Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49149

§ 1.7002 Frequency of reports. within a calendar year shall file data for place that would preclude disclosure of Entities subject to the provisions of the reporting period in which they any confidential information, and § 1.7001 shall file reports semi-annually. become eligible and semi-annually (ii) ‘‘Eligible entities,’’ as those Reports shall be filed each year on or thereafter. entities are defined in the Broadband before March 1st (reporting data ■ 9. Amend § 43.11 to revise paragraphs Data Improvement Act, in an aggregated required on FCC Form 477 as of (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows: format and pursuant to confidentiality December 31 of the prior year) and conditions prescribed by the September 1st (reporting data required § 43.11 Reports of local exchange Commission, and on FCC Form 477 as of June 30 of the competition data. (iii) Others, to the extent that access current year). Entities becoming subject (a) All common carriers and their to such data can be accomplished in a to the provisions of § 1.7001 for the first affiliates (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(1)) manner that addresses concerns about time within a calendar year shall file providing telephone exchange or the competitive sensitivity of the data data for the reporting period in which exchange access service (as defined in and precludes public disclosure of any they become eligible and semi-annually 47 U.S.C. 153(16) and (47)), commercial confidential information. thereafter. mobile radio service (CMRS) providers * * * * * offering mobile telephony (as defined in [FR Doc. 2013–19493 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] PART 43—REPORTS OF § 20.15(b)(1) of this chapter), and BILLING CODE 6712–01–P COMMUNICATION COMMON Interconnected Voice over IP service CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES providers (as defined in § 9.3 of this chapter), shall file with the Commission DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ■ 7. The authority citation for part 43 a completed FCC Form 477, in continues to read as follows: accordance with the Commission’s rules Fish and Wildlife Service Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154; and the instructions to the FCC Form Telecommunications Act of 1996; Pub.L. 477. 50 CFR Part 17 104–104, sec. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (b) Respondents identified in (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted. paragraph (a) of this section shall [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0049; 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220, as amended; Cable include in each report a certification 4500030113] Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 35– signed by an appropriate official of the RIN 1018–AY58 39. respondent (as specified in the ■ 8. Amend § 43.01 by revising instructions to FCC Form 477) and shall Endangered and Threatened Wildlife paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as report the title of their certifying official. and Plants; Determination of follows: (c) Disclosure of data contained in Endangered Status for Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch Mallow) § 43.01 Applicability. FCC Form 477 will be addressed as follows: Throughout Its Range (a) The sections in this part include (1) Emergency operations contact AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, requirements which have been information contained in FCC Form 477 Interior. promulgated under authority of sections are information that should not be 211 and 219 of the Communications Act routinely available for public inspection ACTION: Final rule. of 1934, as amended, with respect to the pursuant to § 0.457 of this chapter. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and filing by communication common (2) Respondents may make requests carriers and certain of their affiliates, as Wildlife Service, determine that for Commission non-disclosure of the Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch mallow) well as certain other providers, of following data contained in FCC Form periodic reports and certain other data, meets the definition of an endangered 477 under § 0.459 of this chapter by so species under the Endangered Species but do not include certain requirements indicating on Form 477 at the time that relating to the filing of information with Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Gierisch the subject data are submitted: mallow is a plant species found in respect to specific services, accounting (i) Provider-specific subscription data Mohave County, Arizona, and systems and other matters incorporated and Washington County, Utah. This final in other parts of this chapter. (ii) Provider-specific mobile rule implements the Federal protections (b) Except as provided in paragraphs deployment data that includes specific provided by the Act for this species. The (c) and (d) of this section, carriers and spectrum and speed parameters that effect of this regulation is to add this other providers becoming subject to the may be used by providers for internal species to the List of Endangered and provisions of the several sections of this network planning purposes. part for the first time, shall, within (3) Respondents seeking confidential Threatened Plants. thirty (30) days of becoming subject, file treatment of any other data contained in DATES: This rule is effective on the required data as set forth in the FCC Form 477 must submit a request September 12, 2013. various sections of this part. that the data be treated as confidential ADDRESSES: This final rule and final * * * * * with the submission of their Form 477 economic analysis are available on the (d) Common carriers and other service filing, along with their reasons for Internet at http://www.regulations.gov providers subject to the provisions of withholding the information from the and at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ § 43.11 shall file data semi-annually. public, pursuant to § 0.459 of this es/arizona/. Comments and materials Reports shall be filed each year on or chapter. we received, as well as supporting before March 1st (reporting data (4) The Commission shall make all documentation we used in preparing required on FCC Form 477 as of decisions regarding non-disclosure of this rule, are available for public December 31 of the prior year) and provider-specific information, except inspection at http:// September 1st (reporting data required that the Chief of the Wireline www.regulations.gov. Comments and on FCC Form 477 as of June 30 of the Competition Bureau may release materials received, as well as supporting current year). Common carriers and provider-specific information to: documentation used in preparing this other providers becoming subject to the (i) A state commission provided that final rule is available for public provisions of § 43.11 for the first time the state commission has protections in inspection, by appointment, during

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49150 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and • Existing regulatory mechanisms to 0.98 in) long (Atwood and Welsh Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological that could provide protection to the 2002, p. 161). Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Gierisch mallow through mining Gierisch mallow was named as a Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, 85021; by operations management by the Bureau unique, distinct species in 2002 telephone (602) 242–0210; or by of Land Management (BLM) and (Atwood and Welsh 2002, p. 159). This facsimile (602) 242–2513. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) species of mallow is distinguished from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: but are inadequate to protect the species similar species, such as Sphaeralcea Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. from existing and future threats. rusbyi (Rusby’s globemallow), by the • Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Small population size and restricted glabrous (smooth) foliage, few or no Ecological Services Office, 2321 West range of the species, which make the stellate (star-shaped) hairs restricted to Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Gierisch mallow increasingly the leaf margins, larger flowers, and AZ 85021; by telephone (602) 242–0210; susceptible to further declines through restricted range and habitat. or by facsimile (602) 242–2513. Persons stochastic wildfire events, spread of the Another closely related species is Sphaeralcea moorei (Moore’s who use a telecommunications device nonnative grasses, and climate change. globemallow); distinguishing characters for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Peer review and public comment. We are the 3 to 5-parted narrow lobes, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at sought comments from independent bright green leaves, and different 800–877–8339. specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically habitat. As discussed by Atwood and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sound data, assumptions, and analyses. Welsh (2002, p. 159), the genus Executive Summary We invited these peer reviewers to Sphaeralcea consists of taxa whose morphological distinctions are This document consists of a final rule comment on our listing proposal. Generally, the peer reviewers agreed compromised by overlap of many to list as endangered Sphaeralcea characters. The characteristics of the gierischii (Gierisch mallow). In this final with our interpretation of the science and provided information regarding mature fruiting carpels (seed-bearing rule, we will refer to Sphaeralcea structures) are one of the more gierischii as Gierisch mallow. population numbers and additional information regarding the threats and important distinguishing characters, but Why we need to publish a rule. Under specimens were rarely collected with the Act, a species may warrant biology of the species. We also considered all comments and mature carpels. Atwood and Welsh protection through listing if it is (2002, pp. 161–163) collected endangered or threatened throughout all information we received during the comment period. globemallow species in northern or a significant portion of its range. Arizona and southern Utah, and Listing a species as an endangered or Previous Federal Actions reviewed previous collections. The threatened species can only be Please refer to the proposed listing characteristics described in their 2002 completed by issuing a rule. In this final rule for the Gierisch mallow (77 FR taxonomic key allow for the rule, we are explaining why Gierisch 49894; August 17, 2012) for a detailed discrimination of the related and similar mallow warrants protection under the description of previous Federal actions taxa known to occur in southern Utah Act. This final rule lists the Gierisch concerning this species. and adjacent northern Arizona, thus mallow as an endangered species Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, making Gierisch mallow a species and, throughout its range in Mohave County, we designate critical habitat for the therefore, a listable entity under the Act. Arizona, and Washington County, Utah. Gierisch mallow under the Act. The work was published in the peer- Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, reviewed journal Novon, which we designate critical habitat for the Background publishes short articles with the Gierisch mallow under the Act. It is our intent to discuss below only primary purpose of the establishment of The Endangered Species Act provides those topics directly relevant to this nomenclature (scientific naming) of the basis for our action. Under the Act, final rule listing the Gierisch mallow as vascular plants. Dr. Atwood and Dr. we can determine that a species is an endangered. Welsh are very familiar with the flora of endangered or threatened species based Utah; Dr. Atwood is the Collections Species Information on any of five factors: (A) The present Manager of the S. L. Welsh Herbarium, or threatened destruction, modification, Gierisch mallow is a perennial, and Dr. Welsh is Emeritus Curator of or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) flowering member of the mallow family. Vascular Plants at Brigham Young overutilization for commercial, It produces few to many stems from a University, Utah. After careful review of recreational, scientific, or educational woody caudex (short, thickened, woody the 2002 Atwood and Welsh publication purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) stem that is usually subterranean or at and its recognition by the Integrated the inadequacy of existing regulatory ground level). The stems are 43 to 103 Taxonomic Information System (ITIS mechanisms; or (E) other natural or centimeters (cm) (17 to 41 inches (in)) 2012) and its inclusion in the Utah Rare manmade factors affecting its continued tall, and are often dark red-purple. The Plant Guide (Utah Rare Plants 2012), it existence. foliage is bright green and glabrous (not is our conclusion that Gierisch mallow We have determined that the Gierisch hairy). The leaf blades are 1.2 to 4 is a valid species because the mallow meets the definition of an centimeters (cm) (0.47 to 1.57 inches characteristics described above can be endangered species due to the combined (in)) long; 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 1.9 in) wide; used to distinguish this species from effects of: and usually longer than wide. The similar species. We also consider it a • Habitat destruction, modification, leaves are usually flat and egg-shaped; separate species due to its acceptance in and degradation resulting from gypsum the leaf base is heart-shaped to truncate, peer-reviewed literature and recognition mining operations; livestock grazing; the with 3 to 5 lobes. The inflorescence is by taxonomic authorities, as described spread of nonnative species; and compound, with more than one flower above. increased risk of wildfire. per node. The outer envelope of the • Predation (herbivory) during flower is 0.5 to 1.0 cm (0.2 to 0.4 in) Biology, Habitat, and the Current Range drought years and during the long, green, and uniformly glabrous, and Gierisch mallow is only found on reproductive period. the orange petals are 1.5 to 2.5 cm (0.6 gypsum outcrops associated with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49151

Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab know how the species is pollinated, There are no other known populations Formation in northern Mohave County, other species of the genus Sphaeralcea of the Gierisch mallow. We theorized Arizona, and adjacent Washington (globemallows) are pollinated by that, because gypsum outcrops County, Utah (Atwood and Welsh 2002, Diadasia diminuta (globemallow bee), associated with the Harrisburg Member p. 161). The Harrisburg Member is the which specializes in pollinating plants are scattered throughout BLM lands in most recent (topmost) exposed geologic of this genus. Globemallow bees are northern Arizona and southern Utah, layer of the Kaibab Formation. The considered important pollinators for additional populations may exist. Dr. Harrisburg Member is known for its globemallows (Tepedino 2010, p. 2). Atwood and Dr. Welsh conducted soils containing high levels of gypsum These solitary bees, as well as other extensive surveys in these areas because (gypsiferous soils) (Biek and Hayden Diadasia species, are known to occur numerous other rare plant species are 2007, p. 58). The Kaibab Formation within the range of the Gierisch mallow associated with these landforms comprises a continuous layer of exposed (Sipes and Tepedino 2005, pp. 490–491; (Atwood 2008, p. 1). One record of a limestone rock in the Grand Canyon Sipes and Wolf 2001, pp. 146–147), so Gierisch mallow from the Grand region (USGS 2012, p. 1). The it is reasonable to assume that they are Canyon-Parashant National Monument surrounding plant community is warm potential pollinators of Gierisch mallow was presented to us (Fertig 2012, p. 3); desertscrub (Mojave desertscrub). Very and other associated vegetation in the however, after careful scrutiny, Johnson little is known about the life history of surrounding community. Winter rainfall and Atwood (2012, p. 1) determined the Gierisch mallow, as it was only in 2008 produced many seedlings of that this record is actually Rusby’s recently described. Gierisch mallow Gierisch mallow, indicating that they mallow and not Gierisch mallow. appears to be associated with biologic grow from seeds stored in the seed bank Status and Population Estimates soil crusts within the gypsum deposits (Hughes 2009, p. 13). Higher densities of (Frates 2012, pers. comm.). Similarly, seedlings were located within known Atwood (2008, p. 1), and later Hughes we know that other rare plants locations in Arizona and Utah after (Service 2008a, p. 1), estimated the associated with gypsum soils are these winter rain events. Additionally, population size of the Gierisch mallow associated with a heavy cover of young plants have been observed on two from six of the Arizona locations. These cryptogamic plants (lichens, mosses, reclaimed areas within an active populations are referred to as ‘‘Hills.’’ and blue-green algae), except where gypsum mine (Service 2008a, p. 1), There are a total of 18 populations natural erosion or other manmade further indicating that seeds are stored rangewide, with 17 populations on factors have destroyed that cover in the seed bank; however, we do not lands managed by the BLM, and 1 on (Nelson and Harper 1991, p. 168). know the long-term viability of these lands managed by the ASLD. Seventeen Drohan and Merkle (2009, p. 96) state, plants due to the disruption of the populations occur in Arizona, and one however, that plant species that appear original soil composition. Furthermore, occurs in Utah. to be soil-specific can be found in those Hughes (2011, p. 7) has documented a Atwood and Hughes’ population soils as a result of other factors in decline in the numbers of plants in both addition to soil chemistry. Although estimates were simple visual estimates of the two reclaimed areas over the last and have only been conducted for four there are likely other factors that 5 years. contribute to Gierisch mallow having a of the 17 populations. Hughes’ estimates limited distribution, it is currently only We have no information on the were conducted using belt transects that found in gypsum soils. The species may historical range of this species because are 1.83 m (6 ft) wide and 91.44 m (300 be perennial because it is woody at the it is a newly discovered plant. ft) long. Hughes carried a 1.83-m (6-ft) base and the same individuals have Currently, there are 18 known long plastic pipe and counted every been observed for more than 1 year. It populations of the Gierisch mallow Gierisch mallow plant that was within dies back to the ground during the restricted to less than approximately the length of the pipe as he walked the winter and re-sprouts from the base 186 ha (460 ac) in Arizona and Utah. belt transects (Hughes 2012a). These during late winter and spring (January The main populations in Arizona are estimates are presented in Table 1 for to March), depending on daytime located south of the Black Knolls, the areas surveyed in Arizona. Hughes temperatures and rainfall. Information approximately 19.3 km (12 mi) (2012b, pp. 2–4) established these belt from the BLM indicates that many of the southwest of BLM’s Arizona Strip Field transects on six of the ‘‘Hills’’ (Hills 1, Gierisch mallow populations occur on Office in St. George, Utah, with the 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and began to count the hillsides or steep slopes; however, southernmost population of this group number of individuals. The populations Gierisch mallow has been documented being on the edge of Black Rock Gulch on Hills 6 and 7 were monitored, and growing on all slopes and aspects. near Mokaac Mountain. There is another the numbers of individuals within the While we do not know the specifics population approximately 4.8 populations were counted for the first about Gierisch mallow, we know that kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)) north of time in 2012. There is a population on several species of the genus Sphaeralcea the Black Knolls, on ASLD lands near Hill 3, but there are no estimates for it. grow well in disturbed soils (Wallace the Arizona/Utah State line. The Utah Data in Table 1 are from files in BLM’s and Romney 1981, p. 32; Abella 2009, population is located on BLM lands Arizona Strip Field Office and St. pp. 704–706; Abella 2010, pp. 1263– within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Arizona/ George Field Office, and the Service’s 1264). Utah State line, near the Arizona Arizona Ecological Services Office. The The pollination system (self- population on ASLD land. Habitat for actual transect counts appear in Table 1 pollinated or obligate out-crosser), seed the Gierisch mallow occurs on Utah in bold, in parentheses. Surveys dispersal mechanisms, and the State Trust lands managed by the State estimate total population size to be conditions under which seeds germinate of Utah School and Institutional Trust between 11,000 and 18,000 individuals are not known. Although we do not Lands Administration (SITLA). in Arizona.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49152 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—POPULATION NUMBERS FOR GIERISCH MALLOW FROM SIX LOCATIONS IN ARIZONA

Numbers Numbers Numbers Numbers Numbers Numbers Numbers Numbers Site 2001 2003 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hill 1 (BLM) ...... 150+ (100) ...... 50 (30) ...... (58) ...... No data ...... 300 (155) ...... 200 (85) ...... * ...... 200 (no data) Hill 2 (BLM) ...... 150+ (100) ...... 40 (31) ...... (15) ...... 50 (37) ...... 40 (23) ...... No data ...... * ...... 30 (26) Hill 4 (BLM) ...... No data ...... 5,000–9,000 (176) ...... (65) ...... No estimate No estimate No estimate 5,000–9,000 (180). (108). (170). (136). (116) Hill 5 (ASLD) ...... No data ...... 2,000–3,000 No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data (115). Hill 6 (BLM) ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... 3,000–4,000 (610) Hill 7 (BLM) ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... No data ...... 1,200–2,000 (129) * These sites were visited in 2011, and Gierisch mallow plants were observed; however, no data were collected.

Total population size in Utah was gypsiferous soils, it is possible that they 2012. We received no request for a estimated to be approximately 200 are declining due to disruption of the public hearing. individuals in 2005 (Franklin 2007, p. original soil composition in these During the first comment period, we 1). In spring 2008 and 2009, Hughes reclaimed soils. Outside of the received 19 comment letters directly (2008a, p. 12; Hughes 2009, p. 15) reclaimed areas, some populations of addressing the proposed listing and conducted more extensive surveys of the Gierisch mallow appear to be critical habitat designation for the gypsiferous soils in Utah and estimated fluctuating annually according to data Gierisch mallow. During the second the population to be between 5,000 and provided by Hughes (2011, pp. 4–7). comment period, we received one 8,000 individuals. The Service plant Some populations appear to be comment letter addressing the proposed ecologist and staff from the BLM’s decreasing, others have shown slight listing. All substantive information Arizona Strip Field Office visited all of increases, and some populations have provided during comment periods has the known locations in February 2008 remained stable (Hughes 2011, pp. 4–7; either been incorporated directly into (Service 2008a, p. 1). Population Hughes 2012b, pp. 2–4). this final determination or is addressed estimates were not made at this time below. because the plants were just emerging Summary of Comments and Peer Review from winter dormancy, but there were Recommendations In accordance with our peer review plants present at all of the known Due to the nature of the proposed policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR locations visited. rule, we received combined comments Since surveys began, no new 34270), we solicited expert opinions from the public on the listing action and populations have been found outside of from four knowledgeable individuals the critical habitat designation. We have the known areas. In addition to the outside the Service with scientific separated those comments accordingly information provided in Table 1, expertise to review our technical and are only addressing the comments Hughes (2008a, p. 12) reported counts assumptions, interpretations of biology, related to the listing of the Gierisch for transects on two rehabilitated sites and use of ecological principles with mallow in this rule. Comments related within the Western Mining and respect to the Gierisch mallow. We the designation of critical habitat for the Minerals, Inc., gypsum operation on and received responses from three of the Gierisch mallow can be found in the near Hill 4, where 85 and 60 plants were four peer reviewers. final rule designating critical habitat counted on the two transects in 2008. We reviewed all comments we published elsewhere in today’s Federal These plants are reestablishing received from the peer reviewers for Register. themselves in the reclaimed areas from substantive issues and new information the original seed bank. Hughes (2009, p. We requested written comments from regarding threats to Gierisch mallow. 14) counted 50 and 32 plants on these the public on the proposed listing for The peer reviewers generally concurred sites in 2009. In 2011, Hughes (2012, p. the Gierisch mallow during two with our methods and conclusions and 7) completed transect surveys on the comment periods. The first comment provided additional information, same reclaimed sites as he did in 2008 period, which was associated with the clarifications, and suggestions to and 2009, and counted 67 plants on one publication of the proposed rule (77 FR improve the final rule. Peer reviewer rehabilitated site and 1 plant on the 49894), opened on August 17, 2012, and comments are addressed in the other rehabilitated site. Data from closed on October 16, 2012. The second following summary and incorporated surveys conducted in 2012 indicate a comment period opened on March 28, into the final rule as appropriate. slight increase in the population of 2013 (78 FR 18943), and closed on April Peer Reviewer Comments Gierisch mallow on both reclaimed sites 29, 2013. We also contacted appropriate (Hughes 2012b). Hughes (2012b) also Federal, State, and local agencies; (1) Comment: Only 16 percent of indicates that 2012 precipitation levels scientific organizations; peer reviewers, occupied habitat is planned for mining, were very low in the winter and spring, and other interested parties and invited which is not enough to cause Gierisch while summer precipitation was above them to comment on the proposed rule mallow to go extinct. average. We do not have any during these comment periods. Our Response: We agree that the information to indicate why there was a Newspaper notices inviting general amount of occupied habitat for the substantial decrease in plant numbers at public comment were published in the Gierisch mallow is small in the mining these reclaimed areas for 3 years, Kingman Daily Miner on September 12, areas; however, approximately 46 especially since 2010 and 2011 were 2012, and in the Saint George Spectrum percent of the known plants will be lost significant moisture years (Hughes 2011, on September 13, 2012. Additionally, in these habitat areas. Please see the p. 1; Hughes 2012c, p.1). Because the letters were sent to stakeholders and Summary of Factors Affecting the Gierisch mallow is only found in special interest groups on September 12, Species section of this rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49153

Public Comments thoroughly survey the widely ranging partners in the future. Additionally, we (2) Comment: We received several Harrisburg Member for the Gierisch reviewed the existing conservation comments that revenue and jobs would mallow. measures and concluded they are not Our Response: All gypsum deposits be lost and that gypsum mining sufficient to ameliorate the threats. We and available habitat in the Harrisburg operations may be negatively impacted do not know if enough seeds can be Member were surveyed for the Gierisch as a result of listing the Gierisch mallow collected to reestablish pre-mining mallow. It is common practice for under the Act. population numbers in reclaimed areas. botanists to work with local geologists Our Response: The Act requires Furthermore, preliminary data from to determine where appropriate soils decisions to be based on the best seed germination studies indicate that layers are. We consulted with local available science at the time of the reestablishing populations from botanists to gather data for our listing. In addition, we base our collected seeds may be difficult. Refer to determination; therefore, we used the decisions to list a species on the five our Summary of Factors Affecting the best science available. Species section for a thorough review of threat factors discussed in the proposed (6) Comment: We received several rule (77 FR 49894; August 17, 2012) and the threats. comments stating that there is no proof (9) Comment: The Gierisch mallow in this final rule. Please refer to the that the Gierisch mallow is threatened, Summary of Factors Affecting the was observed blooming twice in 2012 that we are missing data to support our (spring and fall) and producing seed Species section in this final rule. threats analysis, and that more years of Additionally, the economic analysis did with each bloom cycle. study are needed to gather the necessary Our Response: We acknowledge that not support this claim. The economic data to support our analysis. the plant had two bloom cycles in 2012, analysis includes the analysis of two Our Response: As stated previously, and produced seed each time. As was future consultations on mining activity section 4(b)(1) of the Act requires that acknowledged by the commenter, this on BLM-managed land and assumes that decisions be based on the best available was likely to due to an abundance of these consultations will not result in science at the time of listing. The rainfall in 2012. We have no other data changes to the level of mining activity. commenters did not provide any to suggest that this is a regular The Service expects the most likely additional data contradicting the threats occurrence that contributes to the long- outcome of these consultations to analysis. We based our decision on the term viability of the species. include conservation measures such as best available science at the time of (10) Comment: The Service does not land reclamation. listing, as required by the Act. have data to support that off-highway (3) Comment: The occurrence of Regarding whether we should undertake vehicle (OHV) use and illegal dumping Gierisch mallow on steep slopes may additional years of study to gather impact the species. indicate a refugia from grazing, and the additional data, the Act requires that we Our Response: Service biologists and species could be more widely finalize or withdraw a proposed rule plant ecologists have observed the distributed in absence of grazing. within 1 year. Based on the currently effects of unauthorized OHV use and Our Response: We have no available data, we believe it is illegal dumping in Gierisch mallow information to support this observation appropriate to finalize the decision at habitat. We have documentation that regarding steep slopes acting as refugia. this time. We will continue to work these are ongoing activities that occur in We are aware that Gierisch mallow cooperatively with partners to conserve habitat and that they are disrupting the grows in other areas besides steep and work towards recovery of the soil crusts as well as contributing to the slopes and have addressed this in this species. alteration of vegetation composition, listing rule. We acknowledge that (7) Comment: We received several thereby impacting the species. Refer to grazing is a threat to the species; comments stating that it is not known if the Summary of Factors Affecting the however, we have determined that it is Hill 4 will be mined. Species section for a complete not a significant threat to the Gierisch Our Response: We based our analysis discussion on the effects of OHV use mallow. Please refer to the Summary of on current, available information, and, and illegal dumping. Factors Affecting the Species section in according to the mining company, Hill (11) Comment: The commenter this final rule. 4 is still currently included in the mine questions if the Gierisch mallow came (4) Comment: One commenter expansion area. into existence because of the mines. questions if Gierisch mallow is a (8) Comment: We received several Our Response: Gierisch mallow is a separate species because no genetic comments stating that Gierisch mallow recently described species that is closely testing has been completed. should only be listed after cooperative associated with gypsum soil types. Our Response: The best available conservation efforts are demonstrated Gierisch mallow also occurs on gypsum science indicates that Gierisch mallow ineffective and that Gierisch mallow is soil deposits that are not being mined. is a valid taxon. Genetic analysis is not better protected through existing Gierisch mallow is not dependent on needed to differentiate species. See the mechanisms. the mines, nor did it come into Species Information section for a Our Response: The Act sets forth a existence because of the mines. complete description of the biology and requirement that a final rule be issued (12) Comment: We received several taxonomy of the species. no later than 1 year after a proposal or comments regarding livestock grazing (5) Comment: In preparing this final the proposal be withdrawn. As we are operations helping the Gierisch mallow listing determination, we used the best not withdrawing our proposal to list or improving its habitat. available scientific and commercial data Gierisch mallow, we must publish the Our Response: No information was as required under section 4(b)(1)(A) of final rule to list the species within 1 provided to substantiate these the Act. We received several comments year of the proposed rule. Listing a observations. stating that we did not use the best species under the Act does not preclude (13) Comment: One commenter stated science because we did not consult working cooperatively with partners to that the Gierisch mallow can be grown geologists and botanists regarding the conserve and work towards recovery of from seed and, therefore, is not soil layers associated with the a species. We are currently working endangered. Harrisburg Member and other similar with partners to conserve the Gierisch Our Response: Under the Act, a gypsum deposits and that we did not mallow and will continue to work with species is considered endangered if it is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49154 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

in danger of extinction throughout all or groups (grass/grass-like, forbs, shrub/ actions may be warranted based on any a significant portion of its range. The vine, and trees). They further break of the above threat factors, singly or in purpose of the Act is to protect both the down plant species composition within combination. Each of these factors is species and the ecosystem upon which the plant groups, also by annual discussed below. it depends. Therefore, preservation of production. A forb species may be more A. The Present or Threatened the species and its habitat is essential numerous at a site while providing less Destruction, Modification, or for the conservation and recovery of the annual production than fewer numbers Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range species. Although Gierisch mallow has of shrubs and perennial grasses. been demonstrated to be grown from Therefore, although an ecological site Because the Gierisch mallow has a seed with limited success, this alone description will include expected limited range and distribution, does not conserve the ecosystem, composition by weight of a species or including being found in a specific soil including the pollinators that are group of species, it does not indicate the composition (gypsum outcrops), it is necessary for the species to reproduce. expected numbers or densities of these highly susceptible to habitat destruction As we discuss in the Summary of plants at a particular site. and modification. Specifically, habitat Factors Affecting the Species section of (17) Comment: One commenter destruction or modification resulting this final rule, the threats to the Gierisch suggested that Gierisch mallow is from mining operations, recreational mallow and its habitat are significant, supposed to occur in low density on the activities, and wildfires associated with and, therefore, the species warrants mining rehabilitation sites where top the spread of nonnative grass species are protection under the Act. soil was replaced after mining. The threats to the Gierisch mallow. (14) Comment: We received several commenter further suggested that other Mining comments related to the lack of large shrubs are more abundant in these sufficient BLM grazing and OHV use areas and that, according to the Gypsum mining is an ongoing source policies and standards, including ecological site descriptions, shrubs of habitat modification for the Gierisch monitoring protocols, to protect the should be more abundant than Gierisch mallow in Arizona. Gypsum is used in Gierisch mallow. mallow. construction (including the Our Response: As detailed below in Our Response: As previously manufacturing of drywall) and for a our discussion of the threats to the described, ecological site descriptions variety of agricultural purposes. species, grazing and OHV use are not provide the expected annual production Gypsum deposits are found at various threats that have significant impacts to in pounds per acre rather than depths within the Harrisburg Member. the species rangewide. We have no abundance or density of plant species. Many of the most valuable gypsum oversight regarding the creation and Further, an ecological site description deposits are not at ground level. This implementation of BLM policies and provides a plant community description means that surface materials need to be standards. for an undisturbed site and its historic removed and stockpiled, while the (15) Comment: We received several condition. It is reasonable to assume subsurface gypsum is mined. The comments stating that not enough notice that plants with soil-specific stockpiled surface material is then used was given or that individuals were not requirements and tolerances, such as to reclaim the area after the gypsum has notified at all regarding the proposed Gierisch mallow, would be low in both been removed. Because all the topsoil is listing and comment period. quantity and density after the original temporarily removed, gypsum mining Our Response: Per the Act as well as soil composition and structure has been temporarily removes the plant’s habitat Service policy and practices, legal altered. Likewise, we find it reasonable and any plants growing in the affected notices indicating the publication of the to assume that more common shrubs area. Although the topsoil is replaced, proposed rule and inviting general without soil-specific requirements such the original structure of the gypsum soil public comment for the 60-day public as Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) or and its composition is altered; therefore, comment period were published in the Atriplex canescens (four-wing saltbush) the reclaimed soils do not contain the Kingman Daily Miner on September 12, would be more abundant in these original gypsum soil structure and 2012, and in the Saint George Spectrum disturbed areas. We do not know what composition with which the plants are on September 13, 2012. Additionally, the capabilities of Gierisch mallow are associated. letters were sent to stakeholders and to reestablish to pre-disturbance There is an existing gypsum mining special interest groups on September 12, population levels. operation (Black Rock Gypsum Mine) on 2012. The document making available BLM land affecting the Hill 4 Summary of Factors Affecting the the draft environmental assessment and population, the largest population in Species draft economic analysis, and opening a Arizona (Hughes 2009, p. 13). The 30-day public comment period on these Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), plants in the Hill 4 area are not draft documents as well as the proposed and its implementing regulations at 50 restricted to one hill, but are scattered rule, was published on March 29, 2013, CFR part 424, set forth the procedures among several smaller hills that all in the Federal Register. for adding species to the Federal Lists contain gypsum outcrops. One of the (16) Comment: One commenter of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife larger deposits is currently being mined. provided information regarding and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the A large amount of soil has been ecological site guide descriptions to Act, we may list a species based on any removed, but we cannot quantify how demonstrate the proportion of forbs, of the following five factors: (A) The much of the habitat this comprises at including globemallow, which would be present or threatened destruction, this site, as we do not have access to expected in Historic Climax Plant modification, or curtailment of its ASLD lands due to ASLD access Community. This information was habitat or range; (B) overutilization for policies. Based on prior monitoring provided to demonstrate that Gierisch commercial, recreational, scientific, or before access was limited (Hughes 2008, mallow should be found in low educational purposes; (C) disease or p. 13), there are other small hills within numbers in the appropriate soil types. predation; (D) the inadequacy of the footprint of the mining claim that Our Response: Ecological site guide existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) support the Gierisch mallow; therefore, descriptions predict the annual other natural or manmade factors we assume the Gierisch mallow production (pounds per acre) of plant affecting its continued existence. Listing occupied the disturbed area. Western

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49155

Mining and Minerals, Inc., the mine In addition to the Georgia-Pacific result in the loss of approximately 46 operator, has inquired about expanding mine, there are several ASLD-issued percent of the known plants rangewide. the current operation (Service 2008a, p. exploration permits in the area on ASLD This substantial loss of the total 1). The area they propose to expand into lands surrounding Hill 5. These are all population would result in a currently supports the largest portion of relatively new claims, and no significant compromise to the long-term viability of the Hill 4 population, estimated to be work has been done on them, yet some the species, due to reduced reproductive between 5,000 and 9,000 plants (Hughes drilling was completed, but no other potential and fragmentation. The 2008, p. 14), which comprises exploration or mining work has limited distribution of this species, the approximately 35 percent of the entire occurred. With the depressed housing small number of populations, the population rangewide and market, the ASLD does not anticipate limited amount of habitat, and the approximately 39 percent of the any gypsum mining will occur until the species’ occurrence only in areas that population in Arizona. The proposed housing market improves (Dixon 2011, support high-quality gypsum deposits expansion would remove the entire p. 1). lead us to conclude that mining is a population and its habitat on Hill 4. An Gypsum mining is a threat to this threat that has significant impacts to the environmental assessment (under the species and its habitat. The mining species. operation removes plants and habitat for National Environmental Policy Act, 42 Grazing U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for expansion of the the duration of the mining activities, quarrying activities within the Black and, post-mining, the reclaimed areas In general, grazing practices can Rock Gypsum Mine has been may or may not be capable of change vegetation composition and completed, and the Mining Plan of supporting the plants. A few Gierisch abundance, cause soil erosion and Operation has been approved (BLM mallow plants were seen on reclaimed compaction, reduce water infiltration 2008a). Because the demand for gypsum areas near Hill 4, but no information on rates, and increase runoff (Klemmedson has declined along with the decrease in the density of plants before the 1956, p. 137; Ellison 1960, p. 24; Arndt the housing market, mining activity has disturbance exists. Plants continue to be and Rose 1966, p. 170; Gifford and not yet reached the expansion area (Cox observed in two reclaimed areas near Hawkins 1978, p. 305; Robinson and 2011a, pers. comm.). Recent discussions Hill 4; however, the numbers are Bolen 1989, p. 186; Waser and Price with the BLM indicate that the relatively low (Hughes 2012, pp. 6–7). 1981, p. 407; Holechek et al. 1998, pp. expansion could happen as soon as 3 Furthermore, it is unknown if restored 191–195, 216; and Loftin et al. 2000, pp. 57–58), leaving less water available for years from now or may take up to 10 areas will support the plants sufficiently plant production (Dadkah and Gifford years, depending on the housing market, to restore populations to pre-mining 1980, p. 979). Fleischner (1994, pp. but BLM staff believes the expansion is levels. Restoration efforts with this 630–631) summarized the ecological very likely to happen (Cox 2011a, pers. species are currently being planned impacts of grazing in three categories: comm.). within the Black Rock Mine to assess the feasibility of seeding reclaimed areas (1) Alteration of species composition of There is another gypsum mine, with Gierisch mallow (Service 2008b, p. communities, including decreases in located near Hill 5, supporting another 1), although preliminary data indicate density and biomass of individual large Arizona population that germination rates from collected species, reduction of species richness, (approximately 2,000 to 3,000 plants). seeds are low (Reisor 2012, pers. and changing community organization; This mine, operated by Georgia-Pacific, comm.). Observations during the early (2) disruption of ecosystem functioning, is on ASLD lands and encompasses 178 stages of restoration efforts also suggest including interference in nutrient ha (440 ac). Service biologists did not that the reclaimed areas have different cycling and ecological succession; and receive permission to enter the site in vegetation composition and cover than (3) alteration of ecosystem structure, February 2008, but, through the site nearby undisturbed areas (Reisor 2012, including changing vegetation boundary fence, did notice at least one pers. comm.). stratification, contributing to soil pile of spoils near the population, We conclude that the ongoing and erosion, and decreasing availability of indicating some recent surface- future gypsum mining activities, as water to biotic communities. modifying activity prior to the Service authorized by the BLM and the ASLD, Grazing occurs in most populations of biologists’ visit. The lease was first are a significant threat to this species. the Gierisch mallow in Arizona and issued in 2006, but Georgia-Pacific has Although there has been no mining Utah on BLM, ASLD, and SITLA lands. not mined anything, due to the slowing activity on ASLD lands since 2007, the Grazing is excluded from both the Black of the economy. The surface-modifying Service concludes this inactivity is Rock Gypsum Mine on BLM land and activity observed in February 2008 was temporary and that mining will resume the Georgia-Pacific Mine on ASLD land, likely a result of moving topsoil in when the housing market improves in although grazing occurs on the preparation to begin mining activities the future. There will be a significant reclaimed areas. Gierisch mallow (Dixon 2011, p. 1). Because the lease is reduction in the number of individuals populations occur on three BLM grazing for 20 years, we expect that mining of the species when the Western Mining allotments in Arizona and one allotment operations will begin at some point and Minerals Inc., operation (Black in Utah. In Arizona, the Black Rock, within the next 13 years, or when the Rock Gypsum Mine) expands, and when Lambing-Starvation, and Purgatory housing market improves. We presume mining activities resume at the Georgia- allotments all contain populations of that habitat for the species would be Pacific mine on lands managed by the Gierisch mallow. The Black Rock affected by the operation because the ASLD. Although Hills 4 and 5 comprise Allotment encompasses 15,250 ha technique for gypsum mining only 2 of the 18 populations, (37,685 ac) that are grazed year-round, necessarily involves removal of the approximately 46 percent of all the but this allotment is on a deferred topsoil, eliminating, at least known Gierisch mallow plants grazing system, which means that temporarily, the species’ ability to rangewide are in these two areas. That pasture use is rotated so that each survive there. There are no known would leave the other Arizona locations pasture receives a set amount of rest protection measures for Gierisch mallow and the one Utah population, and those (non-use) every year. As previously or its habitat within the lease on State areas support fewer plants. The loss of stated, there are an additional 1,152 ha trust lands. suitable habitat at Hills 4 and 5 would (2,846 ac) in this allotment that are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49156 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

unavailable for grazing because of the reproduction did not occur in several in landscapes. For example, Black Rock Gypsum Mine, but heavy areas, including on steep slopes, in 2010 climatologists and ecologists have grazing has been documented on the and 2012. attributed increasing soil surface reclaimed sites (Reisor 2012, pers. In Utah, grazing occurs in the one temperatures and surface reflectivity in comm.; Hughes 2011, p. 8). Gierisch allotment that contains Gierisch mallow the Sonoran Desert to grazing-related mallow occurs in both the ‘‘Lizard 1’’ and its habitat. The Curly Hollow land degradation (Balling et al. 1998 in and ‘‘Lizard 2’’ pastures within this Allotment is comprised of Floyd et al. 2003, p. 1704). Biological allotment, and both pastures are approximately 9,105 ha (22,500 ac) of soil crusts provide fixed carbon on typically used in the spring to allow the BLM land and 2,226 ha (5,500 ac) of sparsely vegetated soils. Carbon livestock to utilize cheatgrass when it is SITLA land. SITLA lands contain contributed by these organisms helps still green. These two pastures are approximately 68 ha (167 ac) of Gierisch keep plant interspaces fertile and aids in typically rotated, that is used every mallow habitat that is grazed within the supporting other microbial populations other year so that one pasture receives Curly Hollow Allotment. This is a four- (Beymer and Klopatek 1991 in Floyd et a full year of rest. pasture allotment that is managed for al. 2003, p. 1704). In desert shrub and The Lambing-Starvation Allotment intensive grazing and a rest rotation grassland communities that support few encompasses 5,446 ha (13,457 ac) that system similar to those described above. nitrogen-fixing plants, biotic crusts can are grazed from November 16 through Gierisch mallow only occurs in the be the dominant source of nitrogen May 15 every season and is also on a River Pasture, which is usually grazed (Rychert et al. 1978 and others in Floyd from November 1 through February 28 deferred system. Gierisch mallow occurs et al. 2003, p. 1704). Additionally, soil of each season. Recent wildfires had in two of the three pastures in this crusts stabilize soils, help to retain burned much of the upper three allotment, the North Freeway and South moisture, and provide seed-germination pastures; therefore, the River Pasture Freeway pastures. These two pastures sites. Soil crusts are effective in has been grazed beyond February 28 for are also used in the spring, as the third capturing wind-borne dust deposits, and several years to alleviate pressure on the pasture is along the Virgin River and have been documented contributing to a three upper pastures while the contains critical habitat for the 2- to 13-fold increase in nutrients in vegetation recovered from the wildfire southeastern Utah (Reynolds et al. 2001 endangered southwestern willow in the absence of livestock grazing in Floyd et al. 2003, p. 1704). The flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). (Douglas 2012a, p. 1). The three upper presence of soil crusts generally Because the third pasture contains pastures are now considered increases the amount and depth of critical habitat for the southwestern rehabilitated, and grazing in the River rainfall infiltration (Loope and Gifford willow flycatcher, its use is restricted Pasture should resume with its normal 1972 and others in Floyd et al. 2003, p. seasonally, causing livestock to spend season of use from November 1 through 1704). more time in the two pastures February 28. The general condition of In addition to loss of soil crusts, containing Gierisch mallow, including the range in the River Pasture is fair to grazing often leads to soil compaction, during the spring growing season for the good (moderate cheatgrass spread); which reduces water infiltration and Gierisch mallow. The Lambing- however, portions near Sun River, and can lead to elevated soil temperatures Starvation Allotment also contains the Astragalus holmgreniorum (Fleischner 1994, p. 634; Floyd et al. ASLD lands with a grazing lease; (Holmgren milkvetch) (an endangered 2003, p. 1704). All of these soil however, the BLM oversees the plant) habitat, have been disturbed in disturbances can increase erosion by management of this allotment. The the past, resulting in a more significant both wind and water (Neff et al. 2005, Purgatory Allotment encompasses 1,985 spread of cheatgrass and Malcolmia p. 87). Because Gierisch mallow only ha (4,905 ac) in a single pasture that is africana (African mustard). Livestock occurs in gypsum soil outcrops, this loss grazed from December 1 through May 31 utilization on Gierisch mallow has not of soil crust, increased soil compaction, every season. Only a small portion of a been monitored by BLM’s St. George and potential increase in erosion may Gierisch mallow population occurs Field Office, but conditions are lead to reduced fitness of individual within this allotment. Information from expected to be similar to livestock plants as nutrients decrease when the BLM indicates that many of the utilization described above in Arizona livestock enter and concentrate in these Gierisch mallow populations occur on (Douglas 2012a, p. 1). areas during dry years. Additionally, it hillsides or steep slopes, and livestock In addition to consumption, livestock is possible that individual plants, do not typically go up to these areas are known to trample plants. As noted, especially seedlings, are not able to take looking for forage unless it is a dry year livestock do not typically go up into root in any unstable soils that result (Roaque 2012a, p. 2); however, DeFalco Gierisch mallow habitat on the BLM from loss of soil crusts due to livestock (2012, pers. comm.) has observed allotments in Arizona and Utah due to grazing. Increased erosion and livestock climbing rocky hillsides and the steeper hillsides and slopes that this decreased water infiltration from loss of steep slopes while conducting extensive plant is known to inhabit (Roaque soil crusts can lead to depletion of research in the northeast Mojave Desert. 2012a, p. 2; Douglas 2012a, p. 1). Given gypsum and other specific soil features Additionally, livestock have been the grazing management described that the Gierisch mallow requires. These documented consuming Gierisch above and the observations of how effects may be significant to Gierisch mallow in populations that occur on infrequently livestock are in Gierisch mallow populations because grazing lesser- or flat slopes. Livestock mallow habitat, trampling of plants does occurs at some level throughout all consumption of Gierisch mallow has not likely significantly impact the populations. Reduced fitness of more of an impact to the species during overall viability of these populations. individual plants may lead to reduced the flowering period, when the plants Habitat degradation in the Mojave overall reproduction, which may lead to are reproducing. Failure to flower and, Desert, through loss of microbiotic soil decreases in the overall population. therefore, produce seeds can have crusts (soils containing algae, lichen, Grazing can also lead to changes in adverse effects on the ability of Gierisch fungi, etc.) due to livestock grazing, is vegetation structure, including the mallow to reproduce. According to a great concern (Floyd et al. 2003, p. proliferation of nonnative, invasive Reisor (2012, pers. comm.), entire 1704). Grazing can disturb soil crusts species such as cheatgrass and red flowering stalks were removed and and other fundamental physical factors brome. Livestock have been implicated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49157

in the spread of weeds (Brooks 2009, p. will be discussed in more detail in in the tracks sustained 90 percent or 105), and both abundance and diversity ‘‘Nonnative, Invasive Species’’ below. greater damage. The numbers of annual of native plants and animals is lower in In summary, livestock grazing can shrubs growing in regularly driven ruts grazed areas as compared to ungrazed have many effects on Gierisch mallow were lower than in other areas (Vollmer habitat in the Mojave Desert (Brooks and its habitat, and on desert et al. 1976, p. 124). These data indicate 2000, p. 105). We do not know the ecosystems in general, particularly on that individual Gierisch mallow plants current density of these two nonnative soils. However, livestock do not may be susceptible to the effects of OHV grass species within the Gierisch typically spend much time in Gierisch use in this area. Plants may be damaged mallow populations; however, we do mallow habitat, due to the steeper to the point that they are no longer know that both of these nonnative hillsides and slopes that this plant viable and able to produce seed. species are prevalent in high densities inhabits, unless drought conditions Seedlings may not be able to reach throughout the Mojave Desert in cause livestock to search for forage on maturity and reproduce if they are northwest Arizona and southwest Utah, the steeper hillsides and slopes. When crushed to point of significant damage. livestock do enter Gierisch mallow including throughout all three As unauthorized OHV use increases in habitat, some limited soil disturbance allotments in Arizona and the allotment these areas and associated unauthorized may occur, and individual plants may trails proliferate, this population of in Utah (Roaque 2012a, pp. 1–2; Douglas be affected, although we do not Gierisch mallow may experience an 2012, p. 1). While cheatgrass and red anticipate population-level effects to the overall reduction in fitness. brome appear not to favor gypsiferous Gierisch mallow unless heavy grazing In addition to the direct effects to soils under normal (dry) conditions, occurs in the large populations during vegetation, unauthorized OHV use can they can be abundant in Gierisch the flowering and reproductive period. have the same indirect effects that were mallow habitat during wet years, as was Livestock have been implicated as a previously described by livestock recently observed (Roaque 2102b, p. 1). mechanism for the spread of cheatgrass grazing, including soil compaction, loss Red brome has also been documented in and red brome. Although we do not of soil crusts, erosion, and the high density in similar gypsiferous soils know the extent to which livestock promotion and spread of nonnative, near Gierisch mallow populations after spread these two nonnative grasses, the invasive species. Refer to the livestock wet years (Roth 2012, entire). The spread of these grasses does pose a grazing discussion above for a complete proliferation of cheatgrass and red threat to the Gierisch mallow. Because description of the effects to soil brome can lead to competition with of these potential effects from livestock composition and how those effects Gierisch mallow for both water and grazing, we consider grazing to be a impact Gierisch mallow and its habitat. nutrients, which can lead to decreased threat to the species that has a moderate In summary, we consider continued reproduction and fitness in individual level of impact to populations, unauthorized OHV use (off of Gierisch mallow plants. especially during drought years and designated roads) to be a threat that has In addition to decreased reproduction during the reproductive season in the a potential future impact to this species and fitness in established plants, the spring. and its habitat in Utah. Continued unauthorized OHV use can have a spread of these two species can also Recreation Activities make the habitat less suitable for significant effect on the long-term There is evidence of off-road vehicle establishment of new plants. If viability of the Utah population of the (OHV) activity in Utah. Several of the cheatgrass and red brome reach high Gierisch mallow because habitat smaller hills were crisscrossed with degradation can be severe enough to densities throughout all of the Gierisch OHV tracks (Service 2008, p. 1), and prevent reestablishment of new plants, mallow populations, this can lead to a these areas are closed to OHV use off of as well as removing mature, significant reduction in the proper designated roads and trails (Douglas reproducing plants from the population. functioning of the habitat, which in turn 2012b, p. 1); therefore, this is As stated above, Hughes (2009, p. 14) would lead to a reduction in fitness and considered unauthorized OHV use. estimated this population to be between reproduction population-wide and an Washington County is projected to be 5,000 and 8,000 individuals in 2009. overall population decline. Given the one of the fastest growing counties in While this is only one of 18 known limited distribution of Gierisch mallow Utah, with a growth rate of 3.9 percent. populations, this is the second largest and the known abundance of cheatgrass The population of St. George has grown population of the plant and this and red brome in its habitat, continued from 64,201 (2005) to 88,001 (2010), and population includes almost half of the proliferation of these two species into is expected to increase to 136,376 by total population, rangewide. This Gierisch mallow habitat is likely to have 2020 (St. George Area Chamber 2010, population is important to the long-term significant effects to the species and its pp. 2–3). The surrounding open spaces viability of the species. Given that this habitat. The number of populations may around St. George are popular for OHV large population only encompasses 1.01 be reduced and their current limited use because of the relatively flat terrain ha (2.5 ac) and is easily accessible, these distribution may become even more and ease of access. activities may lead to enough Gierisch limited. Additionally, the overall Vollmer et al. (1976, p. 121) mallow plants being crushed to reduce resiliency of the species may be demonstrated that shrubs exposed to the overall fitness of the population. significantly reduced, especially if the repeated driving (continued use of the Therefore, we conclude that this activity spread of these nonnative grasses leads same tracks) were severely damaged. is threat to the species that has moderate to other stochastic events, such as Both live and dead stems were broken impacts to this population in Utah. wildfire. Although grazing can help and pressed to the ground. Stems still promote the spread of nonnative weeds standing exhibited broken twigs or Other Human Effects such as cheatgrass and red brome, and shoots and leaves were dislodged. The same areas in Utah that are their spread is a threat to the Gierisch Damage to about 30 percent of all shrubs subjected to unauthorized OHV use are mallow and its habitat, we do not know examined in tire tracks were scored at also used for target shooting and trash how much livestock contribute to their 100 percent damage. Vollmer et al. dumping. Evidence of both of these spread. The threat of wildfire resulting (1976, p. 121) go on to state that activities was present in Utah during the from the spread of nonnative species approximately 54 percent of the shrubs February 2008 visit. There was one large

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

appliance, which had obviously been pollinator interactions for the Gierisch lead to increased densities of invasive used for target practice, dumped near mallow. species. The risk of fire is expected to the population (Service 2008a, p. 1). Cheatgrass and red brome are increase from 46 to 100 percent when People engaging in target shooting near particularly problematic nonnative, the cover of cheatgrass increases from the population degrade habitat by invasive annual grasses in the 12 to 45 percent or more (Link et al. trampling the soil and plants, and by intermountain west. If already present 2006, p. 116). The invasion of red driving vehicles on the habitat to access in the vegetative community, cheatgrass brome, another nonnative grass, into the areas for target shooting. The and red brome increase in abundance Mojave Desert of the Intermountain unauthorized use of BLM lands for these after a wildfire, increasing the chance West poses similar threats to fire activities can contribute to the for more frequent fires (D’Antonio and regimes, native plants, and other degradation of habitat for the Gierisch Vitousek 1992, pp. 74–75; Brooks 2000, federally protected species (Brooks et al. mallow by causing the same direct and p. 92). In addition, cheatgrass invades 2004, pp. 677–678). Brooks (1999, p. 16) indirect effects described above for OHV areas in response to surface also found that high interspace biomass use. It is also possible that trash disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 389, 393, of red brome and cheatgrass resulted in dumping can lead to soil contamination, 395, 398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 381–383; greater fire danger in the Mojave Desert. which would most likely not be Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, pp. 324– Brooks (1999, p. 18) goes on to state that beneficial to the species. The full extent 325, 329, 330; Evans et al. 2001, p. the ecological effects of cheatgrass- and of damage to soils may not be evident 1308). Cheatgrass and red brome are red brome-driven fires are significant until years or even decades after the likely to increase due to climate change because of their intensity and original disturbance (Vollmer et al. (see ‘‘Climate Change and Drought’’ consumption of perennial shrubs. 1976, p. 115). We did not observe these discussion, below, under Factor E) In the absence of cheatgrass and red activities near the Arizona populations. because invasive annuals increase brome, the Gierisch mallow grows in Similar to the effects of unauthorized biomass and seed production at elevated sparsely vegetated communities OHV use, we consider illegal trash levels of carbon dioxide (Mayeux et al. unlikely to carry fires (see Biology, dumping and impacts associated with 1994, p. 98; Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80– Habitat, and the Current Range section, target shooting to be a threat to the 81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1328). above). Thus, this species is unlikely to species that has moderate impacts to Although cheatgrass and red brome be adapted to survive high frequency this population in Utah. both occur in close proximity to fires. As described in the Biology, Gierisch mallow habitat, red brome is Habitat, and the Current Range section, Nonnative, Invasive Species more prevalent (Roaque 2012b, p. 1). As the total range of this species covers previously described above, both The spread of nonnative, invasive approximately 186 ha (460 ac), and each cheatgrass and red brome tend to not species is considered the second largest of the 18 populations occupies a grow well in gypsum outcrops in threat to imperiled plants in the United relatively small area, ranging between normal (dry) rainfall years; however, 0.003 ha (0.01 ac) and 38.12 ha (94.36 States (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 608). they can be abundant in the Gierisch ac). A range fire could easily impact or Invasive plants—specifically exotic mallow habitat during wet years. Red eliminate one or all populations and annuals—negatively affect native brome has also been documented in degrade Gierisch mallow habitat to the vegetation, including rare plants. One of similar gypsiferous soils near the point that it will no longer be suitable the most substantial effects is the Gierisch mallow populations after wet for the plant. The loss of one population change in vegetation fuel properties years and can provide enough fuel and associated suitable habitat would be that, in turn, alter fire frequency, continuity to aid in the spread of fire a significant loss to the species. intensity, extent, type, and seasonality across the landscape in these areas Therefore, the potential expansion of (Menakis et al. 2003, pp. 282–283; (Roth 2012, entire). As we stated above, invasive species and associated increase Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; McKenzie et we do not anticipate a high degree of in fire frequency and intensity is a al. 2004, p. 898). Shortened fire return surface disturbances in the Gierisch significant threat to the species, intervals make it difficult for native mallow habitats in the near future from especially when considering the limited plants to reestablish or compete with livestock grazing except during drought distribution of the species and the high invasive plants (D’Antonio and Vitousek years; however, increased mining in potential of the Gierisch mallow 1992, p. 73). Arizona and unauthorized OHV use, population extinctions. Invasive plants can exclude native target shooting, and trash dumping in In summary, invasive species can plants and alter pollinator behaviors the Utah population of the Gierisch impact plant communities by increasing (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74– mallow may lead to significant amounts fire frequencies, outcompeting native 75; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257; Mooney and of surface disturbance, providing species, and altering pollinator Cleland 2001, p. 5449; Levine et al. conditions that allow red brome to behaviors. Although invasive species do 2003, p. 776; Traveset and Richardson expand into and increase in density not occur in high densities in Gierisch 2006, pp. 211–213). For example, within Gierisch mallow habitat. mallow habitat during normal (dry) cheatgrass and red brome outcompete Invasions of annual, nonnative rainfall years, nonnative, invasive native species for soil nutrients and species, such as cheatgrass, are well species, especially red brome, can be water (Melgoza et al. 1990, pp. 9–10; documented to contribute to increased very abundant in wet rainfall years. Aguirre and Johnson 1991, pp. 352–353; fire frequencies (Brooks and Pyke 2002, Given the ubiquitous nature of Brooks 2000, p. 92), as well as modify p. 5; Grace et al. 2002, p. 43; Brooks et cheatgrass and red brome in the the activity of pollinators by producing al. 2003, pp. 4, 13, 15). The disturbance Intermountain West and their ability to different nectar from native species caused by increased fire frequencies rapidly invade dryland ecosystems (Levine et al. 2003, p. 776) or creates favorable conditions for (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack and Pyke, introducing nonnative pollinators increased invasion by cheatgrass. The 1983, p. 88; Thill et al. 1984, p. 10), we (Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. end result is a downward spiral where expect these nonnative species to 208–209). Introduction of nonnative an increase in invasive species results in increase in the future in response to pollinators or production of different more fires, more fires create more surface disturbances from increased nectar can lead to disruption of normal disturbances, and more disturbances mining activities, recreation activities,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49159

and global climate change (see ‘‘Climate spring. Additionally, livestock have years, when other forage is reduced or Change and Drought,’’ below). An been implicated in spreading nonnative, unavailable. The plant is also grazed increase in cheatgrass and red brome is invasive species, such as red brome and during non-drought times, but not as expected to increase the frequency of cheatgrass, although we do not know heavily. The Gierisch mallow plants fires in Gierisch mallow habitat, and the the extent to which livestock contribute located near water sources (stock tanks species is unlikely to survive increased to the spread of these two nonnative and drinkers) are also heavily browsed wildfires due to its small population grasses. (Hughes 2008b, p. 1) because livestock sizes and the anticipated habitat Red brome and cheatgrass are tend to congregate near sources of water. degradation. Therefore, we determine documented to occur in all 18 When Atwood (2008, p. 1) was that nonnative, invasive species and populations of the Gierisch mallow, surveying the populations to collect associated wildfires constitute a threat although mostly after wet years. The fruit of the Gierisch mallow during to Gierisch mallow and its habitat that threat of fire caused by annual invasions drought years, Atwood was unable to may have a significant population-level of nonnative species is exacerbated by locate any fruit because all of the effect on the species. mining activities, livestock grazing, and flowering stalks had been consumed by recreation activities. Therefore, we Summary of Factor A livestock. The effect of sporadic grazing conclude that Gierisch mallow and its of plants is unknown, but persistent Based on our evaluation of the best habitat face significant threats as a result grazing can reduce the reproductive available scientific information, we of habitat loss and modification. output of the plants, potentially conclude that the present and future B. Overutilization for Commercial, reducing the size of the smaller destruction and modification of the populations, especially during drought habitat for the Gierisch mallow is a Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes years and during the reproductive threat that has significant impacts to the period in the spring. Livestock The Gierisch mallow is not typically speceis. Destruction and modification of herbivory during the reproductive a plant of horticultural interest; habitat for the Gierisch mallow are period can lead to the flowering stalks however, we do have information anticipated to result in a significant being eaten, thus preventing adult regarding possible seed collection from decrease in both the range of the species Gierisch mallow plants from wild plants on BLM and ASLD and the size of the population of the reproducing. As previously described department lands for commercial sale species. under Factor A, livestock do not Mining activities impacted Gierisch (Roth 2011, p. 1; Frates 2012, pers. typically spend significant amounts of mallow habitat in the past and will comm.). Collection of seeds from both time in Gierisch mallow habitat, due to continue to be a threat in the future to BLM and ASLD is prohibited, and only the hillsides and steep slopes that the the species’ habitat throughout its range. the BLM offers a special research permit All of the populations and most of the to collect seeds of listed species, as long Gierisch mallow typically inhabits, habitat are located on BLM and ASLD as the seed collection does not violate although livestock will enter into lands, which have an extensive history the Act. Each respective land Gierisch mallow habitat during drought of, and recent successful exploration management agency referred the matter periods and have been documented on activities for, gypsum mining. A small to its law enforcement branches. steep slopes in similar habitats (DeFalco amount of Gierisch mallow habitat Because collection is restricted, and 2012, pers. comm.). (approximately 68 ha (167 ac)) occurs collection permits are only issued for Herbivory from livestock is not a on SITLA managed lands; however no scientific research or educational threat that has significant impacts mining is proposed on these lands. Two purposes by the Arizona Department of because of the steepness of the terrain of the 18 populations are located in the Agriculture (Austin 2012, p. 1), we do on which the plant is typically located immediate vicinity of gypsum mining, not expect collection to be a regular and because the herbivory that does including the Black Rock Gypsum Mine, occurrence. See Factor D discussion, occur is mostly limited to drought years which has an approved Mining Plan of below, for a complete description of when the plant is not overly abundant. Operation to expand into the largest when permits are issued for collection Although herbivory is likely to continue Gierisch mallow population. Gypsum of the Gierisch mallow. We are not to some degree, especially during mining is expected to continue and aware of any other instances when the drought years, recruitment from the expand in the near future (Cox 2011b, Gierisch mallow has been collected seed bank has been documented in p. 1; Dixon 2012, p. 1). Considering the from the wild other than as a voucher recent years, indicating that herbivory small area of occupied habitat specimen (specimen collected for an by livestock is not likely to diminish the immediately adjacent to existing herbarium) (Atwood and Welsh 2002, p. overall fitness and reproductive ability gypsum mines, anticipated future 161). Therefore, we conclude that of the larger Gierisch mallow mining will result in the loss of habitat overutilization for commercial, populations. Smaller populations of the for these populations in the future, and recreational, scientific, or educational Gierisch mallow are likely to be more these two populations comprise purposes is not a threat to the Gierisch susceptible to the effects of herbivory approximately 46 percent of the entire mallow now, and we have no during drought years or during the species’ distribution. information to indicate that it will reproductive period, especially when Although livestock do not typically become a threat in the future. the flowering stalks are consumed eat Gierisch mallow, livestock grazing during the reproductive period. can affect Gierisch mallow habitat more C. Disease or Predation We have no information that disease significantly during drought years, as The flowering stalks of the Gierisch is affecting the plants. Therefore, based livestock move into the Gierisch mallow mallow are eaten by livestock. All of the on the best available information, we habitat searching for forage. The Gierisch mallow populations on BLM conclude that disease is not a threat to consumption of Gierisch mallow that lands are within grazing allotments. the Gierisch mallow and that predation has been documented increases the Herbivory has been documented by a (herbivory, along with some related significance of the effects of livestock BLM ecologist (Service 2008a, p. 1) and trampling) is a threat that has moderate grazing when grazing occurs during the Atwood (2008, p. 1). Hughes has found impacts only during drought years or reproductive period for the pant in the that the mallow is eaten during drought during the reproductive period.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

D. The Inadequacy of Existing obtain a salvage permit to remove plants (locatable) minerals and, if a valuable Regulatory Mechanisms protected by the ANPA; however, there deposit is found, file a claim giving Under this factor, we examine are no known private lands containing them the right to use the land for mining whether existing regulatory mechanisms the Gierisch mallow. Furthermore, seed activities and sell the minerals are inadequate to address or alleviate collection on ASLD lands is prohibited, extracted, without having to pay the the threats to the species discussed as described above under Factor B, Federal Government any holding fees or under the other factors. Section although there are no ASLD regulations royalties (GAO 1989, p. 2). Gypsum is 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service protecting habitat for the Gierisch frequently mined as a locatable mineral, and gypsum mining is, therefore, subject to take into account ‘‘those efforts, if mallow. While the ANPA may be to the Mining Law of 1872. The BLM any, being made by any State or foreign effectively protecting the species from implements the Mining Law through nation, or any political subdivision of a direct threats, it is not designed to protect the species’ habitat. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3800. State or foreign nation, to protect such The operators of mining claims on species. . . .’’ In relation to Factor D No Gierisch mallow populations are known to occur on the approximately 68 BLM lands must reclaim disturbed areas under the Act, we interpret this (Cox 2012, p. 1). The BLM’s regulations language to require the Service to ha (167 ac) of SITLA lands that contain habitat for the species; however, there also require the mitigation of mining consider relevant Federal, State, and operations so that operations do not tribal laws, plans, regulations, and other are no laws protecting plants or their habitat on SITLA lands in Utah. cause unnecessary or undue degradation such mechanisms that may minimize of public lands. Unnecessary or undue any of the threats we describe in threat In addition to the Black Rock Gypsum Mine on BLM lands in Arizona, degradation is generally referred to as analyses under the other four factors, or ‘‘harm to the environment that is either otherwise enhance conservation of the discussed below, the Georgia-Pacific Mine on ASLD land is in close unnecessary to a given project or species. We give strongest weight to violates specified environmental statutes and their implementing proximity to a large Gierisch mallow population. The ASLD has strict protection statutes’’ (USLegal, 2012, p. regulations and to management 1). Furthermore, it is unclear what direction that stems from those laws and reclamation provisions and bonding requirements when they approve a specific activities would constitute regulations. An example would be State unnecessary or undue degradation in governmental actions enforced under a Mining Plan of Operation; however, any decision that the ASLD makes on relation to the Gierisch mallow and its State statute or constitution, or Federal habitat. action under statute. whether or not to lease land is based strictly on the benefit of the State Trust. The Gierisch mallow is listed as a Having evaluated the significance of BLM sensitive species in both Arizona the threat as mitigated by any such The ASLD would not deny a mine, or any other project, based on the presence and Utah. Sensitive species designation conservation efforts, we analyze under on BLM lands is afforded through the Factor D the extent to which existing of an endangered or threatened species; however, they can have stipulations Special Status Species Management regulatory mechanisms are inadequate Policy Manual #6840 (BLM 2008B, to address the specific threats to the written into the ASLD lease or the mining company’s reclamation plan that entire), which states that on BLM- species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they administered lands, the BLM shall exist, may reduce or eliminate the would require the mining company to make allowances for federally listed manage Bureau sensitive species and impacts from one or more identified their habitats to minimize or eliminate species (Dixon 2012, p. 1). With listed threats. In this section, we review threats affecting the status of the plants, these stipulations can include existing State and Federal regulatory species, or to improve the condition of seed collection or transplanting plants mechanisms to determine whether they the species’ habitat (BLM 2008B, pp. from the footprint of the mine; however, effectively reduce or remove threats to 37–38). the Gierisch mallow. because the Gierisch mallow is not The BLM’s regulations do not prevent currently listed, the ASLD does not the Black Rock Gypsum Mine’s State Regulations currently have to include these expansion into Gierisch mallow habitat, Approximately 13 percent of known stipulations in reclamation plans. but the BLM could require mitigation populations are located on ASLD lands Because the ASLD does not have to measures to prevent unnecessary or in Arizona mining claims. There are no require mitigation stipulations to protect undue degradation from mining laws protecting the Gierisch mallow’s the Gierisch mallow or its habitat, we operations. For example, the BLM habitat on State or private lands in conclude that this regulatory required seed collection of the Gierisch Arizona. This species is currently mechanism is insufficient to protect the mallow by the mine operators to aid in protected by the Arizona Native Plant Gierisch mallow from threats to its reestablishing the species in reclaimed Act (ANPA). Since it became a habitat associated with mining on ASLD areas of the Black Rock Gypsum Mine candidate species in 2008, Arizona lands. in the recently approved expansion of protects the Gierisch mallow as ‘‘Highly Federal Regulations the Black Rock Gypsum Mine. Safeguarded.’’ Plants in the ‘‘Highly The BLM has required seed collection Safeguarded’’ category under the ANPA Mining Activities on BLM Lands as a result of these operations; however, include, ‘‘plants resident to this State We have previously identified habitat we do not know if enough seeds can be and listed as endangered, threatened, or loss associated with gypsum mining as collected to reestablish pre-mining category 1 in the Federal endangered a potential threat to the species. On population numbers in reclaimed areas. species act of 1973’’ (ANPA 1997, p. 4). BLM-managed lands, this mining occurs The ability to reestablish healthy The ANPA controls collecting, and pursuant to the Mining Law of 1872 (30 populations in reclaimed areas is limited scientific collection of ‘‘Highly U.S.C. 21 et seq.), which was enacted to uncertain because the number of plants Safeguarded’’ species is allowed for promote exploration and development observed growing from the seed bank in research and educational purposes of domestic mineral resources, as well reclaimed soils has decreased since they (Austin 2012, p. 1), but the ANPA as the settlement of the western United were first observed. Furthermore, we do provides no protection for plant habitat. States. It permits U.S. citizens and not know the long-term viability of Private landowners are required to businesses to freely prospect hardrock these plants or any plants grown from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49161

collected seeds. Therefore, we find that thus refers to a change in the mean or we have no information on how the the BLM’s Federal regulatory measures variability of one or more measures of Gierisch mallow will respond to effects are not adequate to address the loss of climate (e.g., temperature or related to climate change, persistent or habitat caused by gypsum mining. precipitation) that persists for an prolonged drought conditions are likely extended period, typically decades or to reduce the frequency and duration of E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors longer, whether the change is due to flowering and germination events, lower Affecting Its Continued Existence natural variability, human activity, or the recruitment of individual plants, Small Population Size both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types compromise the viability of of changes in climate can have direct or populations, and impact pollinator As previously described (see the indirect effects on species. These effects availability as pollinators have been Biology, Habitat, and the Current Range may be positive, neutral, or negative, documented to become locally extinct section, above), the entire range of the and they may change over time, during periods of drought (Tilman and Gierisch mallow is located in an area of depending on the species and other El Haddi 1992, p. 263; Harrison 2001, p. less than 186 ha (460 ac) throughout relevant considerations, such as the 64). The smallest change in Arizona and Utah. Within this range, effects of interactions of climate with environmental factors, especially each of the 18 individual populations’ other variables (e.g., habitat precipitation, plays a decisive role in habitat areas is very small, ranging from fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, plant survival in arid regions (Herbel et 0.003 ha (0.01 ac) to 38.12 ha (94.36 ac). 18–19). In our analyses, we use our al. 1972, p. 1084). The Gierisch mallow can be dominant expert judgment to weigh relevant Drought conditions led to a noticeable in small areas of suitable habitat, information, including uncertainty, in decline in survival, vigor, and containing thousands of individuals. our consideration of various aspects of reproductive output of other rare and However, the small areas of occupation climate change. endangered plants in the Southwest and the narrow overall range of the Annual mean precipitation levels are during the drought years of 2001 species make it highly susceptible to expected to decrease in western North through 2004 (Anderton 2002, p. 1; Van stochastic events that may lead to local America and especially the Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren extirpations. southwestern States by mid-century and Harper 2004, entire; Hughes 2005, Mining, or a single random event such (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al. 2007, p. entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth as a wildfire (see Factor A), could 1181). Throughout the Gierisch 2008a, entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3–4). extirpate an entire or substantial portion mallow’s range, precipitation is Similar responses are anticipated to of a population given the small area of predicted to increase 10 to 15 percent in adversely affect the long-term occupied habitat. Species with limited the winter, decrease 5 to 15 percent in persistence of the Gierisch mallow. ranges and restricted habitat spring and summer, and remain Periods of prolonged drought, especially requirements also are more vulnerable unchanged in the fall under the highest with decreased winter rains essential to to the effects of global climate change emissions scenario (Karl et al. 2009, p. the survival and persistence of the (see the ‘‘Climate Change and Drought’’ 29). The levels of aridity of recent Gierisch mallow, are likely to decrease section, below; IPCC 2002, p. 22; Jump drought conditions and perhaps those of the ability of this plant to produce and Penuelas 2005, p. 1016; Maschinski the 1950s drought years will become the viable seeds. Additionally, prolonged et al. 2006, p. 226; Krause 2010, p. 79). new climatology for the southwestern drought will likely diminish the ability Overall, we consider small population United States (Seager et al. 2007, p. of seeds currently in the seed bank to size and restricted range intrinsic 1181). Much of the Southwest remains produce viable plants and for seedlings vulnerabilities to the Gierisch mallow in a 10-year drought, which is to survive to maturity. that may not rise to the level of a threat considered the most severe western Climate change is expected to on their own. However, the small drought of the last 110 years (Karl et al. increase levels of carbon dioxide population sizes and restricted range of 2009, p. 130). Although droughts occur (Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, this species increase the risk of more frequently in areas with minimal p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Elevated extinction to the Gierisch mallow precipitation, even a slight reduction levels of carbon dioxide lead to populations in conjunction with the from normal precipitation may lead to increased invasive annual plant effects of global climate change (see severe reductions in plant production biomass, invasive seed production, and below) and the potential for stochastic (Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084). Therefore, pest outbreaks (Smith et al. 2000, pp. extinction events such as mining and the smallest change in environmental 80–81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et invasive species (Factor A). Therefore, factors, especially precipitation, plays a al. 2005, p. 1328), and will put we consider the small, localized decisive role in plant survival in arid additional stressors on rare plants population size to exacerbate the threats regions (Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084). already suffering from the effects of of mining, invasive species, and climate As discussed above, the Gierisch elevated temperatures and drought. This change to the species. mallow has a limited distribution, and is important to note with regards to the populations are localized and small. In Gierisch mallow because increases in Climate Change and Drought addition, these populations are nonnative, invasive plants, including Our analyses under the Act include restricted to very specific soil types. increased seed production, are consideration of ongoing and projected Global climate change exacerbates the anticipated to increase both the changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ risk of extinction for species that are frequency and intensity of wildfires as and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the already vulnerable due to low described above in ‘‘Nonnative, Invasive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate population numbers and restricted Species’’ under Factor A. Further, these Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the habitat requirements. Predicted changes additional stressors associated with mean and variability of different types in climatic conditions include increases increased carbon dioxide are likely to of weather conditions over time, with 30 in temperature, decreases in rainfall, increase the competition for resources years being a typical period for such and increases in atmospheric carbon between the Gierisch mallow and measurements, although shorter or dioxide in the American Southwest nonnative, invasive plant species. longer periods also may be used (IPCC (Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, The actual extent to which climate 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Although change itself will impact the Gierisch

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49162 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

mallow is unclear, mostly because we we are uncertain whether they would (Factor A). Furthermore, two of the do not have long-term demographic rise to the level of threat by themselves. largest populations of the Gierisch information that would allow us to However, when combined with the mallow and its habitat will be predict the species’ responses to threats listed under Factor A (mining completely removed by mining changes in environmental conditions, operations; livestock grazing; recreation operations. Both of the mines have including prolonged drought. Any activities; and nonnative, invasive approved Mining Plans of Operations predictions at this point on how climate species), and the lack of existing and permits from the respective land change would affect this species would regulatory mechanisms to alleviate management agencies (BLM and ASLD); be speculative. However, as previously those threats, the small population size thus mining can occur at any time. Even described, mining and recreation and restricted range of the Gierisch though these mining operations are not activities are threats (see ‘‘Mining’’ and mallow are likely to significantly currently active, when they begin ‘‘Recreation Activities’’ sections under increase the level of the above- operation there will be no requirement Factor A, above), which will likely mentioned threats. for notification of land-disturbing result in the loss of large numbers of Determination activities that would impact or individuals and maybe even entire completely remove these populations. populations. Increased surface We have carefully assessed the best As previously stated, operation and disturbances associated with mining scientific and commercial information expansion of these two mines is and recreation activities also will likely available regarding the past, present, anticipated to extirpate approximately increase the extent and densities of and future threats to the Gierisch 46 percent of known Gierisch mallow nonnative, invasive species and with it mallow. We find that the species is in plants, which are located in two the frequencies of fires (see ‘‘Nonnative, danger of extinction due to the current populations in Arizona. The existing Invasive Species’’ section under Factor and ongoing modification and regulatory mechanisms are inadequate A, above). Given the cumulative effects destruction of its habitat and range to protect the Gierisch mallow from the of the potential population reduction (Factor A) from the ongoing and future primary threat of mining, particularly and habitat loss (of already small gypsum mining operations, livestock because the BLM has approved mining populations) associated with mining, grazing, recreation activities, and operations with mitigation that we recreation, invasive species, and fire, we nonnative, invasive species. The most consider ineffective at reducing threats. are concerned about the impacts of significant threat to the Gierisch mallow Furthermore, the ASLD does not future climate change to the Gierisch is the ongoing and future gypsum consider the presence of a listed species mining that is likely to remove mallow. when approving a Mining Plan of approximately 46 percent of the total In summary, the future effects of Operation; however, they can have population of the Gierisch mallow. We global climate change and drought on stipulations written into the ASLD lease did not find any significant threats to the Gierisch mallow are unclear. or the mining company’s reclamation the species under Factor B. We found However, because of the threats of plan that would require the mining that predation (herbivory) during mining, grazing during drought years, company to make allowances for drought years and during the recreation, and nonnative species, the federally listed species (Dixon 2012, p. reproductive period to be a moderate cumulative effects of climate change 1). The ASLD has the ability to require threat (Factor C). We also found that and drought may be of concern for this mitigation for the presence of a federally existing regulatory mechanisms that species in the future. At this time, we listed species; however, there is no believe that the state of knowledge could provide protection to the Gierisch current requirement because the concerning the localized effects of mallow through mining operations Gierisch mallow is not federally listed. climate change and drought is too management by the BLM and ASLD are We consider this regulatory mechanism speculative to determine whether inadequate to protect the species (Factor to be inadequate as well. The climate change and drought are a threat D) from existing and future threats. inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to these species in the future. However, Finally, the small population size and (Factor D), combined with the expected we will continue to assess the potential restricted range of this species also puts turnaround of the housing market threats of climate change and drought as it at a heightened risk of extinction (gypsum is an important component of additional scientific information (Factor E), due to the threats that have sheet rock for housing construction), becomes available. significant impacts described above in Factors A, C, and D. poses a serious threat to the continued Summary of Factor E The threats acting upon the existence of the Gierisch mallow. The We assessed the potential risks of populations of Gierisch mallow are small, reduced range (Factor E) of the small population size to the Gierisch intensified because of the species’ small Gierisch mallow also puts it at a mallow. The Gierisch mallow has a population size and limited range, heightened risk of extinction. highly restricted distribution and exists resulting in a high likelihood of The elevated risk of extinction of the in 18 populations scattered over an area extinction for this species. The Gierisch Gierisch mallow is a result of the that covers approximately 460 ac (186 mallow is a narrow endemic species cumulative stressors on the species and ha). Individual populations occupy very with a very restricted range; the small its habitat. For example, gypsum mining small areas with large densities of areas of occupied habitat combined with is anticipated to extirpate more than plants. We conclude that stochastic the species’ strong association with half of the known population of the events could impact a significant gypsum soils makes the species highly Gierisch mallow, especially since the portion of a population. Small vulnerable to habitat destruction or existing regulations cannot sufficiently populations that are restricted by habitat modification through mining-related mitigate the effects of gypsum mining in requirements also are more vulnerable and recreation activities, as well as Gierisch mallow habitat. Livestock to the effects of climate change, such as livestock grazing during drought and grazing throughout the range of the prolonged droughts and increased fire random extinction events, including Gierisch mallow may affect the frequencies. Although small population invasive species (and the inherent risk population viability of the remaining size and climate change make the of increased fires) and the potential populations if periods of drought species intrinsically more vulnerable, future effects of global climate change continue and livestock continue to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49163

consume the Gierisch mallow, including is ongoing throughout the range of the process to be used to develop a recovery seedlings, during drought periods. Gierisch mallow, and climate change is plan. The recovery plan identifies site- Additionally, the risk of increased anticipated to cause more periods of specific management actions that will wildfire frequency and intensity drought, when livestock graze more achieve recovery of the species, resulting from increased nonnative, heavily on the Gierisch mallow. measurable criteria that determine when invasive species has the potential to Additionally, red brome and cheatgrass a species may be downlisted or delisted, extirpate several populations and, are abundant throughout the area, and and methods for monitoring recovery possibly, contribute to the extinction of while they are typically more abundant progress. Recovery plans also establish the species. Climate change is in the Gierisch mallow habitat after wet a framework for agencies to coordinate anticipated to increase the drought years, recent wet years have left an their recovery efforts and provide periods and contribute to the spread of abundant crop of red brome in Gierisch estimates of the cost of implementing nonnative, invasive species as well. All mallow habitat. Wildfires could occur at recovery tasks. Recovery teams of these factors combined heighten the any time as a result of the proliferation (comprised of species experts, Federal risk of extinction and lead to our finding of these invasive species. All of these and State agencies, nongovernment that the Gierisch mallow is in danger of factors combined lead us to conclude organizations, and stakeholders) are extinction and warrants listing as an that the threat of extinction is high and often established to develop recovery endangered species. immediate, thus warranting a plans. When completed, the recovery The Act defines an endangered determination of an endangered species outline, draft recovery plan, and the species as any species that is ‘‘in danger rather than a threatened species for the final recovery plan would be available of extinction throughout all or a Gierisch mallow. on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ significant portion of its range’’ and a endangered), or from our Arizona Available Conservation Measures threatened species as any species ‘‘that Ecological Services Office (see FOR is likely to become endangered Conservation measures provided to FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). throughout all or a significant portion of species listed as endangered or Implementation of recovery actions its range within the foreseeable future.’’ threatened under the Act include generally requires the participation of a The identified threats are currently recognition, recovery actions, broad range of partners, including other impacting the species, and will continue requirements for Federal protection, and Federal agencies, States, Tribal, to do so, or increase, into the foreseeable prohibitions against certain practices. nongovernmental organizations, future. Therefore, the Gierisch mallow Recognition through listing results in businesses, and private landowners. does not meet the definition of a public awareness and conservation by Examples of recovery actions include threatened species under the Act. We Federal, State, Tribal, and local habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of find that the Gierisch mallow is agencies; private organizations; and native vegetation), research, captive presently in danger of extinction individuals. The Act encourages propagation and reintroduction, and throughout its entire range, based on the cooperation with the States and requires outreach and education. The recovery of immediacy, severity, and scope of the that recovery actions be carried out for many listed species cannot be threats described above. Therefore, on all listed species. The protection accomplished solely on Federal lands the basis of the best available scientific required by Federal agencies and the because their range may occur primarily and commercial information, we prohibitions against certain activities or solely on non-Federal lands. To finalize the listing of the Gierisch are discussed, in part, below. achieve recovery of these species mallow as endangered species in The primary purpose of the Act is the requires cooperative conservation efforts accordance with sections 3(6) and conservation of endangered and on private, State, and Tribal lands. 4(a)(1) of the Act. threatened species and the ecosystems Once this species is listed, funding for Under the Act and our implementing upon which they depend. The ultimate recovery actions will be available from regulations, a species may warrant goal of such conservation efforts is the a variety of sources, including Federal listing if it is endangered or threatened recovery of these listed species, so that budgets, State programs, and cost share throughout all or a significant portion of they no longer need the protective grants for non-Federal landowners, the its range. The Gierisch mallow being measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of academic community, and listed in this rule is highly restricted in the Act requires the Service to develop nongovernmental organizations. In its range and the threats occur and implement recovery plans for the addition, under section 6 of the Act, the throughout its range. Therefore, we conservation of endangered and States of Arizona and Utah would be assessed the status of the species threatened species. The recovery eligible for Federal funds to implement throughout its entire range. The threats planning process involves the management actions that promote the to the survival of the species occur identification of actions that are protection and recovery of the Gierisch throughout the species’ range and are necessary to halt or reverse the species’ mallow. Information on our grant not restricted to any particular decline by addressing the threats to its programs that are available to aid significant portion of that range. survival and recovery. The goal of this species recovery can be found at: http:// Accordingly, our assessment and process is to restore listed species to a www.fws.gov/grants. determination applies to the species point where they are secure, self- Section 7(a) of the Act requires throughout its entire range. sustaining, and functioning components Federal agencies to evaluate their Listing the Gierisch mallow as a of their ecosystems. actions with respect to any species that threatened species is not the appropriate Recovery planning includes the is proposed or listed as endangered or determination because the ongoing development of a recovery outline threatened and with respect to its threats described above are severe shortly after a species is listed, critical habitat, if any is designated. enough to increase the immediate risk of preparation of a draft and final recovery Regulations implementing this extinction. The gypsum mining plan, and revisions to the plan as interagency cooperation provision of the operations are anticipated to resume full significant new information becomes Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. operations and expansions in as few as available. The recovery outline guides Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 3 to 10 years, although the mining the immediate implementation of urgent Federal agencies to confer with the operations could occur sooner. Grazing recovery actions and describes the Service on any action that is likely to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 49164 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

jeopardize the continued existence of a the Federal endangered species act of Required Determinations species proposed for listing or result in 1973’’ (ANPA 1997, p. 4). The ANPA National Environmental Policy Act destruction or adverse modification of controls collecting, and limited proposed critical habitat. If a species is scientific collection of ‘‘Highly We have determined that listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of Safeguarded’’ species is allowed (Austin environmental assessments and the Act requires Federal agencies to 2012, p. 1), but the ANPA provides no environmental impact statements, as ensure that activities they authorize, protection for plant habitat. Protection defined under the authority of the fund, or carry out are not likely to under the Act as an endangered species National Environmental Policy Act jeopardize the continued existence of will, therefore, offer additional (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not the species or destroy or adversely protections to this species. be prepared in connection with listing modify its critical habitat. If a Federal We may issue permits to carry out a species as an endangered or action may affect a listed species or its otherwise prohibited activities threatened species under the critical habitat, the responsible Federal involving endangered and threatened Endangered Species Act. We published agency must enter into formal plant species under certain a notice outlining our reasons for this consultation with the Service. circumstances. Regulations governing determination in the Federal Register Federal agency actions within the permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62 for on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). species’ habitat that may require endangered plants, and at 17.72 for References Cited conference or consultation or both, as threatened plants. With regard to described in the preceding paragraph, endangered plants, a permit must be A complete list of all references cited include management and any other issued for the following purposes: for in this rule is available on the Internet landscape-altering activities on Federal scientific purposes or for enhancement at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket lands administered by the BLM, such as of propagation or survival of the species. No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0049 or upon mining operations, livestock grazing, It is our policy, as published in the and issuing special use permits. request from the Field Supervisor, The Act and its implementing Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Arizona Ecological Services Office (see regulations set forth a series of general 34272), to identify to the maximum ADDRESSES section). extent practicable at the time a species prohibitions and exceptions that apply Authors to endangered plants. All prohibitions is listed, those activities that would or of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, would not constitute a violation of The primary authors of this document implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. section 9 of the Act. The intent of this are staff of the Arizona Ecological These prohibitions, in part, make it policy is to increase public awareness of Services Office (see ADDRESSES). the effect of a listing on proposed and illegal for any person subject to the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 jurisdiction of the United States to ongoing activities within the range of import or export, transport in interstate species being listed. The following Endangered and threatened species, or foreign commerce in the course of a activities could potentially result in a Exports, Imports, Reporting and commercial activity, sell or offer for sale violation of section 9 of the Act; this list recordkeeping requirements, in interstate or foreign commerce, or is not comprehensive: Unauthorized Transportation. remove and reduce the species to collecting, handling, possessing, selling, Regulation Promulgation possession from areas under Federal delivering, carrying, or transporting of jurisdiction. In addition, for plants the species, including import or export Accordingly, we amend part 17, listed as endangered, the Act prohibits across State lines and international subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the the malicious damage or destruction on boundaries, except for properly Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: areas under Federal jurisdiction and the documented antique specimens of these removal, cutting, digging up, or taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by PART 17—[AMENDED] damaging or destroying of such plants section 10(h)(1) of the Act. in knowing violation of any State law or Questions regarding whether specific ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 regulation, including State criminal activities would constitute a violation of continues to read as follows: section 9 of the Act should be directed trespass law. Certain exceptions to the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– prohibitions apply to agents of the to the Arizona Ecological Services 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. Service and State conservation agencies. Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests for This species is currently protected by copies of the regulations concerning ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding an the Arizona Native Plant Act (ANPA). listed plants and general inquiries entry for ‘‘Sphaeralcea gierischii’’, in Since it became a candidate species in regarding prohibitions and permits may alphabetical order under ‘‘FLOWERING 2008, Arizona protects the Gierisch be addressed to the U.S. Fish and PLANTS’’, to the List of Endangered and mallow as ‘‘Highly Safeguarded.’’ Plants Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Threatened Plants, to read as follows: in the ‘‘Highly Safeguarded’’ category Permits, Southwest Regional Office, under the ANPA include ‘‘plants P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM, § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. resident to this State and listed as 87103–1306; telephone (505) 248–6911; * * * * * endangered, threatened, or category 1 in facsimile (505) 248–6915. (h) * * *

Species Historic range Family Status When Critical Special Scientific name Common name listed habitat rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Sphaeralcea gierischii ...... Gierisch mallow ...... U.S.A (AZ, UT) Malvaceae ... E 813 17.96(a) NA

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49165

* * * * * www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Dated: July 29, 2013. Comments and materials received, as 800–877–8339. Stephen Guertin, well as supporting documentation used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in preparing this final rule are available Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Executive Summary Service. for public inspection at http:// www.regulations.gov. All of the [FR Doc. 2013–19386 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] In this final rule, we refer to comments, materials, and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Sphaeralcea gierischii as Gierisch documentation that we considered in mallow. this rulemaking are available by Why we need to publish a rule. This DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR appointment, during normal business is a final rule to designate critical hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, habitat for the Gierisch mallow. Under Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), 50 CFR Part 17 Phoenix, AZ, 85021; by telephone (602) any species that is determined to be an [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0018; 242–0210; or by facsimile (602) 242– endangered or threatened species 4500030113] 2513. requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and RIN 1018–AZ46 The coordinates, or plot points, or both from which the critical habitat determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be Endangered and Threatened Wildlife maps are generated are included in the completed by issuing a rule. and Plants; Designation of Critical administrative record for this Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, Habitat for Sphaeralcea gierischii rulemaking and are available at http:// we list the Gierisch mallow as an (Gierisch Mallow) www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and at http://www.regulations.gov at endangered species. On August 17, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0018, 2012, we published in the Federal Interior. and at the Arizona Ecological Services Register a proposed critical habitat ACTION: Final rule. Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION designation for Gierisch mallow (77 FR CONTACT). Any additional tools or 49894). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and supporting information that we may that the Secretary shall designate critical Wildlife Service, designate critical develop for this rulemaking will also be habitat on the basis of the best scientific habitat for Sphaeralcea gierischii available at the Fish and Wildlife data available after taking into (Gierisch mallow) under the Endangered Service Web site and Field Office set out consideration the economic impact, the Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). above, and may also be included in the impact on national security, and any The effect of this regulation is to preamble and/or at http:// other relevant impact of specifying any designate critical habitat for Gierisch www.regulations.gov. particular area as critical habitat. mallow under the Act. This final rule The critical habitat areas we are implements the Federal protections FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: designating in this rule constitute our provided by the Act for this species. Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. current best assessment of the areas that DATES: This rule is effective on Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona meet the definition of critical habitat for September 12, 2013. Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Gierisch mallow. We are designating ADDRESSES: This final rule, final Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, approximately 5,189 hectares (ha) economic analysis, and final AZ 85021; by telephone (602) 242–0210; (12,822 acres (ac)) as critical habitat in environmental assessment are available or by facsimile (602) 242–2513. Persons two units in both Mohave County, on the Internet at http:// who use a telecommunications device Arizona, and Washington County, Utah, www.regulations.gov and at http:// for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal as follows:

TABLE 1—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR GIERISCH MALLOW

Federal State Critical habitat unit Totals Arizona Utah Arizona Utah

Unit 1. Starvation Point ...... 220 ha (544 ac) .... 802 ha (1,982 ac) 249 ha (615 ac) .... 68 ha (167 ac) ...... 1,339 ha (3,309 ac) Unit 2. Black Knolls ...... 3,586 ha (8,862 0 ...... 263 ha (651 ac) .... 0 ...... 3,850 ha (9,513 ac). ac)

Totals ...... 3,806 ha (9,406 802 ha (1,982 ac) 512 ha (1,266 ac) 68 ha (167 ac) ...... 5,189 ha (12,822 ac). ac)

We have prepared an economic FR 18943), allowing the public to environmental impacts, we have analysis of the designation of critical provide comments on our analysis. We prepared an assessment of the habitat. In order to consider economic have incorporated the comments and environmental impacts of the critical impacts, we have prepared an analysis have completed the final economic habitat designations and related factors. of the economic impacts of the critical analysis (FEA) concurrently with this We announced the availability of the habitat designations and related factors. final designation. draft environmental assessment in the We announced the availability of the We have prepared an environmental Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 draft economic analysis (DEA) in the assessment of the designation of critical FR 18943), allowing the public to Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 habitat. In order to consider provide comments on our assessment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:29 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES