79880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the boundaries of the 

current range of the Bethany Beach 

firefly, so no Tribal lands would be 

affected by the proposed listing of this 

species at this time. 

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 Chesapeake 

Bay Ecological Services Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Chesapeake 

Bay Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

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. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by adding an entry for ‘‘Firefly, 

Bethany Beach’’ in alphabetical order 

under INSECTS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

Insects 

*******

Firefly, Bethany Beach .. Photuris bethaniensis .. Wherever found ........... T [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.47(j).4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Further amend § 17.47, as proposed 

to be amended August 6, 2024, at 89 FR 

63888, by adding a paragraph (j) to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.47 Species-specific rules—insects. 

* * * * * 

(j) Bethany Beach firefly (Photuris 

bethaniensis)—(1) Prohibitions. The 

following prohibitions that apply to 

endangered wildlife also apply to the 

Bethany Beach firefly. Except as 

provided under paragraph (j)(2) of this 

section and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is 

unlawful for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit 

another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of the following acts in 

regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, as 

set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(3) 

and (4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Research and conservation 

activities to benefit Bethany Beach 

firefly conducted by an organization or 

individual, working cooperatively with 

a State conservation agency that is 

operating a conservation program 

pursuant to an approved cooperative 

agreement with the Service as set forth 

in § 17.31(b), when conducted by an 

organization or individual that has 

obtained a permit from the State 

conservation agency, and the research 

activity is carried out in compliance 

with all terms and conditions of the 

State permit. Research activities 

permitted by the State may include but 

are not limited to population monitoring 

(including surveys and handling 

fireflies to confirm identification); tissue 

collection for genetic analysis (removal 

of a leg). 

(B) Control of invasive plants and 

removal of native or invasive woody 

vegetation. These activities can be 

implemented in Bethany Beach firefly 

habitat at any time of the year, but they 

must be performed through mechanical 

removal using hand-operated 

machinery. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22358 Filed 9–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0107; 

FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Not-Warranted 

Finding for the Las Vegas Bearpoppy 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of finding. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 79881 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Las Vegas bearpoppy (Arctomecon 

californica) as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The Las Vegas 

bearpoppy is a plant in the poppy 

family. It is endemic to the eastern 

Mojave Desert in southern Nevada and 

northwest Arizona. After a thorough 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing the Las Vegas bearpoppy as 

an endangered or threatened species is 

not warranted at this time. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us at any 

time any new information relevant to 

the status of the Las Vegas bearpoppy or 

its habitat. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on October 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: A detailed description of 

the basis for this finding is available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0107. Supporting 

information used to prepare this finding 

is also available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Southern Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen 

Knowles, Field Supervisor, Southern 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 702– 

515–5230, glen_knowles@fws.gov. 

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: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding on whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition that 

we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a 

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 

warranted, but precluded by other 

listing activity. We must publish a 

notification of the 12-month finding in 

the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. The 

Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

any species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), 

and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species 

that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five 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 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 expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species, 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary of the Interior determines 

whether the species meets the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis and 

describing the expected effect on the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy meets the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered 

and thoroughly evaluated the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future stressors and threats. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information for the species. Our 

evaluation may include information 

from recognized experts; Federal, State, 

and Tribal governments; academic 

institutions; foreign governments; 

private entities; and other members of 

the public. 

In accordance with the regulations at 

50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document 

announces the not-warranted finding on 

a petition to list the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy. We have also elected to 

include a brief summary of the analysis 

on which this finding is based. We 

provide the full analysis, including the 

reasons and data on which the finding 

is based, in the decisional file for the 

Las Vegas bearpoppy. The following is 

a description of the documents 

containing this analysis: 

The species assessment form for the 

Las Vegas bearpoppy contains more 

detailed biological information, a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors, 

a list of literature cited, and an 

explanation of why we determined that 

the species does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ To inform our 

status review, we completed a species 

status assessment (SSA) report for the 

species. The SSA report contains a 

thorough review of the taxonomy, life 

history, ecology, current status, and 

projected future status for the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy. This supporting information 

can be found on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov under the Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0107. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We received a petition dated August 

14, 2019, from the Center for Biological 

Diversity requesting that the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy be listed as an endangered 

species and that critical habitat be 

designated for this species under the 

Act. On July 22, 2020, we published a 

90-day finding (85 FR 44265) that the 

petition contained substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for the species. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the August 14, 2019, petition 

to list the Las Vegas bearpoppy under 

the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Las Vegas bearpoppy is a plant in 

the poppy family (Papaveraceae), 

endemic to southern Nevada and 

northwest Arizona occurring primarily 

on public lands in the eastern Mojave 

Desert. We identified 12 population 

groups made up of 86 known Las Vegas 

bearpoppy occurrences across the range 

of the species; each occurrence contains 

multiple plants. We further divided 

these groups into four genomic groups 

based on known genetic data; each 

genomic group contains unique alleles 

which contribute to the viability of the 

species by increasing its ability to adapt 

to changing conditions. 

The species requires open areas with 

harsh soil conditions unfavorable to 

many competing species often 

associated with gypsum soils, but it also 

has been found in limestone areas in the 

eastern parts of its range. Populations 

near the Grand Canyon with limestone 

substrates are likely an undescribed 

variation of the broader taxon. The Las 

Vegas bearpoppy can survive long 

periods of unreliable but necessary 

winter precipitation (November through 

March) through a long-lived seed bank 

of up to 20 years. Some areas occupied 

by the species as seeds within the 

seedbank can appear unoccupied and 

will only become apparent after 

adequate winter precipitation and 

growing conditions allowing adult 

growth. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. The primary 

threats affecting the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy’s biological status include 

development, trampling, nonnative 

plants, and climate change. 

In this finding, we summarized the 

effects of development (including 

urbanization, mining, and Lake Mead 

filling) (Factor A); trampling by humans 

and ungulates (Factor A); climate 

change (Factor E); habitat fragmentation, 

pollinator limitation, and genetic 

consequences (Factor E); nonnative 

plants (Factor E); and collection (Factor 

B). In the SSA report, we also discuss 

the effects of disease (Factor C) and 

herbivory by small mammals and 

insects (Factor C). However, disease and 

herbivory are only affecting some 

individual plants and not having 

population-level effects. In this finding, 

we consider all threats impacting the 

species, including cumulative effects to 

the species. For example, activities in 

areas associated with development and 

mining may also result in or lead to 

increased adverse effects from 

trampling, fragmentation, ungulates, 

and nonnative plants. 

The Las Vegas bearpoppy is currently 

found in 12 population groups in 

Arizona and Nevada. With a deep 

taproot and a diverse adult reproductive 

life form that produces a long-lived seed 

bank, the Las Vegas bearpoppy is well 

adapted to withstand stochastic climatic 

events throughout its range. The Las 

Vegas bearpoppy can exist for many 

years within the seedbank in areas 

where it may appear extirpated. 

Currently, 7 of the 12 population 

groups across the range are in high or 

very-high overall habitat condition, 

meaning that they are experiencing 

limited impacts from threats and have 

over 90 percent of habitat available and 

undisturbed. An additional 2 

population groups are in moderate 

habitat condition, with moderate 

impacts from threats and between 50 

and 90 percent of undisturbed habitat. 

This indicates that the species is able to 

withstand environmental or 

demographic stochastic events, has 

sufficient redundancy to withstand 

catastrophic events, and has sufficient 

representation to adapt to near-term 

changing conditions. Where available, 

demographic data indicate stable or 

increasing populations. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we conclude that the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy maintains resilient 

populations across its range. Though the 

species is being impacted by threats 

such as development, trampling, and 

mining, those threats are occurring in 

only a few population groups, mostly in 

close proximity to the Las Vegas area. 

Currently, 7 of 12 population groups are 

in high or very-high overall habitat 

condition across the range, indicating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 79883 

that the species is able to withstand 

stochastic events. Additionally, the 

species remains extant across its range 

and has sufficient redundancy to 

withstand catastrophic events. The 

species also maintains its environmental 

and genetic representation from its 

historical condition; thus, it retains its 

ability to adapt to near-term changing 

conditions. Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we conclude 

that the Las Vegas bearpoppy is not in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. 

Therefore, we proceed with 

determining whether Las Vegas 

bearpoppy is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. We 

consider the foreseeable future for this 

species to be approximately 50 years, 

which is the timeframe in which we can 

make reasonably reliable predictions 

about the threats to the species, as well 

as the species’ response to those threats. 

In our future condition analysis, we 

considered effects from urbanization, 

mining, trampling, and land 

management and conservation efforts. 

We considered two future scenarios that 

represent the plausible range of future 

conditions that may influence the 

viability of the Las Vegas bearpoppy. 

Scenario 1 includes increasing effects 

from urbanization and similar levels of 

mining, trampling, and other threats to 

the current condition. Scenario 2 

includes additional effects from 

urbanization above what is forecast in 

scenario 1, increased effects from 

mining and trampling, and a decrease in 

favorable winter precipitation. Under 

scenario 1, 7 of the 12 population 

groups remain in high or very-high 

overall habitat condition. Under 

scenario 2, 5 of the 12 population 

groups remain in high or very-high 

overall habitat condition with 

reductions in 2 population groups in the 

western areas of the range near 

metropolitan Las Vegas. Overall, we 

expect that there will be some reduction 

of redundancy and representation in the 

future from the current conditions, but 

the magnitude of these changes is 

unlikely to dramatically increase 

extinction risk for the species in the 

next approximately 50 years. No 

population groups are expected to 

become extirpated. 

Under both plausible future scenarios, 

between five and seven population 

groups will remain in high and veryhigh condition, and in the scenario with 

higher projected impacts from threats, 

two populations will decrease to 

moderate condition. No population 

groups are expected to be extirpated 

under either future scenario. Though 

there may be shifts in rainfall due to 

climate change and some potential 

decreases in population growth rates, 

population models show that the 

species is likely to continue to display 

positive growth rates even under more 

extreme climate scenarios. Therefore, 

though there may be some decreases in 

population resiliency and species 

redundancy in the foreseeable future, 

the Las Vegas bearpoppy is expected to 

maintain enough resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation such 

that it will maintain viability. After 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy is not likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. 

Having determined that the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy is not in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we now consider whether it may 

be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future 

throughout 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. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

Las Vegas bearpoppy, we began by 

identifying portions of the range where 

the biological status of the species may 

be different from its biological status 

elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, 

we considered information pertaining to 

the geographic distribution of (a) 

individuals of the species, (b) the threats 

that the species faces, and (c) the 

resiliency condition of populations. 

We evaluated the range of the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy to determine if the 

species is in danger of extinction now 

or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future in any portion of its 

range. Because the range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways, 

we focus our analysis on portions of the 

species’ range that contribute to the 

conservation of the species in a 

biologically meaningful way. Due to the 

connectivity of population groups 

within each genomic group, apparent 

from the generally broad expansive areal 

distributions of clustered genetically 

similar individuals, we found the most 

biologically appropriate scale for the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy to be the genomic 

group scale. We then considered 

whether the threats or their effects on 

the species are greater in any genomic 

group than in other genomic groups 

such that the species is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in that portion. 

We first considered whether the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. The primary current threats to the 

Las Vegas bearpoppy are urbanization, 

trampling, and climate change. We 

examined those threats along with the 

effects from mining, Lake Mead filling, 

habitat fragmentation, pollinator 

limitation, genetic consequences, 

nonnative plants, collection, disease, 

and herbivory by small mammals and 

insects, including cumulative effects, 

and considered whether conservation 

efforts and regulatory mechanisms 

ameliorated any of the effects. 

We found one biologically meaningful 

portion of the range of the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy where the biological 

condition and subsequent extinction 

risk of the species differs from its 

condition elsewhere in its range such 

that the status of the species in that 

portion may differ from the status 

within the rest of the range. The 

Northwest genomic group of the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy may have a higher 

current risk of extinction than the rest 

of the range. This genomic group 

contains the Las Vegas Dunes, Las Vegas 

Valley, and Sunrise Valley population 

groups. In this genomic group, habitat 

modification and destruction due to 

urbanization has affected the Las Vegas 

Valley population group. Disturbance 

associated with trampling is occurring 

in all three population groups. All three 

population groups are currently in low 

condition. 

After identifying a portion of the 

range where the species has a 

potentially different status than within 

the remainder of the range, we 

considered whether or not that portion 

is a ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ of 

the Las Vegas bearpoppy. The Service’s 

most recent definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

within agency policy guidance has been 

invalidated by court order (see Desert 

Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070–74 

(N.D. Cal. 2018)). Therefore, in light of 

the court decision, for the purposes of 

this analysis when considering whether 

this portion is ‘‘significant,’’ we 

considered whether the portion may (1) 

contain a large geographic portion of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

range relative to the entire range for the 

species; (2) contain high-quality or highvalue habitat relative to the remaining 

portions of the range; or (3) occur in a 

unique habitat or ecoregion for the 

species. 

Collectively, the Northwest genomic 

group makes up 32 percent of suitable 

habitat in the entire range of the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy. In addition, these 

population groups are made up largely 

of habitat that has been fragmented or 

degraded by development and 

anthropogenic trampling. Thus, they do 

not contain high-quality or high-value 

habitat relative to the remainder of the 

range. They also do not contain any 

unique or unusual habitat for the taxon, 

nor do they contain any habitat essential 

to any life-history functions that is not 

found in any other portions. Therefore, 

this portion is not a significant portion 

of the range. 

We next considered whether the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout a 

significant portion of its range. We 

found two genomic groups, the 

Northeast and Northwest, where the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy may differ from the 

status of the rest of the range. 

When looking more closely at the 

Northeast genomic group (which 

contains the Bitter Spring Valley, Gale 

Hills, Gold Butte, Government Wash, 

Valley of Fire, and White Basin 

population groups), we conclude that 

the biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range, such that the status of the 

species in that portion may differ from 

its status in any other portion of the 

species’ range. Under future scenario 2, 

which projects a higher magnitude of 

threats and lower conservation, the 

White Basin population group decreases 

from high to low condition, and the 

Gale Hills population group decreases 

from high to moderate condition. 

However, two of the remaining 

population groups in the genomic group 

remain in high condition, and the other 

two remain in moderate condition. 

Additionally, we define a population 

group in moderate condition to still 

maintain between 50 and 90 percent 

available habitat, and less than 50 

percent of habitat affected by 

disturbance. Therefore, we conclude 

that the Northeast genomic group will 

maintain at least moderate population 

resiliency across most of its range. With 

four of six population groups projected 

to be in high condition in this future 

scenario, and the fifth group in 

moderate condition, the genomic group 

is projected to maintain similarly high 

redundancy to the current condition. In 

regard to representation, little to no 

decrease in environmental or genetic 

representation would be expected. This 

is because similar genomic and 

environmental conditions are found in 

the remainder of the genomic group, 

which is projected to be in high 

condition. Overall, we conclude that 

this genomic group does not have a 

different status than the remainder of 

the range. 

We then considered the status of the 

Northwest genomic group within the 

foreseeable future as a significant 

portion of the species’ range. In the 

foreseeable future, this genomic group 

will likely continue to lose population 

resiliency, as these population groups 

are located near urbanized areas with 

the highest exposure to development 

and trampling. These population groups 

may also experience a lowered 

resiliency in the form of lowered growth 

rates because they are at the lower range 

of precipitation for the species. 

However, as stated above, this portion of 

the range is not a ‘‘significant portion of 

the range.’’ 

Therefore, we find that the species is 

not in danger of extinction 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. 

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 apply the aspects 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’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), 

including the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

that those court decisions held to be 

invalid. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range 

or in any significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the Las 

Vegas bearpoppy as an endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy species assessment form and 

other supporting documents on https:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0107 (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Las Vegas bearpoppy 

SSA report. The Service sent the SSA 

report to four independent peer 

reviewers and received no responses. 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy 

of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or 

stressors to the Las Vegas bearpoppy to 

the person specified above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

whenever it becomes available. New 

information will help us monitor the 

species and make appropriate decisions 

about its conservation and status. We 

encourage local agencies and 

stakeholders to continue cooperative 

monitoring and conservation efforts. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this petition finding is available in 

the species assessment form, which is 

available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0107 (see 

ADDRESSES, above) and upon request 

from the field office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22405 Filed 9–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS