Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5767 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS—Continued 

Name of source Order/permit number 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(34) Doe Run Glover Facility Consent Agreement, APCP– 

2020–002.

6/2/2020 [Date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register], [Federal 

Register citation of the final rule].

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(49) Reserved 

*******

(81) Glover Lead Plan for 

Continued Attainment of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

Iron County (part) within 

boundaries of Liberty and 

Arcadia Townships.

10/7/2020 [Date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register], [Federal 

Register citation of the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0913; FRL–9351–01– 

R7]. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01500 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BD17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for Chapin Mesa Milkvetch and 

Designation of Critical Habitat; 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 

proposed rule to list the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch (Astragalus schmolliae) as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We concurrently 

withdraw the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the species. This 

withdrawal is based on our conclusion 

that the conservation plan for Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch at Mesa Verde National 

Park, and its associated implementation 

plan, in addition to new standard 

operating procedures for fire 

management at Mesa Verde National 

Park, reduce the threats to the species 

such that it no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, we 

are withdrawing our proposal to list the 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a threatened 

species and our proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the species. 

DATES: The proposed rule that 

published on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 

58224), to list the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch as a threatened species and to 

designate critical habitat for the Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch is withdrawn on 

February 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Relevant documents used in 

the preparation of this withdrawal are 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Timberman, Western Colorado Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Colorado Ecological Services 

Office, 445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 

240, Grand Junction, CO 81501; 

telephone 970–243–2778. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf may call the Federal Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 17, 2020, we proposed 

to list Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a 

threatened species under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and to designate 

critical habitat (85 FR 58224). Please 

refer to that proposed rule for a detailed 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

prior to 2020. The September 17, 2020, 

proposed rule had a 60-day comment 

period, ending November 16, 2020. 

During this public comment period, we 

invited the public to comment on the 

proposed rule in light of draft 

conservation plans for the species from 

Mesa Verde National Park (Park) and the 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Since 

publication of the proposed rule, the 

Park provided supplemental 

information to their plan that allowed 

the Service to conclude the plan is 

sufficiently certain to be implemented 

and effective, and we consider this in 

making our final listing determination, 

in accordance with the Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 

When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) 

(68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). 

Supporting Documents 

Prior to publishing the proposed 

listing rule (85 FR 58224; September 17, 

2020), we conducted a species status 

assessment (SSA) for the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch, with input and information 

provided by the Park, the Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program, and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe. The results of this 

assessment are summarized in an SSA 

report, which represents a compilation 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available concerning the status of 

the species, including the past, present, 

and future stressors to this species 

(Service 2021a, entire). Additionally, 

the SSA report contains our analysis of 

required habitat and the existing 

conditions of that habitat. After 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5768 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

publication of the September 17, 2020, 

proposed listing rule, we updated the 

SSA with newly available information, 

including the latest precipitation data 

and updated values for seedling survival 

in the burned subunit of the Chapin 

Mesa representative unit (Service 2021a, 

entire). 

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 of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of six 

appropriate subject matter specialists 

regarding our SSA report for Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch. We received responses 

from five specialists. We incorporated 

the results of this peer review process 

into the final SSA report, which 

informed the underlying analysis and 

scientific basis for this finding. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

As stated above under Previous 

Federal Actions, on September 17, 2020, 

we published a proposed rule to list 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a threatened 

species under the Act, and to designate 

critical habitat (85 FR 58224). The 

proposed rule had a 60-day comment 

period, ending November 16, 2020. We 

also contacted appropriate State, 

Federal, and Tribal agencies and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. A newspaper 

notice inviting general public comment 

was published in The Journal, a 

newspaper servicing Cortez, Mancos, 

and Dolores, Colorado. We also sought 

peer review on the SSA report (see 

Supporting Documents, above). All 

substantive information regarding the 

listing of Chapin Mesa milkvetch that 

was provided during peer reviews and 

the comment period has been 

incorporated directly into this final 

determination or into our SSA report, as 

appropriate, or is addressed below. 

Comments concerning the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

species are not addressed here; given 

the decision to withdraw the listing 

proposal, no further assessment of the 

proposed critical habitat designation is 

necessary at this time. 

Peer Review Comments 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding Chapin Mesa milkvetch. The 

peer reviewers provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the SSA report, 

which we incorporated directly into the 

SSA report, or address in the responses 

to comments below. We only address 

substantive comments from these 

reviewers below; we resolved minor 

editorial comments in the text of the 

SSA report. 

(1) Comment: One reviewer suggested 

that we needed more detail to describe 

the methods researchers used to collect 

the monitoring data we include in the 

SSA report. 

Our Response: The purpose of the 

SSA is to gather and compile 

information on the status of this species 

in order to assess its current condition 

and project the species’ future 

condition. Adding detailed information 

on the monitoring methodologies our 

partners use is not necessary to assess 

the current and future conditions for 

this species in the SSA report, because 

these methods are adequately described 

in other papers. More details on 

monitoring methods are available in 

Anderson (2004), Rondeau et al. (2016), 

and Rondeau (2017), which are cited 

throughout our SSA report. 

(2) Comment: Some reviewers 

commented that we needed to 

incorporate additional quantitative data, 

as qualitative data cannot answer the 

questions that are most relevant to 

ensuring persistence and survival of the 

species. 

Our Response: Section 4 of the Act 

directs the Service to make 

determinations on whether any species 

is an endangered or a threatened species 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). In the SSA, we 

used quantitative data when available, 

but, in some cases, qualitative data is 

the best available information. We used 

this quantitative and qualitative data to 

evaluate multiple metrics relevant to 

assessing the resiliency of each 

representative unit. In the case of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch, given limited 

availability of quantitative data, we 

evaluated the level of intact native 

understory and presence of exotic plants 

qualitatively. However, even with 

qualitative evaluations for these metrics, 

we were able to evaluate the resiliency 

of each representative unit and 

summarize the current and future 

viability of the species (Service 2021a, 

pp. 32–41); we acknowledge the 

uncertainties inherent in this method in 

the SSA (Service 2021a, p. 33). These 

evaluations of current and future 

viability, which were based on the best 

available scientific data, informed our 

determination of species’ status. 

(3) Comment: One reviewer expressed 

concern that the only monitoring data 

included in the SSA report are from 

monitoring that has occurred on Chapin 

Mesa, and therefore does not cover the 

entire range of the species. 

Our Response: We agree that 

monitoring information from the rest of 

the species’ range would be useful. 

However, section 4 of the Act directs the 

Service to make determinations whether 

any species is an endangered or a 

threatened species ‘‘solely on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(1)(A)). Monitoring data from 

other representative units are not 

available to us at this time. 

(4) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that the SSA has no 

discussion of current or future 

conservation actions being 

implemented. 

Our Response: When the SSA report 

was originally written (2018), we were 

not aware of any ongoing conservation 

actions. Following the completion of the 

first version of the SSA report, draft 

conservation plans from the Park and 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe became 

available that discussed future 

conservation activities. However, we 

had not yet evaluated these plans under 

our PECE policy, and the Park had not 

yet completed its implementation plan. 

We have since updated our discussion 

of conservation efforts in the SSA to 

incorporate relevant ongoing 

conservation activities and information 

from the Park’s conservation plan and 

implementation plan for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch at Mesa Verde National Park; 

these conservation efforts also informed 

updated analysis on species’ status in 

this notice, in accordance with the 

provisions of the PECE policy (Service 

2021b, entire). 

(5) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that Anderson (2004) 

includes a plausible boundary for the 

population south of the Park based on 

records and observations in the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribal Park. 

Our Response: The Anderson (2004) 

plausible boundary on Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribal land was determined using 

an element occurrence record from the 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program from 

1987, and was adapted to include major 

landscape features and jurisdictional 

boundaries, because surveyors were not 

granted access to Ute Mountain Ute land 

to conduct formal surveys. In order to 

accurately update or expand this 

element occurrence record polygon for 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park 

representative unit, we would need 

additional surveying on Tribal lands 

and access to survey results. These data 

are not available to us at this time; 

therefore, we consider the polygon used 

in the SSA report to represent the best 

available scientific information on the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5769 

location of the species on Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribal lands. 

(6) Comment: One reviewer suggested 

that the use of herbarium specimens 

could confirm the historical distribution 

of the species, as several regional 

herbaria hold specimens of Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch collected prior to the 

1945 description. 

Our Response: We agree that such 

information could further confirm our 

existing understanding of the historical 

distribution of this species. However, 

the peer reviewer noted that the SSA’s 

description of historical distribution, 

which was based on information from 

sources other than these herbarium 

records, was accurate, even without 

consideration of these early herbarium 

specimens. These early specimens were 

all collected from within or near Mesa 

Verde National Park, so they only 

further confirm the accuracy of the 

information we cited from other sources 

regarding where the species historically 

occurred. Thus, referencing these 

herbarium specimen is not necessary in 

our SSA since this additional detail 

would not have changed our 

understanding of the species’ range and 

viability. 

(7) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that the reference to a 

personal communication from Clow 

(2017, pers. comm.) implies that survey 

work has been done recently on Ute 

Mountain Ute land. 

Our Response: The Tribe has 

communicated to us that Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is present on Tribal land and 

we know that they have begun to 

conduct surveys on their Tribal lands; 

however, no survey data were provided 

to us for the SSA report or this final 

determination. 

(8) Comment: One reviewer suggested 

including information from literature on 

other species in the genus Astragalus, as 

many of the references used in the SSA 

report are not peer-reviewed, nor 

publicly available. 

Our Response: For the purposes of the 

SSA report, we considered references 

that are specific to Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch to be the best available 

information, even though some were not 

peer-reviewed. We considered 

information on closely related species, 

where applicable. We have reviewed 

and considered the suggested references 

on the Astragalus genus. Most of the 

references provided insights into other 

narrow endemics that were not closely 

related to Chapin Mesa milkvetch. 

However, one species, Astragalus 

microcymbus, occurs nearby and 

exhibits prolonged dormancy, like 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch; as such, we 

added this citation to the SSA report. 

(9) Comment: One reviewer suggested 

including additional climate-related 

information from the Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessments developed by 

the Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

and the Bureau of Land Management 

(CNHP 2021). 

Our Response: Because the species 

only occurs on Mesa Verde National 

Park and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal 

Park, we used climate data specific to 

this region; therefore, we consider the 

information we used in the SSA report 

to be the best available scientific 

information on downscaled climate 

impacts. For more information on the 

climate change analysis we considered, 

see the discussion of future climate 

projections under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, below. 

(10) Comment: One reviewer 

requested that we add more detailed 

information about proposed fire 

management activities. 

Our Response: We have included a 

table in section 3.1 of the SSA report 

that describes existing and proposed 

impacts from fire management activities 

in Mesa Verde National Park (Service 

2021a, pp. 19–22). 

(11) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that post-fire mitigation 

could influence Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

if mitigation is conducted with 

herbicides on a large scale. 

Our Response: We consider the effects 

of post-fire herbicide application in 

Appendix A of the SSA report. While 

direct effects from herbicide use have 

occurred to individual Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch plants in the past, there has 

not been evidence of population-level 

effects. Additionally, the Park currently 

does not use herbicides on a large scale 

(NPS 2018, p. 11). Therefore, we do not 

consider herbicides to be a major driver 

of the species’ condition and do not 

discuss them further in the SSA report. 

For more detail on herbicides, see 

Appendix A of the SSA report. 

Public Comments 

We received several comments in 

support of listing Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch and designating critical 

habitat for the species. These comments 

offered general support but did not 

provide additional information for us to 

consider in our final listing decision. 

We address substantive comments we 

received from public commenters 

below. 

(12) Comment: The Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe provided a comment stating their 

commitment to taking an active role in 

conservation and asked the Service to 

recognize the Tribe’s right to manage 

plants and wildlife on Tribal lands. The 

Tribe also requested that the Service 

review their ‘‘Conservation Plan for the 

Chapin Mesa Milkvetch (Astragalus 

schmolliae)’’ (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

2020, entire). The Tribe also provided a 

list of conservation efforts that they 

have undertaken that benefit the 

species. 

Our Response: As requested, we 

reviewed the Tribal ‘‘Conservation Plan 

for the Chapin Mesa Milkvetch 

(Astragalus schmolliae)’’ (Tribal Plan). 

We commend the Tribe’s commitment 

to conservation and appreciate the 

efforts they have already undertaken to 

aid the species. We find that this Tribal 

Plan, if implemented, would likely 

provide benefit to the species; although, 

due to uncertainty in future levels of 

implementation and effectiveness, 

future conservation efforts outlined in 

the Tribal Plan were not considered in 

our final listing decision. We do, 

however, recognize and value the 

conservation actions that the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe has already 

completed and is currently 

implementing to conserve this species, 

and we incorporated consideration of 

these activities in our final listing 

determination. 

(13) Comment: One commenter 

provided a comment in support of 

listing the species as endangered rather 

than threatened. They indicated that, as 

the species has only one potentially 

viable population that could be wiped 

out by a single catastrophic event (i.e., 

fire, fuel spill, illegal grazing) and as the 

species has low adaptability, the Service 

should list it as an endangered species 

rather than a threatened species. 

Our Response: An ‘‘endangered 

species’’ is defined by the Act as any 

species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Our determination about 

whether Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

warrants listing as endangered was 

informed by our analysis of the species’ 

current condition in our SSA, rather 

than the projected future condition of 

the species, because the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ states that the 

species is in danger of extinction now. 

The species currently has a large 

representative subunit (the unburned 

Chapin Mesa subunit) that is considered 

highly resilient. Additionally, the 

species currently has more than one 

extant population; all four 

representative units are currently in 

moderate condition, providing for some 

additional redundancy and adaptive 

capacity. Therefore, we determine that 

the current risk of extinction is low, and 

the species is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range. For 

more information on our determination 

that Chapin Mesa milkvetch does not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5770 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

meet the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species,’’ see 

Determination of Species Status, below. 

However, even when we examine the 

projected future condition of the 

species, in light of the new information 

in the Park’s conservation plan for 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch at Mesa Verde 

National Park, associated 

implementation plan, and wildfire 

emergency response procedure, we now 

find that Chapin Mesa milkvetch does 

not warrant listing as a threatened 

species under the Act. First, we 

conclude it is not plausible that a fuel 

spill or illegal grazing could occur to 

such an extent that it extirpates the 

entire Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

representative unit, particularly given 

its protected location on National Park 

and Tribal Park lands. Thus, we did not 

consider these stressors as part of our 

plausible future scenarios. Additionally, 

based on the Park’s commitments to 

maintain and restore pinyon-juniper 

overstory, to conduct fire management 

such that it reduces the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire in the Park while 

also minimizing impacts to the species, 

and to quickly suppress fire, the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch, including the resiliency of 

the Chapin Mesa representative unit, 

will likely remain the same or better 

than current condition into the 

foreseeable future; thus, the risk of 

extinction remains low for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch into the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch is not in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range 

nor is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. For more information 

on our determination that Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch does not meet the Act’s 

definition of a ‘‘threatened species,’’ see 

Determination of Species Status, below. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

range and distribution, life history, and 

ecology of the Chapin Mesa milkvetch is 

presented in the SSA report (Service 

2021a, pp. 3–14; available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055) and is briefly 

summarized here. Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is a narrow endemic, upright, 

perennial herb primarily found on the 

tops of mesas in southwestern Colorado 

in Montezuma County on land 

administered by the National Park 

Service (NPS) and the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe. Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a 

member of the family Fabaceae (legume 

family) and was known by the common 

name Schmoll’s milkvetch prior to 

2015. The stems of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch are purplish below, green 

above, tall (45 to 60 centimeters (cm) (18 

to 24 inches)), branching from the base, 

with short, stiff, appressed hairs (lying 

closely and flatly against the plant’s 

surface) on the foliage. Leaves are 

pinnate with 11 to 13 linear leaflets, 1 

to 2 millimeters (0.04 to 0.08 inches) 

wide, and 1 to 3 cm (0.4 to 0.8 inches) 

long. Flowers are yellowish-white or 

cream colored, and 12 to 13 cm (4.7 to 

5.1 inches) long with bracts that extend 

under the flower that have black hairs. 

The distinguishing characteristic of the 

species is the leathery pod (Service 

2021a, pp. 3–4). 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch plants emerge 

in early spring and usually begin 

flowering in late April or early May. 

Flowering continues into early or midJune; fruit set begins in late May and 

occurs through June; and, by late June, 

most fruits, while still attached to the 

plant, have opened and released their 

seeds (Service 2021a, p. 6). During very 

dry years, like many other Astragalus 

species, the plants can remain dormant 

with no above-ground growth (Colyer 

2003 in Anderson 2004, p. 11). Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch requires pollination by 

insects to set fruit; the flowers require 

a strong insect for pollination because 

the insect must force itself between the 

petals of the papilionaceous (butterflyshaped) flowers (Green 2012, p. 2). 

The emergence and density of Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch are strongly tied to 

winter precipitation. Years with ‘‘wet’’ 

winters (precipitation falling primarily 

as snow) precede high density counts, 

and years with dry winters translate to 

low or no emergence (Rondeau 2017, p. 

3). Climate requirements for seedling 

emergence and survival are not well 

known; however, we infer that spring 

moisture is also critical, as seedling 

survival relies on growing deep roots 

quickly (Rondeau 2017, p. 9). It is likely 

that winter moisture coupled with 

winter temperature is also important for 

seedlings due to available soil moisture 

for seedling survival (Rondeau 2017, p. 

16). 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch’s global 

distribution is constrained almost 

entirely to the Chapin Mesa within the 

Park and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal 

Park in southern Colorado, with some 

outlying areas on neighboring Park Mesa 

and West Chapin Spur, both of which 

are within the boundaries of the Park 

(Rondeau 2017, p. 1). Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat occupies 

approximately 2,000 acres (ac) (809 

hectares (ha)) in the Park (CNHP 2010, 

pp. 12–19; Anderson 2004, pp. 25, 30). 

While the species has been observed on 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, we 

do not know how much occupied 

habitat occurs there. 

The habitat for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is dense pinyon-juniper 

woodland of mesa tops, with deep, 

reddish, loess soil (Service 2021a, p. 7). 

Pinyon-juniper trees are easily killed by 

fires and are slow to regenerate (Romme 

et al. 2003, p. 344.). The historical fire 

regime of the pinyon-juniper woodlands 

on the mesa tops of the Mesa Verde area 

is characterized by lightning-caused, 

infrequent (around a 400-year rotation), 

stand-replacing fires, as opposed to lowseverity, stand-thinning fires (Romme et 

al. 2003, p. 338; Floyd et al. 2004, p. 

286). 

The best available information 

indicates that the species consists of one 

large, interconnected population. Like 

many rare plants, Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is globally rare, but is locally 

abundant throughout its occupied 

habitat (Rondeau 2017, p. 1). Regular 

monitoring has occurred in the Park 

since 2001 in established monitoring 

plots; however, the best available 

scientific information does not allow 

estimating a global population size or 

overall population density (Service 

2021a, p. 4). The existing monitoring 

reports provide insights into the levels 

of seedling survival in the Chapin Mesa 

representative unit, which we used to 

characterize resiliency in the SSA 

(Rondeau 2020, entire). They also 

provide information on the relationship 

between fire, seasonal precipitation, and 

various demographic characteristics 

(e.g., plant density and recruitment), 

which furthered our understanding of 

how and when wildfire impacts the 

plant (Rondeau 2020, entire). Finally, 

these monitoring reports provide 

information on plant density over time; 

levels of germination over time; amount 

of fruit production over time; age class 

ratios; and mortality rates over time in 

certain parts of the species’ range 

(Rondeau 2020, entire). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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 is 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 any species is an 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5771 

‘‘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 

determines whether the species meets 

the 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. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service 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 (see 84 FR 

45020, August 27, 2019, p. 45027). 

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 (50 CFR 424.11(d)). Data 

that are typically relevant to assessing 

the species’ biological response include 

species-specific 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 a decision by the 

Service 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 decisions, which involve 

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–R6–ES–2018–0055 on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess Chapin Mesa milkvetch’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

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

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. 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 at the individual, 

population, and species level. 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 decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

Below, we review the biological 

condition of the species and its needed 

resources, as well as stressors and 

conservation efforts that influence its 

condition, to assess the species’ overall 

viability and the risks to that viability. 

To evaluate the biological status of the 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch both currently 

and into the future, we assessed a range 

of conditions to consider the species’ 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. Because Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is considered to consist of 

one large population, for the purposes of 

our analysis, we divided the range of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch into four 

representative units, which are further 

broken down into subunits (Service 

2021a, p. 24). The Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch needs multiple, sufficiently 

resilient subunits distributed across its 

range to maintain populations into the 

future and to avoid extinction (Service 

2021a, pp. 7–13). 

We evaluated a number of stressors 

with the potential to influence the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5772 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

health and resiliency of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch populations, such as 

competition with nonnative, invasive 

plant species (i.e., cheatgrass, musk 

thistle, etc.); wildfire; drought; fire 

management activities; development of 

infrastructure; trampling; herbivory; and 

effects of climate change (Service 2021a, 

pp. 13–22). We found that the primary 

drivers influencing the species’ 

condition are the increased frequency of 

large, high-intensity wildfires; 

increasing presence of invasive, 

nonnative plants, especially cheatgrass; 

and the interaction between these 

elements, as explained further under 

Summary of Factors Influencing 

Viability, below, and in the SSA report 

(Service 2021a, pp. 27–33). 

As described above, we divided the 

range of Chapin Mesa milkvetch into 

four representative units (Chapin Mesa, 

West Chapin Spur, Park Mesa, and Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribal Park) (Service 

2021a, p. 24). We considered 

representative units to be most resilient 

when (1) they do not contain nonnative, 

invasive species or infrastructure 

development; (2) the unit has sufficient 

pinyon-juniper canopy cover and intact 

native understory; (3) seedling survival 

is sufficient in the unit; and (4) winter 

and spring precipitation levels are 

sufficient in the unit (Service 2021a, pp. 

24–33). Our analysis found that all four 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch analysis units 

currently have moderate levels of 

resiliency, with one large, unburned 

subunit in good condition. 

Given our uncertainty regarding the 

future effects of climate change, as well 

as the other stressors, we projected the 

future resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch under three plausible future 

scenarios. Our three future scenarios 

incorporate three climate scenarios 

developed by the North Central Climate 

Science Center in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, for the San Juan Basin in 

southwestern Colorado: (1) Hot and dry, 

(2) moderately hot, and (3) warm and 

wet (Rondeau et al. 2017, Appendix D, 

pp. 15–21). ‘‘Wet’’ winters are correlated 

with high Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

density counts, while dry winters 

translate to low or no emergence of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch in the spring 

(Rondeau 2017, p. 15). Data collected 

over 14 years of monitoring reveal a 

strong correlation between winter 

precipitation (as snow) and the density 

of Chapin Mesa milkvetch plants 

(Rondeau 2017, p. 15). However, climate 

change models forecast warmer 

temperatures and a decrease in 

precipitation, or change in the timing 

and type of precipitation, as compared 

to historical levels, by 2035 and through 

the end of the century (Rondeau et al. 

2017, Appendix D, pp. 15–21; Service 

2021a, pp. 34–35). 

We evaluated each of our three future 

scenarios in terms of how it would be 

expected to impact resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species by the year 2035. We selected 

the year 2035 for our evaluation of 

future scenarios based on available 

climate projections specific to the San 

Juan Basin in southwestern Colorado, 

where Chapin Mesa milkvetch habitat 

occurs, and based on available analyses 

on the response of pinyon-juniper 

communities to these climate changes. 

These climate models used downscaled 

data that model the range of plausible 

future climate conditions for the region 

to project changes in certain climate 

variables over time, predict the impact 

of these changes in climate variables on 

wildfire frequency and extent, and 

illustrate the impact of these climate 

changes and increased wildfire risk on 

the specific pinyon-juniper 

communities that support Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch under three climate scenarios 

(i.e., (1) hot and dry, (2) moderately hot, 

and (3) warm and wet) (Rondeau et al, 

2017, pp. 9–11; Appendix D, pp. 15–21). 

However, these downscaled analyses 

provided insight into the threat of 

wildfire and the response of pinyonjuniper communities only through the 

year 2035 (pp. 9–11). 

Under the same three climate 

scenarios, trends for temperature and 

precipitation projected through 2035 

will continue through 2100 in 

southwestern Colorado (Appendix C, 

pp. 11–14); climate conditions could 

still range from warm and wet to hot 

and dry by 2100 (Rondeau et al. 2017, 

Appendix C, pp. 11–14). More 

specifically, all three climate scenarios 

predict conditions will warm even 

further by 2100, although the extent to 

which the climate could warm by the 

end of the century varies between 

scenarios (Rondeau et al. 2017, 

Appendix C, pp. 12–13). Like the 

projections of climate conditions for 

2035, these projections of climate 

conditions through 2100 present 

uncertainty as to the extent that 

precipitation patterns could change, 

with some scenarios predicting wetter 

conditions and others predicting drier 

conditions (Rondeau et al. 2017, 

Appendix C, p. 14). While projections 

for temperature and precipitation in 

southwestern Colorado are available 

further into the future than 2035, we do 

not know specifically how these 

conditions could alter wildfire 

frequency or extent in pinyon-juniper 

communities in southwestern Colorado 

nor how these communities would 

respond to these climate conditions by 

the end of the century. Thus, the best 

available information on how potential 

future climate conditions could affect 

the specific ecological communities on 

which Chapin Mesa milkvetch depends 

consider this ecological response only 

through 2035 (Rondeau et al. 2017, pp. 

9–11). Given the uncertainties regarding 

wildfire risk and species’ response past 

2035, future conditions further into the 

21st century are less reliable and 

foreseeable (see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 

2019, p. 45027). We can, however, make 

reliable predictions about the threats to 

and response of Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

through 2035. 

The future scenarios we evaluated for 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch through 2035 

are as follows (scenarios are discussed 

in greater detail in the SSA report 

(Service 2021a, pp. 34– 36)): 

• Scenario 1 (‘‘Optimistic’’): 

Continuation of the current land 

management conditions under a ‘‘warm 

and wet’’ future climate change model; 

• Scenario 2 (‘‘Moderate’’): Slight 

increase in fire management activities 

(i.e., fuels reduction) and infrastructure 

development under a ‘‘moderately hot’’ 

future climate change model; and 

• Scenario 3 (‘‘Pessimistic’’): 

Significant increase in fire management 

activities and infrastructure 

development under a ‘‘hot and dry’’ 

future climate change model. 

Based on our analysis of future 

condition, the ‘‘Pessimistic’’ scenario is 

the only scenario under which 

resiliency could decrease for the species 

within the foreseeable future, primarily 

due to the increased risk of wildfire. 

Having a greater number of selfsustaining units distributed across the 

known range of the species is associated 

with an overall higher viability of the 

species into the future, as it increases 

redundancy. We anticipate that the 

largest Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

representative unit, Chapin Mesa, will 

continue to be occupied under all three 

future scenarios, but with reduced 

levels of resiliency under the 

‘‘Pessimistic’’ scenario (Service 2021a, 

pp. 37–41). This species inherently has, 

and has likely always had, a low level 

of redundancy and representation due 

to its endemism. Because there is only 

one large representative unit (Chapin 

Mesa) and three very small 

representative units (West Chapin Spur, 

Park Mesa, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribal 

Park), this species is at some risk from 

stochastic and catastrophic events and 

may have low adaptability to changing 

conditions (Service 2021a, p. 41). These 

future resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation projections in the SSA 

also do not take into account the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5773 

potential mitigating effects of the Park’s 

conservation efforts, which we discuss 

in additional detail below. 

The SSA report (Service 2021a, entire) 

contains a more detailed discussion of 

our evaluation of the biological status of 

the Chapin Mesa milkvetch and the 

influences that may affect its continued 

existence. Our conclusions are based 

upon the best available scientific and 

commercial data. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the 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 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Summary of Factors Influencing 

Viability 

As mentioned above under Regulatory 

Framework, a species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. Potential stressors to 

the Chapin Mesa milkvetch that we 

evaluated include invasive, nonnative 

plants (Factor A); wildfires (Factor A); 

post-fire mitigation (Factor A); wildfire 

and fuels management (Factor A); 

trampling and herbivory (Factors A and 

C); development of infrastructure 

(Factor A); drought (Factor A and Factor 

E); and effects of climate change (Factor 

A and Factor E) (Service 2021a, pp. 13– 

22). There is no evidence that 

overutilization (Factor B) of Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch, disease (Factor C), or 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species (Factor E) are 

occurring. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed 

further below. 

We evaluated each potential stressor, 

including its source, affected resources, 

exposure, immediacy, geographic scope, 

magnitude, and impacts on individuals 

and populations, and our level of 

certainty regarding this information, to 

determine which stressors were likely to 

be drivers of the species’ current 

condition (Service 2021a, Appendix A). 

Our analysis found that the primary 

drivers of Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

current and future condition are the 

increased frequency of large, highintensity wildfires; increasing presence 

of invasive, nonnative plants, especially 

cheatgrass; and the interaction between 

these elements, as explained further in 

the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 14– 

33). We offer a summary of the analysis 

here. 

Invasive, nonnative plants compete 

with Chapin Mesa milkvetch for space, 

nutrients, and water, and their invasion 

has been facilitated by the increased 

frequency of burns, as well as the 

creation of fire breaks, that has occurred 

within Chapin Mesa milkvetch habitat 

(CNHP 2006, p. 4). Wildfire affects 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch and its habitat 

by eliminating the fire-sensitive pinyonjuniper woodlands and native 

understory that the species needs 

(Service 2021a, p. 15), thereby opening 

up habitat to be colonized by nonnative 

grasses and clonal shrub species. 

Pinyon-juniper woodlands that have 

been burned extensively by wildfires in 

the past two decades are being replaced 

by significant invasions of nonnative 

species (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 1). 

Cheatgrass was not found in unburned 

woodland monitoring plots, whereas 

cheatgrass invasion ranges from 8 to 58 

percent cover in the burned monitoring 

plots (Rondeau 2017, p. 11). We do not 

have percent cover information on other 

invasive species within Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat at this time. The 

abundance of grasses, especially 

cheatgrass, western wheatgrass 

(Pascopyrum smithii), and smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis), within the 

species’ habitat is outside the natural 

range of variation, resulting in a lack of 

bare ground and biological soil crust, 

preventing natural succession or return 

to the pinyon-juniper woodland habitat 

that Chapin Mesa milkvetch needs, and 

also reducing the reproductive vigor of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch (Rondeau 2017, 

pers. comm.). 

Cheatgrass and other invasive, 

nonnative plant species have already 

invaded different parts of the species’ 

range to varying degrees. Five large, 

high-intensity fires have occurred in the 

Park and on a large portion of the 

adjacent Mesa Verde cuesta (i.e., long, 

sloping ridge) in the last two decades 

(Floyd et al. 2004, pp. 270, 283). A total 

of approximately 760.5 ac (307.8 ha) has 

burned out of the approximately 2,000 

ac (809 ha) of Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

habitat in the Park; this amounts to 38 

percent of Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

habitat in the Park. Climate projections 

for the San Juan Basin, Colorado, where 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch occurs, include 

increased temperatures, more intense 

and longer lasting heat waves, a longer 

fire season with greater frequency and 

extent of fires, and an increased 

probability of drought, although the 

extent of these increases varies between 

climate models and depends partly on 

future management (Rondeau et al. 

2017, p. 8). These factors could 

exacerbate the frequency and extent of 

catastrophic wildfires and the invasion 

of cheatgrass on Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

habitat in the future. 

Conservation and Management 

Activities 

In this determination, we consider 

both existing ongoing conservation and 

management activities that benefit 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch and future 

conservation efforts that comply with 

the Service’s PECE policy. The Service’s 

PECE policy (68 FR 15100; March 28, 

2003) provides a policy framework and 

criteria for evaluating, within a listing 

determination, conservation efforts that 

have not yet been implemented or have 

not yet demonstrated whether they are 

effective. For us to consider that a 

formalized conservation effort 

contributes to forming a basis for not 

listing a species or for listing a species 

as a threatened species rather than an 

endangered species, we must find that 

the conservation effort is sufficiently 

certain to be implemented and effective 

so as to have contributed to the 

elimination or adequate reduction of 

one or more threats to the species 

identified through the section 4(a)(1) 

analysis. 

First, existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) and other ongoing 

management efforts by the NPS and Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe provide benefits to 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch and lessen the 

influence of large, high-intensity 

wildfire, invasive species, and 

development on species’ viability, as the 

species is located entirely within the 

Park and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal 

Park. Both the Park and the Tribe 

already implement activities that reduce 

wildfire risk and preserve Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat. For example, since 

we published the proposed listing rule 

for this species, the Park shared a 

wildfire emergency response procedure 

with the Service, which governs all 

wildfire response in the Park (NPS 2020, 

entire). According to the Park’s wildfire 

emergency response procedure, the Park 

will immediately and fully suppress 

wildfires ‘‘while minimizing damage to 

resources from fire or suppression 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5774 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

operations’’ (NPS 2020, p. 2). The Park 

also has multiple on-site wildland 

firefighters, which facilitates quick 

response and suppression of fire 

(Spencer 2021, pers. comm). The Park 

will incorporate fire management 

measures currently in the conservation 

plan for Chapin Mesa milkvetch at Mesa 

Verde National Park, in the associated 

implementation plan, and in the 

wildfire emergency response procedure 

into a fire management plan by 2022 

(Spencer 2021, pers. comm., p. 2; NPS 

2020, entire). 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe: In January 

2020, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

finalized a conservation plan (Tribal 

plan) for Chapin Mesa milkvetch, which 

was adopted by Resolution by the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribal Council in 

February 2020 (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

2020, entire). The Tribal plan identifies 

conservation strategies that the Tribe 

will use on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian 

Reservation to enhance the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch. The Tribal plan 

calls for management decisions that 

mitigate direct and indirect impacts to 

the species and result in the distribution 

of the species across high-quality, 

contiguous habitat spanning a range of 

ecological conditions. While we 

conclude that this Tribal plan, if 

implemented, would likely provide 

benefit to the species, due to uncertainty 

in future levels of implementation and 

effectiveness, future conservation efforts 

outlined in the Tribal plan were not 

relied upon in our final listing decision. 

However, we can consider the 

conservation actions that the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe has completed and 

is currently undertaking to conserve this 

species in our final determination, 

because conservation actions already 

implemented and shown to be effective 

are not subject to PECE. For example, in 

2006, 2011, and 2018–2019, the Tribe 

created fire breaks on the northern end 

of Chapin Mesa within the Tribal Park 

to prevent the spread of large wildfires 

throughout the area (Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe 2021, p. 2). The Tribe is also 

participating in a collaborative research 

project with the Park, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and Northern 

Arizona University ‘‘to identify 

strategies to enhance Pinyon-juniper 

resilience in the context of fuels 

management, wildfire, and climate 

change’’ and is beginning to monitor the 

species on an annual basis (Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe 2021, p. 1). 

Additionally, the fact that the species’ 

habitat occurs within a Tribal Park 

provides additional protections, as the 

Tribe restricts human activities and land 

uses within this area (Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe 2021, p. 2). The Tribal Park unit 

has limited road access in Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat; however, this road is 

not often used, except for guided tours 

(Service 2021a, p. 31). This has likely 

limited the extent of any habitat loss or 

other human-caused disturbances to the 

species’ habitat within the Tribal Park. 

Thus, both the Park and the Tribe are 

currently managing their lands in a way 

that also benefits the species. 

Future Conservation Effort: NPS 

Conservation Plan: In addition to the 

activities that the Park and Tribe 

currently implement to protect pinyonjuniper habitat and reduce wildfire risk, 

the Park also finalized and approved the 

‘‘Conservation Plan for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch (Astragalus schmolliae) at 

Mesa Verde National Park’’ (NPS 2018, 

entire; referred to as ‘‘conservation 

plan’’) in September 2018, which details 

how the Park plans to conserve Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch in the future. To 

provide further clarity on the objectives 

and strategies in the conservation plan, 

the Park developed an implementation 

plan in February 2021 (NPS 2021, 

entire), which ‘‘takes objectives outlined 

in the Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

Conservation Plan and outlines 

strategies to meet these desired 

objectives. The goal of [the 

implementation plan] is to provide a 

planned strategy to execute the Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch conservation plan’’ 

(NPS 2021, p. 3). The conservation plan, 

and associated implementation plan, 

describe the Park’s conservation effort 

through detailing clear objectives, the 

strategies the Park will implement to 

achieve the objectives, estimated 

timelines for carrying out the strategies, 

funding sources, and Park staff 

responsible for implementing each 

strategy. The implementation plan is a 

key component in our determination 

that future conservation efforts within 

the Park under the conservation plan 

meet the requirements of the PECE 

policy (see analysis below). 

The conservation plan’s goal is to 

‘‘reduce threats and stressors to the 

species to ensure the resiliency, 

redundancy and representation of the 

species leading to a self-sustaining 

healthy population of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch. The most intact habitat and 

densest occurrences will receive the 

highest level of protection coupled with 

restoration of altered habitat’’ (NPS 

2018, p. 24). Conservation actions in the 

conservation plan focus on 

identification and protection of intact 

habitat, limitation of development, 

wildfire prevention, prompt response to 

and restoration after wildfire, enhanced 

connectivity, control of invasive plant 

species, and support of pollinators. 

The Service evaluated the Park’s 

conservation plan in accordance with 

the PECE policy (68 FR 15100; March 

28, 2003). Based on our analysis 

(Service 2021b, entire), which is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055 

and which we summarize here, we 

concluded that the Park’s conservation 

plan, and associated implementation 

plan, are sufficiently certain to be 

implemented and effective such that 

they could be considered as part of the 

basis for our final listing determination 

for the species. Using the criteria in 

PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), 

we evaluated the certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness of 

conservation measures in the 

conservation plan, and associated 

implementation plan. We determined 

that the measures will be implemented 

and effective at eliminating or reducing 

threats to the species because they will 

protect intact pinyon-juniper habitat, 

reduce wildfire risk, and restore 

degraded habitat (Service 2021b, entire). 

We have a high degree of certainty that 

the measures will be implemented 

because the NPS has a strong track 

record of implementing conservation 

measures similar to those covered in the 

conservation plan, has the legal 

authority to implement the plan, has 

detailed the funding source for each 

planned activity, has provided an 

implementation schedule (i.e., the 

implementation plan), and has 

approved the conservation plan (Service 

2021b, entire). The Park has already 

dedicated portions of its base budget 

towards carrying out Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch conservation and monitoring 

(Spencer 2021, pers. comm., entire). The 

Park also has already leveraged 

partnerships to secure funding and 

support of projects that benefit the 

species (Spencer 2021, pers. comm., 

entire). In both the implementation plan 

and the Superintendent’s January 2021 

letter to the Service, the Park indicates 

that it will use Park budgets and 

recreation fees to implement the 

majority of measures in the conservation 

plan, while pursuing additional funding 

through partnerships (NPS 2021, p. 3; 

Spencer 2021, pers. comm., entire). 

Further supporting the certainty of 

implementation, since the Park finalized 

and approved the conservation plan in 

September 2018, the Park has been 

implementing the strategies prescribed 

in the conservation plan, activities they 

summarize in a January 20, 2021, letter 

to the Service (Spencer 2021, pers. 

comm., entire). For example, the Park 

has identified key areas for Chapin Mesa 

conservation and is limiting disturbance 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5775 

and development in these areas, has 

developed a wildfire emergency 

response procedure, has funded a 

genetic study of the species, is 

conducting soil analyses to determine 

suitable conditions for the plant, has 

drafted a livestock removal 

implementation plan, and is 

investigating methods to manage and 

restore pinyon-juniper habitat (Spencer 

2021, pers. comm., pp. 1–3). Over the 

past 3 years, the Park has also 

successfully kept development below 

the limits established for each of the 

three different types of habitat described 

in the conservation plan, preserving 

important habitat for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch. The conservation plan has 

sufficient monitoring and adaptive 

management provisions to ensure that 

all of the conservation measures are 

implemented as planned and are 

effective at reducing threats to the 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch. 

Due to the certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

conservation plan in accordance with 

PECE, we considered the conservation 

plan’s impacts on the species in our 

listing determination. This conservation 

plan, and its associated implementation 

plan, alter our understanding of the 

range of plausible future scenarios 

presented in the SSA report; the 

projections of future resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation in the 

SSA report; and the risk associated with 

future stressors. In the SSA, Scenario 3 

(the ‘‘Pessimistic’’ scenario) is the only 

scenario that would result in worsened 

conditions for the plant. However, as we 

explain in additional detail below, 

based on the commitments and 

strategies in the PECE-compliant 

conservation plan, we know that the 

negative impacts of fire management 

captured in the ‘‘Pessimistic’’ future 

scenario (Scenario 3) will not occur 

(Service 2021b, entire). 

In the September 17, 2020, proposed 

rule to list Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a 

threatened species (85 FR 58224), we 

expressed uncertainty regarding the 

benefits of the Park’s management 

efforts, specifically how development 

and fuels management activities in the 

Park could impact the plant. In the 

proposed rule, we stated that 

management activities conducted 

within the Park, such as fuels and fire 

management, and the development of 

visitor-related infrastructure, may have 

direct and indirect impacts to the 

species (85 FR 58224, September 17, 

2020, p. 58230). In the proposed rule, 

we stated that while fuels reduction 

activities may help decrease the 

likelihood of catastrophic fires, they 

may also have detrimental impacts such 

as trampling, creating surface 

disturbances and altering ecological 

conditions, or facilitating nonnative 

species invasion, and that the 

development of existing infrastructure, 

such as roads, parking lots, a wastewater 

treatment facility, and buildings within 

the Park has resulted in a loss of 

approximately 2 percent of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat (85 FR 58224, 

September 17, 2020, p. 58230). We also 

noted that several additional 

infrastructure and fire management 

projects were planned or under 

consideration within Mesa Verde 

National Park (85 FR 58224, September 

17, 2020, p. 58230). 

The provisions in the Park’s 

conservation plan now provide 

assurances that alleviate these concerns 

about potential negative impacts from 

development and fuels management. We 

know that any increases in development 

predicted under Scenarios 2 and 3 

would be within the limits established 

in the conservation plan and any fire 

management activities would be carried 

out with conservation measures that 

minimize impacts to Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch (NPS 2018, pp. 24–30; NPS 

2021, pp. 4–22). For example, the 

conservation plan only allows the Park 

to develop an additional 1.8 percent of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch ‘‘Level 1’’ 

habitat (intact, old-growth pinyon 

juniper woodland) (NPS 2018, p. 27). 

Moreover, this development will 

incorporate minimization measures to 

reduce impacts of any development on 

the species and its habitat (Objectives 3 

and 10 in NPS 2021, pp. 10–11, 21–22). 

The conservation plan also limits the 

areas in which the Park will conduct 

fuels treatments and details measures to 

minimize the impacts of these 

treatments; while fuels treatments can 

help prevent catastrophic fire, these 

activities can also incidentally 

negatively impact Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch habitat through trampling, 

facilitation of cheatgrass invasion, and 

small-scale burning of plants if Park 

staff members burn excess fuel on top of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch habitat. The 

conservation plan dictates that the Park 

will only conduct fuels reduction 

management in an additional 19 percent 

of Chapin Mesa milkvetch habitat in the 

Park and that all of these treatments will 

include the adoption of minimization 

measures to protect Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch and its habitat, such as handcarrying out fuels instead of pile 

burning, when possible (NPS 2018, p. 

14; Objectives 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 in NPS 

2021, pp. 11–27, 18–19, 21–22). These 

minimization measures lessen the 

potentially negative side-effects that 

fuels management could have on 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch and its habitat 

and will result in a 50 percent reduction 

of impacts to the species from fuels 

management in the future (NPS 2018, p. 

14; Objectives 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 in NPS 

2021, pp. 11–27, 18–19, 21–22). By 

reducing the intensity of treatments and 

incorporating minimization measures, 

the fuels management detailed in the 

conservation plan will likely provide a 

net benefit to Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

because it will protect the species and 

its habitat from large-scale, standreplacing wildfires while reducing 

direct impacts of treatments on the plant 

and its habitat. 

Furthermore, according to the 

implementation plan, the Park ‘‘will not 

plan development or fuels management 

treatments on Park Mesa or West Chapin 

Mesa Spur so that these sites can be 

retained for future introductions or 

range expansions’’ (NPS 2018, p. 27); in 

the conservation plan, the Park commits 

to developing a plan for reintroduction 

on Park Mesa (NPS 2018, pp. 30–31). 

The Park will research and pursue an ex 

situ conservation effort (NPS 2018, p. 

33; NPS 2021, p. 27). Pending the 

outcomes of soil and habitat suitability 

studies, the Park is also preserving 6,264 

acres on North Chapin Mesa, Park Mesa, 

and Moccasin Mesa in sufficient 

condition to allow for introduction if 

necessary (Spencer 2021, pers. comm., 

p. 2; NPS 2018, p. 31). If the Park deems 

reintroduction projects necessary and 

pursues them, this reintroduction could 

provide additional redundancy for the 

species in the future, though this 

remains uncertain and we did not rely 

on these potential increases in our 

analysis of species status (NPS 2021, pp. 

11–12). 

Additionally, the conservation plan’s 

provisions address the threat of 

nonnative, invasive vegetation that we 

identified as a concern in the proposed 

rule. The risk of invasion of nonnative 

vegetation is already low in areas with 

intact pinyon-juniper overstory. In the 

conservation plan, the Park commits to 

maintaining minimal disturbance and 

development in these areas with intact 

pinyon-juniper overstory to reduce the 

likelihood of nonnative plant invasion 

in these highly resilient areas. The Park 

also commits to recovering burned, 

degraded areas such that pinyon-juniper 

trees are restored ‘‘to more than 10 

percent canopy cover’’ and invasive 

plants are reduced ‘‘to less than 5 

percent cover,’’ further reducing the risk 

invasive vegetation poses to the species 

(NPS 2018, pp. 26, 29; NPS 2021, pp. 7– 

9, 19–21). The Park is collaborating with 

the Tribe to research effective methods 

of restoring pinyon-juniper habitat 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(Spencer 2021, pers. comm., p. 3; NPS 

2021, pp. 7–9). 

The September 17, 2020, proposed 

rule (85 FR 58224) also attributed risk 

of extinction in the foreseeable future to 

the high potential for a future 

catastrophic event, such as a 

catastrophic wildfire, that could affect 

all or a large portion of the species’ 

range, given the species’ inherently 

limited redundancy and the fact that 97 

percent of the species’ known range is 

concentrated in the Park. The 

conservation plan, implementation 

plan, and the Park’s new standard 

operating procedures for wildfire 

management, which are documented in 

their 2020 wildfire emergency response 

procedure, also shed new light on these 

concerns. As we explain above, the 

strategies and commitments in the 

conservation plan and implementation 

plan indicate that the management 

actions predicted in Scenario 3 will not 

occur in the future; we know that the 

Park will not do less invasive species 

control, will not significantly increase 

potentially detrimental fire management 

activities, will not significantly increase 

development, and will not open 

currently closed roads and trails (NPS 

2018, pp. 24–30; NPS 2021, pp. 4–22). 

Scenario 3 was the only scenario in the 

SSA report that would result in 

worsened conditions for the species. 

However, while the provisions in the 

conservation plan ensure that the 

management components of this 

‘‘pessimistic’’ future scenario will not 

occur, the ‘‘hot and dry’’ climate 

conditions associated with this scenario 

could still happen (Service 2021a, p. 

39). These climate conditions could 

increase the frequency of wildfire 8-fold 

and the amount of area burned 11-fold, 

which partially influenced the 

worsened resiliency in this future 

scenario in the SSA (Rondeau et al. 

2017, pp. 10–11, 15–17, Appendices C 

and D). However, these projected 

increased risks and impacts of 

catastrophic wildfire assume no fire 

management or prevention. Wildfire 

management and response measures in 

the Park’s conservation plan, 

implementation plan, and wildfire 

emergency response procedure, which 

the Park has committed to incorporating 

into a long-term fire management plan 

by 2022, ensure that the Park will take 

action to prevent fire, while minimizing 

impacts of this management on the 

species; they also ensure that the Park 

will respond to fire immediately with 

the intent to fully suppress it (NPS 

2018, pp. 27–29; NPS 2020, entire; NPS 

2021, pp. 12–17). These efforts decrease 

the potential influence of climate 

change and associated wildfire on the 

species in all future scenarios, further 

reducing the plausibility and likelihood 

of the resiliency outcomes of the 

‘‘Pessimistic’’ future scenario, the only 

scenario in which the species’ future 

resiliency would worsen relative to 

current condition. 

Determination of Species 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 definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘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 an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘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. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch. Potential stressors to the 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch that we 

evaluated include invasive, nonnative 

plants (Factor A); wildfires (Factor A); 

post-fire mitigation (Factor A); wildfire 

and fuels management (Factor A); 

trampling and herbivory (Factors A and 

C); development of infrastructure 

(Factor A); drought (Factor A and Factor 

E); and effects of climate change (Factor 

A and Factor E) (Service 2021a, pp. 13– 

22). There is no evidence that 

overutilization (Factor B) of Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch, disease (Factor C), or 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species (Factor E) are 

occurring. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed 

above. 

We evaluated each potential stressor, 

including its source, affected resources, 

exposure, immediacy, geographic scope, 

magnitude, and impacts on individuals 

and populations, and our level of 

certainty regarding this information, to 

determine which stressors were likely to 

be drivers of the species’ current 

condition (Service 2021a, Appendix A). 

Our analysis found that the primary 

drivers of the Chapin Mesa milkvetch’s 

current and future condition are the 

increased frequency of large, highintensity wildfires; increasing presence 

of invasive, nonnative plants, especially 

cheatgrass; and the interaction between 

these elements, as explained further in 

the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 13– 

22). 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

In our September 17, 2020, proposed 

rule to list Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a 

threatened species (85 FR 58224), we 

concluded that the species did not meet 

the definition of an endangered species 

under the Act. The new information we 

received since we published that 

proposed rule does not change our 

original conclusion regarding the 

species’ current risk of extinction. We 

still find that the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range. The 

species currently has a large 

representative subunit (the unburned 

Chapin Mesa subunit) that is considered 

highly resilient, based on the quality of 

habitat conditions for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch. This large area of habitat 

(1,265 ac (512 ha)) in a highly resilient 

subunit likely provides the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch some ability to withstand 

stochastic events, such as drought, that 

are within the normal range of yearly 

variation, and to complete its life cycle. 

Additionally, all four representative 

units are currently in moderate 

condition, providing for some 

additional redundancy and 

representation, given the relatively 

healthy status of multiple representative 

units across the species’ range. 

Moreover, three of these four units 

occur on geographically separate mesa 

tops; the steep cliffs between these mesa 

tops provide natural fire breaks between 

the representative units, reducing the 

likelihood that a single wildfire could 

impact all four representative units at 

the same time. In addition to these 

natural fire breaks, the constructed fire 

break between the Park and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribal Park further 

enhances redundancy of the species, 

limiting the ability of a catastrophic 

wildfire to spread along Chapin Mesa 

and impact representative units in both 

the Park and on Tribal lands. Therefore, 

the risk of extinction now is low, and 

the species is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range. 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as any species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5777 

significant portion of its range and a 

‘‘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. As we discuss in detail under 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats, the best available information 

on how potential future climate 

conditions could affect the specific 

ecological communities on which 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch depends 

considers this ecological response only 

through 2035 (Rondeau et al. 2017, pp. 

9–11). Given the uncertainties regarding 

wildfire risk and species’ response past 

2035, future conditions further into the 

21st century are less reliable and 

foreseeable (see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 

2019, p. 45027). We can, however, make 

reliable predictions about the threats to 

and response of Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

through 2035. We thus consider the 

foreseeable future for the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch to be to the year 2035, given 

the available climate data specific to the 

San Juan Basin in southwestern 

Colorado, where Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch occurs, and based on the 

available analyses on the response of 

pinyon-juniper communities to these 

climate changes. 

Based on the new information in the 

Park’s conservation plan, 

implementation plan, and wildfire 

emergency response procedure, we find 

that the Chapin Mesa milkvetch is not 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. First, we now know that any 

increases in development predicted 

under Scenarios 2 and 3 would be 

within the limits established in the 

conservation plan and any fire 

management activities would be carried 

out with conservation measures that 

minimize impacts to Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch (NPS 2018, pp. 24–30; NPS 

2021, pp. 4–22). More generally, we 

know that the Park’s conservation plan 

and implementation plan indicate that 

the management components of 

Scenario 3 will not come to fruition; we 

know that the Park will not do less 

invasive species control, will not 

significantly increase potentially 

detrimental fire management activities, 

will not significantly increase 

development, and will not open 

currently closed roads and trails (NPS 

2018, pp. 24–30; NPS 2021, pp. 4–22). 

Second, the Park’s conservation plan, 

implementation plan, and new wildfire 

emergency response procedure, which 

the Park has committed to incorporating 

into a long-term fire management plan 

by 2022, ensure that the Park will take 

action to prevent fire, while minimizing 

impacts of this management on the 

species; they also ensure that the Park 

will respond to fire immediately with 

the intent to fully suppress it (NPS 

2018, pp. 27–29; NPS 2020, entire; NPS 

2021, pp. 12–17). These conservations 

efforts decrease the potential influence 

of climate change and associated 

wildfire on the species in all future 

scenarios, further reducing the 

plausibility and likelihood of the 

outcomes of Scenario 3, the only 

scenario in which the species’ future 

condition would worsen relative to 

current condition. 

Given the Park’s commitments in the 

conservation plan and implementation 

plan, which we describe in additional 

detail in Summary of Factors 

Influencing Viability above, it is likely 

that the resiliency of the representative 

units in the Park (Chapin Mesa, Park 

Mesa, and West Chapin Spur) will 

remain the same as current condition or 

improve in the foreseeable future due to 

habitat restoration efforts and 

management of wildfire risk. These 

maintained or improved levels of 

resiliency would continue to provide for 

reduced catastrophic risk and enhanced 

ability to adapt to future environmental 

change, especially considering the 

inherently limited range of this narrow 

endemic plant. The four extant 

representative units distributed across 

three geographically distinct mesa tops 

reduces the risk of losing all individuals 

in a catastrophic fire, especially 

considering that the separate mesa tops 

provide natural fire breaks that would 

prevent fire from spreading between 

representative units. The constructed 

fire break between Mesa Verde National 

Park and the Tribal Park further reduces 

the likelihood of fire spreading along 

Chapin Mesa, between the Park and 

Tribal land. 

Even though much uncertainty 

remains as to the condition of Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch occurrences on Tribal 

lands, both now and into the future, we 

analyzed the status of the species based 

on the best available information on the 

future of species’ threats and 

conservation efforts. While the Tribe is 

actively providing conservation for the 

species, information about the future of 

the species’ threats and conservation is 

currently only available and certain for 

the occurrences in the Park. However, 

the certainty of implementation and 

effectiveness of conservation efforts in 

the Park, in addition to the fire breaks 

between Mesa Verde National Park and 

the Tribal Park, provided confidence 

that the species would maintain 

sufficient levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation into the 

foreseeable future, even without 

similarly certain future conservation 

commitments on Tribal lands. 

The Park’s implementation plan, 

which was provided after we published 

the proposed rule, in addition to new 

standard operating procedures for fire 

management at the Park, documented in 

the wildfire emergency response 

procedure, thus reduce the likelihood of 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch becoming an 

endangered species in the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, based on the Park’s 

commitments to maintain and restore 

pinyon-juniper overstory, to conduct 

fire management such that it reduces the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire in the Park 

while also minimizing impacts to the 

species, and to quickly suppress fire, the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch will likely remain the same or 

better than current condition into the 

foreseeable future; thus, the risk of 

extinction remains low for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch into the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Chapin Mesa milkvetch is not in 

danger of extinction now nor is it likely 

to become so in 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 in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that the Chapin Mesa milkvetch is not 

in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range, we now 

consider whether it may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in 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 in 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 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. 

Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a narrow 

endemic that functions as a single, 

contiguous population and occurs 

within a very small area. As described 

in the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 

4–5), the species’ global distribution is 

constrained almost entirely to Chapin 

Mesa in southern Colorado, with some 

outlying subunits on neighboring Park 

Mesa and West Chapin Spur (Rondeau 

2017, p. 1). Chapin Mesa milkvetch 

habitat occupies approximately 2,000 ac 

(809 ha) in the Park (CNHP 2010, pp. 

12–19; Anderson 2004, p. 25, 30). This 

species is considered to consist of one 

large, interconnected population, and 

like many rare plants, Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch is globally rare, but is locally 

abundant throughout its occupied 

habitat (Rondeau 2017, p. 1). Thus, 

there is no biologically meaningful way 

to break this limited range into portions, 

and the threats that the species faces 

affect the species throughout its entire 

range. This means that no portions of 

the species’ range have a different status 

from its rangewide status. Therefore, no 

portion of the species’ range can provide 

a basis for determining that the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range, and we 

find the species is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This is consistent 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 

No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 

4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

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

2017). 

Determination of Status 

We have reviewed the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats to the Chapin Mesa milkvetch, 

and we have determined that Chapin 

Mesa milkvetch does not meet the 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 3(20), 

respectively, of the Act. Therefore, we 

are withdrawing our proposed rule to 

list the Chapin Mesa milkvetch as a 

threatened species and to designate 

critical habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this document and the Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch SSA report are available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2018–0055 and upon 

request from the Colorado Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Colorado 

Ecological Services Office and the 

Mountain-Prairie Regional Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02041 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1