Proposed Rule2021-20934
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Peñasco Least Chipmunk and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 28, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus), a mammal from New Mexico, as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk under the Act. The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 2,660 hectares (6,574 acres) in three units in New Mexico. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53583-53609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20934]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BD94
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk and Designation of
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus), a mammal from New Mexico, as
an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that listing the species is
warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk as an endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the
species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk under the Act. The proposed critical
habitat designation includes approximately 2,660 hectares (6,574 acres)
in three units in New Mexico. We also announce the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical
habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic
analysis that are received or postmarked on or before November 29,
2021. 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
November 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). For
best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the
docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. 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-R2-ES-2020-0042, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the administrative record and are
available on the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office website at
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/">https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/</a> and at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042. Any
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service
website set out above and may also be included in the preamble and/or
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-
2525. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal
[[Page 53584]]
Register and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. To the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must designate critical
habitat for any species that we determine to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designation of critical habitat can be
accomplished only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose
the designation of critical habitat for the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of 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 determined that stressors affecting the
viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk include vegetation
shifts, wildfire, forest encroachment, recreation, development, and
land use (Factor A, disease (Factor C), nonnative species (Factors A
and C), and small population size and lack of connectivity (Factor E).
Although small population size is the primary stressor to the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, Risk Factors for Pe[ntilde]asco Least
Chipmunk, below, presents a broader discussion of the threats. We have
found that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately reduce the
threats acting on the species to eliminate the risk of extinction
(Factor D).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Peer review. 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 five appropriate specialists regarding the species status
assessment report. We received comments from three, and their input
informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing and critical habitat designations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. Additionally, we
received reviews from several partners, including the State of New
Mexico and U.S. Forest Service.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
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 is
threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a
threatened species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
Information Requested
Public Comments
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) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of the species,
including the locations of any additional populations.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (i.e.,
are currently occupied) and that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, should be
included in the designation and why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species,
i.e., the Sacramento and White Mountains in New Mexico, that should be
included in the designation because they (1) are occupied at the time
of listing and
[[Page 53585]]
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are
essential for the conservation of the species;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of the species;
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species; and
(iii) Explaining whether or not unoccupied areas fall within the
definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02 and why.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(10) Information on land ownership within proposed critical habitat
areas, particularly Tribal land ownership (allotments, trust, and/or
fee) so that the Service may best implement Secretarial Order 3206
(American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act).
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specific information we seek includes
information on any conservation plans within the proposed designated
critical habitat areas that provide conservation for the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk and its habitat. For any additional areas that you may
request be excluded from the designation, we will undertake an
exclusion analysis if you provide credible information regarding the
existence of a meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting
a benefit of inclusion or if we otherwise decide to exercise the
discretion to evaluate the areas for possible exclusion.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(13) Ongoing or proposed conservation efforts that could result in
direct or indirect ecological benefits to the associated habitat for
the species; as such, those efforts would lend to the recovery of the
species and therefore areas covered may be considered for exclusion
from the final critical habitat designation.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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
above 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 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).
Previous Federal Actions
WildEarth Guardians petitioned us to list Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk in October 2011. The Service published a substantial 90-day
finding and a warranted but precluded 12-month finding on November 21,
2012 (77 FR 69994), stating that listing of the subspecies was
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range and the fragmentation and
isolation of small populations. In 2018, we completed a species status
assessment (SSA) to provide the biological support for a decision on
whether or not to propose to list the subspecies as threatened or
endangered under the Act and, if so, where to propose designating
critical habitat. This proposed listing rule also constitutes our 12-
month petition finding for the species.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species. The Service sent the SSA report to five
independent peer reviewers, and three provided a review of the
document. The Service also sent the SSA report to three partner
agencies, including the State of New Mexico, U.S. Forest Service, and
the Mescalero Apache Tribe, for review. We received reviews from the
U.S. Forest Service and the State of New Mexico.
[[Page 53586]]
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)
is currently recognized as one of 17 subspecies of least chipmunk
(Neotamias [=Tamias] minimus) (Wilson and Reeder 2005, p. 815). Least
chipmunks are smaller than most other chipmunk species and belong to
the family Sciuridae. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is known from
the Sacramento Mountains and White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero
Counties in southern New Mexico.
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks are grayish-brown mixed with
cinnamon-buff on the rump and thighs (Sullivan 1993, p. 1), with a
blackish head with white and cinnamon, and a whitish patch behind each
ear. The sides of their bodies are light brown, and underparts are
whitish with buff; their feet are light pink-cinnamon; the tail is
blackish or brown with pinkish-cinnamon; and dark stripes on the back
and head are blackish to blackish-brown, edged with tawny along the
spine, and bordered with white on the face and sides (Sullivan 1993,
pp. 1-2). The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has pale yellowish orange
hindfeet, a light beige, yellowish, or orange belly, and dark underfur
(Frey 2010, p. 11). A full species description and description of its
habitat can be found in chapter 2 of the SSA report.
The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was first described as a new
species, Eutamias atristriatus, in 1913 based on 10 specimens collected
from ponderosa pine forest in the Sacramento Mountains in 1902 (Bailey
1913, entire). This taxonomy has been revised multiple times as the
taxonomy of chipmunks and least chipmunks changed, including use of the
synonyms Eutamias and Tamias for Neotamias. Howell (1929, entire)
designated the taxon a subspecies of least chipmunk, Tamias minimus
atristriatus. Conley (1970, entire) purported that the South Sacramento
(= Sacramento Mountains) population was the only population of least
chipmunks in New Mexico worthy of nomenclatural distinction based on
morphological distinctiveness. However, Sullivan and Peterson (1988, p.
21) recommended the retention of N. m. atristriatus as a subspecies
that included both the New Mexico White Mountains and Sacramento
Mountains, based on more in-depth morphological and genetic analyses.
Verts and Carraway (2001, entire) and Wilson and Reeder (2005, p. 815)
continue to support N. m. atristriatus as a recognized subspecies of N.
minimus. Least chipmunks are currently recognized as belonging to the
genus Neotamias (Patterson and Norris 2016, p. 248). There is currently
no disagreement regarding the distinctiveness of the subspecies from
other subspecies of least chipmunk, nor from the sympatric gray-footed
chipmunk (N. canipes). The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is thus
currently recognized as a valid subspecies, N. minimus atristriatus
(Wilson and Reeder 2005 p. 815).
Habitat occupied by Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk varies by
population between the Sacramento and White Mountains. In the
Sacramento Mountains, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat use has
generally been mature, open ponderosa pine forest savanna and adjacent
valley meadows (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 1). Specimens of the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from the Sacramento Mountains were
originally described from the yellow pine zone (= ponderosa pine)
(Bailey 1913, p. 130) and within the transition zone from the juncture
of yellow pines and junipers up to the edge of spruce-fir forest
(Bailey 1931, p. 91). However, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has
not been detected in the Sacramento Mountains since 1966, so our
understanding of habitat use and distribution in that area is limited
to historical records and reports.
In the White Mountains, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is
associated with the high-elevation subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow
biotic community (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 34). This habitat is
distinctly different from the lower elevation, montane meadow grassland
communities within mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest zones (Dyer
and Moffett 1999, entire; Dick-Peddie 1993, pp. 101 104), as would be
found in the Sacramento Mountains. In the White Mountains, our
understanding of subspecies occurrence and habitat use is informed by
capture information as recent as 2018, but is still limited by few
observational records of the subspecies.
Least chipmunks forage mainly on the ground or in shrubs
(Hoffmeister 1986, p. 15). They eat a variety of seeds of shrubs,
forbs, and some conifers, and other plant parts and fungi as their main
food sources; they also feed on animal foods such as arthropods,
carrion, and bird eggs (Bailey 1931, p. 91; Vaughn 1974, pp. 770-772;
Reid 2006, p. 212). The least chipmunk does not develop additional fat
deposits in the fall, but relies primarily on brief periods of activity
to consume cached food for survival over the winter (Verts and Carraway
2001, p. 7), hibernating (in this case, overwintering with periods of
both torpor and activity) in special underground chambers (Reid 2006,
p. 212). Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks in the White Mountains likely
forage primarily on the seeds and flowers of forbs, particularly
species of Asteraceae (Frey and Hays 2017, p. 34). Bailey (1931, p. 91)
observed the subspecies foraging on sunflower (Helianthus spp.) seeds
along fencelines and on wheat (Triticum sp.) and oats (Avena sativa) at
the edges of agricultural fields in the Sacramento Mountains. The diet
also includes flowers and fruits of gooseberry (Ribes spp.) and wild
strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus edulis) nuts, Gambel oak
(Quercus gambelii) acorns, insects, and other items (Sullivan 1993, p.
3). Like other least chipmunks, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
likely has relatively low water requirements, which may allow it to
exploit the drier conditions of open subalpine meadows (Frey and Hays
2017, p. 34).
Least chipmunk breeding takes place soon after emergence from the
hibernation chambers (Reid 2006, p. 212). In spring, females typically
produce one litter of four to five pups (Skryja 1974, p. 223), but the
size of the litter can range from three to eight, with young being born
in May or June (Reid 2006, p. 212). For Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks,
young are thought to be born in mid- to late-summer, as half-grown
juveniles were observed historically in early September in the
Sacramento Mountains (Bailey 1931, p. 91). The average lifespan of
least chipmunks overall is 0.7 years (Erlien and Tester 1984, p. 2),
but individuals have been known to live up to 6 years (Reid 2006, p.
212).
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;
[[Page 53587]]
(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
Services 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 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 proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however,
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-R2-ES-2020-0042 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and on the New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/">https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/</a>.
To assess Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk 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 individual 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.
Summary of Analysis
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to
consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. To
maintain long-term viability, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk requires
multiple (redundancy) self-sustaining populations (resiliency)
distributed across the landscape (representation). Maintaining
representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is
important to maintain the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's capacity to
adapt to future environmental changes.
Current Condition of Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk
To analyze population-level resiliency, we identified and described
the demographic and habitat conditions needed for resilient populations
of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Table 1). The demographic factors we
analyzed include trap rate, population trends,
[[Page 53588]]
connectivity between populations, and number of subpopulations within
populations. The habitat factors we analyzed include suitable habitat
size to support population viability, habitat availability trends, and
habitat. For each of these demographic and habitat factors, we
characterized the condition (High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low/
Extirpated) of each factor for each population (Table 1) to assess
overall population resiliency. Where more data were available, we
assigned scores (High = 1, Moderate = 0, Low = -1, and Very Low/
Extirpated = -2) to each demographic and habitat factor and calculated
an overall score for each population. We averaged all of the
demographic and habitat condition category scores for each population
to determine the overall resiliency score for that population (Service
2018, p. 64).
Table 1--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low/extirpated (-
High (1) Moderate (0) Low (-1) 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> density or relative <bullet> density or <bullet> density or <bullet> abundance
abundance is high. relative abundance is relative abundance is decreases over time,
<bullet> population is increasing moderate. low. such that population
over time. <bullet> population is <bullet> population is may be extirpated
<bullet> there is connectivity stable over time. decreasing over time completely.
between the populations. <bullet> populations but still extant. <bullet> no
<bullet> the number of subpopulations are adjacent to each <bullet> populations connectivity with
is high, spatially dispersed, and other, but unsuitable are extremely isolated other populations
able to withstand or recover from habitat precludes from one another. exists.
stochastic events. dispersal. <bullet> two <bullet> if extant, no
<bullet> large, contiguous areas of <bullet> multiple subpopulations allow subpopulation
increasing availability of suitable subpopulations, for some, but limited, structure occurs.
habitat with no detectable impacts allowing for some ability to withstand <bullet> little to no
from land use or management. ability to withstand or recover from suitable habitat is
or recover from stochastic events. available.
stochastic events. <bullet> habitat occurs <bullet> if patches
<bullet> areas of as small isolated exist, they are small
moderately sized patches. and isolated and will
habitat with some <bullet> land use or lead or have led to
isolated habitat management reduces high probability of
patches. chipmunk resources. extirpation.
<bullet> land use or <bullet> land use or
management occurs but management removes
does not significantly chipmunk resources.
limit chipmunk
resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current condition of each demographic and habitat factor and
the overall condition of each population of the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk is displayed in Table 2. Historically, there were two known
populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, the Sacramento Mountains
population and the White Mountains population. Based on the demographic
and habitat factors discussed in detail in the SSA (Service 2018, pp.
60-62), the Sacramento Mountains population is considered to be in Very
Low/Extirpated overall condition. There have been no detections of
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the Sacramento Mountains since 1966,
despite extensive survey effort, indicating that this population is
likely extirpated. Even if it is still extant, it has no connectivity
with other populations and likely no subpopulation structure (Service
2018, p. 11). The Sacramento Mountains have little to no remaining
suitable habitat, and land use and management have severely decreased
the condition of the resources upon which Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
depends.
For the White Mountains population, current habitat availability is
moderate. Habitat has experienced a moderate change from historical
conditions, and land use or management is not known to significantly
reduce Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk resources. However, in terms of
demographic factors, the White Mountains population has a low density
and decreasing population trend. The population is the only remaining
population of the subspecies, and the White Mountains population has no
known subpopulation structure. Given these Low and Very Low condition
demographic factors, the White Mountains population is in Low overall
condition. The current resiliency of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is
low to very low, with one population likely extirpated and the
remaining population isolated with no subpopulation structure.
Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological
diversity is important to preserve the capacity of the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk to adapt to future environmental changes. Because one of
the two populations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is likely
extirpated, and the extant population persists in extremely low
numbers, genetic diversity is likely extremely low. Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunks in the White Mountains showed the lowest levels of
within-population genetic variation out of nine least chipmunk
populations in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado (Sullivan 1985, pp.
431-433). In addition, the subspecies has a historical distribution in
two very different ecological settings: One in a high-elevation
subalpine meadow zone in the White Mountains, and one in a lower
elevation ponderosa pine zone in the Sacramento Mountains. Because the
Sacramento Mountains may no longer support the subspecies, the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk has already lost ecological
representation across its range. Low genetic variation and the loss of
one ecological setting results in low representation for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2018, p. 65).
To be robust in the face of stochastic events, the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk needs to have at least two resilient populations
(Service 2018, p. 64). Historically there were only two known
populations, one each in the White and Sacramento Mountains. Generally,
the more populations a species has, and the wider the distribution of
those populations, the more redundancy the species will exhibit.
Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species' range
will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or anthropogenic
event (e.g., wildfire) at a given point in time. Species (or
subspecies) that are well-distributed across a wide geographic range
are less susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable than
taxa that are confined to small areas where stochastic events are
likely to affect all of the individuals simultaneously (Carroll et al.
2010, entire). Because one of the two populations of Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk is likely extirpated, the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
currently lacks any redundancy (Service 2018, p. 65).
[[Page 53589]]
Table 2--Current Resiliency of the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk Populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic factors Habitat factors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trap rate (number Available suitable
Population individuals/ trap Population Subpopulations habitat to support Habitat Habitat condition Condition category
hour) surrogate Population trends connectivity within populations population availability with land use or
for density persistence trends management
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains................. Low............... Low............... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Low.
-1.5.............. -1................ -2................ -2................ 0................. 0................. 0................. -1.
Sacramento Mountains............ Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.......... Very Low.
-2................ -2................ -2................ -2................ -2................ -2................ -2................ -2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the SSA report for the complete current condition analysis for
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2018, pp. 54-65).
Risk Factors for Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk
We evaluated the past, current, and future stressors that affect
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's needs for long-term viability.
Additionally, we evaluated several potential stressor sources that are
not described here because the stressor source is predicted to have low
impact on Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk viability. More information on
these stressors, including interspecific competition, scientific
collection, and climate change can be found in the SSA (Service 2018,
pp. 50-52).
Stressors affecting the viability of the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk include vegetation shifts, wildfire, forest encroachment,
recreation, development, and land use (Factor A, disease (Factor C),
nonnative species (Factors A and C), and small population size and lack
of connectivity (Factor E). Considerations under Factor D are described
below.
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat is afforded some protection
under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Within the
White Mountains, approximately 54 percent of the current range of the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is within the Lincoln National Forest
White Mountain Wilderness Area. This designation limits management
options and conservation efforts in designated wilderness areas to some
degree. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness should be managed to
preserve its natural conditions and yet remain untrammeled by man, and
defines wilderness ``. . . as an area of undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent
improvements or human habituation . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Within
designated wilderness areas, no commercial activities are permitted, no
permanent or temporary roads, no motorized equipment or any form of
mechanical transport, and no structures are permitted within the area
(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
appears to be relatively unaltered in the White Mountains Wilderness
Area, except for the encroachment of trees into meadows (Service 2018,
p. 35).
Additionally, the range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
overlaps with designated Mexican spotted owl critical habitat; the
management of that habitat for the Mexican spotted owl does allow for
some level of grazing. This may result in changes to the plant
community that do not adversely affect the prey base of the Mexican
spotted owl but is detrimental to the specific plant community needs of
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2018, pp. 38-40).
Vegetation Shifts, Wildfire, and Forest Encroachment
Over the last ~150 years, land management practices have shifted
the vegetative components of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk habitat in
the Sacramento Mountains, resulting in an overall lack of suitable
habitat for the subspecies. The historically open, park-like stands of
ponderosa pine forest that comprised Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
habitat have been replaced with high-density, small-diameter ponderosa
pine, with encroaching Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white
fir (Abies concolor), and a lack of native grass meadow habitat
(Service 2018, pp. 39-41).
These changes in vegetation composition (inclusion of less fire-
tolerant species of trees such as Douglas fir and white fir) and
structure (from low-density, large-diameter trees with few low branches
to high-density, small-diameter trees with many low branches), coupled
with the loss and conversion of native to nonnative grass meadows,
alter the suitability of the habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk in the Sacramento Mountains. Effective fire exclusion and
suppression actions have also contributed to the changes in forest
composition and structure and have resulted in the additional stressor
source of altered fire regimes.
Forest encroachment into grasslands is occurring in both the
Sacramento Mountains and in the White Mountains, although the causes
for each are likely different. The causes for tree encroachment into
meadows in the Sacramento Mountains is likely related to land use and
land management practices, while the White Mountains are influenced by
climatic events and successional encroachment processes. While some
landscape restoration projects are planned (i.e., the South Sacramento
Forest Restoration Project) that may address some areas of meadow
encroachment, no additional projects are planned within the historical
range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk either in the Sacramento
Mountains or the White Mountains to control or limit tree encroachment
into meadow habitat.
Recreation, Development, Land Use, and Land Management
Agricultural land use in the Sacramento Mountains appears to have
shifted from cultivation in the early part of the 20th century to
pasture use. This conversion likely affected a potentially significant
food resource (i.e., crops) for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks in the
Sacramento Mountains, specifically James Canyon (Service 2018, p. 42).
It is likely that the high-quality, abundant food resource of wheat and
oat fields drew Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks to the fields and roads
where the animals were easily observable, as early records noted that
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were especially abundant along rail
fences, eating oats and wheat at field edges (Bailey 1931, p. 91).
However, Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were also abundant in the open,
mature ponderosa pine forests (Bailey 1931, p. 91). Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunks were noted as abundant throughout the Sacramento
Mountains during the early 1900s, in both natural open habitat and near
agricultural fields (Service 2018, p. 43). The change in land use from
crop fields to pasture for livestock likely impacted Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunks by decreasing the
[[Page 53590]]
availability of an abundant, high-quality food source. Grasslands in
the bottom of canyons that are currently used for pasture or livestock
are likely not usable by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk because the
grasses are likely not tall enough to provide shelter and cover
(Service 2018, p. 43).
U.S. Forest Service lands are managed for multiple uses. In the
Sacramento Mountains, these uses currently include recreation,
livestock grazing, and special use permits for a variety of actions.
Recreational use includes camping, hiking, biking, and motorized
vehicle use, among other activities. The historical role of livestock
grazing and timber harvest are described in the SSA report (Service
2018, pp. 30-38) in terms of altering forest composition, structure,
and fire regimes. However, grazing within the White Mountains
Wilderness Allotment has been closed for 20 years and will remain
closed (Williams, pers. comm. 2020).
The most significant recreational, development, and land use
activities likely to affect the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the
White Mountains are related to the opening, operating, and maintaining
of the Ski Apache Resort on Lookout Mountain (Service 2018, p. 44).
Access roads to Ski Apache and the adjacent Buck Mountain were
constructed in 1960 (Dyer and Moffett 1999, p. 451). The Resort opened
in 1961 and has since been owned and operated by the Mescalero Apache
Tribe (Ski Apache Resort 2018, entire). Ski Apache hosts both winter
and summer recreation and occurs mostly on Forest Service land,
operating under a Special Use permit issued by the Forest Service. Some
of the activities also occur on Mescalero Apache Tribal lands. We
address impacts and use of the area regardless of ownership. Summer use
of Ski Apache Resort includes gondola rides, mountain biking, hiking,
and zip-lining (Service 2018, p. 44).
In 2016, three Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks were observed on two
survey trap lines on Lookout Mountain within Ski Apache Resort (Service
2018, p. 45). Lookout Mountain was selected to survey for several
reasons, the main one being that it is located in the same large patch
of subalpine meadow/tundra as that of Sierra Blanca Peak (Frey and Hays
2017, p. 9), where many historical records show that Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk were located. Two of the three Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk observations in 2016 were located just off the access road
that leads to, and is in close proximity to, the Ski Apache zip line
infrastructure. Vehicle use on the access road and human use for the
zip line have the potential to be a stressor to the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk due to vehicle strikes and disturbance from human
presence.
Disease
A variety of pathogens and diseases have the potential to affect or
have affected the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. Of these, sylvatic
plague has the greatest likelihood of being a stressor to the
subspecies (Service 2018, p. 46). The plague is caused by the bacteria
Yersinia pestis, a highly virulent organism that can quickly cause
lethal disease in susceptible mammals (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 7).
Transmission of Y. pestis typically occurs through fleas, whereby fleas
feed on infected hosts and move to new hosts. The plague is most
commonly transmitted through fleas, but can also be transferred through
inhalation, eating of infected animals, or through bites, scratches, or
direct contact with infected animals, tissues, or fluids (Abbott and
Rocke 2012, p. 18). Modes of transmission of Y. pestis in wildlife are
likely similar, whereby flea transmission is most common, but other
avenues may also occur.
Rodents are the major group of animals infected by Y. pestis, and
some species may act as a reservoir or as an ``amplifying host'' for
the organism (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 18). Generally, an amplifying
host is a host in which disease agents, such as viruses or bacteria,
increase in number (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 71); in this case,
``amplifying hosts'' also applies to hosts that are more uniformly
susceptible to plague and undergo dramatic die-offs during outbreaks of
plague (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 17). It is unknown if the plague has
affected the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in the past, is currently
affecting the subspecies now, or will in the future. However, there is
supporting evidence that suggests that the plague has been and could be
a significant stressor to the viability of Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk (Service 2018, p. 46).
The Y. pestis organism likely arrived in New Mexico at a time that
is approximately coincident with observed declines of Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk populations (that is, beginning in the early 1950s
through the 1960s). Chipmunks, in general, and least chipmunks more
specifically, have been tested in the laboratory and are susceptible to
the plague (Quan and Karman 1962, p. 128). Some epizootics caused by
the plague have been observed in chipmunks and other ground squirrels
(Smith et al. 2010, entire).
Nonnative Species
Feral hogs have become established as a nuisance species in New
Mexico and elsewhere in the United States (USDA Wildlife Services 2010,
entire). In New Mexico, feral hogs occur within Lincoln and Otero
Counties. One of the last remaining locations in New Mexico with
significant feral hog numbers is the Lincoln National Forest, including
the 47,000-acre USFS White Mountain Wilderness Area (USDA 2019, pp.
112-114). This area includes the majority of the known locations of
recent Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk occurrences (Service 2018, pp. 47-
48). Feral hogs are voracious, flexible, and opportunistic omnivores
(USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 6) and will persistently root in an
area until the resources are depleted (USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p.
7).
Rooting can be extremely destructive to habitat. Feral hogs cause
long-term degradation of native ecosystems and plant communities and
spread of invasive weeds through their rooting behavior (USDA Wildlife
Services 2010, pp. 10-12, 19-20). In addition to influencing habitat,
feral hogs consume a multitude of vertebrate and invertebrate species
(USDA Wildlife Services 2010, p. 13). In 2010, USDA Wildlife Services
(2010, p. 14) reported that 90% of the small mammal species listed
under the Act were in areas of expanding feral hog populations and
documented how feral hogs could influence small mammal populations
through heavy and persistent predatory activities. In addition to
direct predation, feral hogs can strip an area of food resources and
are competitors with native species for food and water resources (USDA
Wildlife Services 2010 pp. 12-13). An active feral hog population
control program in the White and Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended in 2018. It is anticipated
that feral hog population in the White Mountains, including within the
proposed Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk critical habitat, will
exponentially increase as a result.
Additionally, feral hogs are susceptible to at least 30 viral and
bacteriological diseases, 20 of which can be transmitted from non-human
animals to humans, and at least 37 parasites have been identified (USDA
Wildlife Services 2010, p. 15). Among the many diseases, pathogens, and
parasites that feral hogs carry, in New Mexico feral hogs have tested
positive for swine brucellosis and pseudorabies. While the ability of
feral hogs to transfer disease to wildlife is not well-studied,
pseudorabies virus is highly contagious,
[[Page 53591]]
and rodents are reported as being susceptible (USDA Wildlife Services
2010, p. 15). The prevalence of antibodies of Y. pestis was reported
for 17 species of mammals from the western United States (Abbott and
Rocke 2012, p. 26); of those, feral hogs had the highest prevalence
rate at 74%. Although the sample size for this assessment was
relatively low (18 out of 23 were positive), these data demonstrate
that feral hogs in both the Sacramento Mountains and White Mountains
could contribute to disease dynamics in the small mammal communities in
these mountain ranges (Abbott and Rocke 2012, p. 26).
Impacts from feral hogs may include rooting, predation, spreading
diseases and parasites, spreading invasive weed species, and
competition with native species for water and food resources (Service
2018, p. 48). We lack specific data demonstrating overlap of feral hog
occurrence with Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk occurrence; however,
feral hogs are known to occur in the vicinity of Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk habitat or areas formerly known to be occupied by the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2018, p. 48).
Small Population Size and Lack of Connectivity
Compared to large populations, small populations are more
vulnerable to extirpation from environmental, demographic, and genetic
stochasticity (random natural occurrences), and unforeseen natural or
unnatural catastrophes (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Small populations are
less able to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in
reproduction (demographic stochasticity), sweeping losses from disease
events, or changes in the frequency or severity of wildfires
(environmental stochasticity).
Another type of random fluctuation, genetic stochasticity, results
from: (1) Changes in gene frequencies due to the founder effect, which
is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is
established by a small number of individuals (Hedrick 2000, p. 226);
(2) random fixation, or the complete loss of all but one allele at a
locus (Hedrick 2000, p. 258); or (3) inbreeding depression, which is
the loss of fitness or vigor due to mating among relatives (Hedrick
2000, p. 208). Additionally, small populations generally have an
increased chance of genetic drift, or random changes in gene
frequencies from generation to generation that can lead to a loss of
variation, and inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, p. 225). Allee
effects, when there is a positive relationship between any component of
individual fitness and either numbers or density of conspecifics
(Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186), may also occur when a population is in
decline (Dennis 1989, pp. 481- 538). In a declining population, an
extinction threshold or ``Allee threshold'' (Berec et al. 2007, pp.
185-191) may be crossed, in which adults in the population either cease
to breed or the population becomes so compromised that breeding does
not contribute to population growth. Allee effects typically fall into
three broad categories (Courchamp et al. 1999, pp. 405-410): Lack of
facilitation (including low mate detection and loss of breeding cues),
demographic stochasticity, and loss of heterozygosity. Environmental
stochasticity amplifies Allee effects (Dennis 1989, pp. 481-538; Dennis
2002, pp. 389-401). In Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks, random fixation
and loss of heterozygosity have been observed (Sullivan 1985, pp. 431-
433). The extinction risk for a subspecies represented by few small
populations is magnified when those populations are isolated from one
another, as is the case for the White Mountains and the Sacramento
Mountains (Service 2018, p. 50).
It is suspected that the White Mountains and Sacramento Mountains
populations may have been physically separated over a long time period
with little to no genetic interchange, based on morphometric
differences in collected specimens (Sullivan 1985, pp. 424-425).
However, connectivity could play an important role as it relates to the
overall viability to the subspecies if it is found to be present in the
Sacramento Mountains in the future. Connectivity between White Mountain
and Sacramento populations would contribute to the number of
reproductively active individuals in a population; mitigate the
genetic, demographic, and environmental effects of small population
size; and recolonize extirpated areas (Service 2018, pp. 48-49).
Additionally, the fewer the populations a species or subspecies has,
the greater the risk of extinction. The combination of a very small
population in the White Mountains, a likely extirpated population in
the Sacramento Mountains, and no population connectivity between the
mountain ranges, synergistically interacting with the other stressors
and potential stressors described above, greatly increases extinction
risk for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Service 2018, p. 50).
Because of this combination, the stressor of small population size is
included in our analysis of future subspecies viability.
Conservation Actions
The White Mountains Wilderness Area within the Lincoln National
Forest is currently closed to grazing and will remain closed for the
recovery and protection of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Williams
pers. comm. 2020). As part of the SSA, we also developed multiple
future scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future
threats and the projected responses by the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk. Our scenarios included a continuing conditions scenario,
which incorporated the current risk factors continuing on the same
trajectory that they are on now. We also evaluated an optimistic
scenario and a scenario with increased stressors. Because we determined
that the current condition of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was
consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Species
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report
(Service 2018) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
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 an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
The range of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk once included the
Sacramento and White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero Counties in New
Mexico. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is now found in only one
isolated
[[Page 53592]]
population within the White Mountains. The one remaining population has
low resiliency, meaning that the population has a low probability of
remaining extant and withstanding periodic or stochastic disturbances
under its current condition. Representation is low, with the loss of
one of two populations within its historical range. Species-level
genetic and ecological diversity is likely extremely low, as one
population is likely extirpated and the remaining population is small.
Redundancy has declined dramatically because the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk remains on the landscape in only one population. As such, the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is at greater risk of extinction due to a
catastrophic event when compared to historical conditions.
The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk faces threats that put it at risk
of extinction, including vegetation shifts, wildfire, forest
encroachment, recreation, development, land use, and land management
(Factor A, nonnative species (Factors A and C), disease (Factor C), and
small population size and lack of connectivity (Factor E). We found
small population size to be the main threat to the species currently.
The current population is small and isolated, making it vulnerable to
catastrophic or stochastic events. The risk of species extinction from
a disease outbreak, large wildfire, or extreme drought is high. The one
remaining population is currently small and isolated, and we expect it
to remain so in the future. Neither ongoing management activities, nor
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), are sufficient to mitigate
the threats facing the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
Based on the assessment of the species' resiliency, representation,
and redundancy, which are at levels that put the species at risk of
extinction throughout its range, we find the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk meets the definition of an endangered species. We find that a
threatened species status is not appropriate for the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk because it is currently at risk of extinction.
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. We have determined that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk warrants listing as
endangered throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent
with the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020
WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect
of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant
Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1,
2014) that provided the Services do not undertake an analysis of
significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants
listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk meets the
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk as an endangered species in accordance
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, as well as
private organizations and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation
with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to
be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outlines, draft recovery
plans, and the final recovery plans will be available on our website
(<a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered">https://www.fws.gov/endangered</a>), or from our New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions may be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico may be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
Information on our
[[Page 53593]]
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/grants">https://www.fws.gov/grants</a>.
Although the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is only proposed for
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for the species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands including those
administered by the U.S. Forest Service, issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the
Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Winter activities at the ski resort;
(2) Hiking on established trails; and
(3) Routine road maintenance.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and result in ``take'' include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collection of the species;
(2) Creation and modification of trails;
(3) Ski resort maintenance during summer months; and
(4) Organized mountain bike races.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals). Additionally, our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.02 define the word ``habitat'' as follows: ``for the
purposes of designating critical habitat only, habitat is the abiotic
and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the
resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life
processes of a species.''
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies
[[Page 53594]]
ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. The designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will consider
unoccupied areas to be essential only where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for
[[Page 53595]]
a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United
States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
As discussed in the SSA Report (Service 2018, p. 50), there is
currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified
under Factor B for this species, and identification and mapping of
critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In our
SSA and the above proposed listing determination for the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk, we determined that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and that those threats in
some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The
species occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States and we
are able to identify areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are
no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this
designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is determinable. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when
one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where the species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the
species might include gravel of a particular size required for
spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological
features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular
level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the
listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats
that are protected from disturbance.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history. Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
habitat is characterized as high-elevation subalpine habitat in the
White Mountains, composed of Thurber's fescue (Festuca thurberi)
meadows, where rock outcrops or talus are present (Frey and Hays 2017,
p. 34). Subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland community occurs
within openings in high-elevation spruce-fir forest and above tree line
in the glacial cirque. These Thurber's fescue grasslands contain tall
bunchgrasses, including Thurber's fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and
shrubs (Frey and Hays 2017, pp. 2-3). Bunchgrasses and forbs provide
cover from predators. The elevation of subalpine habitat in the White
Mountains ranges from 2,500 m to 3,597 m (8,200 ft to 11,800 ft).
Forage for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks consists of the seeds and
flowers of forbs, particularly species of Asteraceae (Frey and Hays
2017, p. 34). The diet also includes flowers and fruits of gooseberry
(Ribes spp.) and wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus edulis)
nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns, insects, and other items
(Sullivan 1993, p. 3).
The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is likely extirpated from the
Sacramento Mountains, and the habitat no longer supports the species;
therefore, we did not include the Sacramento Mountains in our critical
habitat designation or analysis of physical or biological features. The
habitat occupied by Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks is different for the
subspecies in the White Mountains versus the Sacramento Mountains. A
full description of the needs of individuals, populations, and the
species is available in the SSA report.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
In summary, we derive the specific physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk from
studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as
described in the Background portion of this rule, above. Additional
information can be found in the SSA Report (Service 2018) available on
the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0042. We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are
[[Page 53596]]
essential to the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk:
(1) Areas within the White Mountains:
(a) Between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet),
(b) That contain rock outcrops or talus, and
(c) That are subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland
communities found within openings of spruce-fir forest, above tree line
in the glacial cirque, containing tall bunchgrasses, including
Thurber's fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and shrubs.
(2) Forage, including species of Asteraceae, flowers and fruits of
gooseberry (Ribes spp), wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus
edulis) nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns, and insects.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk may require special management
considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1)
Forest encroachment due to altered fire regime; (2) recreation,
development, land use, and land management; (3) destruction of habitat
by nonnative species (feral hogs); and (4) disease.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to: Prescribed fire and forest management to
maintain the open subalpine meadows with native vegetation; continued
closure of the encompassing Forest Service allotment to grazing;
disease management; and feral hog management.
In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to
designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or protection may be required of Federal
agencies that may take actions in designated critical habitat in order
to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, the threats affecting
the physical and biological features of the unit.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the subspecies to be
considered for designation as critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area that was occupied by the species at the time of
listing. We also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the
geographical area that was occupied by the species at the time of
listing because we have determined that a designation limited to
occupied areas would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species. Furthermore, we conclude there is a reasonable certainty that
the unoccupied area will contribute to the conservation of the species
and contains one or more of those physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. We have also determined
that the unoccupied area falls within the regulatory definition of
``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02.
The current distribution of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is
much reduced from its historical range. We anticipate that recovery
will require continued protection of the existing population and its
habitat, and potentially reintroduction of Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk into historically occupied areas in the Sacramento Mountains,
ensuring there are adequate numbers in both of the two historical
locations. This strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events,
such as the effects of fire, cannot simultaneously affect all known
populations. Rangewide recovery considerations, such as maintaining
existing genetic diversity and striving for connectivity within
portions of the species' current range to allow adequate movement to
assure genetic diversity, were considered in formulating this proposed
critical habitat.
Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation
include multiple reports and discussions with species experts,
including New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (see SSA report). We
have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species. Sources of information on habitat
requirements include studies conducted at occupied sites and published
in peer-reviewed articles and agency reports, and data collected during
monitoring efforts.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed critical habitat designation does not include all
areas known to have been occupied by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
historically; instead, it focuses on the currently occupied area within
the historical range that retains the necessary physical or biological
features that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of the
existing population. We are not proposing any critical habitat in the
Sacramento Mountains because we conclude that the area no longer has
the ability to support the species.
We delineated occupied and unoccupied critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following geospatial methodology:
(1) First, we compiled all known Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
observations (i.e., captures) in the White Mountains from 1931-2018,
mapped their locations, and eliminated duplicate records. This process
provided a bounded estimate of the subspecies' known range.
(2) Using existing U.S. Forest Service vegetation mapping for the
Lincoln National Forest, we identified and exported all vegetation
classes that coincided with the known observations. The vegetation
classes included (1) mixed grass-forb and (2) Gambel oak, which are
consistent with physical habitat descriptions for the subspecies in the
White Mountains. Vegetation characterized by meadow/grassland community
within openings of spruce-fir forest are one of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk.
(3) Next, we determined the elevation interval in which the White
Mountains population has been observed. We used that interval to
further define the extent of the grass-forb and Gambel oak vegetation
classes. Although the upper limit of the occupied interval did not
extend to the highest points within the critical habitat units, we
assumed that the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is capable of occupying
these higher elevations as the difference (roughly 100 meters or 330
feet) is not substantial. Therefore, we extended the interval to
include the highest peaks within each unit. This process resulted in a
basic model of potential habitat.
(4) Finally, we refined the output of step 3 (above) through aerial
photo interpretation in order to correct for the
[[Page 53597]]
coarse resolution imparted by the vegetation mapping. Essentially, this
process allows the model to be more accurate and applicable at a finer
scale.
The critical habitat area was mapped using ArcMap version 10.6.1
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2018), a Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) computer application. We identified two
critical habitat units in the White Mountains known to be occupied by
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunks as of 2019. We identified a third
critical habitat unit between these two occupied units that has the
physical and biological features required by the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk but has not yet been surveyed for occupancy.
We have determined that a designation limited to the two occupied
units would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the subspecies
because there is only one remaining population, which has low
resiliency and no redundancy, making it vulnerable to catastrophic or
stochastic events and further compounding the risks of small population
sizes. The risk of subspecies extinction from a disease outbreak, large
wildfire, or extreme drought is high. A low-resiliency single
population provides no redundancy for the species, and a single
catastrophic event could cause species extinction.
Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing
Because we have determined known occupied areas alone are not
adequate for the conservation of the species, we have evaluated whether
any unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
We are proposing as critical habitat one unit situated between the two
known occupied units that is currently considered unoccupied because of
a lack of survey data. We have determined that it is essential for the
conservation of the species as it provides important connectivity
between the two occupied units and could support population expansion
into this area, if not populated already. Limited functional habitat
exists within the White Mountains, and connectivity between known
locations of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because it provides more of the physical
or biological features upon which the subspecies depends for feeding,
sheltering and reproducing. This unit provides a link between the two
known occupied units. The unit has all of the physical or biological
features necessary for the conservation of the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk; it's in the White Mountains, at elevations of 2,500-3,597
meters (8,200-11,800 feet), with rock outcrop, and the vegetation is
characterized by meadow/grassland community within openings of spruce-
fir forests.
Small, isolated populations of animals with restricted movement and
low genetic diversity are more likely to become extirpated than larger
populations with greater movement between sub-populations within them
and greater genetic diversity. Due to the small population sizes found
within the two occupied units, either or both could become extirpated
from local catastrophic events or the deleterious effects of genetic
bottlenecking resulting from inbreeding that reduces the viability of a
population, if they had no connectivity. The unoccupied unit in between
these two known occupied units has never been surveyed for
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, due to its remoteness and difficulty to
access. It does, however, maintain all the physical or biological
features of the occupied areas. We analyzed this using remote GIS
vegetation and landscape feature data from the U.S. Forest Service and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Imagery
Program. It is possible the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is present in
the unoccupied unit; however, with no confirmed records, we are
treating it as unoccupied for purposes of this designation. Physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk are areas within the White Mountains, between elevations
of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet), that contain rock outcrops,
and vegetation associated with meadow/grassland communities within
openings of spruce-fir forests. This unoccupied unit provides all of
the physical or biological features to allow for breeding, feeding,
sheltering and dispersal of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The
unoccupied unit is within the White Mountains with varying elevations
between 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet), and rock outcrops, and
approximately 44 percent of this unit is classified as grass-forb mix
or Gambel oak. We find that this unit currently contains the resources
and conditions necessary to support multiple life processes (i.e.,
breeding, feeding, sheltering and dispersal) of the Pe[ntilde]asco
least chipmunk.
General Information on the Maps of the Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation in the discussion of individual units, below. We
will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is
based available to the public on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by pavement, buildings, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently known
to be occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to support life-history processes of the
species. We have determined that the known occupied areas are
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we
have also identified, and propose for designation as critical habitat,
unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the
species. For those unoccupied areas, we have determined that it is
reasonably certain that the unoccupied areas will contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain one or more of the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species. We have also determined that the unoccupied areas fall within
the regulatory definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 2,660 hectares (6,574
acres) in three units in New Mexico as critical habitat for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
[[Page 53598]]
definition of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
The three distinct units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Nogal
Peak, (2) Crest Trail, and (3) Sierra Blanca. Two of the units are
currently occupied by the subspecies and the occupancy status by the
subspecies of one of the units is currently unknown but contains the
physical and biological features and is essential to the conservation
of the subspecies. All units proposed may require special management
considerations or protection to address stressors associated with
managing prescribed and wildland fire, road management and maintenance,
development and use around Ski Apache Resort, feral hog management, and
plague management. Table 4, below, shows the proposed units' names,
land ownership, and approximate area. Land ownership is predominantly
Federal. Unit 3 consists of Federal and Tribal lands.
Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of overlap
with Mexican Overlap with
Occupied at the Area of unit, spotted owl Lincoln
Critical habitat unit time of listing Ownership in hectares, designated National Forest
(acres) critical wilderness area
habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. Nogal Peak.......... Yes............ Federal........ 393 (972) 100%, 393 100%, 393
hectares, 972 hectares, 972
acres. acres.
Unit 2. Crest Trail......... No............. Federal........ 910 (2,249) 89.5%, 814 100%, 910
hectares, hectares,
2,011 acres. 2,249 acres.
Unit 3. Sierra Blanca....... Yes............ Federal; Tribal 1,357 (3,353) 56.9%, 772 17.2%, 234
hectares, hectares, 577
1,098 acres. acres.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,660 (6,574)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Nogal Peak, New Mexico
Unit 1 consists of approximately 393 hectares (972 acres) of
subalpine habitat within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area
and is occupied. This unit is within the critical habitat designation
in Lincoln County, New Mexico, for the Mexican spotted owl, which is
listed as a threatened species under the Act. Elevation ranges
approximately 2,570-3,031 m (8,432-9,944 ft) above mean sea level
(MSL). Mean elevation in Unit 1 is 2,772 m (9,094 ft) with a standard
deviation of 70 meters (230 ft). Approximately 79 percent of Unit 1 is
classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak. Unit 1 contains all the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species; it is within the White Mountains, between elevations of
2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet), with rock outcrops and talus,
and 79 percent of the unit is characterized by meadow/grassland
community within opening of spruce-fir forests. This unit is federally
owned by the U.S. Forest Service; it is 100 percent within the Lincoln
National Forest Wilderness Area. Threats to the unit include forest
encroachment into the open meadows, grazing, and destruction of habitat
by nonnative species (feral hogs); these can be ameliorated through
prescribed fire and forest management to maintain the open subalpine
meadows with native vegetation, continued closure of the encompassing
Forest Service allotment to grazing, and feral hog management.
Unit 2: Crest Trail, New Mexico
Unit 2 consists of approximately 910 hectares (2,249 acres) of
subalpine habitat. Although it is considered unoccupied, Unit 2
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and serves as a connectivity corridor
between Unit 1 and Unit 3. Due to the location between Units 1 and 3
and the overall suitability of the habitat, it is possible the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is present in the unoccupied unit;
however, with no confirmed records, we are treating it as unoccupied
for purposes of this designation. Approximately 89 percent of this unit
is within the critical habitat designation for the Mexican spotted owl
in Lincoln County, New Mexico. This unit is federally owned by the U.S.
Forest Service and is 100 percent within the Lincoln National Forest
Wilderness Area. Elevation ranges approximately 2,621-3,292 m (8,599-
10,800 ft) above MSL. Mean elevation in Unit 2 is 2,876 m (9,436 ft)
with a standard deviation of 139 meters (456 ft). Approximately 44
percent of Unit 2 is classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak. Unit 2
contains all the physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species; it is within the White Mountains,
between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet), with rock
outcrops and talus, and 44 percent of the unit is characterized by
meadow/grassland community within openings of spruce-fir forests.
Unit 3: Sierra Blanca, New Mexico
Unit 3 includes approximately 1,357 hectares (3,353 acres) of
subalpine habitat, contains the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and is known to be
occupied. The proportion of Unit 3 located on Mescalero Tribal lands is
approximately 581 hectares (1,435 acres) or 43 percent. The unit
contains the Ski Apache Resort; the land is owned by the U.S. Forest
Service, but managed under a permit by the Mescalero Apache Tribe. The
resort occupies 543 hectares (1,431 acres), 40 percent of the unit. The
remaining 17 percent is U.S. Forest Service land, part of the Lincoln
National Forest Wilderness Area. Approximately 57 percent of the unit
is also Mexican spotted owl critical habitat in Lincoln and Otero
Counties, New Mexico. Elevation ranges approximately 2,763-3,638 m
(9,065-11,936 ft) above MSL. Mean elevation in Unit 3 is 3,219 m
(10,561 ft) with a standard deviation of 145 m (476 ft). Approximately
52 percent of Unit 3 is classified as grass-forb mix or Gambel oak.
Unit 3 contains all the physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species; it is within the White
Mountains, between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800
feet), with rock outcrops and talus, and 52 percent of the unit is
characterized by meadow/grassland community within openings of spruce-
fir forests. Threats to the unit include forest encroachment into the
open meadows, recreation, development, land use, and land management,
grazing, and destruction of habitat by nonnative species (feral hogs);
these can be ameliorated through prescribed fire and forest management
to maintain the open subalpine meadows with native vegetation,
continued closure of the encompassing
[[Page 53599]]
Forest Service allotment to grazing, and feral hog management.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Management of the Ski Apache Resort to include maintaining ski
runs or recreational paths that are clear of trees, maintaining
existing roads through grading, and maintaining facilities that include
structures and features for ski lifts, the gondola, and zip line;
(2) Forest management activities, including timber harvest,
prescribed fire, etc.;
(3) Road maintenance activities; and
(4) Recreation site maintenance and development of new sites,
including trails.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with a completed INRMP within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying
[[Page 53600]]
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless we determine, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the statute on its face and the legislative history are
clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s)
to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Lands owned by the Mescalero Apache Tribe are included in this
critical habitat proposal. We are considering these lands for exclusion
from critical habitat (see Exclusions, below). However, the final
decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best
scientific data available at the time of the final designation,
including information we obtain during the comment period and
information about the economic impacts of the designation. Accordingly,
we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review
and comment (see ADDRESSES, above).
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden
imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially
affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the
Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Industrial
Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2019).
We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the
key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts.
The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic
areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections
and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans,
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation.
If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat
designation, the screening analysis assesses whether any additional
management or conservation efforts may incur incremental economic
impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the information
contained in our IEM, is what we consider our draft economic analysis
(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation.
In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that
may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, first we identified, in the IEM dated
July 2019, probable incremental economic impacts associated with
certain activities. These activities include (1) management of the Ski
Apache Resort, to include maintaining: ski runs or recreational paths
that are clear of trees, existing roads through grading, and facilities
that include structures and features for ski lifts, the gondola, and
zip line (permitted by the U.S. Forest Service); and (2) road
management, maintenance, and new construction (U.S. Forest Service). We
considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of
critical habitat affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas
where the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is present, Federal agencies
would be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
species. If, when we list the species, we also finalize this proposed
critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or
[[Page 53601]]
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk's critical habitat. Because the
designation of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
was proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience
that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are
attributable to the species being listed and those which will result
solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following
specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1)
The essential physical and biological features identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or
harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and
biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale
concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation
efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat
for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been
used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts
of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
We have identified and delineated three proposed critical habitat
units, totaling approximately 2,660 hectares (6,574 acres), two of
which are currently occupied by the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk and
one that is unoccupied but essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. The two occupied units (Units 1 and 3) are considered
occupied year-round for the purposes of consultation based on current
survey data. In the occupied area, any actions that may affect the
species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat,
and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. While this additional
analysis in the occupied critical habitat would require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is
believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly
be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
One of the proposed critical habitat units (Unit 2) is unoccupied.
No surveys for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk have been done in the
unit. We assume any costs associated with this unit would be
attributable to critical habitat rather than the listing of the
species.
Federal agencies are the entities most likely to incur incremental
costs associated with designating critical habitat, due to section 7
requirements. We do not anticipate any costs to State or local
agencies, or impacts on property values related to the public's
perception of additional regulation, because we do not expect the
designation of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
to result in changes to New Mexico local regulations (IEc 2019, p. 16).
At most, no more than two Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk
consultations (two informal) are anticipated in any given year (IEc
2019, p. 8). Most of the proposed critical habitat occurs within
Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area, where little work and no
commercial activities occur; it is also existing Mexican spotted owl
critical habitat. In the past 3 years there have not been any section 7
consultations in this area. The estimated incremental costs of the
total critical habitat designation for the Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk in the first year are unlikely to exceed $5,000 (2019 dollars)
(IEc 2019, p. 9). Thus, the annual administrative burden would not
reach $100 million.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA and all aspects of the proposed rule and our required
determinations. During the development of a final designation, we will
consider the information presented in the DEA and any additional
information on economic impacts received during the public comment
period to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we receive
credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful economic
impact or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we
will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We
may also otherwise decide to exercise the discretion to evaluate any
other areas for possible exclusion. In addition, if we do conduct an
exclusion analysis and we have received any information from experts
in, or sources with firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside
the scope of the Service's expertise, for purposes of the exclusion
analysis we will assign weights to those impacts consistent with the
information from experts in, or sources with firsthand knowledge about,
those impacts, unless we have rebutting information. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the lands adjacent to the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk are
not owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of
Homeland Security. We anticipate no impact on national security.
However, during the development of a final designation we will consider
any additional information received through the public comment period
on the impacts of the proposed designation on national security or
homeland security to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence
of Tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
There are currently no active HCPs or other management plans for
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. We anticipate no impact on current
partnerships or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation.
[[Page 53602]]
Tribal Lands
Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206), is the most
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition
to the general direction discussed above, S.O. 3206 explicitly
recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in the listing
process, including designation of critical habitat. The Order also
states: ``Critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas unless
it is determined essential to conserve a listed species. In designating
critical habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent
to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved
by limiting the designation to other lands.'' In light of this
instruction, when we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2)
exclusion analysis, we will always consider exclusions of Tribal lands
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act prior to finalizing a designation of
critical habitat, and will give great weight to Tribal concerns in
analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
However, S.O. 3206 does not preclude us from designating Tribal
lands or waters as critical habitat, nor does it state that Tribal
lands or waters cannot meet the Act's definition of ``critical
habitat.'' We are directed by the Act to identify areas that meet the
definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied at the time of
listing that contain the essential physical or biological features that
may require special management or protection and unoccupied areas that
are essential to the conservation of a species), without regard to
landownership. While S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it
expressly states that it does not modify the Secretaries' statutory
authority.
Mescalero Apache Tribal lands are included in the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
Approximately 581 hectares (1,435 acres) of Tribal lands occupied by
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk meet the definition of critical
habitat. We will consider these areas for exclusion from the final
critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the
requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have notified the
Mescalero Apache Tribe and requested their feedback. We will continue
to coordinate with the Mescalero Apache Tribe, as well as any other
Tribal entity who wishes to provide information to the Service
regarding this proposed listing and critical habitat designation. A
final determination on whether the Secretary will exercise the
discretion to exclude any of these areas from critical habitat for the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk will be made when we publish the final
rule designating critical habitat. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider all information currently available or
received during the public comment period. If we receive credible
information regarding the existence of a meaningful impact supporting a
benefit of excluding any area, we will undertake an exclusion analysis
and determine whether those areas should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. We may also exercise the
discretion to undertake exclusion analyses for other areas as well.
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.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
[[Page 53603]]
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our draft economic analysis, we did not find that
the designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do
not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures or restrictions on use
of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the
[[Page 53604]]
designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that
do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from
carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment
has been completed for the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, and it concludes that, if adopted,
this designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to
obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with listing species
and designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However,
when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit,
such as that of the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk, under the Tenth
Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA
analysis for critical habitat designation. We invite the public to
comment on the extent to which this proposed regulation may have a
significant impact on the human environment, or fall within one of the
categorical exclusions for actions that have no individual or
cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. We will
complete our analysis, in compliance with NEPA, before finalizing this
proposed rule.
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. In a letter dated November 27, 2017,
we informed the Mescalero Apache Tribe of our intent to conduct a
status assessment for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk. On July 5,
2018, we shared the draft of the SSA report with the Mescalero Apache
Tribe for their partner review. We will continue to work with Tribal
entities during the development of a final rule for the designation of
critical habitat for the Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon
request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
[[Page 53605]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, by adding an entry for ``Chipmunk, Pe[ntilde]asco least'' in
alphabetical order under MAMMALS to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Chipmunk, Pe[ntilde]asco least.. Neotamias minimus Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
atristriatus. citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.95(a).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by adding an entry for ``Pe[ntilde]asco Least
Chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)'' after the entry for
``Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Southern Mountain
Distinct Population Segment (DPS),'' to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) * * *
Pe[ntilde]asco Least Chipmunk (Neotamias Minimus Atristriatus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Lincoln and Otero
Counties, New Mexico, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk consist
of the following components:
(i) Areas within the White Mountains:
(A) Between elevations of 2,500-3,597 meters (8,200-11,800 feet);
(B) That contain rock outcrops or talus; and
(C) That are subalpine Thurber's fescue meadow/grassland
communities found within openings of spruce-fir forest, above tree line
in the glacial cirque, containing tall bunchgrasses, including
Thurber's fescue, sedges, flowering forbs, and shrubs.
(ii) Forage, including species of Asteraceae, flowers and fruits of
gooseberry (Ribes spp), wild strawberry (Fragaria spp.), pinyon (Pinus
edulis) nuts, Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) acorns, and insects.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using publicly available geospatial vegetation data for the
Lincoln National Forest, 30-meter digital elevation models from the
National Elevation Dataset, and 3-band county mosaics obtained from the
National Agricultural Imagery Program. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based are available to the public at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0042 and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 53606]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE21.009
(6) Unit 1: Nogal Peak.
(i) Unit 1 consists of approximately 393 hectares (972 acres) of
subalpine habitat within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area
and is considered occupied. Elevation ranges approximately 2,570-3,031
meters (8,432-9,944 feet) above mean sea level.
[[Page 53607]]
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE21.010
(7) Unit 2: Crest Trail.
(i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 910 hectares (2,249 acres) of
subalpine habitat located within the Lincoln National Forest Wilderness
Area and is considered unoccupied. Elevation ranges approximately
2,621-3,292 meters (8,599-10,800 feet) above mean sea level.
[[Page 53608]]
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE21.011
(8) Unit 3: Sierra Blanca.
(i) Unit 3 includes approximately 1,357 hectares (3,353 acres) of
subalpine habitat located within the Lincoln National Forest, the
Lincoln National Forest Wilderness Area, and Mescalero Apache Tribal
lands and is considered occupied. The portion of Unit 3 located on
Mescalero Tribal lands is approximately 581 hectares (1,435 acres).
Elevation ranges approximately 2,763-3,638 meters (9,065-11,936 feet)
above mean sea level.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[[Page 53609]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE21.012
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20934 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 28, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.