurs is habitat is targeted for conservation by declines in grazing land in San Diego also important, with higher-quality five regional NCCPs/HCPs, and that 47 and Riverside Counties from 1984 to unburned habitat supporting source percent of that goal has been achieved. 2012. These declines range from populations for recolonization of burned Although the impact of urban approximately 19,500 to 34,000 acres areas and higher-quality burned habitat development has been curtailed in (7,689 to 13,759 ha). A smaller decline being more likely to be recolonized as NCCP/HCP planning areas and has was reported for Orange County (3,265 the vegetation regrows (Winchell and decreased since the time of listing, ac (1,321 ha)), and a small increase was Doherty 2014, p. 543). This study conservation of the subspecies and its reported for Los Angeles County (6,066 concluded that the coastal California habitat within the plan areas is not ac (2,455 ha)) (CDC 2016), though not all gnatcatcher will recolonize burned expected until current conservation areas of these counties have been areas, but that it can take more than 5 plans are more fully implemented and inventoried. Overall, grazing is years post-burn for populations to reach future conservation plans are approved considered a low-level stressor within pre-burn occupancy levels, even in and permitted in other portions of the the subspecies’ range in the United higher-quality habitat areas (Winchell subspecies’ range. Suitable habitat that States that has a temporary impact to and Doherty 2014, p. 543). is not yet conserved may be subject to only small amounts of habitats and Similarly, a 2012 study of coastal urban development or other stressors. individual gnatcatchers, due to the California gnatcatchers within the Furthermore, although lands within decline in grazing activity and increased Central and Coastal Reserves in Orange conserved areas are not at risk of regulation of grazing by local County found that, following two large destruction or modification from jurisdictions (for instance, city fires in 2007 (Windy Ridge and Santiago development, other threats, as discussed ordinances). Fires) that burned approximately 75 below, remain. Additionally, some areas The effects of grazing practices to percent of the Central Reserve, of suitable habitat would remain outside coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in occupancy of surveyed plots in 2011 (4 areas targeted for conservation and Mexico are less concentrated as years post-fire) was 10.1 percent (7 of 65 could be developed or impacted in the compared to the United States because plots) in burned areas (Leatherman future. Therefore, urban development livestock are seasonally moved. Bioconsulting Inc. 2012, pp. i, 5). The continues to result in the destruction, However, grazing in coastal scrub severity of these fires within the Central modification, or curtailment of the habitat in Mexico can still result in Reserve also affected occupancy, with coastal California gnatcatcher’s habitat, vegetation type conversion, and as no occupancy of coastal California and represents a current, medium-level noted above, land clearing for grazing gnatcatchers observed within severely stressor to the coastal California purposes has been documented within burned plots, as compared to 23 percent gnatcatcher across its range in the northern Baja California (Meyer et al. occupancy for lightly burned plots United States and Mexico that has the 2016, p. 10). Therefore, grazing (Leatherman Bioconsulting Inc. 2012, p. potential to result in the loss of continues to pose a medium-level 5). The 2007 fires resulted in a large loss gnatcatchers at the population level and stressor that temporarily impacts large of coastal sage scrub habitat in the the loss of large but isolated patches of patches of habitat and gnatcatchers at Central Reserve, and the study found habitat. This stressor will continue to the population level within the that only 12.7 percent of plots were impact the subspecies and its habitat subspecies’ range in Mexico. occupied by the subspecies as compared to 34.3 percent of occupied plots for the into the future. Wildland Fire The impacts to the subspecies related Coastal Reserve (Leatherman to agricultural development is low in Wildland fire can result in the direct Bioconsulting Inc. 2012, p. 5). These the United States, but our recent loss of the coastal scrub plants that the findings are supported by an evaluation of remaining coastal sage coastal California gnatcatcher uses for observation made by one land manager scrub habitat in Baja California indicates foraging, breeding, and sheltering. In who submitted information to us in that agricultural development remains our 2010 5-year review, we found that response to our request for information as a medium- to high-level stressor for wildland fire poses a threat to coastal in our recent 90-day finding (79 FR the subspecies’ range in Mexico; we California gnatcatcher habitat (Service 78775; December 31, 2014). This land anticipate these impacts will continue 2010, pp. 15–18, 21). In that review, we manager indicated that it took 10 years into the future. noted that, absent other disturbances, of restoration activities after the 2003 coastal scrub vegetation can re-grow in San Diego wildland fires for coastal Grazing some areas post-wildland fire in as little California gnatcatcher to return to Effects of grazing and browsing from as approximately 3 to 5 years (Service previously occupied habitat in certain cattle, sheep, and goats include eating 2010, p. 21). However, new information burned areas within San Diego County and trampling of coastal scrub plants. In suggests that the process needed for (Johanson 2015, pers. comm.). The U.S. the 2010 5-year review, we found that coastal scrub vegetation to recover Geological Survey, in partnership with the effects of grazing can result in the sufficiently to provide suitable habitat the San Diego Management and loss and modification of coastal for the coastal California gnatcatcher is Monitoring Program, is conducting California gnatcatcher habitat and more complex. Winchell and Doherty additional research to better understand promote vegetation type conversion (the (2014, p. 543) examined coastal the effects of wildland fire on coastal modification of one habitat type to California gnatcatcher recolonization California gnatcatcher occupancy within another through the effects of one or rates after the wildland fires of 2003 in coastal scrub vegetation in southern more stressors working individually or San Diego County; they found that California (Kus and Preston 2015, in combination—ultimately resulting in coastal California gnatcatchers entire). the destruction of the original habitat recolonize burned areas from the As discussed in our 2010 5-year type) (see the Vegetation Type outside in, ‘‘[moving] in from the fire review (Service 2010, pp. 15–18), the Conversion section below); at that time, perimeter, rather than colonizing the frequency of wildland fire has risen due we concluded that grazing was a minor center of the burned area immediately’’ to an increase in rates of ignition along

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59966 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

the urban-wildland interface and Vegetation Type Conversion section (Center for Natural Lands Management controlled burning practices in Mexico. below). Our spatial data show that a 2015, pers. comm.; Johanson 2015, pers. The greater number of fires, many of total of about 53,343 ac (21,587 ha) of comm.). which have burned large areas of coastal modeled coastal California gnatcatcher The NCCP/HCP planning process scrub, has resulted in more areas of habitat in the United States has burned includes measures for managing coastal young growth coastal scrub vegetation at least twice since 2003, with some scrub vegetation, and current that do not provide suitable coastal areas having burned three to four times management is reducing the magnitude California gnatcatcher habitat. The 2010 (Service 2016a). of the effects of type-conversion within 5-year review noted that roughly At the time of listing, wildland fire the range of the coastal California 235,226 ac (95,193 ha) of modeled was identified as a substantial threat to gnatcatcher in the United States. Habitat coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in the coastal California gnatcatcher and its is being added as managed reserves the United States burned from 2003 to habitat; it was further identified as an under the NCCP/HCPs at a pace that is 2007 (Service 2010, pp. 15–17), which ongoing threat in the 2010 5-year roughly in keeping with habitat losses included several very large fires (see review. Although currently established from urban development and other Service 2010, p. 16, Figure 3). As noted NCCP/HCPs provide for the covered activities. However, the process above (see Urban and Agricultural establishment of coastal sage scrub is not yet complete for the decades-long Development section), that analysis reserves and include fire management as permits issued for the NCCP/HCPs used modeled habitat consisting of one of their primary objectives, there is within the subspecies’ range. In coastal scrub vegetation within the U.S. no mechanism or conservation measure addition, management plans for each currently in place that can fully prevent portion of the range of the coastal preserve area are not yet complete for the recurrence of natural or human- California gnatcatcher. Using updated these long-term plans, and ensuring caused destructive wildland fires in fire perimeter spatial data from the sufficient resources for perpetual coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. California Department of Fire and management of the reserves that Therefore, wildland fire represents a Forestry Protection (CDF) (CDF 2014) addresses existing and future stressors, medium-level stressor leading to the and our previously defined modeled poses a challenge common to all destruction, modification, or coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, regional NCCP/HCPs. These curtailment of habitat or range of the we estimated that 54,429 ac (22,027 ha) circumstances can lead to uncertainty coastal California gnatcatcher that burned from 2008–2014, which also regarding whether long-term causes large-scale, temporary alterations includes areas that may have burned management can adequately address during both the 2003–2007 and 2008– to coastal sage scrub habitat and may result in the loss of some gnatcatcher vegetation type conversion in the future. 2014 time periods (Service 2016a). For Therefore, vegetation type conversion southern California fires in 2015, we pairs throughout the subspecies’ range. According to the best available data, it represents a medium-level stressor evaluated fire perimeter geospatial data leading to the destruction, modification, and determined that the Calgrove Fire will continue to impact the subspecies and its habitat into the future. or curtailment of habitat or range of the (439 ac (177.6 ha) total) in Los Angeles coastal California gnatcatcher and County burned approximately 167.5 ac Vegetation Type Conversion causing long-term habitat alterations (67.8 ha) of coastal California The presence of invasive, nonnative and impacts to gnatcatchers across the gnatcatcher habitat (Service 2016a). In plant species, in combination with one range of the subspecies. The best total, from 2003 to 2015, approximately or more stressors, such as severe available scientific and commercial 289,822 ac (117,286 ha) or about 45 physical disturbance (for example, information indicates that vegetation percent of modeled coastal California clearing by heavy machinery), livestock type conversion will continue to have gnatcatcher habitat has burned. activity, wildland fire, and long-term impacts into the future. Wildland fire, and how often it anthropogenic atmospheric pollutants reoccurs in an area, is a major (particularly nitrogen compounds) can Climate Change contributor to vegetation type cause a shift from native plants towards Background conversion from coastal sage scrub to a nonnative plant community and result annual grassland, a vegetation type that in vegetation type conversion. In the In this section, we consider observed does not support the breeding, feeding, 2010 5-year review, we found that or expected environmental changes or sheltering needs of the coastal vegetation type conversion of coastal resulting from ongoing and projected California gnatcatcher. This is sage scrub to nonnative grasses was an changes in climate. The effects of particularly problematic when ongoing threat to the coastal California climate change were not addressed in frequency of wildland fires increases gnatcatcher, given that nonnative detail in previous status reviews. above the historic fire regime for coastal grasses do not support breeding for the As defined by the Intergovernmental sage scrub, which increases the subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 18–21). Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the incidence of vegetation type conversion. Depending on the influencing factors, term ‘‘climate’’ refers to the mean and In conjunction with several other this conversion can occur over various variability of different types of weather stressors, wildland fires promote the temporal and spatial scales. In conditions over time, with 30 years growth of nonnative plant species, particular, the nonnative annual plant– being a typical period for such which can outcompete and displace wildland fire feedback loop can result in measurements, although shorter or native plant species. This occurrence the type conversion of large areas of longer periods also may be used (IPCC results in the modification and, habitat over a relatively short period of 2013a, p. 1,450). The term ‘‘climate ultimately, the loss of coastal scrub time (Service 2010, pp. 15–18). change’’ thus refers to a change in the habitat. Furthermore, the senescence of Information provided to us by two land mean or the variability of relevant these annual nonnative annual plants managers within reserves in San Diego properties, which persists for an creates higher fuel loads than are found County indicates that active extended period, typically decades or in native coastal scrub habitat, management to control nonnative longer, due to natural conditions (for accelerating the effects of the wildland vegetation is needed to maintain habitat example, solar cycles) or human-caused fire-type conversion feedback loop (see quality due to re-occurring wildand fires changes in the composition of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59967

atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 2013a, through the 21st century, and that the mean temperatures (Jan–Dec) of p. 1,450). magnitude and rate of change will be approximately 2.65 °F (±0.49 °F) (1.47 ± Scientific measurements spanning influenced substantially by human 0.27 °C) since 1895 and 4.17 °F (±1.21 several decades demonstrate that actions regarding GHG emissions (IPCC °F) (2.32 ± 0.67 °C) since 1949 (WRCC changes in climate are occurring. In 2013b, 2014; entire). 2016, p. 6). Similarly, the maximum particular, warming of the climate Global climate projections are temperature 100-year trend for the system is unequivocal and many of the informative, and in some cases, the only South Coast Region shows an increase observed changes in the last 60 years are scientific information available for us to of about 1.94 °F (±0.52 °F) (1.08 ± 0.29 unprecedented over decades to use. However, projected changes in °C) since 1895 and 3.16 °F (±1.32 °F) millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). The climate and related impacts can vary (1.75 ± 0.73 °C) since 1949 (WRCC 2016, current rate of climate change may be as substantially across and within different p. 9). Likewise, the minimum fast as any extended warming period regions of the world (for example, IPCC temperature 100-year trend for the over the past 65 million years and is 2013c, entire; IPCC 2014, entire) and South Coast Region shows an increase projected to accelerate in the next 30 to within the United States (Melillo et al. of about 3.37 °F (±0.52 °F) (1.87 ± 0.29 80 years (National Research Council 2014, entire). Therefore, we use °C) since 1895 and 5.19 °F (±1.22 °F) 2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change ‘‘downscaled’’ projections when they (2.88 ± 0.68 °C) since 1949 (WRCC 2016, is adding to other sources of extinction are available and have been developed p. 12). It is reasonable to assume the rate pressures, such as land use and invasive through appropriate scientific of temperature increase for this region is species, which will likely place procedures, because such projections higher for the second time period (since extinction rates in this era among just a provide higher resolution information 1949) than for the first time period handful of the severe biodiversity crises that is more relevant to spatial scales (since 1895) due to the increased use of observed in Earth’s geological record used for analyses of a given species (see fossil fuels in the 20th century. Even if (American Association for the Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a that is not the mechanism, it is clear Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) 2014, discussion of downscaling). temperatures have increased in the p. 17). Various changes in climate may have South Coast Region since the start of Examples of various other observed direct or indirect effects on a species. data collection. and projected changes in climate and These may be positive, neutral, or associated effects and risks, and the negative, and they may change over These observed trends provide bases for them, are provided for global time, depending on the species and information as to how climate has and regional scales in recent reports other relevant considerations, such as changed in the past. However, we must issued by the IPCC (2013c, entire; 2014, interactions of climate with other also consider whether and how climate entire), and similar types of information variables such as habitat fragmentation may change in the future. Climate for the United States and regions within (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; models can be used to simulate and it can be found in the National Climate Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. develop future climate projections. Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). 2010; Chen et al. 2011; Bertelsmeier et Pierce et al. (2013, entire) presented Results of scientific analyses al. 2013, entire). In addition to both statewide and regional presented by the IPCC show that most considering individual species, probabilistic estimates of temperature of the observed increase in global scientists are evaluating potential and precipitation changes for California average temperature since the mid-20th climate change-related impacts to, and (by the 2060s) using downscaled data century cannot be explained by natural responses of, ecological systems, habitat from 16 global circulation models and 3 variability in climate and is ‘‘extremely conditions, and groups of species (see, nested regional climate models. The likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 95 to 100 for example, Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et study looked at a historical (1985–1994) percent likelihood) due to the observed al. 2010; Euskirchen et al. 2009; and a future (2060–2069) time period increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) McKechnie and Wolf 2010; Sinervo et using the IPCC Special Report on concentrations in the atmosphere as a al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; Emission Scenarios A2 (Pierce et al. result of human activities, particularly McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and 2013, p. 841). This IPCC-defined carbon dioxide emissions from fossil Schindler 2011; Bellard et al. 2012). scenario was used for the IPCC’s Third fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17 and related and Fourth Assessment reports, and it is citations). Temperature based on a global population growth Scientists use a variety of climate Regional temperature observations for scenario and economic conditions that models, which include consideration of assessing climate change are often used result in a relatively high level of natural processes and variability as well as an indicator of how climate is atmospheric GHGs by 2100 (IPCC 2000, as various scenarios of potential levels changing. The Western Regional Climate pp. 4–5; see also Stocker et al. 2013, pp. and timing of GHG emissions, to Center (WRCC) has defined 11 climate 60–68, and Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 25– evaluate the causes of changes already regions for evaluating various climate 28 for discussions and comparisons of observed and to project future changes trends in California (Abatzoglou et al. the prior and current IPCC approaches in temperature and other climate 2009, p. 1,535). The relevant WRCC and outcomes). Importantly, the conditions. Model results yield very climate region for the distribution of the projections by Pierce et al. (2013, pp. similar projections of average global coastal California gnatcatcher in 852–853) include daily distributions warming until about 2030; thereafter, southern California is primarily the and natural internal climate variability. the magnitude and rate of warming vary South Coast Region. Simulations using these downscaling through the end of the century Three indicators of temperature, the methods project an increase in yearly depending on the assumptions about increase in mean temperature, the temperature for the southern California population levels, emissions of GHGs, increase in maximum temperature, and coastal region ranging from 1.6 °C to 2.5 and other factors that influence climate the increase in minimum temperature °C (2.9 °F to 4.5 °F) by the 2060s time change. Thus, absent extremely rapid illustrate trends in climate change in period, compared to 1985–1994 (Pierce stabilization of GHGs at a global level, California. For the South Coast Region, et al. 2013, p. 844). Averaging across all there is strong scientific support for linear trends (evaluated over a 100-year models and downscaling techniques, projections that warming will continue time period) indicate an increase in the simulations project a yearly-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59968 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

averaged warming of 2.1 °C (3.78 °F) by rainfall amounts for several locations in habitat of coastal scrub vegetation in the 2060s (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 842). southern California (Fritz 2015, entire). some areas, it may also create This storm and additional monsoonal- conditions more favorable for vegetation Precipitation related rain events during the summer type conversion to unsuitable habitat Precipitation patterns can also be of 2015 in southern California were such as nonnative annual grasslands. used as an indicator of how climate is enhanced by higher than normal sea The best available regional data on changing. Killam et al. (2014, entire) surface temperatures and the developing current and potential future trends evaluated trends in precipitation for 14 El Nin˜ o pattern in the Pacific Ocean related to climate change, within the meteorological stations within all of (Serna and Lin 2015, p. B5). range of the coastal California California using annual precipitation gnatcatcher, indicate that the effects of Climate Change and Coastal California data from the National Climatic Data climate change is a low- to medium- Gnatcatchers Center. This study found an increasing level stressor at the present time that is trend in annual precipitation since 1925 The potential changes in climate anticipated to result in shifts to the for the northern and central regions of described above are expected to have distribution of the subspecies’ habitat California and decreasing or minimal some effect on the coastal California and that may potentially affect changes in southern California; gnatcatcher and its habitat. While the gnatcatchers at the individual or however, none of the trends for these physical and biological mechanisms population level. Based on model stations were significant (Killam et al. that result in the establishment of projections, we can reliably predict 2014, p. 171). The authors concluded coastal scrub or chaparral vegetation are these changes will continue into the that it is unclear as to whether there is unclear, minimum temperatures, mid-21st century (2060s). a recognizable climate change signal in maximum temperatures, and these precipitation records since annual precipitation (both amount and Disease variability in precipitation seasonality) within the southern Two diseases have been identified as overwhelmed their observed trends, California coastal region represent potential threats to the coastal California particularly precipitation patterns important influences on the subspecies gnatcatcher, West Nile virus and attributed to both the El Nin˜ o–Southern and its habitat (Franklin 1998, p. 745). Newcastle disease. These are discussed Oscillation and the Pacific decadal As noted above, there is little consensus in greater detail in our 2010 5-year oscillation (multidecadal shifts in warm on future trends in precipitation in review where we concluded that disease and cool phases in North Pacific sea southern California; however, it is was not a significant threat to the surface temperatures) (Killam et al. highly likely that minimum and subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 21–22). 2014, p. 168). maximum temperatures will continue to Because known West Nile virus cases Statewide and regional probabilistic rise. Malanson and O’Leary (1995, p. and the range of the coastal California estimates of precipitation changes for 219) suggested that higher average gnatcatcher overlap geographically, the California were evaluated by Pierce et temperatures in the future may create an subspecies has likely been exposed to al. (2013, entire). Averaging across all upslope shift in coastal scrub vegetation West Nile virus. While new information models and downscaling methods, the into areas that are currently occupied by suggests that the impact to birds in simulations projected an annual mean chaparral. This may expand or shift North America has been widespread decrease in precipitation for southern areas that currently provide suitable (George et al. 2015, entire), we have no California (approximately 9 percent for habitat for coastal California evidence of detection of West Nile virus the southern California coastal region) gnatcatchers. Similarly, because the in the coastal California gnatcatcher and over the 2060–2069 time period subspecies’ distribution is thought to be no information indicating that this compared to the mean over the 1985– limited by low temperatures (Mock disease has caused any decline in 1994 time period, but there was 1998, p. 415), warmer minimum coastal California gnatcatcher significant disagreement across the temperatures may also allow for coastal populations. Furthermore, Newcastle models (Pierce et al. 2013, pp. 849, 854). California gnatcatchers to survive at disease does not appear to have affected Dynamic downscaled simulations higher elevations, thereby allowing the gnatcatchers (Service 2010, p. 22). In indicate larger increases in summer subspecies to extend its range into areas summary, there is no evidence that (June–August) precipitation by the previously not occupied (Preston et al. disease is a stressor at the present time 2060s (as compared to statistical 2008, p. 2,512). In contrast, climate to the coastal California gnatcatcher, nor downscaling methods) within the region change may affect nutrient cycling do we expect it to be into the future. of California affected by the North (Allen et al. 1995, entire) or may Predation America monsoonal flow (Pierce et al. promote a wildland fire regime with 2013, pp. 851, 855). The North increased fire frequency (Batllori et al. The effects of predation on the coastal American monsoon is a regional-scale 2013, entire); both of these effects would California gnatcatcher are discussed in circulation that develops over the create conditions more favorable for greater detail in our 2010 5-year review, American Southwest during the months vegetation type conversion to nonnative where we concluded that predation is of July through September, affecting annual grassland, which would be not a significant threat to the subspecies southern California and other locations unsuitable habitat for coastal California (Service 2010, pp. 22–24). Predation in this region (Douglas et al. 2004, gnatcatchers. undoubtedly occurs among all life entire). Occasionally, hurricanes and stages of the coastal California tropical storms are captured in the Climate Change Summary gnatcatcher, but only nest predation has monsoon circulation, which can result Climate change due to global warming been previously identified as affecting in heavy summer rains in the normally is influencing regional climate patterns recruitment and survival at levels that dry areas of the Southwest (Douglas et that may result in changes to the habitat could have potential effects on the al. 2004, p. 11). As an example, from for the coastal California gnatcatcher population (such as reduction in July 18–20, 2015, remnants of tropical into the mid-21st century fledging success). Nest predation rates storm Dolores, which had developed (approximately 2060s). While climate for the coastal California gnatcatcher are into a Category 4 hurricane off the coast change may expand or shift the coastal higher than most open-nesting of Baja California, generated record July California gnatcatcher’s preferred passerines because they occupy a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59969

naturally predator-rich environment gnatcatcher habitat may not always be rates of brood parasitism near livestock (Service 2010, p. 23). However, the life- occupied by the subspecies, these and agriculture). Because brown-headed history strategy of the coastal California patches of habitat can be recolonized cowbirds are thought to have invaded gnatcatcher allows pairs to re-nest over time (Winchell and Doherty 2014, coastal southern California during the repeatedly, compensating for this p. 543). Winchell and Doherty (2014, p. 20th century, any rate of brood potential stressor. Therefore, we 543) also found that coastal California parasitism exceeds the historical rate of conclude that predation continues to gnatcatchers gradually recolonize a parasitism. However, the re-nesting represent a low-level impact to the regrowing burned area from the behavior of the coastal California subspecies that affects individual pairs perimeter inwards (see Wildland Fire gnatcatcher following a failed nesting of gnatcatchers, but it is not having a section above), which indicates that attempt enables individual birds to population-level impact at the present coastal California gnatcatchers have reduce the magnitude of this threat, as time, and this situation is not expected some level of sensitivity to spatial and opposed to some migratory songbirds to change into the future. temporal elements in habitat fragments. that do not re-nest as readily. Ongoing and anticipated Additionally, cowbird trapping has been Fragmentation implementation of regional NCCP/HCPs found to be an effective tool and has Fragmentation represents a suite of is expected to create a network of core- helped to reduce impacts to the coastal stressors that affect a species at various and-linkage habitat areas, thereby California gnatcatcher (as informed by levels and scales. At its simplest, it preventing or reducing the effects of monitoring) within many of the reserves involves a large, continuous block of future habitat fragmentation for much of established under regional NCCP/HCPs habitat being broken up into smaller the U.S. range of the coastal California (Service 2010, p. 33). Additionally, pieces, which become isolated from gnatcatcher. The core areas are large, certain ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit each other within a mosaic of other mostly unfragmented areas, while holders may be authorized to conduct habitats. It is, therefore, not unrelated to linkage areas are intended to provide coastal California gnatcatcher nest habitat destruction and type conversion continuous or ‘‘stepping stone’’ monitoring activities that may include (see the Urban and Agricultural corridors for coastal California the removal of brown-headed cowbird Development section and Vegetation gnatcatcher movement and dispersal. chicks and eggs (with minimal Type Conversion sections above). Thus, as indicated by new information disturbance to nesting gnatcatchers). At However, changes in proximity to from Vandergast et al. (2014, entire) and the discretion of the permittee, these unsuitable habitat, distance to other Winchell and Doherty (2014, entire), the activities may further include areas of suitable habitat, size of habitat, ability of the coastal California replacement of cowbird eggs with and the length of time a fragment has gnatcatcher to move between and dummy eggs to preclude the been isolated may all have negative recolonize habitat areas within the U.S. abandonment of small clutches. These impacts on individuals of the species, range, including the existing preserve- activities help to decrease the impact of such as increased predation rates, and-linkage areas, helps to reduce some cowbird parasitism on individual genetic isolation, or increased risk of of the effects associated with habitat coastal California gnatcatchers. Given local extirpation. fragmentation, although connectivity the subspecies’ ability to re-nest As discussed in our 2010 5-year remains somewhat limited at the larger following nest failure along with review, the coastal California scales. ongoing management, we conclude gnatcatcher is not particularly sensitive The new information we have brood parasitism is a low- to medium- to edge or distance effects (Service 2010, received since the 2010 5-year review level stressor affecting some populations p. 32). This characteristic is further suggests that fragmentation is a threat of of coastal California gnatcatchers supported by new information lower magnitude than was described at throughout the subspecies’ range in the indicating that populations of coastal the time of listing. However, the effects United States, and we expect this level California gnatcatchers within the of fragmentation are more significant of stressor will continue into the future. United States are fairly well connected than previously recognized for those We have no specific information on the over large areas. However, some coastal California gnatcatcher impact of brown-headed cowbirds on populations (for example, the Palos populations that have become widely coastal California gnatcatcher Verdes Peninsula, greater Ventura separated due to urban development populations in Mexico, but brown- County, and Coyote Hills populations) and other habitat losses or modifications headed cowbirds occur as a breeding are currently separated by large (for example, wildland fire), particularly species along the length of the Baja distances by areas of non-habitat and, the geographically isolated populations California peninsula (see Erickson et al. therefore, are not as well connected in Ventura County, Palos Verdes 2007, p. 583), including throughout the with the populations in the rest of (western Los Angeles County), and range of the coastal California southern California (Vandergast et al. Coyote Hills (northern Orange County) gnatcatcher. We expect that the level of 2014, pp. 8–9). We also noted in the (Vandergast et al. 2014, pp. 8, 12). impact of this stressor in Mexico is 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, p. 32) Therefore, we consider the effects of similar to that in unmanaged areas of that the coastal California gnatcatcher fragmentation to represent a low- to the United States. appeared to be somewhat susceptible to medium-level stressor to the subspecies Existing Regulatory Mechanisms the effects associated with small within portions of its range, and we can fragment size (area), but new reliably predict that this level of stressor Existing regulatory mechanisms that information suggests otherwise will continue into the future. affect the coastal California gnatcatcher (Winchell and Doherty 2014, p. 543). include laws and regulations Our concern at that time was that small Brood Parasitism promulgated by Federal and State areas of habitat would not support Rates of brood parasitism by invasive, governments in the United States and in coastal California gnatcatchers over time nonnative brown-headed cowbirds Mexico. In relation to Factor D under and that the loss of the gnatcatcher (Molothrus ater) appear to vary the Act, we consider relevant Federal, population in a given (small) patch throughout the range of the coastal State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and would be permanent. While a given California gnatcatcher, depending upon other such mechanisms that may patch of suitable coastal California nearby land uses (for example, higher minimize any of the threats we describe

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59970 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

under the other four factors, or engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. jeopardy to listed species. Incidental otherwise enhance conservation of the 1532(19)). Our regulations define take permits are available to private species. We give strongest weight to ‘‘harm’’ to include significant habitat landowners, corporations, Tribal statutes and their implementing modification or degradation that results governments, State and local regulations and to management in death or injury to listed species by governments, and other non-Federal direction that stems from those laws and significantly impairing essential entities. These permits can reduce regulations; an example would be State behavioral patterns, including breeding, conflicts between endangered species governmental actions enforced under a feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Our and economic activities and develop State statute or constitution, or Federal regulations also define ‘‘harass’’ as important partnerships between the action under statute. For currently listed intentional or negligent actions that public and private sectors. As discussed species, we consider the adequacy of create the likelihood of injury to a listed in the Urban and Agricultural existing regulatory mechanisms to species by annoying it to such an extent Development section above, we have address threats to the species absent the as to significantly disrupt normal issued incidental take permits for protections of the Act. Potential threats behavior patterns, which include, but regional HCP and HCP/NCCPs covering acting on the coastal California are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or approximately 59 percent of modeled gnatcatcher for which governments may sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). gnatcatcher habitat, and two additional have regulatory control include impacts Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all HCP/NCCPs are nearing completion. associated with urban and agricultural Federal agencies to utilize their Since 1993, the Service has addressed development, vegetation type authorities in furtherance of the impacts to the coastal California conversion, wildland fire, climate purposes of the Act by carrying out gnatcatcher from urban development change, and brood parasitism. programs for the conservation of and other projects outside of the NCCP/ endangered species and threatened HCP regional planning effort through Federal Mechanisms species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act the section 7 process. The projects have National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that included residential and commercial (NEPA) any action they authorize, fund, or carry developments, highway-widening out is not likely to jeopardize the projects, and pipeline projects, among All Federal agencies are required to continued existence of listed species or others. Section 7 consultations have also adhere to the NEPA of 1970 (42 U.S.C. destroy or adversely modify their been conducted with the U.S. Army 4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, critical habitat. Because the Service has Corps of Engineers for Clean Water Act authorize, or carry out. Prior to regulations that prohibit take of all permit applications, and other Federal implementation of such projects with a threatened wildlife species (50 CFR agencies on specific actions. In addition Federal nexus, NEPA requires the 17.31(a)), unless modified by a rule to ‘‘projects,’’ we have consulted with agency to analyze the project for issued under section 4(d) of the Act (50 the U.S. Marine Corps to address potential impacts to the human CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory protections potential impacts to the gnatcatcher and environment, including natural of the Act are largely the same for its habitat from military training resources. However, NEPA does not wildlife species listed as endangered activities on Marine Corps Base Camp impose substantive environmental and as threatened. Pendleton (Camp Pendleton) and obligations on Federal agencies—it A section 4(d) rule for the coastal Miramar Corps Air Station (Miramar), merely prohibits an uninformed agency California gnatcatcher was published on and we have consulted with the U.S. action. Although NEPA requires full December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65088). Navy on actions related to the evaluation and disclosure of Under that rule, incidental take of the management of Naval Weapons Station information regarding the effects of coastal California gnatcatcher is not Seal Beach Detachment Fallbrook contemplated Federal actions on considered to be a violation of section (Detachment Fallbrook). sensitive species and their habitats, it 9 of the Act if the take results from We reviewed the number of formal does not by itself regulate activities that activities conducted pursuant to the section 7 consultations for the coastal might affect the coastal California NCCP Act of 1991 and in accordance California gnatcatcher in our Tracking gnatcatcher; that is, effects to the with an approved NCCP plan, provided and Integrated Logging System (TAILS) subspecies and its habitat would receive that the Service determines that such a database (initiated in 2007) that were the same scrutiny as other plant and plan meets the issuance criteria of an completed from 1996 through March wildlife resources during the NEPA ‘‘incidental take’’ permit pursuant to 2016. In total, the Carlsbad and Ventura process and associated analyses of a section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 50 Fish and Wildlife Offices completed 320 project’s potential impacts to the human CFR 17.32(b)(2). Under the section 4(d) formal consultations during that time environment. rule, a limited amount of incidental take period (Service 2016b). In all of these of the coastal California gnatcatcher consultations, we concluded that, due to Endangered Species Act of 1973, as within subregions actively engaged in the implementation of conservation Amended (Act) preparing a NCCP plan will also not be measures to avoid, minimize, and offset Upon its listing as threatened, the considered a violation of section 9 of the impacts to the subspecies and its coastal California gnatcatcher benefited Act, provided the activities resulting in habitat, effects of the proposed actions from the protections of the Act, which such take are conducted in accordance were not likely to jeopardize the include the prohibition against take and with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines continued existence of the coastal the requirement for interagency and Process Guidelines. Under section California gnatcatcher and were not consultation for Federal actions that 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the Service may likely to result in the destruction or may affect the species. Section 9 of the issue permits authorizing the incidental adverse modification of designated Act and Federal regulations prohibit the take of federally listed animal species. critical habitat for the subspecies. We take of endangered and threatened Incidental take permittees must develop will continue to evaluate impacts of species without special exemption. The and implement a habitat conservation proposed projects to the subspecies and Act defines ‘‘take’’ as to harass, harm, plan (HCP) that minimizes and mitigates its habitat for those areas outside of the pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, the impacts of take to the maximum NCCP/HCPs through other provisions of capture, or collect, or to attempt to extent practicable and that avoid the Act, such as section 7 consultation,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59971

recovery implementation, and periodic development and for the management, As with NEPA, CEQA does not status reviews. conservation, and rehabilitation of provide a direct regulatory role for the Our evaluation confirms that urban natural resources, including for the CDFW or other State and local agencies development and associated threats subspecies and its habitat. For example, relative to activities that may affect the continue for the coastal California on Camp Pendleton and MCAS coastal California gnatcatcher. However, gnatcatcher, but listing of the coastal Miramar, management measures that CEQA requires a complete assessment of California gnatcatcher under the Act as benefit the coastal California the potential for a proposed project to threatened has provided protection to gnatcatcher and its habitat include have a significant adverse effect on the the subspecies and its habitat, including nonnative vegetation control, nonnative environment. Among the conditions the prohibition against take and the animal control, and habitat outlined in the CEQA Guidelines that conservation mandates of section 7 for enhancement and restoration (MCB may lead to a mandatory finding of all Federal agencies. Camp Pendleton 2007, p. F–25; MCAS significance are where the project ‘‘has Sikes Act Miramar INRMP 2010, pp. 7–18–7–19). the potential to . . . substantially Some restrictions on training and reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a–670f, construction activities also apply during species; cause a fish or wildlife as amended) directs the Secretary of gnatcatcher breeding season to reduce population to drop below self-sustaining Defense, in cooperation with the Service impacts on nesting gnatcatchers (MCB levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or and State fish and wildlife agencies, to Camp Pendleton 2007, p. F–25; MCAS animal community; [or] substantially carry out a program for the conservation Miramar INRMP 2010, pp. 7–18–7–19). reduce the number or restrict the range and rehabilitation of natural resources of an endangered, rare or threatened on military installations. The Sikes Act Without the protections provided to the subspecies and its habitat under the species’’ (title 14 of the California Code Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105– of Regulations (CCR), § 15065(a)(1)). The 85) broadened the scope of military Act (that is, if the coastal California gnatcatcher was delisted), there would CEQA Guidelines further state that a natural resources programs, integrated species ‘‘not included in any listing [as natural resources programs with be less incentive for the Marine Corps or Navy to continue to include specific threatened or endangered] shall operations and training, embraced the nevertheless be considered to be tenets of conservation biology, invited provisions (for example, monitoring) in their INRMPs to provide conservation endangered, rare, or threatened, if the public review, strengthened funding for species can be shown to meet the conservation activities on military benefits to the subspecies, beyond that provided under a more general criteria’’ for such listing (14 CCR lands, and required the development 15380(d)). In other words, CEQA would and implementation of an Integrated integrated natural resource management strategy at these and other DOD require any project that may impact Natural Resources Management Plan populations of these species to assess installations. (INRMP) for relevant installations, and disclose such potential impacts which are reviewed every 5 years. State Laws Affecting the Coastal during the environmental review INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum California Gnatcatcher process (Osborn 2015, pers. comm.). extent practicable, ecosystem management principles, provide for the The coastal California gnatcatcher is The Natural Community Conservation management of natural resources designated as a Species of Special Planning (NCCP) Act (including fish, wildlife, and plants), Concern by the California Department of The NCCP program is a cooperative allow multipurpose uses of resources, Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (CDFG 2008). effort between the State of California and provide public access necessary and Although this designation is and numerous private and public appropriate for those uses without a net administrative and provides no formal partners with the goal of protecting loss in the capability of an installation legal status for protection, it is intended habitats and species. The NCCP program to support its military mission. An to highlight those species at identifies and provides for the regional INRMP is an important guidance conservation risk to State and Federal or area-wide protection of plants, document that helps to integrate natural and local governments, land managers, animals, and their habitats while resource protection with military and others, as well as to encourage allowing compatible and appropriate readiness and training. In addition to research for those species whose life economic activity. The program uses an technical assistance that the Service history and population status are poorly ecosystem approach to planning for the provides to the military, the Service can known (Comrack et al. 2008, p. 2). protection and continuation of enter into interagency agreements with California Environmental Quality Act biological diversity (https:// installations to help implement an (CEQA) www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ INRMP. The INRMP implementation Planning/NCCP). Regional NCCPs projects can include wildlife and habitat CEQA (California Public Resources provide protection to federally listed assessments and surveys, fish stocking, Code 21000–21177) is the principal and other covered species by conserving exotic species control, and hunting and statute mandating environmental native habitats upon which the species fishing program management. assessment of projects in California. The depend. NCCPs are usually developed On Department of Defense lands, purpose of CEQA is to evaluate whether in conjunction with habitat including Camp Pendleton, Detachment a proposed project may have an adverse conservation plans (HCPs) prepared Fallbrook, and Miramar, coastal effect on the environment and, if so, to pursuant to the Act. California gnatcatcher habitat is determine whether that effect can be The 2010 5-year review discusses the generally not subjected to threats reduced or eliminated by pursuing an NCCP program in greater detail. associated with large-scale alternative course of action, or through Currently, the following NCCP plans development. However, the primary mitigation. CEQA applies to certain that cover the coastal California purpose for military lands, including activities of State and local public gnatcatcher are approved and being most gnatcatcher habitat areas, is to agencies; a public agency must comply implemented: Multiple Species provide for military support and with CEQA when it undertakes an Conservation Program (one of four training. At these installations, INRMPs activity defined under CEQA as a Subregional Plans in San Diego County provide direction for project ‘‘project.’’ with 5 of 11 Subarea Plans approved),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59972 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

San Diego County Water Authority preserve planning area is approximately other federally listed species of plants NCCP/HCP, San Diego Gas & Electric 42,129 ac (17,049 ha) or about 68 and animals covered under these plans NCCP, San Diego Multiple Habitat percent of the plan’s target (City of are also found within coastal sage scrub Conservation Program (a second Chula Vista 2015, p. 35; City of San habitat (for example, Quino checkerspot Subregional Plan in San Diego County Diego 2015, p. 15; County of San Diego butterfly (Euphydrays editha quino)). By with 1 of 6 Subarea Plans approved), 2015, p. 51). continuing to implement the plans, the Western Riverside County Multiple • For the San Diego County MSCP, permittees would retain incidental take Species Habitat Conservation Plan the City of Carlsbad reported 1,683 ac coverage for these other species. (Western Riverside County MSHCP), (681 ha) of coastal sage scrub conserved However, permittees under these and Orange County Central/Coastal within their Habitat Management regional plans could request permit NCCP/HCP (CDFW 2015, pp. 12 and Preserve system as of December 2015 modifications or request that their long- 13). Additionally, the Orange County (84 percent of target) (Grim 2016, pers. term permits be renegotiated should the Transportation Authority M2 NCCP/ comm.). coastal California gnatcatcher be HCP in Orange County and the Rancho • For the Orange County Central— delisted under the Act. Similarly, the Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP in Los Angeles Coastal NCCP/HCP (as of the end of NCCP/HCPs currently under County are nearing completion. The 2013), the amount of coastal sage scrub development in southern California North County Multiple Species conserved is 17,809 ac (7,207 ha) would likely require reevaluation. Conservation Plan and the East County (Nature Reserve of Orange County However, all conservation already Multiple Species Conservation Plan 2013). implemented would continue to provide (CDFW 2015, pp. 12 and 13), the third • For the Western Riverside County benefits to the coastal California and fourth Subregional Plans in San MSHCP, the Western Riverside County gnatcatcher even if it was delisted. Diego County, are still in the Regional Conservation Authority Because conservation and management development phase. Finally, the Orange (WRCRCA 2015, pp. 3–9—3–10) for the coastal California gnatcatcher has County Southern Subregion HCP is not reported that 11,802 ac (4,776 ha) of not yet been fully implemented under approved as an NCCP, but this plan is coastal sage scrub was conserved from the NCCP/HCPs in place and some a regionally significant Service- February 2000 to December 31, 2013. NCCP/HCPs are not yet developed, all of approved HCP that includes core With the addition of the Orange the potential conservation anticipated populations of the coastal California County Southern Subregion HCP, which under these plans is not yet fully gnatcatcher and large expanses of reported coastal California gnatcatcher assured absent the protections of the coastal sage scrub. scrub habitat of 13,135 ac (5,315 ha) Act. These plans provide a comprehensive, within reserves as of December 2013 habitat-based approach to the protection (Rancho Mission Viejo 2013), the total Regulatory Mechanisms in Mexico of covered species, including the coastal number is approximately 86,558 ac As described above (see Urban and California gnatcatcher, by focusing on (35,028 ha) of coastal sage scrub Agricultural Development section), we lands identified as important for the conserved (within reserves established recently estimated that approximately long-term conservation of the covered by these plans). This amount represents 1,704,406 ac (689,749 ha) of coastal sage species and through the implementation about 47 percent of the total target scrub habitat remains in Baja California of management actions for conserving (182,976 ac (74,048 ha)) of coastal from 30 °N. to the United States-Mexico those lands. These protections are California gnatcatcher habitat to be border (Service 2016a). outlined in the management actions and preserved by the five plans described in The Mexican Government recognizes conservation objectives described our 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, p. the atwoodi subspecies of the California within each plan. However, because the 15). gnatcatcher (see taxonomic total habitat protection associated with In summary, while conservation is classification of Mellink and Rea 1994, these plans is not expected until plans anticipated to continue within existing pp. 59–62); Mellink and Rea (1994, p. are fully implemented, and because not plan boundaries within the U.S. range of 55) described Polioptila californica all areas are covered, habitat loss is still the coastal California gnatcatcher, atwoodi as a new subspecies of impacting the gnatcatcher and is habitat protection occurs in a step-wise California gnatcatcher from expected to continue into the future. fashion as areas are conserved, and the northwestern Baja California, Mexico. In our 2010 5-year review, we total habitat protection associated with They defined a range for this novel estimated that 59 percent of modeled a plan is not expected until plans are subspecies as ‘‘from Rio de las Palmas coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in fully implemented. Once the plans are and Valle de las Palmas (30 km SE. of the United States would be conserved fully implemented upon completion of Tijuana) in the interior and at least with full implementation of currently the permits (which last for 50–75 years), Punta Banda along the coast south to permitted, long-term Regional NCCP/ the plans would provide conservation Arroyo El Rosario, 32 to 30 °N.’’ within HCPs (Service 2010, p. 15). We for much of the 56 percent of the coastal coastal sage scrub and maritime reviewed the most currently available California gnatcatcher’s range in the succulent scrub plant communities reports for four regional NCCP/HCPs United States. However, the 44 percent (Mellink and Rea 1994, p. 55); this and one HCP to determine the amount of the subspecies range in Baja distribution mostly overlaps with what of coastal sage scrub habitat that has California is not subject to protections the Service considers to be the listed been conserved as of the date of the provided by NCCP/HCP plans. gnatcatcher subspecies (58 FR 16742; respective final reports: Therefore, the subspecies and its habitat March 30, 1993). • For the San Diego County MSCP remain susceptible to urban This entity is listed as threatened (City of San Diego, County of San Diego, development and associated threats. under Mexico’s NORMA Oficial City of Chula Vista, City of Poway, and Without the protections provided to Mexicana NOM–059–SEMARNAT– City of La Mesa), the total number of the subspecies and its habitat under the 2010, Environmental Protection— acres of coastal sage scrub habitat Act (that is, if the coastal California Species of Wild Flora and Fauna Native conserved both inside and outside the gnatcatcher was delisted), the current to Mexico (Proteccio´ n ambiental— preserve planning area is 49,871 ac NCCP/HCPs may provide some ancillary Especies nativas de Me´xico de flora y (20,182 ha); conserved habitat inside the benefits to the subspecies given that fauna silvestres—Categorı´as de riesgo y

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59973

especificaciones para su inclusio´ n, and implementation of the NCCP Act, with climate change have the potential exclusio´ n o cambio—Lista de especies and there is uncertainty as to whether to further contribute to the vegetation en riesgo) (SEMARNAT 2010). the regional plans would continue to type conversion process, though it is not Threatened species are defined under provide the full conservation benefits yet clear how climate change will Mexican law as those which may be ‘‘in anticipated should the subspecies be interact with the ongoing conversion of danger of disappearing in the short or delisted under the Act. Limited coastal sage scrub to nonnative grasses medium term’’ if factors that adversely protection is provided to the coastal and other vegetation types unsuitable affect their viability, such as California gnatcatcher through the for use by the coastal California deterioration or modification of habitat, inclusion of its designation as a Species gnatcatcher. It is also unclear whether it or directly reduce the size of their of Special Concern within State (CEQA) will increase or decrease the rate of populations, continue to operate planning processes. change. (SEMARNET 2010, p. 5). However, Based on the best available data, the Furthermore, based on our analysis of enforcement of this law generally listing of the atwoodi subspecies of the the best available data, it is likely that depends upon an individual or a California gnatcatcher by the Mexican the native plant communities that groups’ willingness to modify proposed Government provides a limited level of support the coastal California projects rather than the legal protections protection or conservation benefit to the gnatcatcher in southern California are provided under the law (Hinojosa 2008, atwoodi populations found in Baja presently impacted by the cumulative pers. comm.). Monitoring of compliance California. Comprehensive reserve areas effects of wildland fire and the warming with this law is the responsibility of the for coastal sage scrub and chaparral effects of climate change. Yue et al. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y vegetation have not been established in (2014, entire) developed projections of Recursos Naturales through its northern Baja California. While existing wildfire activity in southern California established entities. We do not have Mexican regulatory mechanisms may at mid-century (2016–2065) using the further information regarding the provide some protection for the IPCC’s A1B scenario (moderate growth effectiveness of this law for protecting subspecies, we lack information on in fossil fuel emissions in the first half the coastal California gnatcatcher and its implementation of those mechanisms of the 21st century but with a gradual habitat. specifically related to protection of the decrease after 2050). Using regression In Mexico, the development of state coastal California gnatcatcher, models, the study found a likely and municipal plans is designed to protection of habitat, and abatement of doubling of area burned in southwestern regulate and control land use and threats. California by midcentury, while various production activities as well as Therefore, although regulatory parameterization models indicate a provide environmental protections and mechanisms are in place and provide likely increase of 40 percent in this preservation and sustainability of some protection to the coastal California region under this IPCC scenario (Yue et natural resources (Conservation Biology gnatcatcher and its habitat throughout al. 2014, p. 1,973). The analysis was Institute 2004, p. 31). As an example, an its range, absent the protections of the unique in that the models considered ordenamiento ecolo´ gico (ecological Act (for example, section 7, section 9, the effects of future patterns of Santa regulation/zoning ordinance) is being and section 10(a)(1)(B)), these Ana wind events. It indicates that a developed for the City of Tijuana to mechanisms would provide projected midcentury increase in identify a´ reas verdes (important natural substantially less protection from the November Santa Ana wind events will resource areas), and the ordenamiento stressors currently acting on the contribute to the increased area burned will be used to guide land development subspecies such as urban and at that time of year (Yue et al. 2014, p. within Tijuana (Conservation Biology agricultural development. Moreover, 1,990). The authors conclude that the Institute 2004, p. 31). Other State and some of the threats faced by the species results suggest that wildfire activity will Federal environmental laws in Mexico and its habitat, including wildland fire, likely increase in southwestern include Ley General del Equilibrio vegetation type conversion, and California due to rising surface Ecolo´ gico y la Proteccio´ n al Ambiente fragmentation, are not readily temperatures (Yue et al. 2014, p. 1,989). and Ley de Proteccio´ n al Ambiente para susceptible to amelioration through Stavros et al. (2014, entire) developed el Estado de Baja California, which regulatory mechanisms. regional projections of the probability of require the preparation of an very large wildland fires (defined as Cumulative Effects environmental impact study greater than or equal to 50,000 ac (manifestacio´ n de impacto ambiental) Threats can work in concert with one (20,234 ha)) under various climate for any development project; if the another to cumulatively create change scenarios for the western United project is determined to result in conditions that may impact the coastal States. Their model results found a negative environmental impacts, the California gnatcatcher or its habitat significant increase in the likelihood developer must undertake mitigation beyond the scope of each individual and frequency of very large fires for actions to minimize these impacts and/ threat. The best available data indicate climate regimes projected in 2031–2060, or restore natural conditions that cumulative impacts are currently relative to 1950–2005, in almost all (Conservation Biology Institute 2004, p. occurring from the combined effects of areas, including southern California 31). a number of stressors, including (Stavros et al. 2014, p. 460). These vegetation type conversion, wildland impacts are expected to continue into Existing Regulatory Mechanisms fire, and the effects of climate change. the future (to the 2060s based on climate Summary These stressors interact in multiple change projections). Outside of the Act, few Federal ways. As discussed in the Wildand Fire The climate change-wildland fire conservation management and section above, the wildland fire-type connection will likely result in a conservation measures exist throughout conversion feedback loop promotes the reduction in the amount of suitable the U.S. range of the coastal California degradation and eventual loss of coastal habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher that provide protections to California gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher and will likely lead to a the subspecies and its habitat. State especially on a local scale where there greater chance of vegetation type management and conservation measures are short intervals between fires (Service conversion that degrades and eventually are limited primarily to the planning 2010, pp. 15–18). The effects associated eliminates coastal California gnatcatcher

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59974 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules

habitat. Moreover, these stressors, and future threats are of sufficient of habitat conserved overall in the U.S. working singly or in combination, are imminence, intensity, or magnitude to range of the subspecies by NCCP/HCP operating at a landscape scale. These indicate that the coastal California plans. Though we anticipate that stressors may affect large areas and may gnatcatcher remains likely to become an additional habitat will be conserved not be addressed by current endangered species within the with full implementation of the existing management plans. Thus, in the absence foreseeable future throughout all of its plans, total conservation of the areas of management to counteract the range. Therefore, the coastal California identified within the plans is not identified effects, these stressors are gnatcatcher currently meets the expected until the plans are fully contributing to the habitat-degradation definition of a threatened species. implemented. Overall, 49 percent of and type-conversion continuum that is We evaluated each of the potential coastal sage scrub in the United States occurring throughout the range of the stressors discussed in the 2010 5-year has no mechanism preventing subspecies. Therefore, as summarized review (Service 2010, entire), and we conversion of the habitat for urban or above and as described in our 2010 5- determined the following factors have agricultural uses (Service 2016a), and year review, the best available data impacted the coastal California Mexico has few areas of coastal sage indicate that the cumulative effects of gnatcatcher and its habitat or may affect scrub protected from development. vegetation type conversion, wildland gnatcatcher individuals or populations Therefore, though substantial progress fire, and climate change will continue to in the future: Urban and agricultural has been made since the time of listing act as a high-level stressor on the coastal development (Factor A), grazing (Factor to conserve habitat that supports the California gnatcatcher and its habitat A), wildland fire (Factor A and Factor coastal California gnatcatcher, we find now and into the future. E), vegetation type conversion (Factor that urban and agricultural development A), climate change (Factor A and Factor continues to pose a threat to the coastal Finding E), disease (Factor C), predation (Factor California gnatcatcher and its habitat. In making this finding, we have C), fragmentation (Factor A and Factor Though grazing (Factor A) is having followed the procedures set forth in E), and brood parasitism (Factor E). only low-level impacts to coastal section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations Disease (Factor C) and predation (Factor California gnatcatcher habitat in the implementing the listing provisions of C) are having only local, small-scale United States, grazing in coastal scrub the Act in 50 CFR part 424. We impacts to the coastal California habitat in Mexico can still result in reviewed the petition, information gnatcatcher and its habitat throughout vegetation type conversion, and land available in our files, and other its range; therefore, we do not consider clearing for grazing purposes has been available published and unpublished disease or predation to be threats at this documented within northern Baja information. We sought input from time. California. Therefore, we find that subject matter experts and other Additionally, though brood parasitism grazing is posing a threat to the Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. On (Factor E) is affecting individual coastal subspecies’ habitat in Mexico, though the basis of the best scientific and California gnatcatcher pairs throughout habitat impacts can be temporary. commercial information available, we the species’ range, the impacts in the Wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E) find that the petitioned action to delist United States are being reduced through was identified as a threat to the coastal the coastal California gnatcatcher is not available regulatory mechanisms and California gnatcatcher and its habitat warranted. Review of the best available implementation of conservation both at the time of listing and in our scientific and commercial data did not measures, such as regional NCCP/HCP 2010 5-year review. Based on our show that the original determination, management plans and section analysis, although currently established made at the time the species was 10(a)(1)(A) permits. Furthermore, the NCCP/HCPs provide for the classified as threatened in 1993, is now ability of the coastal California establishment of coastal sage scrub in error. Rather, using a multi-evidence gnatcatcher to re-nest multiple times in reserves and include fire management as criteria approach, the best available one breeding season helps it to be one of their primary objectives, there is scientific and commercial data supports resilient to brood parasitism by brown- no mechanism or conservation measure the coastal California gnatcatcher as a headed cowbirds. Therefore, we do not that can fully prevent the recurrence of valid (distinguishable) subspecies. find that brood parasitism poses a threat natural or human-caused destructive For the purposes of our status review, to the coastal California gnatcatcher at wildland fires in coastal California as required by the Act, we considered the present time, nor do we expect it to gnatcatcher habitat. Therefore, we find the five factors in assessing whether the become a threat in the foreseeable that wildland fire poses a threat to the coastal California gnatcatcher is future. coastal California gnatcatcher and its endangered or threatened throughout all At this time, impacts from urban and habitat throughout the range of the of its range. In our threats analysis, we agricultural development (Factor A) species and that this threat will examined the best scientific and continue to be a medium- to high-level continue to cause impacts into the commercial information available stressor for the coastal California foreseeable future. regarding the past, present, and gnatcatcher and its habitat. Vegetation type conversion (Factor A) foreseeable future threats faced by the Implementation of existing HCPs and of coastal sage scrub to nonnative subspecies. We reviewed the the ongoing development of additional grasslands is ongoing throughout the information available in our files, NCCP/HCPs have significantly reduced range of the coastal California information submitted by the public in the impacts of urban development to gnatcatcher. Effects of type conversion response to our 90-day finding (79 FR coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in are currently being reduced through 78775; December 31, 2014), and other the United States; however, none of the habitat management by NCCP/HCPs; available published and unpublished regional plans are fully implemented. however, management plans for each information. As described above in We estimated that these plans reserve area are not yet complete, and Background, the petitioners did not encompass approximately 55 percent of maintaining adequate funding for provide any new information on any of coastal sage scrub habitat and that perpetual management of the reserves is the factors. Based on our review of the approximately 47 percent of the plans’ a challenge common to all regional best available scientific and commercial conservation targets have been reached NCCP/HCPs. Therefore, vegetation type information, we find that the current (Service 2016a), for a total of 28 percent conversion is posing a threat to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules 59975

coastal California gnatcatcher and its potential to further contribute to the continue, such that the coastal habitat, and we expect that these vegetation type conversion process, California gnatcatcher is likely to impacts will continue into the though the exact impacts to coastal sage become an endangered species within foreseeable future. scrub habitat are unknown. Therefore, the foreseeable future throughout all its Climate change (Factor A and Factor we find that cumulative impacts of range. Because we have determined that E) is a low- to medium-level stressor multiple stressors are a threat to the the coastal California gnatcatcher is that is anticipated to result in shifts to coastal California gnatcatcher, and that likely to become an endangered species the distribution of the subspecies’ this threat is likely to continue at the throughout all its range within the habitat and that may potentially affect same level or increase into the foreseeable future, no portion of its gnatcatchers at the individual or foreseeable future. range can be ‘‘significant’’ for purposes population level into the foreseeable Available regulatory mechanisms, of the Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered future. However, the impacts from such as the combined NCCP/HCP species’’ and ‘‘threatened species.’’ See climate change are not well understood program and INRMPs on local military the Service’s final policy interpreting and under some projections may bases are providing important the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its increase habitat for the species as protections that help reduce the threats range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, coastal sage scrub moves to higher affecting the coastal California 2014). Therefore, we find that the elevations, though the impacts from gnatcatcher and its habitat, such as coastal California gnatcatcher continues climate change on its own are not fully urban development, vegetation type to meet the definition of a threatened understood. Therefore, while impacts of conversion, and fragmentation. Absent species under the Act, but that the climate change are not fully understood, the provisions of the Act, some of these threats are not severe enough at this climate change is considered a low- to protections would no longer be in place. time such that the species is in danger moderate-level threat that may affect the In Mexico, the listing of the atwoodi of extinction throughout its range. distribution of the subspecies and its subspecies of the California gnatcatcher Therefore, we find that reclassification habitat in the future. provides only a limited level of to an endangered species is not New information we have received protection or conservation benefit, and warranted at this time. since the 2010 5-year review suggests comprehensive reserve areas for coastal that fragmentation (Factor A and Factor California gnatcatcher habitat have not We request that you submit any new E) at small geographic scales is a threat been established in northern Baja information concerning the status of, or of lower magnitude than was described California. Therefore, absent the threats to, the coastal California at the time of listing. However, the protections of the Act, existing gnatcatcher to our Carlsbad Fish and effects of fragmentation are more regulatory mechanisms would provide Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) significant at large geographic substantially less protection from the whenever it becomes available. New (landscape) scales than previously threats currently acting on the information will help us monitor the recognized for those coastal California subspecies. subspecies and encourage additional gnatcatcher populations that have Moreover, some of the threats faced conservation actions. become widely separated due to urban by the coastal California gnatcatcher, References Cited development and other habitat losses or such as wildland fire, vegetation type modifications (such as wildland fire). conversion, and habitat fragmentation, A complete list of references cited is Therefore, we find that fragmentation cannot be readily ameliorated through available on the Internet at http:// still poses a threat to portions of the the application of regulatory www.regulations.gov in Docket Number coastal California gnatcatcher mechanisms. Therefore, we conclude FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058 and upon subspecies, and we expect that these that the best available scientific and request from the Carlsbad Fish and impacts will continue into the commercial information indicates that Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). foreseeable future. these threats are continuing to impact Furthermore, cumulative impacts the subspecies and its habitat Author(s) from climate change and other factors throughout its range, and that these such as vegetation type conversion and impacts will continue into the The primary author(s) of this notice wildland fire have the potential to foreseeable future. At this time, many are the staff members of the Carlsbad significantly alter habitat that currently threats are being reduced through Fish and Wildlife Office and Pacific supports the coastal California existing regulatory mechanisms, and we Southwest Regional Office. gnatcatcher. The wildland fire-type expect that full implementation of Authority conversion feedback loop promotes the regional NCCPs/HCPs will provide degradation and eventual loss of coastal protection to much of the coastal sage The authority for this action is section California gnatcatcher habitat, scrub habitat that supports the coastal 4 of the Endangered Species Act of particularly given the increase in fire California gnatcatcher. However, many 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et frequency from the historical fire areas are not yet protected by existing seq.). regime. Recent studies (such as Stavros plans and other plans are still in Dated: August 15, 2016. et al. 2014) indicate that with climate development. change, fire frequency and intensity Furthermore, many threats remain on Stephen Guertin, may continue to increase, which would the landscape that are not fully Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife in turn increase the wildland fire-type managed, and the best available Service. conversion feedback loop. The effects scientific and commercial information [FR Doc. 2016–20864 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am] associated with climate change have the indicates that these threats are likely to BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Aug 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM 31AUP1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS