Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25197 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Nelson’s 

Checker-Mallow From the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove Nelson’s checker-mallow 

(Sidalcea nelsoniana) from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicates 

that the threats to Nelson’s checkermallow have been eliminated or 

reduced to the point that the species no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). If we finalize this rule 

as proposed, the prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would no longer apply to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. We request 

information and comments from the 

public regarding this proposed rule and 

the draft post-delisting monitoring 

(PDM) plan for Nelson’s checkermallow. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

June 27, 2022. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by June 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking (presented above in the 

document headings). Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

This proposed rule and supporting 

documents, including references cited, 

the 5-year review, the recovery plan, the 

species status assessment (SSA) report, 

and the draft PDM plan, are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone: 503–231–6179. Individuals 

in the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons we should or should not 

remove Nelson’s checker-mallow from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ the species). 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of Nelson’s checkermallow. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow that may have adverse 

or beneficial impacts on the species. 

(6) The draft PDM plan for Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information received 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species should remained listed as 

threatened, or we may conclude that the 

species should be reclassified from 

threatened to endangered. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25198 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for 

Nelson’s checker-mallow. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists; the 

SSA team also consulted with other 

experts on the species. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994), our August 22, 2016, Director’s 

Memo on the Peer Review Process, and 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

December 16, 2004, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(revised June 2012), we solicited 

independent scientific reviews of the 

information contained in Nelson’s 

checker-mallow SSA report. We sent the 

SSA report to four independent peer 

reviewers and received no responses. 

The SSA report was also submitted to 

our Federal, State, municipal, Tribal, 

and conservation partners for scientific 

review. We received review from two 

partners, representing a Federal agency 

and a nonprofit conservation partner. In 

preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the final 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this proposed rule. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On February 12, 1993, we published 

in the Federal Register (58 FR 8235) a 

final rule listing Nelson’s checkermallow as a threatened species. We 

finalized the Recovery Plan for the 

Prairie Species of Western Oregon and 

Southwestern Washington, which 

includes Nelson’s checker-mallow, in 

2010 (Service 2010, entire). We 

conducted a 5-year status review in 

2012 and did not recommend 

reclassification (Service 2012, entire). 

On May 7, 2018, we announced in the 

Federal Register (83 FR 20088) our 

initiation of a subsequent 5-year review 

for the species. We completed the status 

review in 2021 and therein 

recommended delisting the species. 

Proposed Delisting Determination 

Background 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is an 

herbaceous perennial plant in the 

mallow family (Malvaceae). It produces 

30 to 100 lavender to deep-pink flowers, 

arranged on an elongated, branched 

stalk. Plants produce short, thick, 

twisted rhizomes (creeping 

underground stems), as well as a system 

of fine roots extending from a taproot (a 

stout main root) (Service 2010, pp. F–3– 

F–4). 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is found in 

the Willamette Valley and the Coast 

Range of Oregon and Washington. It 

occupies a variety of prairie habitats and 

soil types, but is typically associated 

with open sites. In the Willamette 

Valley, the species occasionally occurs 

in the understory of Oregon ash 

(Fraxinus latifolia) woodlands or among 

woody shrubs, but more frequently 

occupies native prairie remnants, 

including those at the margins of 

sloughs, ditches, streams, roadsides, 

fence rows, drainage swales, and fallow 

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

the Coast Range, Nelson’s checkermallow populations typically occur in 

open, wet to dry meadows, in 

intermittent stream channels, and along 

margins of coniferous forests (Glad et al. 

1987, pp. 259–262). 

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

become established at a site, they 

usually persist (Bartow 2020, pers. 

comm.). Their long taproot allows them 

to access subsurface water sources, and 

individual plants are long-lived (Dillon 

2021, pers. comm.). In addition, 

regeneration from the taproot is possible 

after the above-ground and upper 

taproot portions of the plant have been 

removed (Dillon 2021, pers. comm.). 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow is presented in the SSA 

report, version 1.0 (Service 2021, 

entire). 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

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

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

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

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The Recovery Plan for the Prairie 

Species of Western Oregon and 

Southwestern Washington (recovery 

plan) divides the geographic area 

covered by included species into 

recovery zones, which provides a 

framework for recovering the species’ 

historical ranges. Nelson’s checkermallow historically occupied seven 

recovery zones: SW Washington, 

Portland, Coast Range, Salem East, 

Salem West, Corvallis East, and 

Corvallis West. The following 

discussion provides an assessment of 

the species’ status relative to the five 

delisting criteria outlined in the 

recovery plan. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25199 

Delisting Criterion 1: Distribution and 

Abundance 

The recovery plan specifies that the 

distribution of populations should 

reflect the extent of the species’ 

historical geographic distribution to the 

extent practicable and identifies goals 

for a minimum number of populations 

and target number of plants per recovery 

zone, as follows: 5,000 plants in one 

population in the Portland recovery 

zone; 10,000 plants in two populations 

in the SW Washington, Salem East, and 

Corvallis East recovery zones; 15,000 

plants in three populations in the Coast 

Range recovery zone; and 20,000 plants 

in four populations in the Salem West 

and Corvallis West recovery zones. The 

recovery plan further specifies that, 

with the exception of the Portland 

recovery zone, these targets may be 

achieved with a combination of at least 

two populations that number at least 

2,000 individuals; and scattered 

independent populations must number 

at least 200 individuals. The rangewide 

delisting goal is 100,000 plants 

occurring in 20 populations. 

Currently, a total of 334,968 

individual plants are distributed across 

the historical range of the species. 

Considering only sites that meet the 

minimum threshold of 200 individuals 

required to be considered an 

independent population, there are 

332,935 individual plants, found in 42 

populations and distributed across six 

of the seven recovery zones. 

Two recovery zones, Corvallis West 

and Salem West, meet both the 

abundance and distribution goals 

outlined in the recovery plan. 

Collectively, these two recovery zones 

contain 71 percent of the populations 

(30 populations) and 95 percent of the 

individual plants (313,662 plants) 

known to exist. A third zone, Salem 

East, contains 9,519 plants, occurring in 

three populations, essentially meeting 

the distribution and abundance goals of 

10,000 plants distributed among two 

populations. Three of the remaining 

zones, Coast Range, Portland, and SW 

Washington, have the minimum number 

of populations but do not meet the 

recovery goals for abundance. The 

remaining zone, Corvallis East, does not 

have any populations that meet the 

minimum population threshold of 200 

individual plants. 

Rangewide, the abundance and 

distribution goal of 100,000 plants in 20 

populations has been exceeded. 

Although the plants and populations are 

not distributed among recovery zones 

precisely as identified in the recovery 

plan, they are relatively well distributed 

throughout the historical range of the 

species. Therefore, we conclude that the 

intent of this criterion, which is to 

minimize extinction risk by ensuring a 

sufficient number and distribution of 

plants and populations, has been 

satisfied. 

Delisting Criterion 2: Population Trend 

and Evidence of Reproduction 

The recovery plan notes that the 

number of individuals in the population 

(or area of foliar cover) shall have been 

stable or increasing over a period of at 

least 15 years. Stable does not mean that 

the population size is static over time; 

over a period of 15 years, the number of 

individuals in the population may 

exhibit natural year-to-year variability, 

but the trend must not be declining. 

Populations must show evidence of 

reproduction by seed set or presence of 

seedlings. 

Tracking trends for individual 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites and 

populations over time is confounded by 

irregular surveys and varying 

methodologies. However, the overall 

abundance of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

has increased markedly since listing. 

Rangewide, the number of populations 

with greater than 200 plants, and the 

total number of plants, continues to 

increase. In addition, more sites have a 

large number of individuals than at the 

time of listing. At the time of listing in 

1993, 19 sites had more than 100 plants, 

and only 5 sites had more than 1,000 

plants. In 2012, 26 sites had more than 

100 plants, and 4 had over 1,000 plants 

(Service 2012, pp. 17–19). Currently, 28 

sites have more than 100 plants, and 24 

sites have more than 1,000 plants 

(Service 2021, p. 18). These data 

indicate an overall positive trend since 

the time of listing, as well as since the 

2012 5-year review. Additionally, 

natural reproduction is occurring on 

most sites and overall abundance is 

increasing throughout the recovery 

zones. Given that the number of 

individual plants and the number of 

large populations continue to 

demonstrate a positive trend, we 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met. 

Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat Quality 

and Management 

The recovery plan specifies that sites 

supporting populations of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow must meet three criteria 

related to habitat quality and 

management: 

1. Prairie quality. Sites supporting 

populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

must be managed for high-quality 

prairie habitat, which consists of a 

diversity of native, non-woody plant 

species; low frequency of aggressive, 

nonnative plant species and 

encroaching woody species; and 

essential habitat elements for native 

pollinators. 

2. Security of habitat. A substantial 

portion of the habitat for the 

populations should either be owned or 

managed by a government agency or 

private conservation organization that 

identifies maintenance of the species 

and the prairie ecosystem upon which 

it depends as the primary management 

objective for the site, or the site must be 

protected by a permanent or long-term 

conservation easement or covenant that 

commits present and future landowners 

to the conservation of the species. 

3. Management, monitoring, and 

control of threats. Each population must 

be managed appropriately to ensure the 

maintenance or restoration of quality 

prairie habitat and to control threats to 

the species. Use of herbicides, mowing, 

burning, or livestock grazing in 

management should be implemented 

with appropriate methods and timing to 

avoid impacts to listed plant species. 

Management should be coordinated 

with adjacent landowners to minimize 

effects of pesticide drift, changes in 

hydrology, timber harvest, or road/ 

utility maintenance. Species that may 

hybridize with Nelson’s checker-mallow 

should be managed as appropriate to 

avoid contact with these taxa. Other 

potential threats relating to scientific 

research, overcollection, vandalism, 

recreational impacts, or natural 

herbivory/parasitism should be 

successfully managed so as not to 

significantly impair recovery of the 

species. Management and monitoring 

plans must be approved by the Service 

and should include standardized 

monitoring and performance criteria 

that will be used to assess the plans’ 

effectiveness following implementation 

and to allow for adaptive management, 

as necessary. Management plans should 

include a focus on protecting habitat 

heterogeneity within protected sites and 

across a range of elevations and aspects 

to buffer the potential effects of climate 

change. 

We can gauge the degree to which this 

criterion has been met by considering 

the management and ownership of sites 

that contain Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Of sites that have greater than 200 

plants and, therefore, meet the 

definition of an independent 

population, 38 have formal management 

plans that address habitat quality and 

threats. Similarly, 26 populations are in 

public ownership and thus are 

considered protected; one additional 

site is owned and protected by a 

nongovernmental conservation 

organization, while 11 privately owned 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25200 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

sites are protected by conservation 

easements. Four Nelson’s checkermallow sites have no protection and 

lack management plans. Together, these 

four sites account for less than 1 percent 

of the total number of Nelson’s checkermallow plants. That a majority of sites 

known to support Nelson’s checkermallow are managed in accordance with 

a formal management plan and are 

protected by virtue of ownership or 

conservation easement ameliorates 

concerns associated with the quality, 

security, and threat to prairie habitat. 

Therefore, we conclude that this 

recovery criterion has been met. 

Delisting Criterion 4: Genetic Material Is 

Stored in a Facility Approved by the 

Center for Plant Conservation 

The recovery plan specifies that 

stored genetic material in the form of 

seeds must represent the species’ 

geographic distribution and genetic 

diversity through collections across the 

full range of the species. Collections 

from large populations are particularly 

important as reservoirs of genetic 

variability within the species. 

Nelson’s checker-mallow seeds are 

currently stored at four separate 

repositories. The majority of stored 

seeds are located at the Corvallis Plant 

Materials Center (PMC) operated by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) in Corvallis, 

Oregon. Approximately 408 kilograms 

(900 pounds) of seeds, or about 

112,500,000 seeds, are stored at this 

facility. Seeds in this collection were 

sourced primarily from production 

fields, which are maintained 

specifically to produce seed, and are 

used for habitat restoration, population 

augmentation, and out-planting 

throughout the range of the species. In 

addition, approximately 29,000 seeds 

are stored at the Rae Selling Berry Seed 

Bank at Portland State University in 

Portland, Oregon. This collection was 

sourced from Lane, Linn, Benton, 

Marion, Polk, Yamhill, and Tillamook 

Counties in Oregon, and Lewis County 

in Washington. A third, smaller 

collection of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

seeds is held at the Miller Seed Vault, 

at the University of Washington’s 

Botanical Gardens in Seattle, 

Washington. Approximately 705 seeds 

from locations in Washington are stored 

there. In addition to storage in these 

three regional repositories, a subset of 

seed from the Rae Selling Berry Seed 

Bank and the Miller Seed Vault has 

been sent to the National Laboratory for 

Genetic Resource Preservation at 

Colorado State University in Fort 

Collins, Colorado. Both the Rae Selling 

Berry Seed Bank and Colorado State 

University facility are certified by the 

Center for Plant Conservation. 

Collectively, stored seed represents the 

geographic range of Nelson’s checkermallow, and part of this stored seed is 

in Center for Plant Conservationcertified facilities. Therefore, we 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met. 

Delisting Criterion 5: Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plans and Agreements to 

Continue Post-Delisting Monitoring Are 

in Place and Ready for Implementation 

at the Time of Delisting 

The recovery plan specifies that 

monitoring of populations following 

delisting will verify the ongoing 

recovery of the species, provide a basis 

for determining whether the species 

should be again placed under the 

protection of the Act, and provide a 

means of assessing the continuing 

effectiveness of management actions. 

A draft PDM plan for Nelson’s 

checker-mallow has been developed 

that outlines an approach to monitoring 

Nelson’s checker-mallow for a period of 

6 years after the species is delisted. It 

addresses the current status of the 

species and provides details associated 

with monitoring methods and 

implementation, including site 

selection, data analysis, monitoring 

schedules, and reporting expectations. It 

also describes potential outcomes in the 

context of how secure the species 

remains after delisting. In addition, the 

draft PDM plan outlines roles and 

responsibilities and estimates associated 

costs. The draft PDM plan is available 

at Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2021–0154 

on https://www.regulations.gov for 

review and comment (see ADDRESSES). 

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 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. We consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species (50 CFR 

424.11(c) and (e)). 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25201 

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 we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for removal from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants (‘‘delisted’’). 

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–R1–ES–2021– 

0154 on https://www.regulations.gov. 

To assess Nelson’s checker-mallow 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

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

resiliency 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. 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 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

Ecological Needs 

Populations of Nelson’s checkermallow usually occupy open habitats 

that are free from encroachment of trees 

and shrubs. In the absence of 

disturbance to set back succession, 

prairie habitat is subject to woody 

species encroachment, gradually 

transitioning into shrub or woodland 

habitat. Periodic disturbance, such as 

fire or fall mowing, are necessary to 

maintain the open, high-light prairie 

habitats that Nelson’s checker-mallow 

populations thrive in. Resilient Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations need a 

sufficient number of individuals to 

withstand stochastic events and 

disturbances. The minimum viable 

population size for Nelson’s checkermallow is not identified. However, the 

Recovery Plan specifies that 

independent populations should 

number at least 200 individuals (Service 

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

for evaluating population status. 

For Nelson’s checker-mallow to be 

considered viable, the species must be 

able to withstand catastrophic events 

and adapt to environmental changes. 

This can be achieved with a sufficient 

number of resilient populations 

distributed across its geographic range 

and representing the range of ecological 

settings in which the species is known 

to exist. The minimum number of 

populations required for Nelson’s 

checker-mallow has not been 

determined. However, distribution and 

abundance goals laid out in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2010, pp. IV–35– 

IV–36) and described in the Recovery 

Criteria section, above, provide a 

benchmark for evaluating the species. 

Factors Influencing the Species 

At the time of listing in 1993, the 

primary threats to Nelson’s checkermallow were habitat loss due to landuse conversion for agriculture, 

competition from invasive plants, and 

roadside management activities. Other 

factors identified as potentially affecting 

prairie habitat were woody 

encroachment, hydrological alteration, 

recreational use, and trampling. Planned 

construction and expansion of a 

reservoir on Walker Creek (a tributary to 

the Nestucca River) was identified as a 

future threat as associated inundation 

would result in the loss of many plants, 

including the largest population of the 

species known to exist at the time. The 

listing rule (58 FR 8235; February 12, 

1993) also noted the potentially negative 

effects of overcollection for scientific 

and horticultural purposes, predation by 

weevils, and small population size; 

some inadequacies in regulatory 

mechanisms were also identified. 

Subsequent to listing, climate change 

and hybridization were identified as 

potential threats to the viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

We considered all of these threats 

when considering whether the species 

continues to warrant protection under 

the Act. The threat of inundation never 

materialized; the proposed reservoir was 

not constructed, given the designation 

of Walker Creek as part of Oregon’s 

State Scenic Waterway program in 1992, 

and as part of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers program in 2019 (Oregon 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

2021). We previously determined that 

overcollection does not occur to such a 

degree that it has a population-level 

effect and that regulatory mechanisms 

are adequately reducing the effects of 

threats that could act at a population 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25202 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

scale (Service 2012, pp. 22–28). Weevil 

predation occasionally impacts 

individual plants and may locally affect 

some populations. However, it is 

seasonal in nature and unpredictable, 

and we did not find that it occurs at 

spatial and temporal scales large enough 

to affect the overall status of the species. 

Many small populations of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow remain distributed 

throughout the species’ range. However, 

the number of large populations has 

increased significantly since the species 

was listed in 1993. Based on our 

assessment, presently 24 sites have 

more than 1,000 plants. This represents 

a significant improvement relative to the 

time of listing, when only five sites had 

more than 1,000 plants (Service 2012, 

pp. 17–19). Therefore, we conclude that 

small population size no longer puts the 

species at risk of extinction. The 

potential for hybridization among 

species of the same genus remains 

present. However, we found that the 

best available data indicates that 

hybridization does not pose a threat to 

the overall status of the species. 

Additional discussion of these threats is 

available in the recovery plan (Service 

2010, pp. II–30–II–31; chapter III entire) 

and in the 2012 5-year review (Service 

2012, pp. 22–28). 

The stressors identified as having a 

population-level effects, and therefore 

included in our assessment of current 

and future condition, are habitat-related 

stressors and climate change. The loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of 

prairie habitats have cascading effects 

that result in smaller population sizes, 

loss of genetic diversity, reduced gene 

flow among populations, destruction of 

population structure, and increased 

susceptibility to local population 

extirpation caused by environmental 

catastrophes. Collectively, this 

contributes to reduced viability through 

reductions in resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation. Climate change acts 

primarily through changes in habitat 

quality. The discussion below details 

the causes and consequences of these 

stressors on Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Alteration of Natural and HumanMediated Disturbance Processes 

Change in community structure due 

to plant succession has been a serious 

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

species contain native grassland species, 

as well as numerous introduced taxa, 

and are prone to transition to a later 

seral stage of vegetative development. 

The natural transition of prairie to forest 

in the absence of disturbance such as 

fire can lead to the loss of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow sites (Service 2012, p. 

24). However, active management of 

habitat through mowing and prescribed 

burning is effective in reducing Nelson’s 

checker-mallow’s exposure to this 

stressor. 

Habitat Conversion to Agricultural and 

Urban Use 

Agricultural and urban development 

has modified and destroyed prairie 

habitats, resulting in fragmented, widely 

distributed patches (Service 2012, p. 

24). Urban development in particular 

results in permanent loss of habitat and 

is of special concern where existing 

prairie habitat exists adjacent to urban 

areas (Service 2010, p. III–2). The 

greatest habitat losses due to land 

conversion are historical, although 

periodic additional losses of habitat on 

private lands may occur. Exposure of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow populations to 

this stressor is mitigated by protections 

associated with public land ownership, 

conservation measures described later 

in this document, and State regulations 

requiring mitigation and restoration of 

degraded habitat. 

Invasion by Nonnative Plants 

Habitats occupied by Nelson’s 

checker-mallow contain a mix of native 

and nonnative species. As described 

above, alteration of disturbance 

processes results in woody 

encroachment of prairie habitats. 

Nonnative woody species have been of 

particular concern, as they can rapidly 

proliferate and degrade open prairie 

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

nonnative, thatch-forming grasses may 

effectively limit recruitment (Institute 

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

Although invasion by nonnative plants 

remains a primary stressor to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations, 

management practices including 

mowing, burning, and shrub removal 

are an effective approach to mediating 

these effects. 

Climate Change 

In the Pacific Northwest, temperature 

increases of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius (°C) 

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

predicted by the end of the 21st century 

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

winter precipitation is predicted to 

increase, increased summer 

temperatures are expected to cause 

increased evapotranspiration, resulting 

in reduced growing season soil moisture 

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

ultimately affecting prairie habitat 

quality. Detailed quantitative estimates 

of the effects of these conditions on 

Nelson’s checker-mallow populations 

are not available. However, 

vulnerability assessments show the 

species to be moderately vulnerable to 

the effects of climate change when 

simulations from four ‘‘bookend’’ global 

circulation models and three emission 

scenarios are aggregated (Steel et al. 

2011, p. 91). 

In order for the species to be resilient 

to changing environmental conditions 

and remain viable into the future, 

maintenance of large populations in 

heterogenous habitats across the range 

of the species is required (Service 2010, 

p. IV–6). Management activities that 

maintain open prairie habitats, 

including mowing, burning, and shrub 

removal, have resulted in an increase in 

the number of large populations 

throughout the range of the species. As 

described below, the majority of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are 

managed in accordance with 

conservation programs that ensure 

maintenance of prairie conditions and 

promote the existence of viable Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations into the 

future. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Despite permanent habitat loss and 

modification, habitat restoration and 

protection projects have been 

implemented on both public and private 

lands throughout the range of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. These projects offset 

some of the permanent habitat losses 

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

2020, pers. comm.). The Wetland 

Reserve Program and other Farm Bill 

programs administered by the USDA’s 

NRCS have been widely implemented in 

the Willamette Valley. Other programs, 

such as the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife program and the Act’s 

section 10 programs (i.e., safe harbor 

agreements and habitat conservation 

plans), are also available to landowners. 

These programs are focused on habitat 

restoration and protection and have 

contributed significantly to improving 

the status of Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

These gains are particularly evident in 

the Corvallis West and Salem West 

recovery zones. 

Rangewide, the majority of sites 

known to support Nelson’s checkermallow benefit from some type of 

conservation measure, by virtue of 

ownership and/or habitat management 

agreements. These conservation 

measures offer benefits to the species 

well into the future. For instance, of 66 

sites, 44 are owned by a public entity, 

which offers indefinite protection from 

prairie habitat conversion to other uses. 

Fifty-seven sites are managed in 

accordance with the conservation 

programs described above, which 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25203 

ensure maintenance of prairie 

conditions required by Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. The terms of these 

agreements vary, but they are typically 

valid for 10 to 30 years, with some 

extending into perpetuity. Collectively, 

these management regimes ensure 

habitat protections at a decades-long 

scale for most sites. 

Current Condition 

We assessed the current condition of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow by using the 

best available information to estimate 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. We sourced data for this 

analysis primarily from the Threatened 

and Endangered Plant Geodatabase 

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

Institute for Applied Ecology under a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

for the purposes of tracking the status of 

species listed under the Act in the 

Willamette Valley. Additional data were 

compiled from supplementary reports 

(IAE 2019), location-specific records, 

and other information in our files. We 

use the term ‘‘site’’ rather than 

‘‘population’’ to refer to our analytical 

units throughout our current and future 

conditions analyses to avoid confusion; 

the recovery plan defines an 

independent population as one that 

contains more than 200 individual 

plants, but we evaluated sites of all 

sizes. 

Resiliency 

Resiliency, the ability of populations 

to withstand stochastic events, is 

commonly determined as a function of 

metrics such as population size, growth 

rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We 

evaluated the current resiliency of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow populations 

on the basis of abundance, as well as 

measurable habitat characteristics that 

represent the habitat-related stressors 

discussed above. The four specific 

metrics we included in our assessment 

of population resiliency (abundance, 

prairie habitat condition, site 

management, and site protection) are 

discussed in more detail below. A 

complete description of our analytical 

approach to current conditions is 

available in the SSA report. Abundance 

was scored based upon the total number 

of plants within a site, based on the 

most recent survey. Sites were scored as 

1 (Low: Fewer than 200 plants), 2 

(Moderate: 200–1,999 plants), or 3 

(High: Equal to or more than 2,000 

plants). These categorical thresholds 

correspond to recovery goals, which 

state that recovery targets may be 

achieved with a combination of at least 

two populations that number at least 

2,000 individuals and that scattered 

independent populations must number 

at least 200 individuals. 

Prairie habitat condition is a measure 

of overall habitat quality and was 

calculated using four distinct habitat 

metrics that are likely to influence 

population resiliency: Percent woody 

cover, percent native cover, native plant 

richness (number of unique species 

present), and invasive plant cover. For 

each site where data on these criteria are 

available, we assigned a score of 1 

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

habitat metric. We then determined 

overall prairie habitat condition for each 

site by averaging individual habitat 

metric scores. Additional detail about 

scoring categories for each individual 

metric is available in the SSA report. 

Site management reflects the potential 

for prairie habitat degradation due to 

natural succession in the absence of 

natural and anthropogenic disturbance 

regimes. Site management may also be 

influential in mediating the effects of 

climate change through the maintenance 

of large populations in heterogenous 

habitats, and distributed across the 

range of the species. To account for 

existing site management that serves to 

offset these stressors, we assigned each 

site a score of 1 (Poor: Not managed for 

prairie conditions or unknown), 2 (Fair: 

Generally managed for prairie 

conditions but no management plan in 

place), or 3 (Good: Managed for prairie 

conditions with a management plan in 

place). 

Site protection is a measure of the 

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

development. We used site ownership 

and the existence of conservation 

agreements to assess how well each site 

is protected from development, 

assigning each site a score of 1 (Poor: 

Private ownership with no conservation 

easement or similar program), 2 (Fair: 

Private ownership with conservation 

easement or similar program), or 3 

(Good: Public ownership or private 

conservation organization ownership). 

To estimate resiliency for each site, 

we calculated a condition score by 

averaging the scores for abundance, 

mean prairie habitat condition, site 

management, and site protection. We 

weighted management twice as much as 

the other factors due to its relative 

importance to long-term population 

resiliency (Service 2010, p. IV–5). Based 

on overall scores, current condition of 

each site was classified as high (score of 

greater than or equal to 2.5), moderate 

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

than 1.75). 

Currently, we know of 66 sites 

containing Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Thirty-one of these sites (47 percent) are 

in high condition, while 29 of them (44 

percent) are in moderate condition. 

Rangewide, only 6 sites (9 percent) are 

in low condition. These results 

demonstrate relatively high resiliency 

across the range of Nelson’s checkermallow. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy is defined as a species’ 

ability to withstand catastrophic events 

and is determined as a function of the 

number of populations, as well as their 

distribution and connectivity. The 

historical distribution of populations of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is largely 

unknown. Throughout its range, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow is restricted to 

remnant prairie habitats that are highly 

fragmented due to a history of land 

conversion and natural succession 

following alterations to disturbance 

cycles. However, since the time of 

listing, habitat restoration, 

reintroductions, and habitat protection 

have collectively improved the status of 

the species. Among the 66 known sites, 

334,968 plants are distributed across six 

of the seven recovery zones, 

demonstrating overall good redundancy. 

Representation 

Representation refers to the ability of 

a species to adapt to change, and is 

based upon considerations of 

geographic, genetic, ecological, and 

niche diversity. Because we lack 

information about the genetic diversity 

of the species, we rely on geographical 

and ecological diversity in our 

assessment of representation. 

Populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow 

are currently distributed in six of the 

seven recovery zones and occur in both 

the Willamette Valley and in the Coast 

Range. The species occupies a range of 

prairie sites with various soil textures 

and moisture levels and occurs in a 

wide range of plant communities 

including meadows, marshes, wetlands, 

riparian/tree shrub forests, and 

disturbed areas. This indicates that the 

species has the capacity to adapt to a 

variety of environmental conditions and 

has good representation. 

Future Viability 

To assess the future viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered the factors that will 

influence the species in the foreseeable 

future. We define the foreseeable future 

as 25 to 50 years. This interval was 

chosen because it encompasses the 

length of time over which we conclude 

we can make reliable predictions about 

the anticipated effect of climate change. 

In addition, this period of time is 

sufficient to observe population trends 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25204 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

for the species, based on its life-history 

characteristics. It also captures the terms 

of many of the management plans and 

conservation easements that are in effect 

at Nelson’s checker-mallow sites. 

We determined that, in the future, 

Nelson’s checker-mallow will continue 

to be influenced by the factors that have 

historically influenced and are currently 

influencing the species, albeit at 

different relative rates. Therefore, in our 

analysis of future viability, we 

considered habitat-related changes and 

climate change. We considered the 

specific sources of habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

(alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes, habitat 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use, and invasion by nonnative plants) 

in light of ongoing conservation 

support, including habitat management 

and site protection. 

We make several assumptions about 

ongoing conservation support in the 

foreseeable future. Support for the 

conservation of Nelson’s checkermallow has been high among 

government agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations, and some 

private landowners. We assume that 

priority recovery and management 

actions for the species will continue at 

approximately the current pace and that 

the species will continue to benefit from 

this ongoing conservation support. We 

base this assumption on the inclusion of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow in a recovery 

plan that includes several other listed 

plants and insects, and that emphasizes 

restoration and maintenance of prairie 

habitat for the benefit of numerous 

species. 

Management of existing sites for the 

restoration or maintenance of open 

prairie conditions is expected to 

continue. All of the protected sites have 

some level of management plan. These 

management plans vary in scope and 

complexity across ownerships, but all 

provide at least a basic level of habitat 

management that will benefit Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. We anticipate that 

efforts to formalize new management 

plans where they do not currently exist, 

and to update existing management 

plans in response to changing 

conditions, will continue. Again, we 

base this assumption on the fact that 

prairie habitat is managed for multiple 

species, some of which are listed as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. This provides an impetus for 

continued formalized management of 

these sites and maintenance of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow habitat. 

The majority of Nelson’s checkermallow sites are protected through 

ownership by public agencies or 

nongovernmental conservation 

organizations, or through conservation 

easements. We assume that sites owned 

by public agencies or conservation 

organizations will remain so owned. We 

also assume that conservation 

easements will continue to provide 

protections where they currently exist, 

given that the terms typically range from 

30 years to perpetuity. Ongoing efforts 

to protect additional sites through land 

acquisitions or enrollment in 

conservation easements are expected to 

continue and may result in the 

protection of additional sites. Although 

sites not protected by virtue of 

ownership or conservation easement 

may be at risk due to development in 

the future, these sites are in the minority 

and their status is reflected in our 

analysis. 

Resiliency 

To assess the future viability of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered a single scenario where we 

assumed that climate change will result 

in a dramatic reduction in abundance 

across the species’ range but site 

management and protection will remain 

intact, as discussed above. We then 

reassessed population condition, 

applying the same methodology used for 

assessing current condition. 

Published assessments do not provide 

detailed quantitative estimates of the 

effects of climate change on Nelson’s 

checker-mallow populations. In order to 

evaluate the effects of climate change on 

individual sites, we characterized a 

worst-case future scenario in terms we 

could use in our analysis of future 

condition. In consultation with species 

experts and conservation partners, we 

defined the worst-case scenario as one 

where increased mortality and 

decreased recruitment culminate in a 50 

percent reduction in abundance at all 

sites. We consider this a worst-case 

scenario because a 50 percent reduction 

represents the upper boundary of 

plausibility; the actual effects of climate 

change on population sizes are likely to 

be more moderate. Nevertheless, 

assuming a 50 percent reduction 

provides a generous margin of error if 

the assumptions described above are 

violated. We acknowledge that uniform 

response across the species’ range is not 

likely, and that some populations may 

fare better than others under future 

conditions. However, this approach 

serves to demonstrate future viability 

under challenging future conditions. 

In the scenario described above, 

resiliency declined only modestly, with 

60 sites remaining in high or moderate 

condition (see Figure 1, below). The 

number of sites in high overall 

condition decreased from 31 to 25, 

relative to current condition, while the 

number of sites in moderate condition 

increased from 29 to 35. Sites 

experiencing reduced condition are 

relatively well distributed throughout 

the range of the species, with one site 

occurring in the Coast Range recovery 

zone, three sites occurring in the 

Corvallis West recovery zone, one site 

occurring in the Portland recovery zone, 

and one site occurring in the Salem 

West recovery zone. The number of sites 

in overall low condition (six sites) does 

not change in our foreseeable future. 

These changes in overall future 

condition are driven by changes in 

abundance. In our future scenario, six 

additional sites fall below 200 

individual plants and, therefore, receive 

a low score for abundance. Sites with 

low abundance are more vulnerable to 

stochastic events and carry a higher risk 

for extirpation in the future. However, 

the relative importance of site 

management and protection in guarding 

against habitat loss and maintaining 

resiliency is reflected in the relatively 

modest downward shift in overall future 

condition, relative to current condition 

(see Figure 2, below). 

Redundancy 

Our analysis of future condition 

indicates that redundancy will be 

maintained in the foreseeable future; 66 

extant sites will remain well distributed 

throughout the current known range of 

the species. Consequently, no major 

changes in the species’ ability to 

withstand catastrophes in the future is 

expected. 

Representation 

The distribution of extant Nelson’s 

checker-mallow sites does not change 

under the parameters of our future 

condition analysis. Consequently, 

changes in ecological diversity are not 

projected to materialize as a result of 

climate change, and the species is likely 

to continue to occupy prairie habitat 

throughout its range and retain its 

adaptive capacity. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25205 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP28AP22.003</GPH>
25206 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Collectively, our analysis of the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation demonstrates that in 25 

to 50 years, the viability of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow will not be significantly 

reduced. We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP28AP22.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25207 

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. 

Determination of Nelson’s CheckerMallow’s Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

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

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. For a 

more detailed discussion on the factors 

considered when determining whether a 

species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species and our analysis on how we 

determine the foreseeable future in 

making these decisions, please see 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework, 

above. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating the threats to the 

species and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats under the Act’s 

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

primary drivers of the status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow have been habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation due to 

alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that 

maintain open prairie habitat, land 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use, and invasion by nonnative plants. 

The best available information does not 

indicate that habitat loss due to 

inundation (Factor A), overcollection 

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

population size (Factor E), or 

hybridization (Factor E) are threats to 

the viability of the species. To 

summarize, the threat of inundation 

never materialized as the proposed 

reservoir was not constructed; 

overcollection does not occur to such a 

degree that it has a population-level 

effect; weevil predation does 

occasionally impact individual plants 

and may locally affect some 

populations, but it does not occur at 

spatial and temporal scales large enough 

to affect the overall status of the species; 

many small populations of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow remain distributed 

throughout the species’ range, but the 

number of large populations has 

increased significantly since the species 

was listed; and the potential for 

hybridization among other species in 

the same genus remains present, but 

does not pose a threat to the overall 

status of the species. A variety of 

regulatory mechanisms adequately 

reduce the effects of any threats that act 

at a population scale (Factor D). 

The habitat-related threats other than 

inundation identified above as drivers 

of Nelson’s checker-mallow status are 

still present on the landscape. However, 

their magnitude and scope have 

decreased from historical levels and 

have been offset by a variety of 

management and conservation measures 

in the nearly 30 years since Nelson’s 

checker-mallow was listed. Active 

maintenance of prairie habitat through 

mowing and prescribed burning has 

demonstrably reduced the threat posed 

by alteration of disturbance processes 

and associated woody encroachment 

(Factor A). The threat of invasive plants 

(Factor A) has also been significantly 

reduced as a result of active 

management. Rangewide, formalized 

management plans exist for 57 of the 66 

sites known to contain Nelson’s 

checker-mallow, a number that is 

expected to remain relatively constant 

into the foreseeable future. Similarly, 60 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites are either 

in public ownership, have been 

acquired by nongovernmental 

conservation organizations, or are 

enrolled in conservation easement 

programs (Factor D), which has 

substantially reduced the risk of habitat 

and population losses due to land-use 

conversion (Factor A). The number of 

sites protected from conversion to 

agricultural or urban use is expected to 

remain relatively constant in the future. 

In sum, despite the continued presence 

of habitat-related threats on the 

landscape, advances in site management 

and protection have led to a significant 

reduction in threats and overall 

improvement in the status of the species 

since listing. 

When Nelson’s checker-mallow was 

listed, we estimated that the species 

occurred at 48 sites distributed among 

five population centers (historically 

interbreeding populations). Only five 

sites contained more than 1,000 

individuals, and 30 percent of the 

known individuals of the species were 

threatened with inundation due to the 

planned construction of a dam. 

Currently, 334,968 individual plants are 

distributed across the historical range of 

the species. They occur at 66 sites, 24 

of which have at least 1,000 Nelson’s 

checker-mallow plants. Our analysis of 

current condition, based on abundance, 

habitat quality, site management, and 

site protection, shows that 60 of those 

sites are in either moderate or high 

condition, indicating relatively high 

resiliency. The sites are distributed 

among six of the seven recovery zones 

and occur in varied geographical and 

ecological settings, demonstrating 

overall good redundancy and 

representation. 

Subsequent to listing, climate change 

and its potential to negatively affect 

prairie habitat was identified as a 

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

consequences of climate change on the 

species and evaluated a worst-case 

future scenario that included a 50 

percent reduction in the size of all 

known populations across the range of 

the species. Even in the face of such a 

severe population reduction, the species 

retained appreciable levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation, with 

only six sites showing a reduction in 

resiliency and with geographical and 

ecological distribution fully maintained. 

We recognize that some habitatrelated threats remain present and that 

they have ongoing impacts to Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. We acknowledge that 

the specific effects of climate change on 

Nelson’s checker-mallow and its habitat 

are uncertain but may have a negative 

impact. However, we found that current 

and expected patterns in site protection 

and habitat management are sufficient 

to prevent affects to the species such 

that it would meet the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we determine 

that Nelson’s checker-mallow is not in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so 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 Nelson’s checker-mallow 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25208 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. 

For Nelson’s checker-mallow, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

due to alteration of natural and humanmediated disturbance processes that 

maintain open prairie habitat, land 

conversion to agricultural and urban 

use, and invasion by nonnative plants; 

and climate change. 

The threat of habitat loss from 

alteration of disturbance processes, 

land-use conversion, and invasion of 

nonnative plants has decreased in all 

portions of the species’ range since the 

time listing, due to land protection 

efforts and active habitat management. 

Although these residual threats 

influence the species variably across its 

range, there is no portion of the range 

where there is currently a concentration 

of threats at a biologically meaningful 

scale, relative to other areas of the range. 

In the foreseeable future, climate change 

may interact synergistically with other 

threats to negatively affect habitat 

quality. We acknowledge that uniform 

response across the species’ range is not 

likely, and that some populations may 

fare worse than others under future 

conditions. However, the best available 

information does not indicate that any 

portion of the species’ range will 

deteriorate disproportionately in the 

foreseeable future. We anticipate that 

any negative consequence of cooccurring threats will be successfully 

addressed through the same active 

management actions that have 

contributed to the ongoing recovery of 

Nelson’s checker-mallow and that are 

expected to continue into the future. 

We found no concentration of threats 

in any portion of the Nelson’s checkermallow range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. 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 does not 

conflict with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 

1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not need to consider whether any 

portions are significant and, therefore, 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy’s definition of ‘‘significant’’ that 

those court decisions held were invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that Nelson’s checker-mallow 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we 

propose to remove the Nelson’s checkermallow from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 

removing Nelson’s checker-mallow from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would no longer apply to this species. 

Federal agencies would no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

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

designated for this species, so there 

would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

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

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. PDM 

refers to activities undertaken to verify 

that a species delisted due to recovery 

remains secure from the risk of 

extinction after the protections of the 

Act no longer apply. The primary goal 

of PDM is to monitor the species to 

ensure that its status does not 

deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, 

to take measures to halt the decline so 

that proposing it as endangered or 

threatened is not again needed. 

If at any time during the monitoring 

period data indicate that protective 

status under the Act should be 

reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

We are proposing to delist Nelson’s 

checker-mallow based on our analysis 

in the SSA report, expert opinions, and 

conservation actions taken. Since 

delisting would be, in part, due to 

conservation actions taken by 

stakeholders, we have prepared a draft 

PDM plan for Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

The draft PDM plan discusses the 

current status of the taxon and describes 

the methods proposed for monitoring if 

we delist the taxon. The draft PDM plan: 

(1) Summarizes the status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow at the time of proposed 

delisting; (2) describes frequency and 

duration of monitoring; (3) discusses 

monitoring methods and potential 

sampling regimes; (4) defines what 

potential triggers will be evaluated to 

address the need for additional 

monitoring; (5) outlines reporting 

requirements and procedures; (6) 

proposes a schedule for implementing 

the PDM plan; and (7) defines 

responsibilities. It is our intent to work 

with our partners towards maintaining 

the recovered status of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow. We will seek public 

and peer reviewer comments on the 

draft PDM plan, including its objectives 

and procedures (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and Information 

Requested, above), with the publication 

of this proposed rule. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address readers 

directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25209 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a document outlining our 

reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We do not believe that any Tribes would 

be affected if we adopt this rule as 

proposed. There are currently no 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites on Tribal 

lands, although some sites may lie 

within the usual and accustomed places 

for Tribal collection and gathering of 

resources. We welcome input from 

potentially affected Tribes on this 

proposal. 

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 Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife 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 Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 

CFR part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12, in paragraph (h), by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Sidalcea 

nelsoniana’’ under FLOWERING 

PLANTS from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09106 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 220421–0103] 

RTID 0648–XR121 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Tope Shark as Threatened or 

Endangered Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request 

for information, and initiation of status 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list the 

tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) as a 

threatened or endangered species and to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with the listing. We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, we are 

commencing a review of the status of 

the tope shark to determine whether 

listing under the ESA is warranted. To 

support a comprehensive status review, 

we are soliciting scientific and 

commercial data regarding this species. 

DATES: Scientific and commercial data 

pertinent to the petitioned action must 

be received by June 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0048 by the following 

method: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0048 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Interested persons may obtain a copy 

of the petition online at the NMFS 

website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/endangered-speciesconservation/petitions-awaiting-90-dayfindings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Manning, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8466, 

lisa.manning@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 15, 2022, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity and Defend Them All 

Foundation to list the tope shark, 

Galeorhinus galeus, as a threatened or 

endangered species under the ESA and 

to designate critical habitat concurrent 

with the listing. The petition asserts that 

G. galeus is threatened by four of the 

five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) 

Present and threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes; 

(3) inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (4) other natural or 

manmade factors. In addition to 

requesting that we analyze whether the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1