[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60207-60235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23741]
[[Page 60207]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 191
October 2, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened
Status for Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designation of
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 191 / Tuesday, October 2, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60208]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053: 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Threatened Status for Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose to
list the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, Cicindela albissima, as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act); and propose to designate critical habitat for the species. In
total, approximately 921 hectares (2,276 acres) are being proposed for
designation as critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat is
located in Kane County, Utah.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 3, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, 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 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps of the
specific areas proposed as critical habitat are generated are included
in the administrative record for this rulemaking and are available at
http://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/, at www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053, and at the Utah Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and
may also be included in the preamble and/or at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Ecological Services Field
Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119;
telephone 801-975-3330; or facsimile 801-975-3331. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list the Coral Pink Sand Dunes (CPSD) tiger beetle as
threatened; and (2) a proposed critical habitat designation for the
CPSD tiger beetle.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposed rule in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within one year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions
of critical habitat can only be completed in a rule making process.
What This Rule Will Do
We are proposing to list the CPSD tiger beetle as a
threatened species.
We also are proposing to designate 921 hectares (2,276
acres) of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes (CPSD) Geologic Feature in Kane
County as critical habitat.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can 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 propose to list the CPSD tiger beetle as a threatened species
because of the following threats:
Habitat loss and degradation caused by off-road vehicle
use.
Small population effects, such as vulnerability to random
chance events.
Other natural or manmade factors, including climate change
and drought.
Cumulative interaction of individual factors such as off-
road vehicle use, climate change, and drought.
We have also determined that existing regulatory mechanisms are not
adequately addressing the threats to the species.
Under the Act, any species that is determined to be a threatened or
endangered species shall, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, have habitat designated that is considered to be critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act states that the
Secretary shall designate 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 any particular area as critical habitat.
We propose to designate a 921-hectare (2,276-acre) area as critical
habitat for the CPSD tiger beetle. The critical habitat area we propose
in this rule constitutes our current best assessment of the specific
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the CPSD tiger
beetle.
We are preparing an economic analysis of the proposed designation
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we are
preparing an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designations. We will use the information from the
draft economic analysis to inform the development of the final
designation of critical habitat for this species.
We are preparing an environmental assessment of the proposed
designation of critical habitat. Based on a relevant court decision in
the Tenth Circuit, we shall evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of a designation of critical habitat for any species whose
range overlaps the geographic area governed by the Federal Tenth
Circuit Court under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We
will use the results of the draft environmental assessment to inform
the development of our final designation of critical habitat.
[[Page 60209]]
We will seek peer review. We are seeking the expert opinions of
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. We have invited these peer reviewers to
comment during the proposed rule's public comment period. We will
consider all comments and information received during the comment
period in our preparation of the final determinations. Accordingly, the
final decisions may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, 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) 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) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
(3) Biological, commercial, or other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this 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 this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate specific
areas as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) including whether the degree of threats would be expected
to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent.
(6) Specific information on our proposed critical habitat
designation:
(a) The amount and distribution of CPSD tiger beetle habitat;
(b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(c) Where these features are currently found;
(d) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species or proposed to be designated as critical
habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on this species and
proposed critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the CPSD tiger beetle and proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
(11) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed 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 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 the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
In 1984, we published our Invertebrate Notice of Review classifying
the CPSD tiger beetle as a Category 2 species (49 FR 21664, May 22,
1984). Category 2 status included those taxa for which information in
the Service's possession indicated that a proposed rule was possibly
appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability
and threats were not available to support a proposed listing rule. In
1994, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance petitioned us to list the
CPSD tiger beetle as an endangered species and to designate critical
habitat. In our 90-day petition finding (59 FR 47293, September 15,
1994), we indicated the petition presented substantial information in
support of listing, and later that year we changed the CPSD tiger
beetle's status from Category 2 to Category 1 (59 FR 58982, November
15, 1994). Category 1 status
[[Page 60210]]
included those taxa for which the Service had sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them
as endangered or threatened species. On December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64481),
we published our decision to discontinue candidate categories and to
restrict candidate status to those taxa for which we have sufficient
information to support issuance of a proposed rule. As a result, the
CPSD tiger beetle remained a candidate species (62 FR 49398, September
19, 1997).
In 1997, the Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Utah
Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), and Kane County signed a
Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) and formed a conservation
committee with the dual goals of protecting CPSD tiger beetle habitat
and balancing the needs of this rare species with off-road vehicle
(ORV) use in the area (Conservation Committee 1997, pp. 4-5). These
agencies renewed the CCA in 2009 (Conservation Committee 2009, entire).
Coordination under the CCA resulted in the establishment of two
Conservation Areas that protect the CPSD tiger beetle from ORV use--
Conservation Areas A and B (see Habitat and Factor A for more
information on the Conservation Areas).
In our 2010 Candidate Notice of Review, we identified the CPSD
tiger beetle as a species for which listing as an endangered or
threatened species was warranted (with a listing priority number of 2)
but precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions (75 FR
69222, November 10, 2010). In the 2011 Candidate Notice of Review, we
announced that we were not updating our assessment for this species,
because we received funding to develop this proposed listing rule (76
FR 66370, October 26, 2011).
Background
Taxonomy and Species Description
The CPSD tiger beetle is a member of the family Cicindelidae and
genus Cicindela. There are 109 species of tiger beetles in the genus
Cicindela in the United States and Canada (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 4).
The CPSD tiger beetle occurs only at the CPSD geologic feature in
southern Utah and is separated from its closest related subspecies, C.
theatina, by over 600 kilometers (km) (378 miles (mi)) (Rumpp 1961, p.
182). It shares the typical characteristics of other members of the
maritima group (a group of closely related species of sand dune tiger
beetles) and is most similar in morphology to other subspecies of
Cicindela limbata (no common name). It was originally described as C.
limbata albissima (Rumpp 1961, p. 181). However, more recent genetic
analysis revealed that the CPSD tiger beetle is different from all
other members in the maritima group; consequently, we now consider it a
distinct species, CPSD tiger beetle (Morgan et al. 2000, p. 1111). This
is the accepted taxonomic classification (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 77).
CPSD tiger beetle adults are 11 to 15 millimeters (0.4 to 0.6
inches (in)) in size and have striking coloration. The large wing cases
(known as elytra) are predominantly white except for a thin reddish
band that runs down the length of the center. Much of the body and legs
are covered in white hairs. The upper thorax (middle region) has a
metallic sheen, and the eyes are particularly large (Pearson et al.
2006, p. 77).
Habitat
Tiger beetle species occur in many different habitats, including
riparian habitats, beaches, dunes, woodlands, grasslands, and other
open areas (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 177). Most tiger beetle species are
habitat-specific and consequently are useful as indicators of habitat
quality (Knisley and Hill 1992, p. 140). The CPSD tiger beetle, like
its close relatives from the Great Sand Dunes of Colorado (Cicindela
theatina) and the St. Anthony Dunes of Idaho (C. arenicola), is
restricted to sand dune habitat.
The species' current range extends along the CPSD geologic feature.
The CPSD is a geologic feature named for the deep pink color of its
sand dunes (Ford et al. 2010, p. 380). The CPSD are located 5 km (3.1
mi) north of the Utah-Arizona state line and 43 km (27 mi) west of
Kanab, Utah (see Figure 1 below in Population Distribution). The CPSD
are about 13 km (8 mi) long, averaging 1.1 km (0.7 mi) in width, and
1,416 ha (3,500 ac) in surface area.
The CPSD consist of a series of high, mostly barren, dry dune
ridges separated by lower, moister, and more vegetated interdunal
swales (low places between sand dune crests) (Romey and Knisley 2002,
p. 170). Wind action, primarily blowing from south to north, created
and continues to shape the CPSD, utilizing sand from nearby eroding
Navajo sandstone (Doelling et al. 1989, p. 3). Wind velocity decreases
as it moves across the sand dunes (from south to north), resulting in a
dynamic and less vegetated south CPSD area that transitions to a less
dynamic, more heavily vegetated, higher elevation northern CPSD area
(Ford et al. 2010, pp. 387-392).
The CPSD are in a semiarid climatic zone (Ford et al. 2010, p.
381). The nearest weather station, in Kanab, has a mean annual
temperature of 12.4 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C) (54.4[emsp14][deg]Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) and mean annual precipitation of 33.8 centimeters (cm) (13.3
in) (Ford et al. 2010, p. 381). The northern 607 ha (1,500 ac) of CPSD
is Federal land managed by the BLM. The southern 809 ha (2,000 ac) of
the CPSD is within Utah's CPSD State Park.
Adult CPSD tiger beetles use most of the dune areas from the swales
to the upper dune slopes. Larval CPSD tiger beetles are more restricted
to vegetated swale areas (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 386), where the
vegetation supports the larval prey base of flies, ants, and other prey
(Conservation Team 2009, p. 14). Larval CPSD tiger beetle habitat is
typically dominated by the leguminous plants Sophora stenophylla
(silvery sophora) and Psoralidium lanceolatum (dune scurfpea), and
several grasses, including Sporobolus cryptandrus (sand dropseed) and
Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian ricegrass). Larvae also are closely
associated with a federally threatened plant species, Asclepius welshii
(Welsh's milkvetch) (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 385) for which the
entire CPSD area is designated critical habitat (52 FR 41435, October
28, 1987).
Rainfall and associated soil moisture is a critical factor for CPSD
tiger beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1988, entire) and is likely the most
important natural environmental factor affecting population dynamics of
the species. Rainfall and the associated increase in soil moisture have
a positive effect on CPSD tiger beetle oviposition (egg depositing) and
survivorship (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 391). The areas in the dune
field with the highest level of soil moisture and where soil moisture
is closer to the surface contain the highest densities of CPSD tiger
beetle larvae (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 22), indicating that both
proximity to moisture and overall soil moisture are important to the
CPSD tiger beetle's life cycle. Experimental supplemental watering has
resulted in significantly more adults and larvae, more oviposition
events, increased larval survival, and faster larval development
compared to unwatered control plots (Knisley and Gowan 2011, pp. 18-
22).
Population Distribution
The CPSD tiger beetle (Cincindela albissima) occurs sporadically
throughout the CPSD geologic feature, but only consistently exists in
two populations--central and northern--which are separated by 4.8 km (3
mi)
[[Page 60211]]
(Figure 1; Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). The two populations occupy a
total area approximately 202 ha (500 ac) in size (Morgan et al. 2000,
p. 1109).
The central population is the largest and is self-sustaining, but
at relatively low numbers (see Population Size and Dynamics, below).
The northern population is not considered self-sustaining and comprises
only a small number of adults and larvae (Knisley 2001, p. 9). The
northern population likely persists because of adults dispersing from
the central population (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 9).
Low densities of adult CPSD tiger beetles also occur in the dune
area between the central and northern populations (Figure 1; Hill and
Knisley 1993, p. 9; Knisley 2012, pers. comm.), and suitable swale
habitat likely exists in this area. This area has not been extensively
surveyed in the past 20 years, and observations of the species in this
area are from opportunistic and inconsistent surveys. Because the
northern population likely is dependent upon adults dispersing from the
central population (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 9), the 4.8-km (3-mi)
long area of dune between the two populations is likely an important
dispersal corridor for the species (see Adult Dispersal below).
BILLING CODE P
[[Page 60212]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC12.003
BILLING CODE C
As previously mentioned (see Previous Federal Actions), an
interagency CCA established Conservation Areas A and B to protect the
CPSD tiger beetles from ORV use (see Factor A, The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or
Range for more information). These Conservation Areas generally overlap
the central and northern populations of CPSD tiger beetles (see Figure
1). However, the central population does not occupy the entirety of
Conservation Area A, and also extends outside of it. We do not have
occupied swale information for the northern population, so for purposes
of this rule, we will assume that the northern population, during most
years, occupies some swale habitat in an area that overlaps
Conservation Area B entirely. Conservation Area A is 84 ha (207 ac) in
size, and Conservation Area B is 150
[[Page 60213]]
ha (370 ac) in size (Knisley and Gowan 2011, pp. 7, 9).
We do not have comprehensive analysis or occupancy modeling that
predicts the habitat preferences of the CPSD tiger beetle. However, a
preliminary habitat assessment indicated that the beetle exists where
there is abundant prey and larvae, large swale areas capable of
supporting the appropriate vegetation, swale sediment characteristics
appropriate for vegetation and larval burrows, dune migration
characteristics that permit vegetation to develop and persist within
dune swales, proper sediment supply, and a proper wind regime (Fenster
et al. 2012, pp. 2-4). The presence of CPSD tiger beetles in the
northern and eastern portions of Conservation Area A, to the east and
outside of Conservation Area A (despite the lack of protection from ORV
traffic), and in limited swales in Conservation Area B, indicate that
many or all of these habitat conditions occur in these areas. See the
Factor A section, and other subsections in Background for more
information on CPSD tiger beetle preferred habitat characteristics.
The same preliminary habitat assessment indicated that CPSD tiger
beetles do not exist where there is a lack of prey, small swale areas
incapable of supporting the appropriate vegetation, swale sediment
characteristics not conducive for vegetation nor suitable for larval
burrows, dune migration characteristics that do not permit vegetation
to develop and persist within dune swales, low sediment supply, and
wind velocities that are too high or too low to maintain proper dune
form and vegetation densities (Fenster et al. 2012, pp. 4-5). The
general absence of CPSD tiger beetles in the south-central and
southeastern portions of Conservation Area A and the general area south
of Conservation Area A, indicate that many of these habitat conditions
occur in these areas. See the Factor A section, and other subsections
in Background for more information on CPSD tiger beetle preferred
habitat characteristics.
Life History
Similar to other tiger beetles, the CPSD tiger beetle goes through
several developmental stages. These include an egg, three larval stages
(known as ``instars,'' with each instar separated by molting), pupa,
and adult (Knisley and Shultz 1997, p. 13). First instar larvae appear
in late spring after hatching from eggs that were oviposited in sand
the previous late summer or fall (Hill and Knisley 1997, p. 2). The
first instar larvae dig small vertical burrows from the sand surface
down 6 to 9 cm (2.4 to 3.5 in.) into the sand substrate (Conservation
Committee 2009, p. 14). After several weeks of feeding at the surface,
the first instar larva plugs its burrow opening, sheds its skin
(molts), and becomes a larger second instar larva (Conservation
Committee 1997, p. 2). The second instar stage lasts several months
(again emerging from its burrow and feeding at the surface for a brief
period) before developing into a third instar, with most reaching this
stage by mid- to late summer (Conservation Committee 1997, p. 2).
Larvae continue as second or third instars into fall, and then
hibernate in burrows during the winter (Conservation Committee 1997, p.
3). The third instar stage can take 9 months to over a year to reach
full development (Conservation Committee 1997, p. 3). After the third
instar is fully developed, the CPSD tiger beetle plugs its burrow
opening and transforms into a pupa (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 34).
During the pupal period (stage between third instar and adult
emergence), the beetle undergoes a metamorphosis where many of the
adult physical structures develop (i.e., wings and flight muscles)
(Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 34). Adults emerge soon after this
metamorphosis. The CPSD tiger beetle completes its entire life cycle
from egg to adult reproduction to death within 2 or 3 years (Hill and
Knisley 1997, p. 3).
Adult Behavior and Ecology
Adults are active on sunny days along the dunes and swale edges.
The majority of recently metamorphosed adult CPSD tiger beetles emerge
from their burrows in late March to early April, reach peak abundance
by May, begin declining in June, and die by August (Knisley and Hill
2001, p. 387). A small proportion of a second adult cohort emerges in
early September and remains active into October before digging
overwintering burrows (Knisley and Hill 2001, pp. 387-388).
Adult tiger beetles are active predators, attacking and eating prey
with their large and powerful mandibles (mouthparts). They can run or
fly rapidly over the sand surface to capture or scavenge for prey
arthropods. Adults feed primarily on ants, flies, and other small
arthropods (Knisley and Hill 1993, p. 13).
CPSD tiger beetle behavior and distribution, like other tiger
beetles, is largely determined by their thermoregulation needs. Adult
tiger beetles dedicate up to 56 percent of their daily activity towards
behavior that controls their internal body temperature (Pearson and
Vogler 2001, p. 135). These behaviors include basking (positioning the
body to maximize exposure to solar radiation); seeking out wet, cool
substrate or shade; and burrowing (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 136).
Tiger beetles with low body temperatures are sluggish; tiger beetles
require a high body temperature for maximal predatory activity (Pearson
and Vogler 2001, p. 131). Thus, the numbers of adult CPSD tiger beetles
observed on rainy or cool, cloudy days are very low (Knisley and Hill
2001, p. 388). Tiger beetles maintain body temperatures near their
lethal limits of 47 to 49 [deg]C (116 to 120 [deg]F) (Pearson and
Vogler 2001, p. 131), so heat refuge is important (Shutlz and Hadley
1987, p. 363). During peak spring and fall activity, when it is sunny,
adult CPSD tiger beetles are usually active early (9 a.m.-2 p.m.) and
again in late afternoon (4 p.m.-7 p.m.) (Knisley and Hill 1993, pp. 13-
14). They dig and reside in burrows to avoid unfavorable weather
conditions such as hot mid-afternoons or cool or rainy daytime
conditions (Knisley and Hill 1993, p. 14). Shade provided by vegetative
cover is important for CPSD tiger beetle thermoregulation during warm
periods (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.).
Adult Dispersal
Dispersal is the movement of individuals from one habitat area to
another. The ability to disperse is often important to tiger beetle
species because many species inhabit areas such as sand dunes or
riverbanks that are prone to disturbance and physical change (Pearson
and Vogler 2001, pp. 130-142) (see Factor E (Sand Dune Movement)
below). We do not have information on the dispersal habits of the CPSD
tiger beetle, so we evaluated information for surrogate species that
occupy unstable habitats similar to those of the CPSD geologic
formation. The Maricopa tiger beetle, Cicindela oregona maricopa, is an
example of a species that persists in an unstable environment because
of dispersal. The Maricopa tiger beetle inhabits moist sandy habitat on
the banks of small streams and creeks (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p.
141). Flash flooding periodically scours away this sandy habitat and
most of the existing population (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 141).
These floods redistribute the scoured sand elsewhere, and surviving
adult tiger beetles quickly disperse and colonize the newly available
habitat (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 141). Similarly for the CPSD tiger
beetle, the CPSD geologic formation is continually changing as winds
redistribute the sands, both creating and destroying swale habitat and
dispersal habitat within and between Conservation Areas A and B (see
Factor E Sand Dune Movement below).
[[Page 60214]]
Often, tiger beetle populations depend upon dispersal among
separated populations for the survival of individual populations and
the species (Knisley et al. 2005, p. 557). The extirpation of at least
one population of the Northeastern Beach tiger beetle, Cicindela
dorsalis dorsalis, (federally listed as a threatened species) is
partially attributed to the lack of nearby populations and associated
dispersal habitats (Knisley et al. 2005, p. 557). Similarly, in CPSD
the northern population of the CPSD tiger beetle likely persists
because of dispersal from the central population, across the CPSD
(Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 9). In like fashion, the resilience of the
central population would be greatly increased if the northern
population became self-sustaining and could contribute to the central
population by dispersing across the CPSD.
Larval Behavior and Ecology
Larval CPSD tiger beetles are ambush predators that wait at their
burrow mouth to capture small arthropod prey when it passes nearby. The
daily period of activity is highly variable and influenced by
temperature, moisture levels, and season (Knisley and Hill 2001, p.
388; Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 20). Larvae can be active much of the
day during cool or cloudy spring and fall days, except during high wind
periods (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14). Maximal activity occurs
in early mornings before the soil becomes dry and warm from the sun and
again in late afternoon and evening after the soil has cooled
(Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14).
Adult females determine the larval microhabitat by their selection
of an oviposition site (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 6). Recently hatched
larvae construct burrows in the sand at the site of oviposition and
subsequently pass through three larval stages before pupating and then
emerging to the adult form (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14). Most
larvae occur within the swale bottoms and up the lower slopes of the
dunes, particularly where the soil or subsoil is moist most of the time
(Hill and Knisley 1996, p. 11; Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 22). The
swale vegetation supports the larval prey base of ants, flies, and
other prey (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 14). Larvae most often
remain in the same burrow throughout their development and only rarely
move outside of their burrow to dig a new burrow in a more favorable
location (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 11).
Population Size and Dynamics
Substantial year-to-year population variation is typical of many
desert arthropods that are greatly affected by climatic factors such as
rainfall (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 391). Adult abundance in any year
is a result of many interacting factors that affect recruitment of the
cohort oviposited 2 or 3 years previous (because of a 2- or 3-year life
cycle), and also the survivorship of the developmental stages of that
year's cohort (Knisley 2001, p. 10).
The central and northern populations were monitored for the last 20
and 14 years (respectively) to yield a yearly adult CPSD tiger beetle
population size estimate (monitoring did not take place outside of
these populations) (Figure 2). The adult population size estimate is
based solely on data collected from the central population from 1992 to
1997, and after 1997 the adult population size estimate is based on
both populations. Population numbers fluctuated greatly over this time,
ranging from a low of 558 in 2005 to a high of 2,944 in 2002 (Figure
2). The total adult population size estimate in 2011 was 1,116 (Knisley
and Gowan 2011, p. 7). Population monitoring results indicate a low,
yet stable to increasing population size since 2003 that contrasts with
highly variable population estimates in previous periods (Knisley and
Gowan 2011, pp. 7-8; Figure 2); however, the overall trend since 1992
suggests that the population is in decline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC12.004
[[Page 60215]]
Population Viability Analysis
Population viability analysis (PVA) is a way to predict the
population dynamics of a species under various management alternatives
(Brook et al. 2000, p. 385). PVAs generate future predictions for a
given species based upon past and present population, environmental
data, and selected management alternatives. Two PVAs are available for
the CPSD tiger beetle using the same methods, one from 1998 using adult
population counts from 1992 through 1998, and the other from 2008 using
adult counts from 1999 through 2008 (Knisley and Gowan 2009, pp. 17-
18).
Both PVAs only consider adult beetles from the Conservation Area A
population because Conservation Area B population numbers are extremely
low and the population is not considered self-sustaining (Knisley 2001,
p. 9). The PVA authors caution that the CPSD tiger beetle PVA should
only be used in a comparative way, to evaluate the effectiveness of
different management options (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). They add that
the PVA predictions may not be quantitatively reliable for predicting
the absolute extinction probability of the species (Knisley 2012, pers.
comm.). For these reasons, we do not base our status determination for
this rulemaking on the PVA and instead use the PVA to evaluate existing
threats and potential conservation measures.
The PVA models do not directly account for current or future
threats and are entirely based on four demographic variables:
1. Starting population size;
2. Population growth rate (increase in population size year-to-
year);
3. Stochasticity (variation in yearly population growth rate); and
4. Carrying capacity (number of beetles that the habitat can
sustain).
The results of the two PVAs were generally similar in that growth
rate and stochasticity tend to control extinction probability. The most
recent PVA indicated a 32 percent chance of extinction and an 87
percent chance that the species would decline to 50 individuals within
the next 100 years (Knisley and Gowan 2009, p. 17). The first PVA was
based on only 7 years of data and predicted extremely variable
extinction probabilities (2 percent to 96 percent in 100 years);
however, the data were based on very rough estimates of population
growth rates (Knisley and Gowan 1999, pp. 5-6). Increases or decreases
in carrying capacity would have only a modest effect on the risk of
extinction, whereas decreasing stochasticity or increasing population
growth rate would greatly reduce the chance of extinction (Knisley and
Gowan 2009, p. 18). The authors of the PVA study recommended two
management actions to reduce the extinction probability. Their first
recommendation was to expand both Conservation Areas to include several
important swales that are believed to have suitable habitat, but are
being impacted by heavy ORV use, thus preventing successful
colonization and recruitment of CPSD tiger beetles (Knisley and Gowan
2009, p. 23). Expanding the size of both Conservation Areas would
likely increase the population growth rate because the protections
would improve overall habitat quality and lead to greater reproductive
success (e.g., Klok and de Roos 1998, pp. 205-206). Their second
suggestion was to translocate beetles and establish a self-sustaining
population in Conservation Area B (Knisley and Gowan 2009, p. 23),
although this would likely require improvements (e.g., vegetation
removal or watering during key development stages) to the existing
habitat (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). The establishment of a self-
sustaining population in Conservation Area B, or elsewhere in the CPSD,
would change the dynamics of the PVA model by introducing the
possibility that a second self-sustaining population could ``rescue''
or recolonize the central population (and vice versa) in the event that
one of them were extirpated.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Loss of habitat is the leading cause of species extinction (Pimm
and Raven 2000, p. 843). Insects are highly vulnerable to extinction
through habitat loss (McKinney 1997, pp. 501-507). ORV use
significantly impacts the CPSD tiger beetle's habitat, range, and the
beetle itself by directly killing beetles, damaging vegetation that
supports prey items, directly killing prey items, and reducing soil
moisture.
Nationwide, ORV use has drastically reduced or extirpated several
tiger beetle populations. For example, ORV use and pedestrian traffic
extirpated the Northeastern Beach tiger beetle, Cicindela dorsalis
dorsalis, in several localities (Knisley 2011, p. 45). Similarly,
within several years of the Assateague Island National Seashore
(Maryland, USA) opening for ORV use, the White Beach tiger beetle, C.
d. media, was extirpated from all but those areas where ORVs were
restricted (Knisley and Hill 1992, pp. 138-139). Additionally, ORV use
is responsible for eliminating tiger beetle populations in coastal
southern California (Hairy-necked tiger beetle, C. hirticollis
gravida), Oregon and Washington (Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle, C.
h. siuslawensis), and Idaho (St. Anthony Dune tiger beetle, C.
arenicola) (Knisley 2011, p. 45).
As previously described (see Previous Federal Actions, Population
Distribution, and Figure 1), in 1997, the Service, BLM, Utah State
Parks and Recreation, and Kane County developed and signed a CCA and
formed a conservation committee to protect the CPSD tiger beetle within
an ORV-use area (Conservation Committee 1997). The CCA established
Conservation Areas A and B (see Figure 1 in Population Distribution
above) to protect CPSD tiger beetle habitat from ORV use: Conservation
Area A--84 ha (207 ac) are closed to ORV use within the CPSD State
Park; and Conservation Area B--150 ha (370 ac) are closed to ORV use on
BLM land.
Because we do not have survey information to determine the extent
of occupied swale habitat in the northern population (see Population
Distribution) and because the entirety of the northern population
occurs within Conservation Area B (protected from ORV use), the below
analysis is specific to the central population and Conservation Area A.
Conservation Area A protects 48 percent of the swale habitat occupied
by the CPSD tiger beetle in the central population, as well as 73 to 88
percent of CPSD tiger beetle adults and the vast majority of larvae
from ORV activities. ORV use still occurs in 52 percent of occupied
CPSD tiger beetle swale habitat in the central population (Figure
[[Page 60216]]
3, adapted from Knisley and Gowan 2009, p. 8).
Available information shows the effects of ORV use on current
population numbers. For example, swales adjacent to but outside of
Conservation Area A are similar in all apparent environmental
conditions to swales within Conservation Area A with the exception of
ORV impacts. However, CPSD tiger beetle abundance in ORV-impacted
occupied swales is consistently lower than adjacent protected occupied
swales, potentially because of ORV impacts (Figure 3).
BILLING CODE P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC12.005
[[Page 60217]]
BILLING CODE C
For example, one swale with ORV use had population counts of 60 or
more CPSD tiger beetles in most years (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 11).
Utah State Park staff, at the recommendation of the conservation
committee, protected this swale from ORV use in 2010 (Knisley and Gowan
2011, p. 11). The year following removal of ORV use, the tiger beetle
density on this swale more than doubled to 150 beetles, which also is
the highest number recorded for the swale (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p.
11). This action provides an example of how the conservation committee
has used adaptive management to benefit the CPSD tiger beetle and
demonstrates a rapid population response to removed ORV disturbance.
ORVs run over and thereby kill and injure CPSD tiger beetles
(Knisley and Hill 1993, p. 14; Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 23). The
likelihood of being injured or killed increases if adult CPSD tiger
beetle are run over on wet or compact substrates (e.g., moist swales)
as compared to soft sands (e.g., dune faces) (Knisley and Hill 2001, p.
390). The likelihood of being hit by ORVs also increases based on the
level of ORV use. For example, the numbers of adult CPSD tiger beetles
found injured or killed by ORVs increases substantially during periods
of heavy use, such as during the Memorial Day holiday (Table 1; Knisley
and Hill 2001, p. 390). We have no information quantifying the direct
injury or mortality that ORVs cause to eggs or larval CPSD tiger beetle
because these stages are underground and not easily monitored.
TABLE 1--A comparison of the number of adult Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetles found injured or killed (by off-
road vehicles) before and after a high ORV use holiday weekend (Memorial Day) from 1993 to 1998 (no survey
conducted in 1995) (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 390).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Memorial Day weekend After Memorial Day weekend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Number Number
Year Total number observed Total number observed
observed killed or observed killed or
injured injured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................ (\1\) (\1\) 179 14
1994............................................ 363 0 125 6
1996............................................ 231 2 287 41
1997............................................ 256 2 64 6
1998............................................ 168 1 278 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) No data.
We do not have specific data regarding the level of impact ORVs
have on CPSD tiger beetles in the unprotected area between Conservation
Areas A and B. It is likely that many of the beetles run over by ORVs
in the dispersal corridor will be injured or killed. Thus, the ability
of adults to disperse between the central population and the northern
population is likely negatively impacted by ORVs. The result of these
ORV impacts is that the habitat between the central and northern
populations does not provide a sufficient dispersal corridor for
beetles to the northern population. Current levels of dispersal are
likely not adequate for the northern population to be self-sustaining
(see Population Viability Analysis). Thus, BLM protection of only
Conservation Area B, and the absence of protection in the dispersal
corridor, results in the continued threat of ORV use to the CPSD tiger
beetle.
Food limitation has a significant impact on tiger beetle growth,
survival, and fecundity, especially for desert species. Adult CPSD
tiger beetles are, in some years, extremely food limited and exhibit
reduced fecundity (Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 19). Food limitation is
at least partly caused by ORV use. ORVs reduce CPSD tiger beetle prey
density and prey species diversity in CPSD (Knisley and Gowan 2006, p.
19). Ants, a primary prey item, occur in much lower densities in areas
frequented by ORVs than in areas with no ORV traffic (Knisley and Gowan
2008, p. 23). In addition, low ORV use areas in CPSD have a higher
diversity of prey species and higher numbers of prey items than high
ORV use areas (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 389).
Prey availability significantly affects the number of larvae
produced by adult tiger beetles (Pearson and Knisley 1995, p. 165) and
the survival of larval tiger beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1988, p.
1990). Low prey densities can result in prolonged development and
decreased survivorship in larval tiger beetles and reduced size in
adults, which lowers fecundity in females (Pearson and Knisley 1985, p.
165; Knisley and Juliano 1988, p. 1990). Also, low prey densities
require larval and adult tiger beetles to spend more time searching for
food. For larval tiger beetles, this means more time near burrow
entrances searching for prey, resulting in increased susceptibility to
parasitism and predators (Pearson and Knisley 1985, p. 166). Similarly,
adults that spend more time out of their burrows searching for food
have an increased susceptibility to predation.
ORV use degrades larval habitat by reducing soil moisture. ORV use
can reduce soil moisture by churning up soils and exposing the moisture
that is locked between soil particles (beneath the surface) to greater
evaporative pressure (Shultz 1988, p. 28; Knisley and Gowan 2008, p.
10). It also reduces soil moisture by increasing soil compaction (Adams
et al. 1982, p. 167). Compaction reduces water infiltration and reduces
moisture retention in soils (Belnap 1995, p. 39).
As we discussed earlier (see Habitat), soil moisture is essential
to the CPSD tiger beetle's life history. Extreme drying or desiccation
kills tiger beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1998, p. 1990). In a dry
environment, such as the CPSD geologic feature, organisms are
constantly struggling to acquire and maintain enough water to survive.
Water is limiting to tiger beetles in CPSD, and this is evidenced by
the fact that experimental water supplementation increased larval CPSD
tiger beetle survival by 10 percent (Knisley and Gowan 2008 p. 20).
CPSD areas protected from ORV use have significantly higher soil
moistures and higher numbers of CPSD tiger beetles than adjacent ORV
use areas (Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 10-11).
Overall, ORV use reduces available habitat and the CPSD tiger
beetle population size. This results in a population that is at risk of
endangerment in the face of minor
[[Page 60218]]
stochastic events and minor environmental perturbations (see Factor E.
Small Population Effects).
Summary of Factor A
ORV use is a threat to the CPSD tiger beetle through direct
mortality and injury, and by reducing prey base and soil moisture. ORV
use substantially reduces habitat qualities essential to the CPSD tiger
beetle's life cycle (e.g., soil moisture and prey availability)
(Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 389; Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 10-11).
Reduction in habitat quality reduces reproductive success and the tiger
beetle population growth rate (e.g., Klok and de Roos 1998, pp. 205-
206). We acknowledge the very important protections of Conservation
Areas A and B from ORV use. However, despite these conservation
efforts, 52 percent of occupied swale habitat, which occurs outside of
the Conservation Areas, is currently unprotected (Figure 3, Knisley and
Gowan 2009, p. 8) and the degradation of habitat (both occupied and
potential) by ORV use reduces the ability of the population to expand
or disperse in areas outside of the Conservation Areas and thereby
reduces the population's carrying capacity. As the PVA demonstrates
(see Population Viability Analysis above), reductions in growth rate
and carrying capacity (albeit a moderate effect on PVA compared to
growth rate) increase the probability of extinction for this species.
Based on current ORV use and CPSD tiger beetle population levels, there
is a 32 percent probability that the species will go extinct in the
next 100 years, and the PVA does not consider future threats (see
Population Viability Analysis above). As we will discuss in Factor E,
environmental effects from climate change and drought conditions will
likely exacerbate reductions in soil moisture associated with ORV use,
thus increasing the extinction risk even further. The best scientific
and commercial information available indicates that the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the CPSD tiger beetle's habitat or
range due to ORV use is a threat to the species now and in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Tiger beetles are one of the most sought-after groups of insects by
amateur collectors because of the unique metallic colors and patterns
present in the various species and subspecies, as well as their
fascinating habits (Pearson et al. 2006, pp. 3-5). Interest in the
genus Cicindela is reflected in the scientific journal entitled
``Cicindela,'' which is published quarterly (since 1969) and is
exclusively devoted to the genus. In certain circumstances, collection
of these insects can add valuable information regarding biogeography,
taxonomy, and life history of the species. However, some collection is
purely recreational and adds little to no value to the scientific
understanding or conservation of tiger beetles.
Collection of adult CPSD tiger beetles, before they mate and lay
their eggs, may result in reduced population size of subsequent
generations. The magnitude of recreational collection cannot be
accurately determined for the CPSD tiger beetle, but it is likely that
some number of adults were taken in the past. However, CPSD State Park
and BLM personnel now enforce restrictions on recreational collecting
of CPSD tiger beetles, and consequently, collection levels are low
(Conservation Committee 2009, p. 17). Although scientific collection is
not restricted by any formal permitting process, only one researcher
has collected CPSD tiger beetles in approximately the last 14 years.
Over this time period, approximately 70 adults were collected (Knisley
2012, pers. comm.). The adults were collected in late May after they
had mated and oviposited eggs (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor B
CPSD tiger beetles are not overutilized for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. A limited number of
CPSD tiger beetles are likely collected from wild populations for
recreational purposes; however, CPSD State Park and BLM personnel
enforce restrictions on recreational collecting. Collection of CPSD
tiger beetles for scientific investigation purposes occurs on occasion,
but the level of collection is very small. The best scientific and
commercial information available indicates that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the CPSD tiger beetle now nor will be in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We know of no diseases that are a threat to the CPSD tiger beetle.
Natural mortality through predation and parasitism accounts for some
individual loss of adult and larval CPSD tiger beetles (Knisley and
Hill 1994, p. 16). Known predators of adult tiger beetles include
birds, shrews (Soricidae), raccoons (Procyon lotor), lizards
(Lacertilia), toads (Bufonidae), ants (Formicidae), robber flies
(Asilidae), and dragonflies (Anisoptera) (Knisley and Shultz 1997, pp.
57-59). Despite a documented level of natural predation of CPSD tiger
beetles, effects to the species are low and not likely to limit the
CPSD tiger beetle population (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 17).
Known tiger beetle parasites include ant-like wasps of the family
Typhiidae, especially the genera Mathoca, Karlissa, and Pterombrus, and
flies of the genus Anthrax (Knisley and Shultz 1997, pp. 53-57).
Parasites predominantly target larval tiger beetles (Pearson and Vogler
2001, pp. 170-171). There are two known natural parasites of larval
CPSD tiger beetles. Bee flies (Bombyliidae) are known to flick their
eggs into beetle burrows (Knisley and Hill 1995, p. 14). When these
eggs hatch, the larval parasite feeds on beetle bodily fluids, often
resulting in death of the tiger beetle larvae. Wasps of the genus
Methoca also can parasitize CPSD tiger beetle larvae (Knisley and Hill
1995, p. 14). These wasps deposit their larvae in the burrows of larval
tiger beetles. The wasp larvae then consume the tiger beetle larvae.
Despite documented parasitism to larval CPSD tiger beetle, effects to
the species are low and not likely to limit the CPSD tiger beetle
population (Conservation Committee 1997, p. 7).
Summary of Factor C
We have found no information that indicates that disease is a
threat to the CPSD tiger beetle. There is some information documenting
mortality of CPSD tiger beetles by natural predators and parasites;
however, not to a level that significantly affects the species. Thus,
we have no information that disease, parasites, or predation is a
threat to the species now or is likely to become so in the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms with respect to extant threats that place CPSD
tiger beetle in danger of becoming either an endangered or threatened
species. Regulatory mechanisms affecting the species fall into three
general categories: (1) Land management; (2) State mechanisms; and (3)
Federal mechanisms.
Land Management
The CPSD geologic feature is approximately 1,416 ha (3,500 ac). The
southern 809 ha (2,000 ac) of the CPSD is within the CPSD State Park
and is categorized as public land with a recreational emphasis
(Conservation
[[Page 60219]]
Committee 2009, p. 17). The State Park's mission, as described in the
most recent general management plan (Franklin et al. 2005, p. 3), is
``to provide visitors [* * *] recreation experiences while preserving
and interpreting the park's natural, scenic, and recreation
resources.'' The northern 607 ha (1,500 ac) is Federal land managed by
the BLM's Kanab Field Office (BLM 2000, p. 14). The northern area is
partly within the Moquith Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Public
education for both areas includes signage, brochures, and interpretive
programs.
As stated previously (see Factor A), the UDNR (which oversees the
Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation), the BLM, the Service, and
Kane County developed and signed a CCA in 1997 (Conservation Committee
1997), and renewed the agreement in 2009 (Conservation Committee 2009,
entire). The CCA recommends conservation objectives and actions
designed to protect and conserve the CPSD tiger beetle. Although the
CCA is not a regulatory mechanism in and of itself, the agencies have
implemented specified conservation actions, including the protection of
Conservation Areas A and B that are regulatory mechanisms. These
mechanisms are Utah Administrative Code R651-633 and the BLM's Kanab
RMP. The degree to which the CCA has ameliorated the threats is
discussed below.
Protection for the tiger beetle in Conservation Area A is enforced
according to the CPSD State Park's special closure (Conservation
Committee 1997, p. 13) and Utah's Administrative Code (R 651-633).
Conservation Area A protects some of the central population of CPSD
tiger beetle. Of the 809-ha (2,000-ac) State Park, 84 ha (207 ac) (10
percent) are closed to ORV use to provide protection for CPSD tiger
beetle habitat. Conservation Area A prohibits the use of ORVs in 48
percent of the species' known occupied swale habitat in the central
population, thereby protecting 73 to 88 percent of CPSD tiger beetle
adults and the vast majority of larvae (Figure 3, adapted from Knisley
and Gowan 2009, p. 8).
Conservation Area B provides protection to all of the northern
population's habitat as we have defined its boundary (see Figure 1),
realizing that we do not have good survey information in this area. In
this area, 150 ha (370 ac) is closed to ORV use to protect a small
population of CPSD tiger beetle. Approximately 445 ha (1,100 ac) is
available for ORV use outside of the Conservation Area B on BLM lands,
but with the stipulation that ORVs stay on open dunes and maintain a 3-
m (10-ft) buffer around vegetation. Enforcement is minimal and
primarily relies on voluntary compliance (Conservation Committee 1997,
p. 13). We have no record of enforcement effort or success of the
closures at either Conservation Area A or B.
Despite the designation and management of the Conservation Areas,
at least 52 percent of known occupied swale habitat in the central
population adjacent to Conservation Area A is open to ORV use, and an
unknown amount of habitat could be affected in the northern population
(Knisley and Gowan 2009, p. 8). As previously described, unprotected
but occupied swales have lower CPSD tiger beetle densities than nearby
protected swales that are occupied (see Figure 3).
In addition to the lack of any protection for about 52 percent of
occupied swale habitat that is outside of Conservation Area A, there is
no protection from ORV use for the CPSD tiger beetle in the dispersal
corridor between Conservation Areas A and B. As explained above (see
Adult Dispersal), this area is important for dispersal of tiger beetles
from Conservation Area A to Conservation Area B and likely is necessary
to maintain the northern CPSD tiger beetle population in Conservation
Area B.
We acknowledge the very important protections of Conservation Areas
A and B from ORV use. However, outside of the two Conservation Areas,
at least 52 percent of occupied swale habitat is currently unprotected
and the degradation of habitat (both occupied and potential) by ORV use
reduces the ability of the CPSD tiger beetle population to expand in
areas outside of protected Conservation Areas and reduces the
population's carrying capacity. The dispersal habitat between
Conservation Areas A and B is managed by the Utah Division of State
Parks and Recreation and the BLM, and used largely for OHV recreation;
no regulatory mechanisms protect the CPSD tiger beetle in this area.
At current levels of regulatory protection, CPSD tiger beetle
habitat is small and isolated in the two Conservation Areas, and the
population size is extremely small, making the species more susceptible
to other threats such as climate change and drought, demographic and
environmental stochasticity, and catastrophic events (see Factor E.
Climate Change and Drought and Small Population Effects). As explained
previously (see the Background: Population Distribution), the central
population of CPSD tiger beetle only occupies a portion of Conservation
Area A, and based on population and habitat sampling results to date,
we believe it is not likely that the species will expand to other areas
in Conservation Area A due to insufficient habitat conditions. Instead
we believe that Conservation Area A should be expanded (using
regulatory mechanisms) to protect occupied habitat that is already
being used by the species but currently is at levels that are
artificially low due to the effects of ORVs (see Population Viability
Analysis and Factor A).
In addition, the population at Conservation Area B should be
managed such that it becomes self-sustaining (see Population Viability
Analysis and Factor A). However, at this point in time it is unclear
from a regulatory perspective what will be necessary to achieve this.
It is possible that by expanding Conservation Area A, the central
population will increase such that it will be sufficient to provide
adequate numbers of dispersers to bolster the population at
Conservation Area B, thus making it self-sustaining. There may need to
be additional regulatory measures put in place to protect the dispersal
corridor between Conservation Areas A and B to allow for a safe and
sufficient level of CPSD tiger beetle dispersal between the two areas.
State Mechanisms
Utah's Administrative Code (R 651-633) prohibits motorized vehicle
use in designated nonmotorized sand dune areas of CPSD State Park.
Conservation Area A is a designated nonmotorized sand dune area, and
thus the State Code protects tiger beetle habitat in this area. CPSD
State Park's dual purpose mission statement of providing recreational
experiences while preserving natural resources (Franklin et al. 2005,
p. 3) has assisted with the conservation of CPSD tiger beetle to some
extent because the State Park has closed areas (Conservation Area A) to
ORV use to protect CPSD tiger beetle. However, the State Park also
promotes recreational use; in this case, extensive ORV use is still
permitted across the majority of the State Park, which is ultimately
detrimental to maintaining a self-sustaining population of CPSD tiger
beetles in the central area in the future (see Factor A for an analysis
of ORV impacts).
Federal Mechanisms
As mentioned previously, Conservation Area B and the northern
population are on BLM-administered land. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is the primary
[[Page 60220]]
Federal law governing most land uses on BLM-administered lands. Section
102(a)(8) of FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife and fish resources
as being among the uses for which these lands are to be managed.
Regulations pursuant to FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
181 et seq.) that address wildlife habitat protection on BLM-
administered land include 43 CFR 3162.3-1 and 43 CFR 3162.5-1; 43 CFR
4120 et seq.; and 43 CFR 4180 et seq.
The BLM manages the CPSD tiger beetle as a ``sensitive species,''
and as stated above, BLM manages a 150-ha (370-ac) Conservation Area
for the species. The management guidance afforded sensitive species
under BLM Manual 6840--Special Status Species Management (BLM 2008,
entire) states that ``Bureau sensitive species will be managed
consistent with species and habitat management objectives in land use
and implementation plans to promote their conservation and to minimize
the likelihood and need for listing under the ESA'' (BLM 2008, p. 05V).
The BLM Manual 6840 further requires that Resource Management Plans
(RMPs) should address sensitive species, and that implementation
``should consider all site-specific methods and procedures needed to
bring species and their habitats to the condition under which
management under the Bureau sensitive species policies would no longer
be necessary'' (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). As a designated sensitive species
under BLM Manual 6840, CPSD tiger beetle conservation must be addressed
in the development and implementation of RMPs on BLM lands.
The RMPs are the basis for all actions and authorizations involving
BLM-administered lands and resources. They establish allowable resource
uses, resource condition goals and objectives to be attained, program
constraints and general management practices needed to attain the goals
and objectives, general implementation sequences, and intervals and
standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine its
effectiveness and the need for amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601 et
seq.).
The RMPs provide a framework and programmatic guidance for activity
plans, which are site-specific plans written to implement decisions
made in an RMP. Activity plan decisions normally require additional
planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis (see
below). If an RMP contains specific direction regarding sensitive
species habitat, conservation, or management, it represents an
enforceable regulatory mechanism to ensure that the species and its
habitats are considered during permitting and other decision-making
regarding BLM lands.
The 2008 Kanab RMP establishes guidance and objectives for the
management of the northern portion of CPSD (BLM 2008, entire). In the
RMP, the BLM commits to ``implement conservation actions identified in
the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes
tiger beetle, including maintaining the established 370-acre
conservation area'' (BLM 2008, p. 32). In addition to maintaining
Conservation Area B, the BLM has funded and continues to fund CPSD
tiger beetle monitoring and research activities. While these BLM-
implemented conservation actions (as outlined in the RMP) have
benefitted the CPSD tiger beetle, remaining threats (such as climate
change and drought, demographic and environmental stochasticity, and
catastrophic events (see Factor E. Climate Change and Drought and Small
Population Effects) and ORVs (see Population Viability Analysis and
Factor A)) continue to negatively affect the species.
BLM manual 6840 establishes management policy and direction for
BLM's involvement in the CCA and its membership on the Conservation
Committee (Conservation Committee 2009, p. 7). Conservation Area B was
established on BLM lands as part of the CCA and was a result of adult
and larval CPSD tiger beetle discovered in this area during a 1996
monitoring effort (Knisley and Hill 1997, p. 11; Conservation Committee
1997, entire). BLM land management practices are intended to avoid
negative effects whenever possible, while also providing for multiple-
use mandates; therefore, maintaining or enhancing CPSD tiger beetle
habitat is considered in conjunction with other agency priorities.
The BLM protects the entirety of the northern CPSD tiger beetle
population in Conservation Area B; however, this population is not
self-sustaining (see Population Distribution). As we discuss
previously, the northern population likely persists because of
dispersal from the central population (see Adult Dispersal). However,
current levels of dispersal are likely not adequate for the northern
population to be self-sustaining (see Population Viability Analysis).
The habitat between the central and northern populations (between
Conservation Areas A and B) is managed by the BLM and Utah Division of
State Parks and Recreation and is not protected from ORV use (see
Figure 2). The ORV use in this unprotected zone results in habitat
degradation and loss of beetles that are injured or killed by ORVs. The
result of these ORV impacts is that the habitat between the central and
northern populations does not provide a sufficient dispersal corridor
for beetles to the northern population (see Factor A for effects of
ORVs in CPSD tiger beetle habitat). Thus, BLM protection of only
Conservation Area B, and the absence of protection in the dispersal
corridor, results in the continued threat of ORV use to the CPSD tiger
beetle (see Factor A).
On December 15, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66496) a rule titled,
``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' In this rule, the EPA
Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of
the six long-lived and directly emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs)--carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride--in the atmosphere threaten the public health
and welfare of current and future generations; and that the combined
emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health
and welfare (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has concluded that the
GHGs linked to climate change are pollutants, whose emissions can now
be subject to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) (see 74 FR
66496). However, specific regulations to limit GHG emissions were only
proposed in 2010 and, therefore, cannot be considered an existing
regulatory mechanism. At present, we have no basis to conclude that
implementation of the Clean Air Act in the future (40 years, based on
global climate projections) will substantially reduce the current rate
of global climate change through regulation of GHG emissions.
A Federal statute that may provide protection to CPSD tiger beetle
and its habitat is the NEPA. As explained previously, Federal land
management agencies, such as the BLM, have legislation that specifies
how their lands are managed for sensitive species. The NEPA provides
authority for the Service to assume a cooperating agency role for
Federal projects undergoing evaluation for significant impacts to the
human environment. This includes participating in updates to RMPs. As a
cooperating agency, we have the opportunity to provide recommendations
to the action agency
[[Page 60221]]
to avoid impacts or enhance conservation for CPSD tiger beetle and its
habitat where it occurs on Federal land. For projects where we are not
a cooperating agency, we often review proposed actions and provide
recommendations to minimize and mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. However, acceptance of our NEPA recommendations is not
required and is at the discretion of the action agency.
Summary of Factor D
State and federally managed lands in Conservation Areas A and B
provide some protection to the CPSD tiger beetle. The northern portion
of CPSD is Federal land managed by the BLM and the southern portion of
the CPSD is within the CPSD State Park. These land management agencies
provide protection to the CPSD tiger beetle through the establishment
and regulation of the ORV restricted Conservation Areas A and B. Utah's
Administrative Code (R 651-633) prohibits motorized vehicle use in
designated nonmotorized sand dune areas of CPSD State Park
(Conservation Area A) and the BLM protects Conservation Area B.
However, as discussed under Factor A, ORV use is the primary threat to
the beetle, and this threat is not being addressed with any existing
regulatory mechanisms in the area between Conservation Areas A and B
(managed by BLM and Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation) and to
the east of Conservation Area A (managed by CPSD State Park). As a
result, the habitat quality is negatively affected, and tiger beetles
that disperse outside of the two Conservation Areas can be injured or
killed by ORVs.
The Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to limit GHGs linked to
climate change; however, our analysis concludes that current regulation
of these gases is not adequate to reduce the current rate of global
climate change.
As evidenced by the discussion above, the species is not adequately
protected by existing regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Natural and manmade factors affecting the CPSD tiger beetle
include: (1) Sand dune movement; (2) Climate change and drought; (3)
Small population effects; and (4) Cumulative effects of all threats
that may impact the species.
Sand Dune Movement
Movement of the swales due to sand dune movement naturally occurs
in this system as wind action continues to shape the dunes. Major dune
ridgelines moved close to 22 m (72 ft) (Knisley and Gowan 2005, p. 4)
between 2001 and 2002, and most ridgelines moved over 45 m (150 ft)
between 2002 and 2010 (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 25). Dune movement
can result in a change in suitable habitat conditions (Knisley and
Gowan 2008, pp. 21-22). For example, dune movement simultaneously
buries and uncovers trees in CPSD (Gregory 1950, p. 188). Similarly, we
know that dune movement is burying some previously occupied swale
habitat (Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 21-22). It is likely that dune
movement is uncovering potential habitat as well; however,
comprehensive surveys to determine this have not been conducted
(Knisley 2012, pers. comm.). Wind action created and continues to shape
the current CPSD (Ford et al. 2010, p. 387), and we have no evidence to
suggest that the rate of dune movement is increasing. Because CPSD
tiger beetle presumably evolved in this environment, it is likely that
the species is adapted to the continual movement of dunes. We have no
evidence demonstrating that dune movement is a threat to the species
now or is likely to become so in the future; however, additional study
of dune movement is recommended.
Climate Change and Drought
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of environmental
changes resulting from ongoing and projected changes in climate. The
terms ``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to
the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over
time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements,
although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p.
78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Based on extensive analyses of global average
surface air temperature, the most widely used measure of change, the
IPCC concluded that warming of the global climate system over the past
several decades is ``unequivocal'' (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). In other words,
the IPCC concluded that there is no question that the world's climate
system is warming.
Examples of other changes include substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other
regions (for these and additional examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30;
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85). Various environmental changes
(e.g., shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species, increasing
ground instability in permafrost regions, conditions more favorable to
the spread of invasive species and of some diseases, changes in amount
and timing of water availability) are occurring in association with
changes in climate (see IPCC 2007a, pp. 2-4, 30-33; and Global Climate
Change Impacts in the United States 2009, pp. 27, 79-88).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate and
is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3
and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35). Further confirmation of the
role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who
concluded it is extremely likely that approximately 75 percent of
global warming since 1950 has been caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of average global warming until about 2030.
Although projections of the magnitude and rate of warming differ after
about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the projections is one of
increased global warming through the end of this century, even for
projections based on scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will
stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong scientific support
[[Page 60222]]
for projections that warming will continue through the 21st century,
and that the magnitude and rate of change will be influenced
substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45;
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558;
Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
In addition to basing their projections on scientific analyses, the
IPCC reports projections using a framework for treatment of
uncertainties (e.g., they define ``very likely'' to mean greater than
90 percent probability, and ``likely'' to mean greater than 66 percent
probability; see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Some of the IPCC's
key projections of global climate and its related effects include: (1)
It is virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days
and nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely
there will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over
most land areas; (3) it is very likely that the frequency of heavy
precipitation events, or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy
falls, will increase over most areas; and (4) it is likely the area
affected by droughts will increase, that intense tropical cyclone
activity will increase, and that there will be increased incidence of
extreme high sea level (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recently,
the IPCC published additional information that provides further insight
into observed changes since 1950, as well as projections of extreme
climate events at global and broad regional scales for the middle and
end of this century (IPCC 2011, entire).
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
such as habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006;
IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19; Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al.
2010; Chen et al. 2011). In addition to considering individual species,
scientists are evaluating possible climate change-related impacts to,
and responses of, ecological systems, habitat conditions, and groups of
species; these studies include acknowledgement of uncertainty (e.g.,
Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2009; Euskirchen et al. 2009;
McKechnie and Wolf 2009; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011;
McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and Schindler 2011).
Many analyses involve elements that are common to climate change
vulnerability assessments. In relation to climate change, vulnerability
refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to,
and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including
climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the
type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a
species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC
2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). There is no
single method for conducting such analyses that applies to all
situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and
appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as an endangered or threatened species, knowledge
regarding its vulnerability to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
The IPCC predicts that the resiliency of many ecosystems is likely
to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate
change, associated disturbances (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfire, and
insects), and other global drivers (IPCC 2007, pp. 31-33). With medium
confidence, IPCC predicts that approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant
and animal species assessed by the IPCC so far are likely to be at an
increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature
exceed 1.5 to 2.5 [deg]C (3 to 5 [deg]F) (IPCC 2007, p. 48).
Regional projections indicate the Southwest, including southern
Utah, may experience the greatest temperature increase of any area in
the lower 48 States (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Drought probability is
predicted to increase in the Southwest (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129-134),
with summers warming more than winters, and annual temperature
increasing approximately 2.2 [deg]C (4[emsp14][deg]F) by 2050 (Ray et
al. 2008, p. 29). Additionally, the number of days over 32 [deg]C
(90[emsp14][deg]F) could double by the end of the century (Karl et al.
2009, p. 34). Projections also show declines in snowpack across the
West, with the most dramatic declines at lower elevations (below 2,500
m (8,200 ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). A 10 to 30 percent decrease in
precipitation in mid-latitude western North America is projected by the
year 2050, based on an ensemble of 12 climate models (Milly et al.
2005, p. 1). Overall, future projections for the Southwest include
increased temperatures; more intense and longer-lasting heat waves; and
increased probability of drought exacerbated by higher temperatures,
heavier downpours, increased flooding, and increased erosion (Karl et
al. 2009, pp. 129-134).
Utah is projected to warm more than the average for the entire
globe (Governor's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change
(GBRAC) 2008, p. 14). The expected consequences of this warming are
fewer frost days, longer growing seasons, and more heat waves (GBRAC
2008, p. 14). For Utah, the projected increase in annual mean
temperature by year 2100 is about 4.5 [deg]C (8[emsp14][deg]F) (GBRAC
2008, p. 14). Because of increased temperature, Utah soils are expected
to dry more rapidly (GBRAC 2008, p. 20); this is likely to result in
reduced soil moisture levels in CPSD tiger beetle habitat.
Utah is projected to have more frequent heavy precipitation events,
separated by longer dry spells as a result of climate change (GBRAC
2008, p. 15). Drought is a localized dry spell. Drought conditions are
a threat to the CPSD tiger beetle, as rainfall indirectly controls
population size and the changing dynamics of the species (Knisley and
Gowan 2009, p. 8).
Previous drought-like conditions have resulted in drastic CPSD
tiger beetle population declines. For example, low rainfall amounts
from 2001 to 2003 resulted in reduced adult numbers in 2004 and 2005
(Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 8). Conversely, high adult numbers in 1996
and 2002 followed several years of higher than average rainfall
(Knisley and Gowan 2008, p. 8). These observed population responses to
rainfall are most likely caused by reductions and increases in prey and
soil moisture. Prey is more abundant during wet years, and this reduces
the effects of starvation, decreases development time, and increases
fecundity (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 391). Soil moisture seems to have
the greatest effect on oviposition and larval survival. As stated in
Factor A, water is limiting to tiger beetles in CPSD, and this is
evidenced by the fact that in one experiment water supplementation
increased larval CPSD tiger beetle survival by 10 percent (Knisley and
Gowan 2006, p. 7).
In summary, the limited geographic range of CPSD tiger beetle to
high-elevation sand dunes and swales within the CPSD geologic feature
limits the
[[Page 60223]]
ability of the species to adapt by shifting its range in response to
changing climatic conditions. CPSD tiger beetle survival and
reproduction, as described above, are highly dependent upon soil
moisture, which in turn is dependent upon climatic conditions
(precipitation and temperature). Climate change is predicted to
increase temperatures and increase the likelihood and duration of
drought conditions in Utah. Both of these effects will reduce soil
moisture in CPSD and impact CPSD tiger beetle, and for this reason, we
conclude that environmental changes resulting from climate change,
including drought, will be a threat to this species in the future.
Small Population Effects
Under this factor we consider the small population size of CPSD
tiger beetle has one of the smallest geographical ranges of any known
insect (Romey and Knisley 2002, p. 170). It is restricted to the CPSD
and occupies only 202 ha (500 ac) (Morgan et al. 2000, p. 1109).
A species may be considered rare because of a limited geographical
range, specialized habitat, or small population size (Primack 1998, p.
176). In the absence of information identifying threats to a species
and linking those threats to the rarity of a species, we do not
consider rarity alone to be a threat. A species that has always been
rare, yet continues to survive, could be well equipped to continue to
exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have persisted for
long periods within small geographic areas, and many naturally rare
species exhibit traits that allow them to persist despite their small
population sizes. Consequently, the fact that a species is rare does
not necessarily indicate that it may be in danger of extinction.
CPSD tiger beetle has a very limited occupied range and a very
small population size (558 adults in 2005 to a high of 2,944 adults in
2002). It has several characteristics typical of species vulnerable to
extinction including: (1) A very narrow geographic range; (2) only one
known self-sustaining population; and (3) a small population size.
Extinction may be caused by demographic stochasticity due to chance
realizations of individual probabilities of death and reproduction,
particularly in small populations (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993,
pp. 911-912). Environmental stochasticity can result in extinction
through a series of small or moderate perturbations that affect birth
and death rates within a population (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993,
p. 912). Lastly, extinction can be caused by random catastrophes
(Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lande 1993, p. 912). CPSD tiger beetle is
vulnerable to extinction due to: (1) Demographic stochasticity due to
its small population size; (2) environmental stochasticity due to
continued small perturbations caused by ongoing modification and
curtailment of its habitat and range from ORV use; and (3) the chance
of random catastrophe such as an extended drought.
Small populations also can be vulnerable due to a lack of genetic
diversity (Shaffer 1981, p. 132). We have no information regarding
genetic diversity of CPSD tiger beetle. A minimum viable population
(MVP) will vary depending on the species. An MVP of 1,000 may be
adequate for species of normal genetic variability, and an MVP of
10,000 should permit long-term persistence and continued genetic
diversity (Thomas 1990, p. 325). These estimates should be increased by
at least 1 order of magnitude (to 10,000 and 100,000) for insects,
because they usually have greater population variability (Thomas 1990,
p. 326). Based upon available information, CPSD tiger beetle likely
does not meet these minimum population criteria for maintaining genetic
diversity because the estimated population size ranges from 558 to
2,944 individuals.
We do not believe that small population size on its own would be a
threat to CPSD tiger beetle. However, the species' small population
size makes it more vulnerable to extinction due to demographic
stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophe when
combined with the specific threats of ORV use, drought and climate
change. Thus, we consider small population size a threat to the
species, now and is likely to become so in the future, as is discussed
in more detail below.
Cumulative Impacts
Some of the threats discussed in Factors A through E can work in
concert with one another to cumulatively create conditions that will
impact CPSD tiger beetle beyond the scope of each individual threat.
ORV use and the drought-related effects of climate change can reduce
soil moisture. Rainfall and associated soil moisture is a critical
factor for desert tiger beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1988, entire) and
is likely the most important natural factor affecting population
dynamics of CPSD tiger beetle. Currently, water availability limits the
tiger beetle population in the CPSD (Knisley and Gowan 2006, p. 7).
As explained in previous sections (see Factor A), reduced
precipitation reduces soil moisture directly, and drought and effects
of climate change result in increased temperatures which dry soils more
quickly. ORV use can reduce soil moisture by churning up soils and
exposing the moisture that is locked up between soil particles, and it
can also compact soil, which reduces water infiltration and reduces
moisture retention in soils. Cumulatively, reduced precipitation and
increased evaporation (caused by the drought-related effects of climate
change), and soil compaction and soil exposure (caused by ORV use) will
further dry soils that are already moisture limited. This drying could
result in a further shrinking of available CPSD tiger beetle habitat
and thus decrease population size, because less habitat will be
suitable for larval tiger beetles and because drying of habitat reduces
prey abundance. For these reasons, we find that ORV use and drought-
related effects of climate change are a threat to the species both
independently (presently in the case of ORV use) and cumulatively in
the future.
Summary of Factor E
Wind action created and continues to shape the CPSD (Ford et al.
2010, p. 387). Sand dune movement naturally occurs in this system as
wind action continues to shape the dunes. Dune movement can result in a
change in suitable habitat conditions (Knisley and Gowan 2008, pp. 21-
22); however, it is likely that dune movement is uncovering potential
habitat as well as covering previously occupied habitat (e.g., Gregory
1950, p. 188). CPSD tiger beetle evolved in a dynamic dune-dominated
system, and we have no evidence to suggest that the rate of dune
movement is increasing or decreasing. Thus, we have no information
indicating that dune movement is a threat to this species, now or is
likely to become so in the future.
Utah is predicted to have increased temperatures and more frequent
heavy precipitation events, separated by longer dry spells, as a result
of climate change (GBRAC 2008, p. 15). Utah soils are expected to dry
more rapidly as a result of increased temperatures (GBRAC 2008, p. 20).
Drought duration and intensity in CPSD will likely increase in the
future, magnifying the soil moisture reductions expected from
temperature increases alone. Precipitation and soil moisture levels
currently limit the CPSD tiger beetle population in CPSD (Knisley and
Gowan 2006, p. 7), and reductions in soil moisture associated with
climate change and drought will further reduce the CPSD tiger beetle
population size. Based on the analysis in Factor E, we find
environmental changes resulting
[[Page 60224]]
from climate change and drought, will become threats to the CPSD tiger
beetle in the future.
The restricted range of the species does not constitute a threat in
itself. However, the species' small population size makes the species
more vulnerable to extinction due to demographic stochasticity,
environmental stochasticity, and random ecatastrophe, when combined
with the specific threats of ORV use, drought, and climate change.
Therefore, we consider its small population size to be a threat to the
species when combined with other stressors and threats.
Threats can work in concert with one another to cumulatively create
conditions that will impact CPSD tiger beetle beyond the scope of each
individual threat. Climate change, drought, and ORV use all act upon
CPSD tiger beetle through a similar mechanism: The drying of soils. As
we discussed, soil moisture is a critical factor for desert tiger
beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1988, entire) and water and soil moisture
are both currently limiting CPSD tiger beetle (Knisley and Gowan 2006,
p. 7). Reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, soil compaction,
and soil exposure act cumulatively on CPSD tiger beetle and its
habitat. For these reasons, we find ORV use, environmental changes
resulting from climate change, and drought are threats to the species
both independently (presently in the case of ORV use) and cumulatively.
The best scientific and commercial information available indicates that
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence are
a threat the CPSD tiger beetle, now and are likely to continue to be so
in the future.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to CPSD tiger beetle. The Act defines an endangered species as any
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as any
species ``that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.'' Under
the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing
if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. CPSD tiger beetle is highly
restricted in its range, threats occur throughout its range, and are
not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range.
Accordingly, our assessment and determination applies to the species
throughout its entire range.
CPSD tiger beetle has one of the smallest geographical ranges of
any known insect (Romey and Knisley 2002, p. 170). It is restricted to
the CPSD geologic feature and occupies only 202 ha (500 ac) (Morgan et
al. 2000, p. 1109). Within CPSD, CPSD tiger beetle occur sporadically
throughout the dunes, but only consistently exist in two populations
that are separated by 4.8 km (3 mi). The northern population is not
self-sustaining (Knisley 2001, p. 9) and likely persists because of
periodic dispersal from the central population. Extremely low numbers
and a highly restricted geographic range make CPSD tiger beetle
particularly susceptible to becoming in danger of extinction due to
existing threats and threats in the foreseeable future.
ORV use and small population effects, in combination with other
stressors, are threats to the species (see Factors A, D, and E). These
factors pose immediate threats to the species because they are ongoing.
ORV use, small population effects, climate change and drought, and the
cumulative impacts of ORV use and climate change and drought will
threaten the species in the foreseeable future (see Factors A, D, and
E).
Despite ongoing threats, the adult CPSD tiger beetle population
size has shown a stable or slightly increasing trend since 2003, but
overall trend since 1992 suggests that the population is in decline.
Recreational ORV use has reduced the amount of habitat available to
CPSD tiger beetle and in this way suppresses the species population
size. However, as the past 9 years of population data suggest, it is
unlikely that the threat of ORV use will cause imminent extinction for
the species. It is more likely that, absent the protections of the Act,
ORV use will continue to suppress the CPSD tiger beetle population
size, and future drought conditions associated with climate change
would act cumulatively with ORV use upon an extremely small population,
causing endangerment. Because endangerment in this case is ``in the
foreseeable future'' and the species is currently (over about the last
5 years) experiencing a stable or increasing population trend, we do
not consider CPSD tiger beetle to be presently on the brink of
extinction, but likely to become so in the future (Capone 2012,
entire).
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing CPSD tiger beetle as a
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act. Because threats are distributed across the limited range of the
species, we have determined that the CPSD tiger beetle is a threatened
species throughout all of its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Listing results in public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and
requires that recovery actions be carried out for all 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 requires 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 includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, 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 (comprising species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
[[Page 60225]]
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Utah 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 will 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 Utah would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of CPSD tiger beetle. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although CPSD tiger beetle 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 this 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
endangered or threatened 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 formal 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 include management and any other landscape altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the BLM; construction and
management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission; and construction and maintenance of roads
or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a
permit must 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.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed
animals and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Permits, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 650, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone
303-236-4256.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes
Tiger Beetle
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.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
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 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. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
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
[[Page 60226]]
species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In
identifying those physical and biological features within an area, we
focus on the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs), such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, and soil type,
that are essential to the conservation of the species.
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. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure 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 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 developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include 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 of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. 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.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
CPSD tiger beetle from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history as described below. We have determined that CPSD tiger
beetle requires the following physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth
Dune System--CPSD consists of a series of high, mostly barren, dry
dune ridges separated by lower, moister, and more vegetated interdunal
swales (Romey and Knisley 2002, p. 170). The CPSD tiger beetle requires
interconnected dune and swale habitats for thermoregulation, foraging,
reproduction, and larval development. Adult CPSD tiger beetles use most
of the dune area from the swales (low place between sand dunes) to the
upper dune slope for foraging and thermoregulation. Larval CPSD tiger
beetles are more restricted to moist, vegetated swale areas (Knisley
and Hill 2001, p. 386). Therefore, based on the information above we
identify sand dunes and swales within the CPSD geologic feature as an
essential physical or biological feature for this species.
Climate--The CPSD tiger beetle occurs only at the CPSD geologic
feature in southern Utah. CPSD elevation ranges from a low of 1,710 m
(5,620 ft) to a high of 2,090 m (6,850 ft) (Ford et al. 2010, p. 381).
The nearest weather station, in Kanab, Utah, has a mean annual
temperature of 12.4 [deg]C (54.4 [deg]F) and mean annual precipitation
of 33.8 cm (13.3 inches) with winter-summer precipitation peaks and
spring-autumn drought (Ford et al. 2010, p. 381). These climatic
conditions are influenced, in part, by elevation. Rainfall and the
associated increase in soil moisture have a positive effect on CPSD
tiger beetle oviposition and survivorship (Knisley and Hill 2001, p.
391) and the areas in the dune field with the highest soil moisture
contain the highest densities of larvae (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p.
22). Because the CPSD tiger beetle has evolved in these climatic
conditions and because precipitation and moisture are important to
survival, we identify suitable precipitation regimes, a dry spring and
fall, and winter and summer precipitation as essential physical or
biological features for this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Food--CPSD tiger beetle are predatory insects. Adults are active,
visual hunters that use their large mandibles to capture and eat small
arthropods. Adults primarily forage on dune faces and
[[Page 60227]]
swale edges (Hill and Knisley 1996, p. 9). Adults are food limited in
some years, which results in reduced fecundity (Knisley and Gowan 2008,
p. 19). Larvae are sedentary predators that live in permanent burrows
in the ground and use large mandibles to capture small arthropods that
pass near their burrow. CPSD tiger beetle feed primarily on ants,
flies, and other small arthropods (Knisley and Hill 1993, p. 13).
In summary, CPSD tiger beetle is food limited in some years. Both
adults and larvae use their large mandibles to capture arthropods.
Their primary prey are ants, flies, and other small arthropods.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify an abundant and
diverse arthropod prey base to be an essential physical or biological
feature for this species.
Cover or Shelter
Adult Burrows--Adult CPSD tiger beetle use cover or shelter to help
maintain internal body temperatures (thermoregulation). During peak
spring and fall activity, when it is sunny, adults are usually active
early (9 a.m.-2 p.m.) and again in late afternoon (4 p.m.-7 p.m.)
(Knisley and Hill 1993, pp.13-14). They dig and reside in the sand in
burrows to avoid unfavorable weather conditions such as hot mid-
afternoons or daytime conditions that are cool or rainy (Knisley and
Hill 1993, p. 14). Shade provided by vegetative cover also is important
for thermoregulation during warmer periods (Knisley 2012, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sand dunes and
vegetation as an essential physical or biological feature for this
species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Larval Beds--Adult females determine the larval microhabitat by
their selection of an oviposition site (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 6).
Newly hatched larvae construct burrows in sand soils at the site of
oviposition and subsequently pass through three larval stages (each
stage is called an ``instar'') before pupating and then emerging to the
adult form. Larvae remain in the same burrow throughout their
development and only rarely move outside of their burrow to dig a new
burrow in a more favorable location (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 11).
Most larvae occur within the swale bottoms and up the lower slopes
of the dunes, particularly where the soil or subsoil is moist most of
the time (Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 11; Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 22).
Larvae primarily inhabit areas with 3 to 25 percent soil moisture
(Romney and Knisley 2002, p. 172). Soil moisture is critical to larval
CPSD tiger beetle survival. Drying or desiccation can kill tiger
beetles (Knisley and Juliano 1998, p. 1990), and almost no larvae
survive below 3 percent soil moisture (Romen and Knisley 2002, p. 172).
Water tends to be so limiting in CPSD that water supplementation
increases larval CPSD tiger beetle survival by 10 percent (Knisley and
Gowan 2006, p. 7). We are not aware of an upper limit, in terms of soil
moisture, where increases in soil moisture are detrimental to larval
CPSD tiger beetle survival.
Larvae are most common in swales with a relatively high total
percent vegetation cover (means of 23 to 57 percent) (Knisley and Hill
2001, p. 389). The swale vegetation supports the prey base of ants,
flies, and other prey upon which larvae depend. Low or no vegetation
results in a reduced prey base. Vegetative cover above 57 percent tends
to stabilize sediments too much and may prevent adults from ovipositing
(Knisley 2012, pers. comm.).
In summary, adult ovipositing determines the habitats used by
larval CPSD tiger beetle. Soil moisture and prey availability are
essential for larval growth and survival. Vegetation supports the prey
base; however, too much vegetation cover can make habitat unsuitable
for ovipositing. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
swale habitat, soil moisture, an abundant and diverse prey base, and 23
to 57 percent vegetation cover as the essential physical or biological
features for this species.
Primary Constituent Elements for CPSD Tiger Beetle
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of CPSD tiger beetle in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' PCEs. We consider PCEs to be the
elements of physical or biological features that are all needed to
provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to CPSD
tiger beetle are: Dynamic sand dunes and swales within the Coral Pink
Sand Dunes geologic feature that have:
[cir] Elevations from 1,710 to 2,090 m;
[cir] Appropriate levels of moisture and compaction to allow for
burrowing (greater than 3 percent); and
[cir] Vegetative cover of 23-57% that allows for ovipositing, adult
thermoregulation, and abundant prey.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of PCEs
sufficient to support the life-history processes of the species. All
units and subunits proposed for designation as critical habitat are
currently occupied by CPSD tiger beetle and contain the PCEs sufficient
to support the life-history needs of the species.
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 which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. A detailed discussion of threats to CPSD tiger beetle and
its habitat can be found in the Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section.
The primary threats impacting the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of CPSD tiger beetle that may require
special management considerations or protection within the proposed
critical habitat include, but are not limited to, ORV use, drought, and
climate change, and the cumulative effects of all of these threats.
The features essential to the conservation of this species (sand
dunes, moist and vegetated swales, and prey species) may require
special management considerations or protection to reduce threats.
Extremely low numbers and a highly restricted geographic range make
CPSD tiger beetle particularly susceptible to extinction in the
foreseeable future. Special management considerations or protections
are required within critical habitat areas to address threats.
Management activities that could ameliorate threats include (but are
not limited to): The establishment of a second self-sustaining
population; regulations and/or agreements that balance conservation
with ORV use in areas that would affect the species; the designation of
additional protected areas with specific provisions and protections for
the species; and the elimination or avoidance of activities that alter
the soil moisture, vegetation community, or prey base in swale
[[Page 60228]]
habitat. These management activities would protect the PCEs for the
species by preventing the loss of habitat and individuals, protecting
dune and swale habitat, and managing for appropriate levels and types
of disturbance.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are proposing to designate critical
habitat concurrent with listing in areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species.
We are proposing to designate all currently occupied habitat as
critical habitat--any degradation of existing occupied habitat would
further increase CPSD tiger beetle's susceptibility to extinction. CPSD
tiger beetle primarily occurs in two populations that are separated by
4.8 km (3 mi) of dunes. We include the 4.8-km (3-mi) dune segment that
separates the two populations because dispersal is likely important for
the long term-survival of the species (see Habitat, above), and this
central dune segment is used by dispersing adults. Comprehensive
surveys have not been conducted in this area for 20 years, and we have
no information to confirm the present occurrence of larval CPSD tiger
beetles and swale habitat.
We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries for CPSD tiger
beetle using the following steps:
(1) In determining what areas were occupied by CPSD tiger beetle,
we used data collected by Dr. Barry Knisley (Hill and Knisley 1993 pp.
7-10; Knisley and Hill 1994 pp. 5-10; Knisley and Gowan 2005, pp. 7-8;
Knisley and Gowan 2011 p. 29) to map the central and northern
populations of CPSD tiger beetle using ArcMap 9.3.1.
(2) We delineated proposed critical habitat areas by creating
polygons around each population. Because of the narrowness of the
actual CPSD area (less than 1.6 km (1 mi)) and the shifting and
movement of habitat within the CPSD system, we included the entire
width of the CPSD area surrounding each population.
(3) We then included a dispersal corridor, the dune area between
the central and northern populations. We delineated the dispersal
corridor as the entirety of the dune area between the central and
northern populations because the entirety of the dune area could be
used by dispersing adults.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features for CPSD tiger beetle. 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 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 are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the CPSD tiger
beetle.
One unit is proposed for designation based on sufficient elements
of physical or biological features being present to support CPSD tiger
beetle life-history processes. This unit contains all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and supports multiple life-
history processes.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing one unit as critical habitat for CPSD tiger
beetle. The critical habitat area we describe below constitutes our
current best assessment of the area that meets the definition of
critical habitat for CPSD tiger beetle. The unit will be occupied at
the time of any listing and is currently occupied. The approximate area
of the proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Unit for CPSD Tiger Beetle
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land management
Critical habitat unit by type Size of area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSD Unit.................... CPSD State Park 310 ha (767 ac).
(UDNR).
BLM............ 610 ha (1,508 ac).
-------------------------
Total.................... ............... 921 ha (2,276 ac).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of the unit, and reasons why it meets
the definition of critical habitat for CPSD tiger beetle, below.
CPSD Unit
The Unit consists of 921 ha (2,276 ac) of dune habitat and is
located entirely within the CPSD geologic feature (see Proposed
Regulation Promulgation, below). The southern 310 ha (767 acres) are
located within CPSD State Park. The northern 610 ha (1,508 ac) are
located on BLM land.
CPSD State Park is categorized as public land with a recreational
emphasis. The State Park encompasses the southern 809 ha (2,000 ac) of
the CPSD geologic feature. The habitat consists of a series of high,
mostly barren, dry dune ridges separated by lower, moister, and more
vegetated interdunal swales (Romey and Knisley 2002, p. 170). The
proposed unit overlaps an existing 84 ha (207 ac) of State Park
nonmotorized area (Conservation Area A). The remaining 227 ha (560 ac)
of the State Park are open to ORV use.
The BLM Kanab Resource Area manages the northern 610 ha (1,508 ac)
of the CPSD geologic feature (BLM 2000, p. 14). The BLM portion of the
proposed Unit is characterized by dunes and swales that contain dense
pockets of vegetation. In general, dunes and swales
[[Page 60229]]
in this unit are more stable and more highly vegetated than those in
the State Park (Ford et al. 2010, pp. 387-392). The proposed unit
overlaps an existing 150 ha (370 ac) of BLM nonmotorized area
(Conservation Area B). The remaining 460 ha (1,138 ac) of BLM land are
open to ORV use.
This unit currently has all the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit requires
special management considerations or protections from the threats of
ORV use, drought, and climate change. It is located within the
appropriate elevation range, and it contains numerous moist and
vegetated swales near dunes. Adult and larval CPSD tiger beetle have
occurred throughout the proposed State Park owned portion of the Unit
continuously for the past 20 years (Knisley and Gowan 2011, p. 8), and
small numbers of adult and larval CPSD tiger beetles occupy the
northern extent within the BLM Conservation Area B habitat (Knisley and
Gowan 2011, p. 9). The central portion of the proposed unit between
Conservation Areas A and B may contain suitable swale habitat and
larval beetles; however, comprehensive surveys have not been conducted
in the past 20 years, and we have no information to confirm the present
occurrence of larval CPSD tiger beetles. However, the central portion
of the proposed unit is used by dispersing adult beetles, and likely
serves as a link between the two known populations.
Areas Outside Proposed Critical Habitat
As stated previously, 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.
Only areas within the historical distribution of CPSD tiger beetle
were considered for proposed critical habitat because areas outside of
the historical distribution do not contain the requisite PCEs for the
species. For this reason, we did not consider unoccupied areas outside
of the CPSD geologic feature.
We did consider the 227 ha (560 ac) of sand dunes within CPSD State
Park that exist south of our proposed critical habitat unit (see Figure
4 below). However, we have no information suggesting that this dune
area was historical habitat, or is now suitable habitat for CPSD tiger
beetle. Unlike the areas included within the proposed critical habitat
unit, this southern area has no record of CPSD tiger beetle larval
presence nor is there record of regular adult occurrence. As we
described previously (see Habitat), wind action in the dunes primarily
blows from south to north, and wind velocity decreases as it moves
across the sand dunes (from south to north). This results in a dynamic
and less vegetated south Dune area that transitions to a less dynamic
and more heavily vegetated and higher northern Dune area (Ford et al.
2010, pp. 387-392). The dynamic southern area has less vegetation cover
(Ford et al. 2010, pp. 387-392) and the high wind energy likely reduces
soil moisture levels (e.g., Lortie and Cushman 2007, pp. 478-479). We
believe the lack of PCEs (vegetative cover and appropriate soil
moisture) make the south Dune area unsuitable as critical habitat (see
Factor A for a discussion of the importance of soil moisture and
vegetation).
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.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the 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.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 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, or
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 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.
[[Page 60230]]
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for CPSD tiger beetle. As
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the 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 destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the CPSD tiger beetle. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would reduce soil moisture or vegetative cover in
swale habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
continued or increased vehicular access or pedestrian traffic in or
adjacent to occupied habitats. These activities could reduce soil
moisture by churning up soils and exposing the moisture that is locked
up between soil particles (beneath the surface) to greater evaporative
pressure (Shultz 1988, p. 28) and by increasing soil compaction (Adams
et al. 1982, p. 167). These activities also could reduce vegetative
cover by trampling and subsequently injuring or killing plants.
Reduced soil moisture may lead to death of some CPSD tiger beetle
larvae, as soil moisture is the most important factor determining
larval tiger beetle survival (Knisley and Juliano 1988, entire).
Reduced vegetative cover adversely impacts CPSD tiger beetle
ovipositioning, adult thermoregulation, and prey base. Low prey
densities can result in prolonged development and decreased
survivorship in larval tiger beetles and reduced size in adults, which
lowers fecundity in females (Pearson and Knisley 1985, p. 165; Knisley
and Juliano 1988, p. 1990).
(2) Actions that would significantly affect dune morphology or
dynamics. Such activities could include road or campground construction
within or adjacent to the dunes. CPSD is a dynamic system where wind
action continues to shape the dunes and redistribute sediment. Any
significant alteration to dune morphology or dynamics may alter the
arrangement and amount of swale and dune habitat available to CPSD
tiger beetle.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``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 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 lands within the proposed
critical habitat designation. Thus, we are not proposing any exemptions
based on section 4(a)(3)(B)(i).
Exclusions
Application of 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 any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, 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, as well
as 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.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of
[[Page 60231]]
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
Upon completion, copies of the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Utah Fish and Wildlife Office
directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During the
development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts,
public comments, and other new information. Areas may be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for CPSD tiger
beetle are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary does not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude
any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national
security.
Exclusions Based on 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 the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 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.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs for CPSD tiger beetle, and the proposed designation
does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no
impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed
critical habitat designation. As we described previously, a CCA exists
for CPSD tiger beetle (see Factor A and D). However, we determined in
Factor A and D that this agreement is not adequately reducing threats
to the species. Accordingly, the Secretary does not propose to exercise
his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on
other relevant impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing and critical habitat designation is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on
this proposed rule to list the species as threatened and the
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
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. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs 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
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must
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
(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.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
Land use sectors that could be affected by this proposed rule
include: BLM land managers, CPSD State Park land managers, and ORV
users that may
[[Page 60232]]
be or are utilizing the proposed critical habitat unit.
We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
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. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use as there is no energy supply or distribution infrastructure near
the proposed critical habitat. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
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 findings:
(1) This rule will 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 will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the lands being proposed for critical
habitat designation are owned by the State of Utah, and the BLM. None
of these government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for CPSD tiger beetle in a takings implications
assessment. Critical habitat designation 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. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for CPSD tiger
beetle does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment 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 in Utah.
The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by CPSD
tiger beetle may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to
those currently in place and, therefore, may have little incremental
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to 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 local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them 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) 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
[[Page 60233]]
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. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the CPSD tiger
beetle within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is 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 NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in
connection with 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 CPSD tiger beetle, 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 will undertake a
NEPA analysis for critical habitat designation and notify the public of
the availability of the draft environmental assessment for this
proposal when it is finished.
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 Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes.
We determined that there are no Tribal lands that were occupied by
CPSD tiger beetle at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of the species, and no Tribal lands
unoccupied by the CPSD tiger beetle that are essential for the
conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for CPSD tiger beetle on Tribal lands.
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 the ADDRESSES section. 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.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Utah Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Utah Field Office.
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--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Beetle, Coral Pink
Sand Dunes tiger'' in alphabetical order under ``Insects'' to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 60234]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historical range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Beetle, Coral Pink Sand Dunes Cicindela albissima. U.S.A. (UT)......... NA.................. T ........... 17.95(i) NA
tiger.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by adding an entry for
``Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (Cicindela albissima),'' in the
same alphabetical order that the species appears in the table at Sec.
17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (Cicindela albissima)
(1) A single critical habitat unit is depicted for Kane County,
Utah on the map below.
(2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle consist of:
(i) Dynamic sand dunes and swales within the Coral Pink Sand Dunes
geologic feature that have:
(A) Elevations from 1,710 to 2,090 m;
(B) Appropriate levels of moisture and compaction to allow for
burrowing (greater than 3 percent); and
(C) Vegetative cover of 23-57 percent that allows for ovipositing,
adult thermoregulation, and abundant prey.
(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
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on a base of both satellite imagery (NAIP 2009) as well as
USGS geospatial quadrangle maps and were mapped using NAD 83 Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 13N coordinates. Location information
came from a wide array of sources. 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 the map is based are available to the public at the Service's
internet site, http://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/, at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053 and at the field
office responsible for the 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) Unit 1: Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle, Kane County, Utah.
Note: Map of Unit 1 follows:
BILLING CODE P
[[Page 60235]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC12.006
* * * * *
Dated: September 14, 2012.
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-23741 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C