Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71491 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154; 

FF09E22000FXES1113090FEDR 234] 

RIN 1018–BE54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Nelson’s 

Checker-Mallow From the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea 

nelsoniana) from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial data indicates that the 

threats to Nelson’s checker-mallow have 

been eliminated or reduced to the point 

that the species no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

16, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and 

supporting documents, including 

references cited, the 5-year review, the 

recovery plan, the species status 

assessment (SSA) report, and the postdelisting monitoring (PDM) plan, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021– 

0154. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kessina Lee, Project Leader, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone: 503–231–6179. Individuals 

in the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On February 12, 1993, we published 

in the Federal Register (58 FR 8235) a 

final rule listing Nelson’s checkermallow as a threatened species. In 2010, 

we finalized the Recovery Plan for the 

Prairie Species of Western Oregon and 

Southwestern Washington, which 

includes Nelson’s checker-mallow 

(Service 2010, entire). We conducted a 

5-year status review in 2012, and did 

not recommend reclassification (Service 

2012, entire). On May 7, 2018, we 

announced in the Federal Register (83 

FR 20088) our initiation of a subsequent 

5-year review for the species. We 

completed the status review in 2021, 

and therein recommended delisting the 

species. On April 28, 2022, we 

published in the Federal Register (87 

FR 25197) a proposed rule to remove 

Nelson’s checker-mallow from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (List). 

Peer Review 

An SSA team prepared the SSA report 

for Nelson’s checker-mallow (Service 

2021, entire). The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, and the 

team consulted with other species 

experts. The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

reviews of the information contained in 

the Nelson’s checker-mallow SSA 

report. As discussed in the proposed 

rule, we sent the SSA report to four 

independent peer reviewers and 

received no responses. The SSA report 

was also submitted to our Federal, State, 

municipal, Tribal, and conservation 

partners for scientific review. We 

received responses from two partners, 

representing a Federal agency and a 

nonprofit conservation partner. In 

preparing the proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which was the foundation for the 

proposed rule and this final rule. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule and Draft Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plan 

We considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

comment period on our proposed rule to 

delist Nelson’s checker-mallow (87 FR 

25197; April 28, 2022). This 

consideration resulted in the following 

changes from the proposed rule and 

draft PDM plan to this final rule and the 

updated PDM plan. 

In this final rule, we include updated 

monitoring data and the results of a 

partial range-wide survey conducted in 

2022, the species’ potential response to 

climate change, and status of 

reintroduction efforts. We also make 

nonsubstantive, editorial corrections in 

our preamble to improve clarity. 

We revised the PDM plan by updating 

the monitoring timetable and schedule 

to include periodic surveys over a 10- 

year timeframe, updating tables and text 

to reflect results of recent monitoring 

efforts, and making one substitution and 

one addition to the monitoring site table 

to better represent the current 

distribution of the species. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

April 28, 2022 (87 FR 25197), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by June 27, 2022. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing. We 

received comments from two 

individuals addressing the proposed 

rule, representing one public 

commenter and one State agency. These 

comments are posted at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154. The public 

comment opposed the proposed 

delisting of the Nelson’s checkermallow but did not provide substantive 

information that could be evaluated or 

incorporated, and we do not address it 

further here. The State agency comment 

also opposed the proposed delisting and 

provided substantive information that is 

addressed below. 

Comment (1): The Oregon Department 

of Agriculture (ODA) commented that 

there is an overall lack of sufficient data 

in the SSA report to back up claims of 

population growth trends, reproduction, 

and recruitment to support delisting 

Nelson’s checker-mallow. ODA 

recommended that the Service consider 

a more robust, comprehensive, 

methodical, and organized approach to 

annual monitoring of these vulnerable 

prairie species, and stated that, based on 

the SSA report, it is unclear whether 

populations of this species are selfsustaining or are exhibiting explosive 

population growth due to intensive outplanting. 

Response (1): In accordance with 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), this delisting 

determination for Nelson’s checkermallow is based on the best scientific 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71492 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and commercial data available. The 

Service considered population growth, 

reproduction, and recruitment of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow in the SSA 

report when assessing the species’ 

resiliency. We recognize that sites are 

not monitored regularly throughout the 

entire range, and that there is 

interannual variation in abundance at 

sites. However, monitoring data from 

the time of listing through 2022 show an 

overall trend of population growth with 

increasing abundance and an increasing 

number of known sites. At the time of 

listing, there were 49 known sites, of 

which 19 had 100 to 999 plants, and 5 

had 1,000 plants or more (Service 2012, 

pp. 17–19). Of the 66 sites known at the 

time of the SSA report, 28 had 100 to 

999 plants, and 24 sites had 1,000 plants 

or more (Service 2021, pp. 17–18). 

Restoration activities include 

establishment of 51 new sites (i.e., outplantings) and augmentation of 15 

existing sites. At this time, population 

increases are driven by restoration 

activities and not natural recruitment; 

however, seedlings have been observed 

on most (35 of 65) surveyed sites 

(Silvernail et al. 2016, pp. 21–24). 

In 2022, the Service funded a partial 

range-wide survey (less than 50 percent 

of known sites) of Nelson’s checkermallow (Service 2022, entire). Within 

sites, the survey focused on obtaining an 

inventory of larger patches of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow plants, so most smaller 

and isolated patches were not included. 

A total of 62 patches, including more 

than 86 percent of the plants known to 

exist, were surveyed. Overall, the 

population remains high with over 

369,000 plants counted, reflecting an 

overall increase of approximately 30,000 

plants since completion of the SSA 

report in 2021. Restored sites continue 

to contribute more than 90 percent of 

individuals (Service 2022, p. 5). 

Comment (2): ODA commented that 

while there have been successful 

artificial reintroductions, because of the 

dearth of population trend, 

reproduction, and demographic data, 

there is no sense of how reintroductions 

have performed since 2017, when the 

last range-wide species survey was 

undertaken. ODA recommended that the 

Service demonstrate long-term viability 

of these reintroduction efforts through 

focused, long-term monitoring before 

delisting the species. 

Response (2): While there have not 

been more recent range-wide species 

surveys since 2017, monitoring of 62 

patches in 2022 (including more than 86 

percent of known Nelson’s checkermallow plants) demonstrated the 

population remains high and restored 

sites continue to contribute more than 

90 percent of individuals (Service 2022, 

p. 5). 

In addition, the Service notes in the 

SSA report that long-term monitoring 

data are not currently available for the 

majority of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

sites and were not a component of our 

resiliency assessment (Service 2021, p. 

26). We are required to make our 

determinations based on the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

at the time the determination is made. 

Current data indicate that since the 

Nelson’s checker-mallow was listed as 

threatened in 1993, the species has 

increased in both number and size of 

populations, with a majority of 

populations under management plans or 

public ownership, such that the species 

is no longer in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Considering the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow also does not 

meet the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species. Finally, the PDM plan outlines 

a 10-year monitoring plan with specific 

criteria for site selection, data collection 

and analysis methods, and reporting 

requirements to track the species’ status. 

The PDM plan also contains thresholds 

for population numbers and 

distribution, and triggers for 

management protections to ensure that 

Nelson’s checker-mallow remains 

secure from the risk of extinction 

following delisting. 

Comment (3): ODA recommended that 

the Service increase its reintroduction 

efforts in the northern recovery zones 

given the statement in the SSA report 

that Coast Range, Portland, and 

Southwest (SW) Washington are known 

to have the minimum number of 

populations but do not meet the 

recovery goals for abundance. 

Response (3): At the time the SSA 

report was written, recovery goals for 

abundance in the Coast Range (15,000 

plants), Portland (5,000 plants), and SW 

Washington (10,000 plants) recovery 

zones had not been met. Since that time, 

more than 11 new introduction sites 

have been established across the 

species’ range. While the Coast Range 

and SW Washington recovery zones 

remain below their abundance goals, the 

Portland recovery zone now exceeds its 

abundance goal. Recent surveys also 

show increasing trends in plant 

abundance across the species’ range 

with the total number of plants 

increasing from 334,968 at the time of 

the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 15) to 

426,032 in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 2–3). 

Support for the ongoing conservation of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow has been high 

among government agencies, 

nongovernmental conservation 

organizations, and some private 

landowners. It is anticipated that 

priority recovery and management 

actions, including additional 

reintroduction efforts, will continue at 

approximately the current pace and that 

the species will continue to benefit from 

this ongoing conservation support. 

Comment (4): ODA expressed a 

concern about the species’ ability to 

adapt to climate change given the recent 

drought and extreme heat coupled with 

the most successful recovery zones 

occurring at the southern end of the 

species’ range. They emphasized the 

need for a better understanding of the 

magnitude and urgency of the threats 

and that data beyond 2020/2021 would 

be helpful in understanding the species’ 

response to future climate conditions. 

Response (4): The Service reviews the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available when conducting 

a threats analysis. The identification of 

factors that could impact a species 

negatively is not sufficient to compel a 

finding that listing (or maintaining a 

currently listed species) on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants is appropriate. In 

determining whether a species meets 

the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species, we must evaluate 

all identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level, as well as the cumulative effect of 

the threats. 

In our assessment of future viability of 

the species in the SSA report, we 

considered a worst case scenario that 

assumed that the anticipated effects of 

climate change would result in the 

reduction of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

populations by 50 percent within a 

period of 25 to 50 years (Service 2021, 

pp. 29–30). However, even under this 

scenario, our analysis suggests that loss 

of resiliency will be modest, with 60 

sites remaining in moderate or high 

condition, no change in the number of 

recovery zones that meet recovery goals, 

and no major changes in redundancy or 

representation expected. Collectively, 

this suggests that in 25 to 50 years, 

viability of the species will not be 

significantly reduced (Service 2021, p. 

31). In addition, Nelson’s checkermallow has a deep taproot that allows 

it to access groundwater and soil water 

that may help it survive extended 

periods of drought. At present, 

quantitative estimates of the impacts of 

increased temperatures and 

precipitation changes on Nelson’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71493 

checker-mallow are not available 

outside of our analysis. 

Current data are insufficient to 

analyze how populations are affected by 

year-to-year variation in weather. All 

species have the potential to be 

negatively impacted by climate change. 

Recovery efforts have increased this 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation such that the species is 

now better able to recover from impacts. 

Effects may be further buffered if 

adaptive management strategies are 

implemented at sites under public or 

conservation organization ownership. 

Many of the populations of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow are on lands that will 

be managed in perpetuity. While 30 

populations are in the two southernmost 

zones, there are 12 additional 

independent populations dispersed 

across other recovery zones that were 

considered in the analysis of the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. In addition, there are 

currently more than 900 pounds of seed 

in storage with more in production, and 

reintroduction efforts are expected to 

continue as part of prairie restoration at 

both public and private sites. 

Background 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is an 

herbaceous perennial plant in the 

mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces 

30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink flowers 

arranged on an elongated, branched 

stalk. Plants range from 50 to 150 

centimeters (20 to 60 inches) in height. 

Plants produce short, thick, twisted 

rhizomes (creeping underground stems), 

as well as a system of fine roots 

extending from a taproot (a stout main 

root) (Service 2010, appendix F, pp. F– 

3–F–4). 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is found in 

the Willamette Valley and the Coast 

Range of Oregon and Washington. It 

occupies a variety of prairie habitats and 

soil types but is typically associated 

with open sites. In the Willamette 

Valley, the species occasionally occurs 

in the understory of Oregon ash 

(Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among 

woody shrubs, but more frequently 

occupies native prairie remnants, 

including those at the margins of 

sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides, 

fence rows, drainage swales, and fallow 

fields (Glad et al. 1994, pp. 314–321). In 

the Coast Range, Nelson’s checkermallow typically occurs in open, wet to 

dry meadows; in intermittent stream 

channels; and along margins of 

coniferous forests (Glad et al. 1987, pp. 

259–262). 

Once established, Nelson’s checkermallow plants are hardy; if plants 

become established at a site, they 

usually persist (Bartow 2020, pers. 

comm.). Their long taproot allows them 

to access subsurface water sources, and 

individual plants are long-lived (Dillon 

2021, pers. comm.). In addition, 

regeneration from the taproot is possible 

after the aboveground and upper taproot 

portions of the plant have been removed 

(Dillon 2021, pers. comm.). 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow is presented in version 

1.0 of the SSA report (Service 2021, 

entire). 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently, and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The Recovery Plan for the Prairie 

Species of Western Oregon and 

Southwestern Washington (recovery 

plan) divides the geographic area 

covered by included species into 

recovery zones, which provides a 

framework for recovering the species’ 

historical ranges. Nelson’s checkermallow historically occupied seven 

recovery zones: SW Washington, 

Portland, Coast Range, Salem East, 

Salem West, Corvallis East, and 

Corvallis West. The following 

discussion provides an assessment of 

the species’ status relative to the five 

delisting criteria outlined in the 

recovery plan. 

Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and 

Abundance 

The recovery plan specifies that the 

distribution of populations should 

reflect the extent of the species’ 

historical geographic distribution to the 

extent practicable and identifies goals 

for a minimum number of populations 

and target number of plants per recovery 

zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in 1 

population in the Portland recovery 

zone; 10,000 plants in 2 populations in 

the SW Washington, Salem East, and 

Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000 

plants in 3 populations in the Coast 

Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants 

in 4 populations in the Salem West and 

Corvallis West recovery zones. 

The recovery plan further specifies 

that, with the exception of the Portland 

recovery zone, this may be achieved 

with a combination of at least 2 

populations that number at least 2,000 

individuals; scattered independent 

populations must number at least 200 

individuals to add up to the target 

number in each zone. The range-wide 

delisting goal is 100,000 plants 

occurring in 20 populations. 

At the time of the SSA report, a total 

of 334,968 individual plants were 

distributed across the historical range of 

the species. Considering only the sites 

considered independent populations 

(having at least 200 plants), there were 

332,935 individual plants, found in 42 

populations distributed across 6 of the 

7 recovery zones (Service 2021, pp. 15, 

27). Recent surveys show continued 

increases in plant abundance across the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71494 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

species’ range, with the total number of 

plants increasing to 426,032 in 2022 

(Service 2022, pp. 2–3). 

At the time of the SSA report, the 

Corvallis West and Salem West recovery 

zones met both the abundance and 

distribution goals outlined in the 

recovery plan. Collectively, these 2 

recovery zones contained 71 percent of 

the populations (30 populations) and 95 

percent of the individual plants 

(313,662 plants) known to exist. A third 

zone, Salem East, contained 9,519 

plants, occurring in three populations, 

essentially meeting the distribution and 

abundance goals of 10,000 plants 

distributed among 2 populations. Three 

zones (Coast Range, Portland, and SW 

Washington) had the minimum number 

of populations but did not meet the 

recovery goals for abundance. The 

remaining zone, Corvallis East, did not 

have any sites that met the definition of 

an independent population. 

Surveys in 2022 included a new site 

in the Corvallis East zone, so all 

recovery zones are now occupied 

(Service 2022, p. 3). Introduced 

populations in the Salem East and 

Portland zones have been established, 

and those zones now meet overall 

abundance goals per the recovery plan. 

Overall, the population at the sites that 

were included in our analysis for the 

SSA increased from about 333,000 

plants (Service 2021, p. 17) to about 

370,000 plants in 2022 (Service 2022, p. 

3). 

The abundance and distribution goal 

of 100,000 plants in 20 populations has 

been exceeded, with numbers of nearly 

333,000 plants in 42 populations, per 

the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 17) and 

more than 370,000 plants in those 42 

populations in 2022 (Service 2022, pp. 

2–3). While the plants and populations 

are not distributed among recovery 

zones precisely as identified in the 

recovery plan, they are distributed 

throughout the historical range of the 

species. We conclude that the intent of 

this criterion, which is to minimize 

extinction risk by ensuring a sufficient 

number and distribution of plants and 

populations, has been satisfied. 

Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend 

and Evidence of Reproduction 

The recovery plan notes that the 

number of individuals in the population 

(or area of foliar cover) shall have been 

stable or increasing over a period of at 

least 15 years. Stable does not mean that 

the population size is static over time; 

over a period of 15 years, the number of 

individuals in the population may 

exhibit natural year-to-year variability, 

but the trend must not be declining. 

Populations must show evidence of 

reproduction by seed set or presence of 

seedlings. 

While taking into account varying 

methodologies and irregular population 

monitoring throughout the species’ 

range, the overall abundance of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow has increased markedly 

since listing in 1993. Range-wide, both 

the number of independent populations 

(having 200 plants or more) and the 

total number of plants continue to 

increase. In addition, more populations 

have a larger number of individuals 

than at the time of listing, as shown in 

table 1, below (Service 2012, pp. 17–19; 

Service 2021, p. 18), and these data 

indicate an overall positive trend since 

the time of listing and since the 2012 5- 

year review. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF SITES WITH

MORE THAN 100 PLANTS AND MORE

THAN 1,000 PLANTS FOR EXAMPLE

YEARS

Year 

Sites with 

100–999 

plants 

Sites with 

≥1,000 

plants 

1993 .................. 19 5 

2012 .................. 26 4 

2021 .................. 28 24 

Additionally, seedlings were observed 

on most sites, as confirmed on 35 of 65 

surveyed sites (Silvernail et al. 2016, pp. 

21–24), and overall abundance is 

increasing throughout the recovery 

zones. Given that the number of 

individual plants has increased, and 

large populations have been 

successfully established, we conclude 

that this criterion has been met. 

Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality 

and Management 

The recovery plan specifies that sites 

supporting populations of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow must meet the 

following three criteria related to habitat 

quality and management: 

1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting 

populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

must be managed for high-quality 

prairie habitat, which consists of a 

diversity of native, non-woody plant 

species; low frequency of aggressive, 

nonnative plant species and 

encroaching woody species; and 

essential habitat elements for native 

pollinators. 

2. Security of habitat. A substantial 

portion of the habitat for the 

populations should either be owned or 

managed by a government agency or 

private conservation organization that 

identifies maintenance of the species 

and the prairie ecosystem upon which 

it depends as the primary management 

objective for the site, or the site must be 

protected by a permanent or long-term 

conservation easement or covenant that 

commits present and future landowners 

to the conservation of the species. 

3. Management, monitoring, and 

control of threats. Each population must 

be managed appropriately to ensure the 

maintenance or restoration of quality 

prairie habitat and to control threats to 

the species. Use of herbicides, mowing, 

burning, or livestock grazing in 

management should be implemented 

with appropriate methods and timing to 

avoid impacts to listed plant species. 

Management should be coordinated 

with adjacent landowners to minimize 

effects of pesticide drift, changes in 

hydrology, timber harvest, or road/ 

utility maintenance. Species that may 

hybridize with Nelson’s checker-mallow 

should be managed as appropriate to 

avoid contact with these taxa. Other 

potential threats relating to scientific 

research, overcollection, vandalism, 

recreational impacts, or natural 

herbivory/parasitism should be 

successfully managed so as not to 

significantly impair recovery of the 

species. Management and monitoring 

plans must be approved by the Service 

and should include standardized 

monitoring and performance criteria 

that will be used to assess the plans’ 

effectiveness following implementation 

and to allow for adaptive management, 

as necessary. Management plans should 

include a focus on protecting habitat 

heterogeneity within protected sites and 

across a range of elevations and aspects 

to buffer the potential effects of climate 

change. 

Of the 42 independent populations of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow (having 200 

plants or more), 38 have formal 

management plans that address habitat 

quality and threats. Of these 38 

populations, 26 are in public ownership 

and thus are considered protected in 

perpetuity from development; one site is 

owned and protected by a 

nongovernmental conservation 

organization; and the remaining 11 

privately owned sites are protected by 

conservation easements. Four of the 42 

populations, which account for less 

than 1 percent of the total number of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow plants, and 10 

percent of the populations, have no 

protection and lack management plans. 

Given that a majority of populations are 

managed in accordance with a formal 

management plan and are protected by 

virtue of ownership or conservation 

easement, we conclude that this 

recovery criterion has been met. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71495 

Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is 

Stored in a Facility Approved by the 

Center for Plant Conservation 

The recovery plan specifies that 

stored genetic material in the form of 

seeds must represent the species’ 

geographic distribution and genetic 

diversity through collections across the 

full range of the species. Collections 

from large populations are particularly 

important as reservoirs of genetic 

variability within the species. 

Nelson’s checker-mallow seeds are 

currently stored at four separate 

repositories. The majority of stored 

seeds, approximately 408 kilograms 

(900 pounds) or about 112,500,000 

seeds, are located at the Corvallis Plant 

Materials Center (PMC) operated by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) in Corvallis, 

Oregon. Seeds in this collection were 

sourced primarily from production 

fields, which are maintained 

specifically to produce seed, and are 

used for habitat restoration, population 

augmentation, and out-planting 

throughout the range of the species. In 

addition, approximately 29,000 seeds 

are stored at the Rae Selling Berry Seed 

Bank at Portland State University in 

Portland, Oregon. This collection was 

sourced from Lane, Linn, Benton, 

Marion, Polk, Yamhill, and Tillamook 

Counties in Oregon, and Lewis County 

in Washington. A third, smaller 

collection of approximately 705 

Nelson’s checker-mallow seeds from 

locations in Washington is held at the 

Miller Seed Vault at the University of 

Washington’s Botanical Gardens in 

Seattle, Washington. 

In addition to storage in these three 

regional repositories, a subset of seeds 

from the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank 

and the Miller Seed Vault has been sent 

to the National Laboratory for Genetic 

Resource Preservation at Colorado State 

University in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Both the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank 

and Colorado State University facility 

are certified by the Center for Plant 

Conservation. Collectively, the stored 

seed represents the geographic range of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, and part of 

this stored seed is in facilities certified 

by the Center for Plant Conservation. 

Therefore, we conclude that this 

criterion has been met. 

Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting 

Monitoring (PDM) Plans and 

Agreements To Continue PDM Are in 

Place and Ready for Implementation at 

the Time of Delisting 

The recovery plan specifies that 

monitoring of populations following 

delisting will verify the ongoing 

recovery of the species, provide a basis 

for determining whether the species 

should be again placed under the 

protection of the Act, and provide a 

means of assessing the continuing 

effectiveness of management actions. 

The PDM plan for Nelson’s checkermallow outlines an approach to 

monitoring Nelson’s checker-mallow for 

a period of 10 years after the species is 

delisted. This plan addresses the current 

status of the species and provides 

details associated with monitoring 

methods and implementation, including 

site selection, data analysis, monitoring 

schedules, and reporting expectations. It 

also describes potential outcomes in the 

context of how secure the species 

remains after delisting. In addition, the 

PDM plan outlines roles and 

responsibilities and estimates associated 

costs. The PDM plan is available at 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154 on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. In 2019, jointly with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the Service issued a final rule that 

revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 

424 regarding how we add, remove, and 

reclassify endangered and threatened 

species and the criteria for designating 

listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR 

45020; August 27, 2019). On the same 

day, the Service also issued final 

regulations that, for species listed as 

threatened species after September 26, 

2019, eliminated the Service’s general 

protective regulations automatically 

applying to threatened species the 

prohibitions that section 9 of the Act 

applies to endangered species (84 FR 

44753; August 27, 2019). 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species (50 CFR 

424.11(c) and (e)). 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—at an individual, 

population, and species level. We 

evaluate each threat and its expected 

effects on the species, then analyze the 

cumulative effect of all of the threats on 

the species as a whole. We also consider 

the cumulative effect of the threats in 

light of those actions and conditions 

that will have positive effects on the 

species, such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary determines whether the 

species meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after conducting a 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71496 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be listed as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. However, it does provide 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decision, which involves the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154 on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess Nelson’s checker-mallow 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, pathogen). 

In general, species viability will 

increase with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified the species’ 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the species’ 

life-history needs. The next stage 

involved an assessment of the historical 

and current condition of the species’ 

demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decisions. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Ecological Needs 

Nelson’s checker-mallow usually 

occupies open habitats that are free from 

encroachment of trees and shrubs. In the 

absence of disturbance to set back 

succession, prairie habitat is subject to 

woody species encroachment, gradually 

transitioning into shrub or woodland 

habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as 

fire or fall mowing, are necessary to 

maintain the open, high-light prairie 

habitats that Nelson’s checker-mallow 

populations thrive in. In addition, 

resilient Nelson’s checker-mallow 

populations need a sufficient number of 

individuals to withstand stochastic 

events and disturbances. The minimum 

viable population size for Nelson’s 

checker-mallow is not identified. 

However, the recovery plan specifies 

that independent populations should 

number at least 200 individuals (Service 

2010, p. IV–20), which provides a basis 

for evaluating population status. 

For Nelson’s checker-mallow to be 

considered viable, the species must be 

able to withstand catastrophic events 

and adapt to environmental changes. 

This can be achieved with a sufficient 

number of resilient populations 

distributed across its geographic range 

and representing the range of ecological 

settings in which the species is known 

to exist. The minimum number of 

populations required for Nelson’s 

checker-mallow has not been 

determined. However, distribution and 

abundance goals laid out in the recovery 

plan (Service 2010, pp. IV–35–IV–36) 

and described under Recovery Criteria, 

above, provide a benchmark for 

evaluating the species. 

Factors Influencing the Species 

At the time of listing in 1993, the 

primary threats identified affecting 

Nelson’s checker-mallow were urban 

and agricultural development, 

ecological succession that results in 

shrub and tree encroachment of open 

prairie habitats, and competition with 

invasive weeds. Planned construction 

and expansion of a reservoir on Walker 

Creek (a tributary to the Nestucca River) 

was identified as a future threat as 

associated inundation would result in 

the loss of many plants, including the 

largest population of the species known 

to exist at the time. The listing rule (58 

FR 8235; February 12, 1993) also noted 

the potentially negative effects of 

overcollection for scientific and 

horticultural purposes, predation by 

weevils, and small population size. 

Some inadequacies in regulatory 

mechanisms were also identified. 

Subsequent to listing, climate change 

and hybridization were also identified 

as potential threats to the viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

We considered all of these threats 

when considering whether the species 

continues to warrant protection under 

the Act. The threat of inundation never 

materialized; the proposed reservoir was 

not constructed, given that Walker 

Creek was designated as part of 

Oregon’s State Scenic Waterway 

program in 1992, and as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

program in 2019 (Oregon Department of 

Parks and Recreation 2021, p. 1). These 

two designations make construction of a 

reservoir in this area unlikely at this 

time or in the future due to additional 

regulatory requirements. We previously 

determined that overcollection does not 

occur to such a degree that it has a 

population-level effect, and that 

regulatory mechanisms are adequately 

reducing the effects of threats that could 

act at a population scale (Service 2012, 

pp. 22–28). Weevil predation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71497 

occasionally impacts individual plants 

and may locally affect some 

populations; however, it is seasonal in 

nature and unpredictable. We did not 

find that weevil predation occurs at 

spatial and temporal scales large enough 

to affect the overall status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow given the plant’s 

current population levels. 

Many sites with small numbers of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow remain 

distributed throughout the species’ 

range. However, the number of 

populations with more than 1,000 

plants has increased from 5 when the 

species was listed in 1993 to 24 

populations in 2021 (see table 1, above; 

Service 2012, pp. 17–19; Service 2021, 

p. 18). Therefore, we conclude that 

small population size no longer puts the 

species at risk of extinction. The 

potential for hybridization among 

species of the same genus remains 

present. However, we found that the 

best available data indicate that 

hybridization does not pose a threat to 

the overall status of the species. 

Additional discussion of these threats is 

available in the recovery plan (Service 

2010, pp. II–30–II–31 and chapter III), 

the 2012 5-year review (Service 2012, 

pp. 22–28), and in the 2021 SSA report 

(Service 2021, pp. 8–10). 

The stressors identified as having 

population-level effects are habitatrelated stressors and climate change. 

The loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of prairie habitats have 

cascading effects that result in smaller 

population sizes, loss of genetic 

diversity, reduced gene flow among 

populations, destruction of population 

structure, and increased susceptibility 

to local population extirpation caused 

by environmental catastrophes (Service 

2010, chapter III). Climate change acts 

primarily by altering habitat quality. 

Collectively, these stressors can 

contribute to reduced viability through 

reductions in resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation. The discussion 

below details the causes and 

consequences of these stressors on 

Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Alteration of Natural and HumanMediated Disturbance Processes 

Change in community structure due 

to plant succession has been a serious 

long-term stressor to Nelson’s checkermallow. Habitats occupied by this 

species contain native grassland species, 

as well as numerous introduced taxa, 

and are prone to transition to a later 

seral stage of vegetative development. 

The natural transition of prairie to forest 

in the absence of disturbance such as 

fire can lead to the loss of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p. 

24). However, active management of 

habitat through mowing and prescribed 

burning is effective in reducing Nelson’s 

checker-mallow’s exposure to this 

stressor. 

Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and 

Urban Use 

Agricultural and urban development 

has modified and destroyed prairie 

habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely 

distributed patches (Service 2012, p. 

24). Urban development in particular 

results in permanent loss of habitat and 

is of special concern where existing 

prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban 

areas (Service 2010, p. III–2). The 

greatest habitat losses due to land 

conversion are historical, although 

periodic additional losses of habitat on 

private lands may occur. Exposure of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow populations to 

this stressor is mitigated by protections 

associated with public land ownership, 

conservation measures described later 

in this document, and State regulations 

requiring mitigation and restoration of 

degraded habitat (see Conservation 

Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, 

below). 

Invasion by Nonnative Plants 

Habitats occupied by Nelson’s 

checker-mallow contain a mix of native 

and nonnative species. As described 

above, alteration of disturbance 

processes results in woody 

encroachment of prairie habitats. 

Nonnative woody species have been of 

particular concern, as they can rapidly 

proliferate and degrade open prairie 

sites (Service 2012, p. 24). In addition, 

nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may 

effectively limit recruitment (Institute 

for Applied Ecology (IAE) 2017, p. 1). 

Although invasion by nonnative plants 

remains a primary stressor to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations, 

management practices including 

mowing, burning, and shrub removal 

are an effective approach to mediating 

these effects. 

Climate Change 

In the Pacific Northwest, temperature 

increases of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius (°C) 

(5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) are 

predicted by the end of the 21st century 

(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 414). Although 

winter precipitation is predicted to 

increase, increased summer 

temperatures are expected to cause 

increased evapotranspiration, resulting 

in reduced growing season soil moisture 

(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 414) and 

ultimately affecting prairie habitat 

quality. Detailed quantitative estimates 

of the effects of these conditions on 

Nelson’s checker-mallow populations 

are not available. However, 

vulnerability assessments show the 

species to be moderately vulnerable to 

the effects of climate change (Steel et al. 

2011, p. 9). 

In order for the species to be resilient 

to changing environmental conditions 

and remain viable into the future, 

maintenance of large populations in 

heterogenous habitats across the range 

of the species is required (Service 2010, 

p. IV–6). Management activities that 

maintain open prairie habitats, 

including mowing, burning, and shrub 

removal, have resulted in an increase in 

the number of large populations 

throughout the range of the species. As 

described below, the majority of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are 

managed in accordance with 

conservation programs that ensure 

maintenance of prairie conditions and 

promote the existence of viable 

populations into the future. 

Current Condition 

We assessed the current condition of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow by using the 

best available information to estimate 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. We sourced data for this 

analysis primarily from the Threatened 

and Endangered Plant Geodatabase 

(version 12/31/2019), developed by IAE 

under a cooperative agreement with the 

Service for the purposes of tracking the 

status of species listed under the Act in 

the Willamette Valley. Additional data 

were compiled from supplementary 

reports (IAE 2019, entire), locationspecific records, and other information 

in our files. We use the term ‘‘site’’ 

rather than ‘‘population’’ to refer to our 

analytical units throughout our current 

and future conditions analyses to avoid 

confusion; the recovery plan defines an 

independent population as one that 

contains more than 200 individual 

plants, but we evaluated sites of all 

sizes. 

Resiliency 

Resiliency, the ability of populations 

to withstand stochastic events, is 

commonly determined as a function of 

metrics such as population size, growth 

rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We 

evaluated the current resiliency of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites on the 

basis of abundance, as well as 

measurable habitat characteristics that 

represent the habitat-related stressors 

discussed above. The four specific 

metrics we included in our assessment 

of resiliency (abundance, prairie habitat 

condition, site management, and site 

protection) are discussed in more detail 

below. A complete description of our 

analytical approach to current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71498 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions is available in the SSA report 

(Service 2021, pp. 19–22). Abundance 

was scored based upon the total number 

of plants within a site, based on the 

most recent surveys. Sites were scored 

as 1 (Low: fewer than 200 plants), 2 

(Moderate: 200–1,999 plants), or 3 

(High: equal to or more than 2,000 

plants). These categorical thresholds 

correspond to recovery goals, which 

state that recovery targets may be 

achieved with a combination of at least 

2 populations that number at least 2,000 

individuals and sites with less than 200 

plants are not considered independent 

populations. 

Prairie habitat condition is a measure 

of overall habitat quality and was 

calculated using four distinct habitat 

metrics that are likely to influence 

population resiliency: percent woody 

cover, percent native cover, native plant 

richness (number of unique species 

present), and invasive plant cover. For 

each site where data on these criteria are 

available, we assigned a score of 1 

(Poor), 2 (Fair), or 3 (Good) for each 

habitat metric. We then determined 

overall prairie habitat condition for each 

site by averaging individual habitat 

metric scores. Additional detail about 

scoring categories for each individual 

metric is available in the SSA report 

(Service 2021, pp. 19–22). 

Site management reflects the potential 

for prairie habitat degradation due to 

natural succession in the absence of 

natural and anthropogenic disturbance 

regimes. Site management may also be 

influential in mediating the effects of 

climate change through the maintenance 

of large populations in heterogenous 

habitats distributed across the range of 

the species. To account for existing site 

management that serves to offset these 

stressors, we assigned each site a score 

of 1 (Poor: not managed for prairie 

conditions or unknown), 2 (Fair: 

generally managed for prairie conditions 

but no management plan in place), or 3 

(Good: managed for prairie conditions 

with a management plan in place). 

Site protection is a measure of the 

potential for losing Nelson’s checkermallow sites to agricultural and urban 

development. We used site ownership 

and the existence of conservation 

agreements to assess how well each site 

is protected from development, 

assigning each site a score of 1 (Poor: 

private ownership with no conservation 

easement or similar program), 2 (Fair: 

private ownership with conservation 

easement or similar program), or 3 

(Good: public ownership or private 

conservation organization ownership). 

To estimate resiliency for each site, 

we calculated a condition score by 

averaging the scores for abundance, 

mean prairie habitat condition, site 

management, and site protection. We 

weighted management twice as much as 

the other factors due to its relative 

importance to long-term population 

resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV–5; 

Service 2021, p. 21). Based on overall 

scores, current condition of each site 

was classified as high (score of greater 

than or equal to 2.5), moderate (score of 

1.75–2.49), or low (score of less than 

1.75). 

Currently, we know of 66 sites 

containing Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are 

in high condition, while 29 of them (44 

percent) are in moderate condition. 

Range-wide, only six sites (9 percent) 

are in low condition (Service 2021, pp. 

21–26). If this analysis were limited to 

the 42 independent populations (having 

200 plants or more), 31 populations (74 

percent) would score as high condition, 

7 populations (17 percent) would score 

as moderate condition, and 4 

populations (9 percent) would score as 

low. These results demonstrate 

relatively high resiliency across the 

range of Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy is defined as a species’ 

ability to withstand catastrophic events 

and is determined as a function of the 

number of populations, as well as their 

distribution and connectivity. The 

historical distribution of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations is largely 

unknown. Throughout its range, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is restricted to 

remnant prairie habitats that are highly 

fragmented due to a history of land 

conversion and natural succession 

following alterations to disturbance 

cycles. However, since the time of 

listing in 1993, habitat restoration, 

reintroductions, and habitat protection 

have collectively improved the status of 

the species. Among the 42 independent 

populations, more than 330,000 

individual plants are distributed across 

6 of the 7 recovery zones (Service 2021, 

pp. 15, 27), demonstrating overall good 

redundancy. 

Representation 

Representation refers to the ability of 

a species to adapt to change, and is 

based upon considerations of 

geographic, genetic, ecological, and 

niche diversity. Because we lack 

information about the genetic diversity 

of the species, we rely on geographical 

and ecological diversity in our 

assessment of representation. 

Populations (sites with 200 plants or 

more) of Nelson’s checker-mallow are 

currently distributed in 6 of the 7 

recovery zones and occur in both the 

Willamette Valley and in the Coast 

Range. The species occupies a range of 

prairie sites with various soil textures 

and moisture levels and occurs in a 

wide range of plant communities 

including meadows, marshes, wetlands, 

riparian/tree shrub forests, and 

disturbed areas. This indicates that the 

species has the capacity to adapt to a 

variety of environmental conditions and 

has good representation. 

Future Viability 

To assess the future viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered the factors that will 

influence the species in the foreseeable 

future. We define the foreseeable future 

as 25 to 50 years. This interval was 

chosen because it encompasses the 

length of time over which we conclude 

we can make reliable predictions about 

the anticipated effect of climate change. 

In addition, this period of time is 

sufficient to observe population trends 

for the species, based on its life-history 

characteristics. It also captures the terms 

of many of the management plans and 

conservation easements that are in effect 

at Nelson’s checker-mallow sites. 

We determined that Nelson’s checkermallow will continue to be influenced 

by the factors that have historically 

influenced and are currently influencing 

the species, albeit at different relative 

rates into the future. Therefore, in our 

analysis of future viability, we 

considered habitat-related changes and 

climate change. We considered the 

specific sources of habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

(alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes, habitat 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use, and invasion by nonnative plants) 

in light of ongoing conservation 

support, including habitat management 

and site protection. 

We make several assumptions about 

ongoing conservation support in the 

foreseeable future. Support for the 

conservation of Nelson’s checkermallow has been high among 

government agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations, and some 

private landowners. We assume that 

management of existing sites and 

priority recovery and management 

actions for the species will continue at 

approximately the current pace, and 

that the species will continue to benefit 

from this ongoing conservation support. 

We base this assumption on the number 

of Nelson’s checker-mallow sites that 

have long-term or perpetual 

management agreements. These plans 

vary in scope and complexity across 

ownerships, but all provide at least a 

basic level of habitat management that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71499 

will benefit Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

We expect adaptive management in 

response to changing conditions at sites 

with current plans, and efforts to 

develop new management plans at sites 

without plans. This is based on the 

commitment of the wide variety of 

conservation partners with whom we 

collaborate on similar prairie habitat 

conservation efforts. These partners 

typically tier their conservation efforts 

to the 2010 recovery plan that includes 

Nelson’s checker-mallow with several 

other listed plants and insects, 

emphasizing restoration and 

maintenance of prairie habitat for the 

benefit of numerous species. This 

provides an impetus for continued 

formalized management of these sites 

and maintenance of Nelson’s checkermallow habitat. 

Although sites not protected by virtue 

of ownership or conservation easement 

may be at risk due to development in 

the future, these sites are in the minority 

and their unprotected status is reflected 

in our analysis. 

Resiliency 

To assess the future viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered a single scenario where we 

assumed that climate change will result 

in a dramatic reduction in abundance 

across the species’ range but site 

management and protection will remain 

intact, as discussed above. We then 

reassessed population condition, 

applying the same methodology used for 

assessing current condition. 

Published assessments do not provide 

detailed quantitative estimates of the 

effects of climate change on Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations. To 

evaluate the effects of climate change on 

individual sites, we characterized a 

worst-case future scenario in terms we 

could use in our analysis of future 

condition. In consultation with species 

experts and conservation partners, we 

defined the worst-case scenario as one 

where increased mortality and 

decreased recruitment culminate in a 50 

percent reduction in abundance at all 

sites. We consider a 50 percent 

reduction to represent the upper 

boundary of plausibility as the actual 

effects of climate change on population 

sizes are likely to be more moderate 

based on climate change vulnerability 

assessment modeling (Steel et al. 2011, 

p. 30), and sites are expected to be 

protected and adaptively managed as 

described above. Nevertheless, 

assuming a 50 percent reduction 

provides a generous margin of error if 

these assumptions are violated. We 

acknowledge that a uniform response to 

climate change across the species’ range 

is not likely, and that some populations 

may fare better than others under future 

conditions. However, this approach 

serves to demonstrate future viability 

under challenging future conditions. 

In the scenario described above, 

resiliency declined modestly, with 60 

sites remaining in high or moderate 

condition (see figure 1, below). The 

number of sites in high overall 

condition decreased from 31 to 25, 

relative to current condition, while the 

number of sites in moderate condition 

increased from 29 to 35. Sites reduced 

to moderate condition are relatively 

well-distributed throughout the range of 

the species, with one site occurring in 

the Coast Range recovery zone, three 

sites occurring in the Corvallis West 

recovery zone, one site occurring in the 

Portland recovery zone, and one site 

occurring in the Salem West recovery 

zone. The number of sites in overall low 

condition (six sites) does not change in 

the foreseeable future. 

These changes in overall future 

condition are driven by changes in 

abundance. In our future scenario, 6 

additional sites fall below 200 

individual plants and, therefore, receive 

a low score for abundance. Sites with 

low abundance are more vulnerable to 

stochastic events and carry a higher risk 

for extirpation in the future. If we only 

consider sites that retain independent 

populations with 200 plants or more, 

the number of populations in high 

condition decrease from 31 to 27, the 

number in moderate condition remain at 

7, and the number in low condition 

decrease from 4 to 2 for future overall 

condition. The relative importance of 

site management and protection in 

guarding against habitat loss and 

maintaining site resiliency even in sites 

with small numbers of plants is 

reflected in the relatively modest 

downward shift in overall future 

condition, relative to current condition 

(see figure 2, below). 

Redundancy 

Our analysis of future condition 

indicates that redundancy will be 

maintained in the foreseeable future; 66 

extant sites will remain well-distributed 

throughout the current known range of 

the species. Consequently, no major 

changes in the species’ ability to 

withstand catastrophes in the future is 

expected. 

Representation 

The distribution of extant Nelson’s 

checker-mallow sites does not change 

under the parameters of our future 

condition analysis. Consequently, 

changes in ecological diversity are not 

projected to materialize as a result of 

climate change, and the species is likely 

to continue to occupy prairie habitat 

throughout its range and retain its 

adaptive capacity. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71500 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER17OC23.009</GPH>

Nelson's Checker-mallow Sites 

Future Condition of Current Distribution 

COAST RANGE • 

SO Miles 

WASHINGTON 

Enlargecl 

area 

OREGON 

WASHINGTON 

OREGON 

Figure 1. Overall future condition of all Nelson's checker-mallow sites. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71501 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Collectively, our analysis of the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation demonstrates that in 25 

to 50 years, the viability of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow will not be significantly 

reduced. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER17OC23.010</GPH>

Nelson's Checker-mallow Sites 

Future Condition Assessment Factors 

tow 

•· ··Moderate 

•• l-ligh 

Figure 2. Future condition of Nelson's checker-mallow sites, by the individual assessment 

metrics: Area of prairie habitat, site management, site protection, and abundance. 
71502 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Despite permanent habitat loss and 

modification, habitat restoration and 

protection projects have been 

implemented on both public and private 

lands throughout the range of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. These projects offset 

some of the permanent habitat losses 

and, as a result, Nelson’s checkermallow habitat is increasing (Bartow 

2020, pers. comm.), particularly in the 

Corvallis West and Salem West recovery 

zones. The Wetland Reserve Program 

and other Farm Bill programs 

administered by the USDA’s NRCS have 

been widely implemented in the 

Willamette Valley. Other programs, 

such as the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife program and the Act’s 

section 10 programs (i.e., safe harbor 

agreements and habitat conservation 

plans), are also available to landowners. 

These programs are focused on habitat 

restoration and protection and have 

contributed significantly to improving 

the status of Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Range-wide, the majority of the 66 

sites known to support Nelson’s 

checker-mallow benefit from some type 

of conservation measure, by virtue of 

ownership or habitat management 

agreements or both. Fifty-seven of the 66 

total Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are 

managed in accordance with the 

conservation programs described above, 

which ensure maintenance of prairie 

conditions required by the species. Of 

these sites, 44 are owned by a public 

entity. Regarding the 42 independent 

populations (having 200 plants or 

more), 38 have formal management 

plans, 26 of which are in public 

ownership, which offers protection from 

prairie habitat conversion to other uses. 

The terms of management agreements 

vary, but they are typically valid for 10 

to 30 years, with some extending into 

perpetuity. Collectively, these 

management regimes ensure habitat 

protections at a decades-long scale for 

most sites. 

Determination of Nelson’s CheckerMallow’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. The Act 

defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of 

endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we found that the 

primary drivers of the status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow have been habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation due to 

alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that 

maintain open prairie habitat, land 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use, and invasion by nonnative plants 

(Factor A). The best available 

information indicates that, while still 

present to some degree, overcollection 

(Factor B), predation (Factor C), small 

population size (Factor E), and 

hybridization (Factor E) are no longer 

threats to the viability of the species. 

Potential inundation of the largest and 

most vigorous population (Walker Flat) 

by reservoir development was seen as a 

major threat at the time of listing. The 

threat of inundation never materialized 

as the proposed reservoir was not 

constructed and is highly unlikely in 

the future due to the regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) discussed above. 

Other habitat threats (i.e., alteration of 

disturbance processes and associated 

woody encroachment, the threat of 

invasive plants, land use conversion) 

are still present on the landscape; 

however, the magnitude and scope of 

these threats have decreased from 

historical levels, and have been offset by 

a variety of management and 

conservation measures in the 30 years 

since Nelson’s checker-mallow was 

listed. Active maintenance of prairie 

habitat through mowing and prescribed 

burning has demonstrably reduced the 

threat posed by alteration of disturbance 

processes and associated woody 

encroachment (Factor A). The threat of 

invasive plants (Factor A) has also been 

significantly reduced as a result of 

active management. 

Range-wide, 58 of the 66 sites known 

to contain Nelson’s checker-mallow 

have formalized management plans. 

This number of formalized management 

plans is expected to remain relatively 

constant into the foreseeable future. 

Similarly, 60 Nelson’s checker-mallow 

sites are either in public ownership, 

have been acquired by nongovernmental 

conservation organizations, or are 

enrolled in conservation easement 

programs (Factor D), which has 

substantially reduced the risk of habitat 

and population losses due to land-use 

conversion (Factor A). The number of 

sites protected from conversion to 

agricultural or urban use due to public 

or conservation organization ownership 

is expected to remain relatively constant 

in the future. In sum, despite the 

continued presence of habitat-related 

threats on the landscape, advances in 

site management and protection have 

led to a significant reduction in threats 

and overall improvement in the status of 

the species since listing. 

When Nelson’s checker-mallow was 

listed, we estimated that the species 

occurred at 48 sites, only 5 of which 

contained more than 1,000 individuals, 

and 30 percent of the known 

individuals of the species were 

threatened with inundation due to the 

planned construction of a dam. At the 

time of the SSA report, 334,968 

individual plants were distributed 

across the historical range of the 

species. They occurred at 66 sites, 24 of 

which have at least 1,000 individuals, 

and inundation was no longer 

considered a likely threat. Our analysis 

of current conditions, based on 

abundance, habitat quality, site 

management, and site protection, shows 

that 60 of those sites are in either 

moderate or high condition, indicating 

relatively high resiliency. The sites are 

distributed among six of the seven 

recovery zones and occur in varied 

geographical and ecological settings, 

demonstrating overall high redundancy 

and representation. Recent surveys also 

show increasing trends in plant 

abundance across the species’ range, 

with the total number of plants 

increasing to 426,032 in 2022 (Service 

2022, pp. 2–3). 

Subsequent to listing, climate change 

and its potential to negatively affect 

prairie habitat was identified as a 

potential threat to Nelson’s checkermallow. We considered the potential 

consequences of climate change on the 

species and evaluated a worst-case 

future scenario that included a 50 

percent reduction in the size of all 

known populations across the range of 

the species in the next 25 to 50 years. 

Even with such severe population 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 71503 

reduction, the species retained 

appreciable levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation, with 

only six sites showing a reduction in 

resiliency, and the maintenance of 

geographical and ecological distribution 

of the species. 

We recognize that some habitatrelated threats remain present, and they 

have ongoing impacts to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations. We 

acknowledge that the specific effects of 

climate change on Nelson’s checkermallow and its habitat are uncertain and 

may have a negative impact. However, 

we found that current and expected 

patterns in site protection and habitat 

management (Factor D) are sufficient to 

prevent effects to the species such that 

it would meet the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we determine 

that Nelson’s checker-mallow is not in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

court in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 

2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 

of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (Final Policy; 

79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided 

if the Services determine that a species 

is threatened throughout all of its range, 

the Services will not analyze whether 

the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which it is true that both (1) the 

portion is significant, and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so within the foreseeable 

future in that portion. Depending on the 

case, it might be more efficient for us to 

address the ‘‘significance’’ question or 

the ‘‘status’’ question first. We can 

choose to address either question first. 

Regardless of which question we 

address first, if we reach a negative 

answer with respect to the first question 

that we address, we do not need to 

evaluate the other question for that 

portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether there 

are any significant portions of the 

species’ range where the species is in 

danger of extinction now (i.e., 

endangered) or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future (i.e., 

threatened). In undertaking this analysis 

for Nelson’s checker-mallow, we choose 

to address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species may be 

endangered or threatened. 

We evaluated the range of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow to determine if the 

species is in danger of extinction now 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in any portion of its range. The 

range of a species can theoretically be 

divided into portions in an infinite 

number of ways. We focused our 

analysis on portions of the species’ 

range that may meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. For 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

such that the species is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future in that 

portion. 

We examined the following threats: 

habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation 

due to alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that 

maintain open prairie habitat; land 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use; invasion by nonnative plants; and 

climate change, including cumulative 

effects. 

The threat of habitat loss from 

alteration of disturbance processes, 

land-use conversion, and invasion of 

nonnative plants has decreased in all 

portions of the species’ range since the 

time of listing, largely due to land 

protection efforts and active habitat 

management. Although these residual 

threats influence the species variably 

across its range, there is no portion of 

the range where there is currently a 

concentration of threats at a biologically 

meaningful scale, relative to other areas 

of the range. In the foreseeable future, 

climate change may interact 

synergistically with other threats to 

negatively affect habitat quality. We 

acknowledge that uniform response 

across the species’ range is not likely, 

and that some populations may fare 

worse than others under future 

conditions. However, the best available 

information does not indicate that any 

portion of the species’ range will 

deteriorate disproportionately in the 

foreseeable future. We anticipate that 

any negative consequence of cooccurring threats will be successfully 

addressed through the same active 

management actions that have 

contributed to the ongoing recovery of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow and that are 

expected to continue into the future. 

We found no portion of the Nelson’s 

checker-mallow range where the 

biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species differs from its condition 

elsewhere in its range. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future in a 

significant portion of its range, and we 

determine that the species is not in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future 

in any significant portion of its range. 

This does not conflict with the courts’ 

holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 

3d 1011, 1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 

2017), because, in reaching this 

conclusion, we did not need to consider 

whether any portions are significant 

and, therefore, did not apply the aspects 

of the Final Policy’s definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held were invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that Nelson’s checker-mallow 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 

our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), 

because Nelson’s checker-mallow does 

not meet the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or a threatened species, we 

are removing Nelson’s checker-mallow 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) 

by removing Nelson’s checker-mallow 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, will no longer apply to this species. 

Federal agencies will no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
71504 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect Nelson’s checkermallow. There is no critical habitat 

designated for this species, so there is 

no effect to 50 CFR 17.96. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. PDM 

refers to activities undertaken to verify 

that a species delisted due to recovery 

remains secure from the risk of 

extinction after the protections of the 

Act no longer apply. The primary goal 

of PDM is to monitor the species to 

ensure that its status does not 

deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, 

to take measures to halt the decline so 

that proposing it as endangered or 

threatened is not again needed. If at any 

time during the monitoring period data 

indicate that protective status under the 

Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing. 

We are delisting Nelson’s checkermallow due to recovery based on our 

analysis in the SSA report, expert 

opinions, and conservation actions 

taken. We have prepared a PDM plan 

that discusses the current status of the 

taxon and describes the methods for 

monitoring its status. The PDM plan: (1) 

summarizes the status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow at the time of delisting; 

(2) describes frequency and duration of 

monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring 

methods and sampling regimes; (4) 

defines what triggers will be evaluated 

to address the need for additional 

monitoring; (5) outlines reporting 

requirements and procedures; (6) 

provides a schedule for implementing 

the PDM plan; and (7) defines 

responsibilities. It is our intent to work 

with our partners towards maintaining 

the recovered status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. To view a copy of the 

PDM plan, see ADDRESSES, above. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

Several Nelson’s checker-mallow sites 

occur on Confederated Tribe of Grand 

Ronde (Tribe) lands, and some sites may 

lie within the usual and accustomed 

places for Tribal collection and 

gathering of resources. The Tribe has a 

plan in place to manage and monitor 

Nelson’s checker-mallow and a new 

memorandum of understanding with the 

Service for data sharing. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Service’s 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants by removing the entry for 

‘‘Sidalcea nelsoniana’’ under 

FLOWERING PLANTS. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22759 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 230316–0077; RTID 0648– 

XD421] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 

Adjustment to the 2023 Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 2023 

Atlantic herring specifications for the 

remainder of 2023. Herring regulations 

specify that NMFS will subtract 1,000 

metric tons (mt) from the management 

uncertainty buffer and reallocate it to 

the herring annual catch limit and Area 

1A sub-annual catch limit if NMFS 

determines that the New Brunswick 

weir fishery landed less than 2,722 mt 

of herring through October 1. 

DATES: Effective October 12, 2023 

through December 31, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Fenton, Fishery Management 

Specialist, 978–281–9196. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published final 2023 specifications for 

the Atlantic herring fishery on March 

23, 2023 (88 FR 17397), establishing the 

2023 annual catch limit (ACL) and 

management area sub-ACLs. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(h) specify 

that NMFS will subtract 1,000 mt from 

the management uncertainty buffer and 

reallocate it to the herring ACL and Area 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1