8576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR throughout all or a significant portion of information that became available. At its range). this time, the best available information Fish and Wildlife Service DATES: This final rule becomes effective continues to indicate that there are no March 29, 2018. longer population- or rangewide-level 50 CFR Part 17 ADDRESSES: Comments, materials threats impacting Eureka Valley evening-primrose such that it is in [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131; received, and supporting documentation FXES11130900000–145–FF09E42000] used in preparation of this final rule are danger of extinction now or is likely to available on the internet at http:// become endangered in the foreseeable RIN 1018–AW04 www.regulations.gov under Docket No. future. Thus, we conclude that Eureka FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131. Additionally, Valley evening-primrose no longer Endangered and Threatened Wildlife meets the definition of an endangered and Plants; Removing Oenothera avita comments, materials, and supporting documentation are available for public species or threatened species, and we ssp. eurekensis From the Federal List are removing it from the Federal List of of Endangered and Threatened Plants, inspection by appointment (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below). Endangered and Threatened Plants in and Reclassification of Swallenia title 50 of the Code of Federal alexandrae From Endangered to The post-delisting monitoring plan for Oenothera californica ssp. eurekensis is Regulations at 50 CFR 17.12(h). Threatened • This document finalizes the available on our Endangered Species reclassification of Eureka dune grass AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Program’s national website (http:// from an endangered species to a Interior. endangered.fws.gov) and on the internet threatened species. Based on our at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket ACTION: Final rule and availability of evaluation of the best scientific and No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131. post-delisting monitoring plan. commercial information available, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: including information and comments SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, submitted during the public comment Wildlife Service (Service), are removing Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 period, we now determine that the Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis, which Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA stressors identified in the proposed rule is now recognized as Oenothera 92008; telephone 760–431–9440; are more significant than previously californica ssp. eurekensis (with a facsimile 760–431–5901. If you use a thought. Although threats identified at common name of Eureka Valley telecommunications device for the deaf the time of listing have been evening-primrose, Eureka evening- (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service substantially removed, Eureka dune primrose, or Eureka Dunes evening- (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. grass is currently responding negatively primrose) from the Federal List of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to the stressors to which it is exposed. Endangered and Threatened Plants. We Executive Summary The best available scientific and are also reclassifying Swallenia commercial data lead us to conclude alexandrae (with a common name of Species addressed. Oenothera that Eureka dune grass no longer meets Eureka dune grass, Eureka dunegrass, or californica ssp. eurekensis (Eureka the definition of an endangered species Eureka Valley dune grass) from an Valley evening-primrose) and Swallenia under the Act, but it is likely to become endangered to a threatened species. For alexandrae (Eureka dune grass) are an endangered species within the Eureka Valley evening-primrose, this endemic to three dune systems in the foreseeable future throughout all or a action is based on our evaluation of the Eureka Valley, Inyo County, California. significant portion of its range. best available scientific and commercial Eureka Valley falls within federally Therefore, we are reclassifying the information, including comments designated wilderness within Death species from an endangered species to a received, which indicates that the Valley National Park and is managed threatened species. threats have been eliminated or reduced accordingly by the National Park The basis for our action. Under the to the point that the subspecies no Service (Park Service). Endangered Species Act of 1973, a longer meets the definition of an Why we need to publish this species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened document. A species that is in danger of endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species extinction or likely to become so in the species because of any of five factors: Act of 1973, as amended (Act). foreseeable future throughout all or a (A) The present or threatened For Eureka dune grass, this significant portion of its range warrants destruction, modification, or reclassification is based on our protection under the Endangered curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) evaluation of the best available Species Act. If a species is determined overutilization for commercial, scientific and commercial information, to no longer to be a threatened species recreational, scientific, or educational including comments received. We or an endangered species, we may purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) conclude that the stressors acting upon reclassify the species or remove it from the inadequacy of existing regulatory Eureka dune grass are of sufficient the Federal List of Endangered and mechanisms; or (E) other natural or imminence, scope, or magnitude to Threatened Wildlife and Plants. manmade factors affecting its continued indicate that they are continuing to Removing a species from the List or existence. We must consider the same result in impacts at either the changing its status on the List can only factors in delisting a species. We may population or rangewide scales, albeit to be completed by issuing a rule. We delist a species if the best scientific and a lesser degree than at the time of proposed to delist Eureka Valley commercial data indicate the species is listing, and we find that Eureka dune evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass neither a threatened species nor an grass meets the statutory definition of a in 2014. endangered species for one or more of threatened species (i.e., the stressors • This document finalizes the the following reasons: (1) The species is impacting the species or its habitat are delisting of Eureka Valley evening- extinct, (2) the species has recovered of sufficient magnitude, scope, or primrose. Our evaluation took into and is no longer endangered or imminence to indicate that the species consideration information and threatened, or (3) the original scientific is likely to become an endangered comments submitted during the public data used at the time the species was species in the foreseeable future comment period, as well as subsequent classified were in error.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8577

We have determined that stressors to and Eureka dune grass (79 FR 11053, within Death Valley National Park, Inyo one or more populations of Eureka February, 27, 2014) or the species’ County, California. Three dune systems Valley evening-primrose no longer exist, profiles available on the internet at (collectively referred to as ‘‘the Eureka or they are not causing significant www.ecos.fws.gov for a detailed Dunes’’) occur in Eureka Valley and are impacts at either the population or description of the previous Federal located between the Last Chance rangewide scales such that the species actions concerning these species prior to Mountains to the east, the Saline is currently in danger of extinction or is the publication of the proposed Mountains to the south, and the Inyo likely to become endangered within the delisting rule. The proposed delisting Mountains to the west and north foreseeable future throughout all or a rule established a 60-day comment (Rowlands 1982, p. 2). The Main Dunes significant portion of its range. period that closed on April 28, 2014, (sometimes referred to in literature as Additionally, we have determined that and we did not receive any requests to ‘‘Eureka Dunes’’) system parallel the stressors to one or more populations of extend the comment period or hold a Last Chance Mountains (Service 1982, Eureka dune grass are of sufficient public hearing. p. 12) and are the largest of the three imminence, intensity, or magnitude to dunes, covering a total area of about Background cause significant impacts at either the 2,003 acres (ac) (811 hectares (ha)) population or rangewide scales such For the proposed delisting rule, we (Service 2013 based on Shovik 2010). that the species is likely to become an conducted a scientific analysis as The Saline Spur and Marble Canyon endangered species within the presented in this document and Dunes, two smaller dune systems, cover foreseeable future throughout all or a supplemented with additional an area of about 238 ac (96 ha) and 610 significant portion of its range. information presented in the ac (247 ha), respectively (Service 2013 Peer review and public comment. We Background Information document based on Shovik 2010). Saline Spur sought comments from independent (Service 2014, entire; available at http:// Dunes and Marble Canyon Dunes, specialists to ensure that our www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– including a southern extension of consideration of the status of Eureka R8–ES–2013–0131). The Background Marble Canyon Dunes known as the Valley evening-primrose and Eureka Information document was prepared by unnamed site, are located dune grass is based on scientifically Service biologists to provide additional approximately 4 miles (mi) (6.4 sound data, assumptions, and analyses. discussion of the environmental setting kilometers (km)) and 9 mi (14.4 km) We invited these peer reviewers to for the Eureka Valley, and other west of the Main Dunes (Bagley 1986, p. comment on our proposed delisting information on the life history, 4). The southern extension of Marble rule. We also considered all public taxonomy, genetics, seed bank ecology, Canyon Dunes (the unnamed site) was comments and information received survivorship and demography, previously treated as a separate dune during the comment period, and other rangewide distribution, and abundance system, but we refer to this area and the new information available since surveys, as well as additional rest of the dune system as the Marble publication of the proposed rule. The information on the stressors that may be Canyon Dunes. See additional final decisions do not substantially rely impacting Eureka Valley evening- discussion in Service 2014 (pp. 4–7). on information received after the close primrose and Eureka dune grass. Also, Temperature regime, wind speeds, and of the comment period, as this new see the Final Species Analysis available precipitation patterns vary among the information was supportive of or under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– three dunes likely due to their relative consistent with information already in 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov position within Eureka Valley. For the record. Comments are addressed at (Service 2017). instance, the Main Dunes (labeled as ‘‘Eureka Dunes’’ in Figure 1, below) has the end of this Federal Register Eureka Dune Ecosystem document. lower daily temperatures than the other Eureka Valley evening-primrose and two dunes, while other patterns, such as Previous Federal Actions Eureka dune grass are endemic (unique rainfall, vary among the three dunes on Please refer to the proposed delisting to a geographic area) to the sand dunes both a temporal and spatial scale rule for Eureka Valley evening-primrose of Eureka Valley (Figure 1), which occur (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8578 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose California Native Plant Society (CNPS) In addition to the production of seed See the proposed delisting rule (79 FR 2013). We have no specific information through sexual reproduction, Eureka 11053) and the Background Information for Eureka Valley evening-primrose Valley evening-primrose reproduces document (Service 2014) for a detailed indicating the level of genetic diversity vegetatively through the production of discussion of Eureka Valley evening- within or among the populations. clonal rosettes that arise from a primrose’s description, taxonomy, life In general, Eureka Valley evening- branched rootstock (Pavlik 1979a, p. 68; history, rangewide distribution, primrose individuals spend most of the Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 84; Pavlik abundance surveys, and population year as a small rosette of leaves (Pavlik and Barbour 1988, p. 240). If conditions estimates, which are available under 1979a, pp. 47–49, 52; 1979b, pp. 87–88). are favorable, a large individual can Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at However, observations indicate that, produce both rosettes and flower in the http://www.regulations.gov. under optimal conditions, recruits (first- same year. In years with unfavorable Eureka Valley evening-primrose is a year plants) can bloom in the year in climatic conditions, established plants short-lived perennial in the evening- which they germinate (Pavlik 1979a, p. may remain dormant and persist primrose family (Onagraceae). It forms 66). In April and May, mature plants underground by their fleshy roots. leaf rosettes for the first 1 or 2 years, undergo rapid stem elongation and Therefore, the number of above-ground then develops decumbent or ascending bloom between April and July. Plants plants observed in any year represents stems to 31.5 inches (in) (8 decimeters) sometimes bloom again in the fall with only a portion of the population and high. Large individuals have the additional summer or fall rains (Pavlik may consist of multiple individuals of potential to produce tens of thousands 1979a, p. 53; 1979b, p. 89). However, the same genetic identity. of seeds (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, pp. abundance and timing of rainfall appear In general, evening-primrose taxa are 15, 21). Eureka Valley evening-primrose has mechanisms for both short- and to be important not only for pollinated by hawkmoths, butterflies, long-distance seed dispersal (Pavlik germination, but for successful and bees (Gregory 1964, pp. 387, 398, 1979a, p. 59; 1979b, p. 71; Pavlik and recruitment of individuals into the 403, 407; Moldenke 1976, pp. 322, 346, Barbour 1985, pp. 27, 41; 1986, pp. 31, population; sufficient rainfall for 358). In particular, a hawkmoth known 81). Oenothera californica ssp. germination in the fall months needs to as the white-lined sphinx moth (Hyles eurekensis is currently the accepted be followed by additional rainfall events lineata), bees (Haprobroda spp. (no scientific name (Wagner 1993, p. 803; during the winter months for common name), Hesperapis spp. (no Wagner 2002, p. 395; Wagner et al. recruitment to occur (Pavlik and common name)), and sweat bees 2007, p. 180; Wagner 2012, p. 952; Barbour 1986, p. 10). (Lasioglossum lusoria) have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 ER27FE18.000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8579

observed on Eureka Valley evening- Abundance Surveys and Population shoot growth around February. Growth primrose (Griswold in litt. 2012). Estimates accelerates in May, with flowering from New information made available New information comprises the April to June and seed dispersal during the comment period or since following: Based on two additional between May and July (Pavlik 1979a, publication of the proposed rule is years (2014, 2015) of monitoring Eureka pp. 47–49; Pavlik 1979b, p. 87; Service summarized in the next three sections Valley evening-primrose beyond the 1982, pp. 4–6). Like all grass taxa, the below. 2008–2013 monitoring period described flowers of Eureka dune grass are wind- in the proposed rule, the Park Service pollinated and, therefore, do not rely on Species Description, Taxonomy, and insect pollinators. Eureka dune grass has continued to observe great annual Life History does not appear to propagate asexually variability in the abundance of the (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, p. 4); New information comprises the taxon, with 2014 being a ‘‘superbloom’’ therefore, sexual reproduction is following: Over two growing seasons year with the number of individuals considered to be the dominant form of (2014, 2015), rooting depth for Eureka estimated at well over 1 million (Park reproduction for this species. Valley evening-primrose was observed Service 2014, p. 6). In 2015, the Individuals have been observed to to be within the top 11.8 in (30 abundance was not as large as in 2014, continue growing for at least 12 years centimeters (cm)) of substrate (Scoles- but larger than it had been other years with no signs of senescence (Henry n.d., Sciulla and DeFalco 2016, p. 9); previous to 2014; based on Park Service pers. comm. in Pavlik and Barbour compared to Eureka dune grass, which data, we estimated the visible 1986, p. 11), and likely can grow for roots at a deeper level, Eureka Valley abundance to be in the tens of decades; older individuals form large evening-primrose accesses water that is thousands (see Park Service 2015, hummocks that can reach on the order closer to the surface of the sand. Figure 12 on p. 16). Overall, this of 2,500 cubic decimeters (88 cubic feet; Additionally, Eureka Valley evening- information suggests that the visible extrapolated from Pavlik and Barbour primrose seeds buried in all three dunes abundance is only a portion of the total (1988, p. 229)). Germination of new in July of 2014 and retrieved after 3, 6, number of individuals that are present individuals appears to occur 9, and 14 months had high germination from year to year (with other infrequently, typically in response to rates, regardless of burial depth or individuals remaining dormant if rainfall during the summer months which dune they were buried at. By climatic conditions are less than (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 47–59). comparison, seeds that were stored optimal), and that this characteristic indoors starting July 2014 had lower The amount of Eureka dune grass seed contributes to the resiliency of the produced per individual increases with total germination after 3 and 6 months, species. but had similar total germination after canopy size, which means that larger 14 months (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco Eureka Dune Grass individuals may contribute more seed to the seed bank (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 2016, p. 8). Overall, this information See the proposed delisting rule (79 FR p. 14). Compared to other perennial suggests that exposure to high 11053) and the Background Information grass species, Eureka dune grass temperatures during the summer document (Service 2014) for a detailed produces low numbers of seeds per months facilitates after-ripening (the discussion of Eureka dune grass’s individual (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. period of internal change that is description, taxonomy, life history, 30); this low seed production could be necessary in some apparently mature rangewide distribution, abundance due to the inefficiency of wind seeds before germination can occur) in surveys, and population estimates, pollination and the low density of this species (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco which are available under Docket No. individuals across the dunes (Pavlik and 2016, p. 8). FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// Barbour 1985, p. 17). Rangewide Distribution www.regulations.gov. New information made available Eureka dune grass is a perennial, during the comment period or since New information comprises the hummock-forming (development of publication of the proposed rule is following: Continued monitoring for mounds of windblown soil at the base summarized in the next three sections visible presence/absence within the of plants on dune landscapes) grass below. rangewide 1-ha grid system resulted in comprising a monotypic genus (genus documentation of the largest expanse of containing only one single species) of Species Description, Taxonomy, and Eureka Valley evening-primrose ever the grass family (Poaceae). The coarse, Life History recorded at all three dune systems since stiff stems reach 20 in (50 cm) in height, New information comprises the this monitoring effort began in 2007 and the lanceolate leaves are tipped following: Over two growing seasons (Park Service 2015). While the taxon with a sharp point (DeDecker 1987, p. (2014, 2015), rooting depth for Eureka remains tied to the sandy soils 2). Flowers are clustered in spike-like dune grass was observed to be 35.4 in associated with the three dune systems, panicles and produce seeds that are 0.16 (90 cm) (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco in ‘‘good’’ years such as 2014, in (4 millimeter (mm)) long and 0.08 in 2016, p. 9). individuals may be found farther away (2 mm) wide (Bell and Smith 2012, p. from the three dunes (Park Service 1,496). The root system becomes fibrous Rangewide Distribution 2014); however, the areas closer to the and extensive over time and can give New information comprises the dunes continue to be the ‘‘core’’ areas rise to adventitious stems. Based on its following: where the taxon is found, even in years morphological characteristics and (1) In 2014 and 2015, the Park Service of lower abundance and productivity taxonomic affinities, the species is continued to monitor presence/absence (Park Service 2013a, 2014, 2015). This thought to be a relictual species, which of Eureka dune grass across all three information indicates that Eureka Valley exists as a remnant of a formerly widely dunes. Comparing the area (i.e., number evening-primrose has the ability to distributed group in an environment of acres/hectares) that contained Eureka withstand years of less-than-favorable that is now different from where it dune grass in 2015 with the area that climatic conditions, and take advantage originated. contained Eureka dune grass in 2011, of years with more favorable climatic Eureka dune grass is dormant during they found: On the Main Dunes, there conditions. the winter and begins to produce new was a 20 percent loss (from 1,102 to 885

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8580 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

ac (446 to 358 ha)); on Marble Canyon all three sets of data (photopoints, internet at http://www.regulations.gov Dunes, there was a 1 percent loss (from presence/absence surveys, and GPS under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– 195 to 193 ac (79 to 78 ha)); and on mapping), and all of which show a loss 0131. Saline Spur Dunes, there was a 7 of individuals over time. The Main Abundance Surveys and Population percent gain (from 215 to 230 ac (87 to Dunes also represents over half of all the Estimates 93 ha)) (Park Service 2015 p. 5). Eureka dune grass in Eureka Valley, so (2) Since 2012, the Park Service has the loss from this dune is significant for For a detailed discussion of the continued to map individual clumps of the entire range of the species. Three abundance and population estimates for Eureka dune grass on the Main Dunes sets of data (photopoints, presence/ Eureka dune grass, see the Background with Global Positioning System (GPS) absence surveys, and GPS mapping), are Information Document (Service 2014), (National Park Service 2015). Due to also available for Marble Canyon Dunes, which is available under Docket No. inconsistent application of mapping though presence/absence surveys and FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// protocols in earlier years, the Park GPS mapping were initiated in both www.regulations.gov. In that previous Service considers data from 2014 and cases a year later than at the Main discussion, we stated that developing 2015 to be the most accurate. From 2014 Dunes. Photopoints taken in the population estimates for Eureka dune to 2015, the area covered with dune northern and northeastern portion of the grass is challenging because of: Lack of grass declined by 19.2 percent (from dune show a loss of individuals historical information regarding 69.39 to 56.05 ac (280,799 square meter between 1985 and 2013; presence/ population sizes at the time of listing (to (m2) to 226,846 m2)) (Park Service absence surveys indicate slight gains establish baseline for comparison), the 2015). The greatest losses appear to be and losses between 2008 and 2015; and site-specific transects that were done in in the central and south-central portions GPS mapping was not considered 1976 and 1986 (e.g., see Henry (1976) of the Main Dunes. accurate by the Park Service until 2015, and Bagley (1986)), and followup (3) Photopoints continued to be and therefore comparisons with earlier surveys conducted by the Park Service monitored by the Park Service in 2014 years cannot be made. Photopoint (Park Service 2008a, pp. 5–6 and 17– and 2015. These photopoints, including monitoring from the Main Dunes and 18), were too spatially limited to be some that were established in 1974, from Marble Canyon Dunes both useful for population estimates, and provide a qualitative assessment of the qualitatively indicate that extensive estimating numbers of individuals is changes in coverage of Eureka dune losses of dune grass occurred during the inherently difficult because of their grass within the viewsheds they earlier portion of the 28-year monitoring clumping growth form. The Park Service include. For the Main Dunes, the period. More frequent photopoint previously attempted estimating combined viewshed of all photopoints monitoring was not initiated until 2007; population size based on the monitoring represents 33.4 percent of the dune; for by this time, most of the loss had of the hectare grid at all three dunes: For Marble Canyon Dunes, the combined already occurred, and more recent the year 2011, the estimate was 8,014 viewshed represents 21 percent of the photos show less change. individuals, and for 2013, it was 8,176 dune; all photopoints from these two Only presence/absence surveys individuals (Park Service 2013a, p. 7). dunes document a substantial loss of (initiated in 2008) and GPS mapping of The Park Service cautions that the true Eureka dune grass coverage since the individuals (initiated in 2012 but not population size could vary greatly due time they were established (Park Service considered accurate until 2015) is to a variety of limitations and 2014). The Park Service also noted that available for Saline Spur Dunes. These assumptions. Even so, we know that, between 2014 and 2015, no substantial two data sets have established that the based on this information, thousands of change was observed (Park Service western edge of Saline Spur Dunes Eureka dune grass individuals exist, and 2015), suggesting that the losses contains the largest continuous the number was relatively stable across occurred prior to 2014. Photopoints population of Eureka dune grass at all the 2 years compared. were not established on the Saline Spur three dunes (Park Service 2015 p. 2). New information comprises the Dunes until 2008 and 2010 (Park Photopoint monitoring at this dune was following: The Park Service has not Service 2014); therefore, data is not only established in 2008 and 2010, and attempted a revised method for available for a long-term qualitative as of 2014 did not indicate any visible estimating population size due to the evaluation of dune grass coverage in this change (Park Service 2014, p. 6). inherent difficulty of doing so. population. On a small scale, the usefulness of However, because the estimates were While a reduction in visible Eureka comparing recent maps with historical based on the area occupied by Eureka dune grass individuals is clearly maps is limited because of the higher dune grass in the monitoring of the noticeable from a visual inspection, it is precision that was possible in the 2007 hectare grid, we refer back to that metric difficult to quantify this reduction in to 2015 surveys. Overall and on a large (see section on Rangewide Distribution terms of estimating changes in scale, the most recent maps indicate that for Eureka dune grass, above) as a population distribution, densities, or Eureka dune grass populations are still surrogate. abundance. Without other quantitative present in the same general locations The best available data indicate the data to assist in interpretation, it would from which they were known at the species continues to occur within be difficult to distinguish whether time of our 2007 5-year status review. Eureka Valley at all three dunes within visual changes represent local shifts in The precision that has been available its range (and as stated above, we have distribution and density or rangewide with the hectare grid surveys and the no information regarding population changes in the population. The GPS mapping has provided more useful size at the time of listing for additional information provided by the examination of the distribution of comparison, with population surveys presence/absence monitoring, as well as Eureka dune grass on a smaller scale prior to listing being limited to the the GPS mapping of clumps on the Main and a means by which to compare northern end of the Main Dunes). Based Dunes corroborates the observations of changes in distribution over time. The on the combination of all data available the loss of Eureka dune grass that has total extent of Eureka dune grass on all (photopoints monitoring, presence/ occurred over the last 35 years. three dunes as of 2015 (Park Service absence surveys based on the hectare The most robust analysis can be made 2015) is presented in the ‘‘Swallenia grid, and GPS mapping of individual for the Main Dunes, for which there are Maps’’ document available on the clumps), indications are that, between

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8581

2011 and 2015, the amount of Eureka primrose and Eureka dune grass in the the recovery plan. Below, we summarize dune grass has declined at the Main Determinations section below to be the recovery plan goals and discuss Dunes by 20 percent; the changes at consistent with our policy. Although the progress toward meeting the recovery Marble Canyon Dunes and Saline Spur final policy’s approach differed slightly objectives and how they inform our Dunes have been of a smaller from that discussed in the proposed analyses of the species’ status and the magnitude, with Marble Canyon Dunes rule, applying the policy did not affect stressors affecting them. showing a one percent loss, and with the outcome of the final status In 1982, we finalized the Eureka Saline Spur Dunes showing a seven determinations. Valley Dunes Recovery Plan, which percent increase (Park Service 2015, p. (6) We have revised our determination included recovery objectives for both 5). regarding Eureka dune grass based on Eureka Valley evening-primrose and new information and analyses, and now Eureka dune grass (Recovery Plan; History of Threats Analyses for Eureka conclude it best fits the definition of a Service 1982). While the Recovery Plan Valley Evening-Primrose and Eureka threatened species. did not include recovery criteria, the Dune Grass plan followed guidance in effect at the Recovery and Recovery Plan For a brief history of the threats time it was finalized and we consider its Implementation analyses that we conducted since the recovery objectives to be similar to what time Eureka Valley evening-primrose Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to are considered to be recovery criteria and Eureka dune grass were listed in develop and implement recovery plans under current recovery planning 1978, see our proposed delisting rule for the conservation and survival of guidance. The Recovery Plan identified (79 FR 11053, February 27, 2014). For a endangered and threatened species two objectives, each with specific detailed discussion of the status review unless we determine that such a plan recovery tasks, to consider Eureka initiated with our 2011 90-day finding will not promote the conservation of the Valley evening-primrose and Eureka (76 FR 3069, January 19, 2011), see the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), dune grass for downlisting to threatened Background Information document recovery plans must, to the maximum status, and eventually, delisting (Service (Service 2014, pp. 38–65). Both the extent practicable, include: ‘‘Objective, 1982, pp. 26–41). These two objectives proposed listing rule and Background measurable criteria which, when met, are: Information document are available on would result in a determination, in (1) Restore the Eureka dune grass and the internet at http:// accordance with the provisions of the Eureka Valley evening-primrose to www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [section 4 of the Act], that the species threatened status by protecting extant FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131. be removed from the list.’’ However, populations from existing (i.e., in 1982) revisions to the list (adding, removing, and potential human threats. Summary of Changes From the or reclassifying a species) must reflect (2) Determine the number of Proposed Rule determinations made in accordance individuals, populations, and acres of (1) We updated information on annual with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. habitat necessary for each species to survey results based on monitoring for Section 4(a)(1) requires that the maintain itself without intensive abundance and distribution undertaken Secretary determine whether a species management, in a vigorous, self- by the Park Service in 2014 and 2015 is an endangered species or threatened sustaining manner within their natural (Park Service 2014, 2015). Also species (or not) because of one or more historical dune habitat (estimated 6,000 included is the Park Service’s new of five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the ac (2,428 ha)) and implement recovery subsampling methodology (Park Service Act requires that the determination be tasks to attain these objectives. 2017). made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best Objective 1: Restore the Eureka dune (2) We updated information on abiotic scientific and commercial data grass and the Eureka Valley evening- characteristics of the dune habitat available.’’ Therefore, recovery criteria primrose to threatened status by (temperature, wind, and precipitation should help indicate when we would protecting extant populations from patterns) within the description of the anticipate that an analysis of the existing (i.e., in 1982) and potential Eureka Dunes Ecosystem in the species’ status under section 4(a)(1) human threats. Background section based on would result in a determination that the Objective 1 is intended to remove observations made by the United States species is no longer an endangered existing human threats to populations of Geological Survey (USGS) (Scoles- species or threatened species. Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Sciulla and DeFalco 2017). Thus, while recovery plans provide Eureka dune grass through enforcement (3) We updated information on life- important guidance to the Service, of existing laws and regulations, and history characteristics, specifically States, and other partners on methods of management of human access to Eureka rooting depth, for both species, and seed minimizing threats to listed species and Valley (Service 1982, p. 26). At the time longevity for Eureka Valley evening- measurable objectives against which to of listing, the primary threat to both primrose, based on observations made measure progress towards recovery, they species was off-highway vehicle (OHV) by USGS (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco are not regulatory documents and activity, and a lesser threat was camping 2017). cannot substitute for the determinations on and around the dunes (43 FR 17910, (4) We added new information to the and promulgation of regulations April 26, 1978). Since listing, potential section on potential competition required under section 4(a)(1) of the human threats have included other between Salsola spp. (Russian thistle) Act. A decision to revise the status of or recreational activities such as and Eureka Valley evening-primrose, remove a species from the Federal List sandboarding and horseback riding. based on research conducted by Chow of Endangered and Threatened Plants Various land management decisions (2016). (50 CFR 17.12) is ultimately based on an and activities have been implemented (5) On July 1, 2014, we published a analysis of the best scientific and by the Bureau of Land Management final policy interpreting the phrase commercial data then available to (BLM; prior to Park Service acquisition ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (79 FR determine whether a species is no of the Eureka Valley area in 1994) and 37578). We have revised our discussion longer an endangered species or a the Park Service (since 1994). All of the of ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ as it threatened species, regardless of dune systems within Eureka Valley have relates to both Eureka Valley evening- whether that information differs from also been designated as Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

wilderness areas. A number of land use habitat. Even though the precise values population estimate for over a million decisions and management activities of all demographic characteristics are individuals of Eureka Valley evening- have been implemented to support the not known, we note that many research primrose in the ‘‘superbloom’’ year of long-term protection of Eureka Valley and monitoring efforts have occurred for 2014; (2) investigated potential stressors evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass both species since the time of listing more closely and determined that some within the Federal wilderness area, (unless otherwise noted), which have potential stressors are of more concern including (but not limited to): Making provided information on the life-history than others; (3) clarified how the life- OHV activity illegal; conducting patrols needs of both Eureka Valley evening- history strategies of the two species are to enforce laws, regulations, and primrose and Eureka dune grass, as well different and lead to resiliency for restrictions; closing and restoring as potential impacts to both species, Eureka Valley evening-primrose but not unauthorized roads; installing including (but not limited to) the Eureka dune grass; and (4) suggested interpretative signs, barriers, and following studies: other potential stressors for the two wilderness boundary signs; and (1) Conducting a series of studies on species that should be monitored into delineating and maintaining campsites both species to investigate effects of the future. Overall, we consider the (Park Service 2008a, 2009, 2010). pollination on seed set, seed ecology, intent of Objective 2 has been partially Additionally, various education and species’ demography, and plant and met. public outreach (e.g., public awareness animal interactions (herbivory, seed In summary, based on our review of program, interpretive displays) have predation, and dispersal) (Pavlik and the Recovery Plan and the information been conducted to reduce overall Barbour 1985, 1986). obtained from the various management impacts to both species. Because all (2) Establishing baseline conditions activities, surveys, and research that three populations occur within Federal for monitoring trends of both species have occurred to date, we conclude that wilderness areas that are now protected across all three dune systems (Bagley the habitat for Eureka Valley evening- against the threats identified as 1986). primrose and Eureka dune grass has imminent at the time of listing and in (3) Studying the genetic diversity of been protected and its status improved the Recovery Plan, we conclude that the all Eureka dune grass populations (Bell due to land use decisions and condition of the habitat for Eureka 2003). management activities that have been Valley evening-primrose and Eureka (4) Conducting partial distribution implemented by BLM and the Park dune grass has improved due to surveys of both species on portions of Service to reduce human-caused threats management activities that have been various dunes (Beymer in litt. 1997; (Objective 1). Further, we conclude, as implemented by BLM and the Park Peterson in litt. 1998), as well as detailed below, that the status of Eureka Service, and that this recovery objective documenting the distribution and Valley evening-primrose has improved has been met. abundance of Russian thistle, a potential substantially as documented by its Objective 2: Determine the number of competitor, across all three dune resiliency and elucidated by the surveys individuals, populations, and acres of systems (Park Service 2011a). and research undertaken since the time habitat necessary for each species to (5) Documenting distribution, of listing (Objective 2). Therefore, the maintain itself without intensive abundance, and demography of both intent of both objectives has been met management, in a vigorous, self- species (Park Service 2008b, 2008c, for the Eureka Valley evening-primrose. sustaining manner within their natural 2010a, 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2013a, 2014, However, Objective 2 has not been met historical dune habitat (estimated 6,000 2015, 2017). for the Eureka dune grass because ac (2,428 ha)) and implement recovery (6) Determining if vegetation monitoring data indicate declining tasks to attain these objectives. succession at the northern end of the trends at the Main Dunes and Marble At the time the recovery plan was Main Dunes (Eureka dune grass habitat) Canyon Dunes. developed, our knowledge of the is associated with changes in subsurface Summary of Factors Affecting the demographic characteristics of the two hydrology (Park Service 2008c, p. 4). Species species was limited. The intent of this (7) Investigating potential competition objective was to gather and develop between Russian thistle and Eureka Section 4 of the Act and its information necessary to evaluate the Valley evening-primrose, and the effects implementing regulations (50 CFR part status of both species with regards to of herbivory on Eureka Valley evening- 424) set forth the procedures for listing demographic characteristics to primrose (Chow and Klinger 2013a; species, reclassifying species, or determine at what point they could be Chow in litt. 2011; Chow 2016). removing species from listed status. considered recovered, and more (8) Monitoring photopoint stations ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as importantly to attain the desired over time, starting in 1985, and retaken including any species or subspecies of demographic levels necessary for at various intervals (Park Service 2008c, fish or wildlife or plants, and any recovery. While we have not yet 2011b, 2014). distinct population segment of any developed precise values for all of the (9) Investigating the correlations species of vertebrate fish or wildlife various demographic characteristics that between abiotic factors (temperature, which interbreeds when mature (16 help us determine whether actions to wind, and precipitation patterns) and U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be remove threats have the desired effect growth response in Eureka Valley determined to be an endangered or (e.g., stable populations, positive evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass threatened species because of any one or growth), both species still occupy all (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco 2017). a combination of the five factors three dune systems, and the best As a result of the considerable work described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: available monitoring data indicate that has been undertaken to understand (A) The present or threatened thousands of plants are present at each the population dynamics and life destruction, modification, or dune system. Additionally, the best histories of these two species, we have: curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) available information indicates that the (1) Established detailed baseline overutilization for commercial, BLM and Park Service have sufficiently information regarding the abundance recreational, scientific, or educational minimized OHV and other recreation and distribution of both species with purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) activities that were previously which to compare their status in future the inadequacy of existing regulatory impacting the populations and their years, including the documentation of a mechanisms; or (E) other natural or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8583

human made factors affecting its OHV activity could affect Eureka activity through land use designations continued existence. A species may be Valley evening-primrose habitat in (i.e., Area of Critical Environmental reclassified or removed from the Federal multiple ways, as evidenced from many Concern, Federal wilderness areas) has List of Endangered and Threatened studies that have occurred within dune resulted in the near elimination of OHV Plants (50 CFR 17.12) on the same basis. ecosystems (such as Wilshire and activity on Eureka Dunes at the current Determining whether the status of a Nakata 1976, Webb and Wilshire 1983). time. We anticipate this situation will species has improved to the point that Physical impacts on dunes can include continue into the future because we it can be downlisted or delisted requires compaction or erosion of sandy expect Federal wilderness areas to consideration of whether the species is substrates, acceleration of wind erosion remain in place indefinitely, and we an endangered species or threatened (Gillette and Adams 1983, pp. 97–109), expect the Park Service’s current species because of the same five and acceleration of dune drift management to be implemented over categories of threats specified in section (Gilberston 1983, pp. 362–365). OHV the next 20 years, as well as modified 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are activity can also change the unique periodically into the future with already listed as endangered species or hydrologic conditions of dunes. Because adaptive management strategies (as threatened species, this analysis of dunes have the capacity to hold demonstrated by the Park Service’s threats is an evaluation of both the moisture for long periods of time, natural resource management strategies threats currently facing the species and disturbance of the surface sands to date and anticipated in the future per the threats that are reasonably likely to resulting in exposure of moist sands Park Service policies and regulations affect the species in the foreseeable underneath can increase moisture loss (see Factor D)). Additionally, the remote future following the delisting or from the dunes (Geological Society of location, inaccessibility, and wilderness downlisting and the removal or America 1977, p. 4). Changes in status of the Saline Spur and Marble reduction of the Act’s protections. physical and hydrologic properties of Canyon Dunes appear to be providing A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ the dunes from heavy OHV activity sufficient protection for dune habitats for purposes of the Act if it is in danger could in turn affect the suitability of the and plants at these locations both of extinction throughout all or a dune habitat for germination and currently and in the future. Although significant portion of its range and is a recruitment of seedlings, clonal the Park Service has documented ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to expansion of existing individuals, and sporadic occurrences of unauthorized become an endangered species within dispersal of seeds to favorable OHV activity, these occurrences are the foreseeable future throughout all or microsites. almost entirely localized to areas on and a significant portion of its range. The The same potential OHV impacts that adjacent to the northern end of the Main word ‘‘range’’ in the significant portion affect dune habitat can also affect Dunes (Park Service 2013a, p. 3). of its range phrase refers to the range in Eureka Valley evening-primrose In response to the publication of the which the species currently exists, and individual plants. Normally, these types proposed delisting rule, Park Service the word ‘‘significant’’ refers to the of impacts would be discussed under stated that OHV trespass on the dunes value of that portion of the range being Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade still occurs and is documented at least considered to the conservation of the Factors Affecting Its Continued annually, and that current staffing and species. The ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the Existence), but are included here in the funding levels do not allow for a period of time over which events or Factor A discussion for ease of analysis. constant park presence at the dunes, effects reasonably can or should be OHV impacts to individual plants which would be required to completely anticipated, or trends extrapolated. For within dune systems and other desert prevent OHV trespass (Park Service the purposes of this analysis, we first ecosystems have been extensively 2014, p. 5). Regardless, the best evaluate the status of the species studied (such as Bury and Luckenbach available information indicates that throughout all its range, then consider 1983, Gilbertson 1983, and Lathrop OHV trespass activity is no longer whether the species is in danger of 1983). Within dunes systems, for causing significant population- or extinction or likely to become so in a instance, while OHV activity alters the rangewide-level impacts to Eureka significant portion of its range. physical structure and hydrology of the Valley evening-primrose. dunes (rendering the dune habitat less Other Recreational Activities Summary of Factors Affecting Eureka suitable for supporting individuals and Valley Evening-Primrose populations of the two species), it also In addition to unauthorized OHV A. The Present or Threatened affects individuals directly by shredding activity that may occur currently (as Destruction, Modification, or plants or damaging root systems, described above), other recreational Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range thereby killing or injuring (e.g., reducing activities have been known historically the reproduction or survival of and currently occur (occasionally) OHV Activity individuals) the plants. within the Eureka Dunes, including For a detailed discussion of the types Although unauthorized OHV activity horseback riding, sandboarding, and amount of OHV activity, both at the has occasionally occurred on the Eureka camping outside of designated areas, time of listing and since then, see the Dunes, it has not approached the levels and creation of access routes. For a proposed delisting rule (79 FR 11053, seen prior to listing Eureka Valley detailed discussion regarding these February 27, 2014) and the Background evening-primrose as an endangered recreational activities, both at the time Information document (Service 2014), species. Existing regulatory mechanisms of listing and since then, see the which are available under Docket No. (such as through the Park Service’s proposed delisting rule (79 FR 11053, FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// Organic Act and other laws guiding February 27, 2014) and the Background www.regulations.gov. OHV activity has management of Park Service lands) in Information document (Service 2014), not been authorized on the dunes in place since listing have resulted in which are available under Docket No. Eureka Valley since 1976, and not beneficial effects to the species (e.g., FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// anywhere off established roads since management measures to control OHV www.regulations.gov. Camping and 1994, when all the lands in Eureka and recreational activities) (see associated access routes were identified Valley were included in a wilderness additional discussion under Factor D, as a minor threat in the Recovery Plan area designation. below). The management of OHV because their proximity to Eureka Dunes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8584 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

facilitated unauthorized OHV activity population-level effects (as compared to evening-primrose. Since then, studies (Service 1982, pp. 22–23). Horseback pre-listing levels) to Eureka Valley (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 1986; Scoles- riding and sandboarding were potential evening-primrose currently, nor are they Sciulla and DeFalco 2013) and threats to Eureka Valley evening- expected to do so in the future, in large observations (Chow in litt. 2011, 2012b) primrose and Eureka dune grass part due to the extensive protections imply that herbivory and seed predation identified after listing, and were and management provided by the Park may be a potential stressor for the discussed in the 5-year status reviews Service. species. For a detailed discussion published in 2007 (Service 2007a, p. 10; As discussed in the proposed rule (79 regarding disease and predation, both at Service 2007b, pp. 7–8). All of these FR 11053, February 27, 2014), the time of listing and since then, see activities were discussed in our 5-year regulatory provisions of the Wilderness the proposed delisting rule (79 FR review under Factor A because, like Act, the Park Service Organic Act, and 11053, February 27, 2014) and the OHV activity, they have the ability to the other laws guiding management of Background Information document have physical impacts on the dune Park Service lands are adequate to (Service 2014), which are available habitat (such as destabilization and minimize threats to populations of under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– displacement of sands); however, these Eureka Valley evening-primrose from 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. same activities have the potential for OHV activity, sandboarding, and New information comprises updated damaging individual plants through horseback riding. results from two studies that were ongoing at the time the proposed rule crushing, trampling, and uprooting. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Although impacts to individual plants published. Recreational, Scientific, or Educational (1) Chow and Klinger (2014) are more appropriately discussed under Purposes Factor E, for ease of analysis we also evaluated the effects of lagomorph discuss impacts to individual plants Utilization for commercial, (taxonomic order of mammals here. recreational, scientific, or educational comprising rabbits, hares, and pikas) New information regarding impacts purposes was not identified as a threat herbivory on Eureka Valley evening- specifically to Eureka Valley evening- to Eureka Valley evening-primrose in primrose competition, both with itself, primrose individual plants (as opposed the listing rule. There is no known and with Russian thistle (see discussion to habitat) comprises the following: In commercial or recreational value that of the latter under Factor E) in an ex situ response to the publication of the we consider consumptive (that is, based setting. While herbivory can result in proposed delisting rule, the Park Service on physical use or removal of the the removal of aboveground vegetative referred back to a study conducted by plants). Educational groups frequently material, it was not found to exacerbate Pavlik (1979a), which found that visit Eureka Dunes, but we are unaware intraspecific competition in Eureka seedlings of both Eureka dune grass and of any activities that would be Valley evening-primrose (Chow and Eureka Valley evening-primrose are considered consumptive use. Since Klinger (2013b, p. 21). However, extremely fragile and cannot tolerate listing, there have been three section herbivory can result in mortality of even the lightest disturbance by foot 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for studies plants if individuals are repeatedly traffic. Although the Park Service has involving the removal of plants, seeds, consumed or the roots are eaten, and it not been able to measure the amount of or plant parts; only two of these permits could also impact flower and fruit foot traffic, the potential impacts from included Eureka Valley evening- production (Chow and Klinger 2014, pp. such traffic can be qualitatively primrose. These studies usually involve 19, 21). observed on stabilized sand following collection of seeds or leaves for (2) USGS (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco rain events (Park Service 2014, p. 5). In laboratory experiments or collection of 2013) observed that up to 99 percent of addition, one peer reviewer observed voucher specimens for herbaria; in each the surface area of Eureka Valley evidence (i.e., tracks) of unauthorized case we analyzed potential impacts evening-primrose individuals were OHV activity at the base of the Main during the permitting process and consumed over the growing season in Dunes, as well as increased visitor use, determined that the collection activities 2012, contributing to low survival rates specifically camping, at the dunes since would not jeopardize the continued at all dune sites that year. In subsequent the 1980s (McLaughlin in litt. 2014). existence of the species. We do not years, USGS reported on survival rates Our current assessment is that, while consider this level of research and over the course of the growing season the Park Service has documented some collection to pose any potential threat of (e.g., 100 percent in 2013 (Scoles-Sciulla unauthorized activity (e.g., overutilization for the species. and DeFalco 2014, pp. 8–9), and sandboarding, OHV activity in closed Furthermore, the State of California and between 20 and 70 percent at various areas) that may result in minor or the Park Service have regulatory dunes in 2014 (Scoles-Sciulla and occasional impact to individual plants, mechanisms in place to control any DeFalco 2015, pp. 8–9); however, no these are infrequent occurrences and potential utilization in the future (see other herbivory effects were discussed affect very small areas and are not also Factor D below). Any collection of with the findings for these years. spread throughout the range of the plants would require permits from the Seed predation and herbivory are species. Additionally, existing State of California and the Park Service. naturally occurring processes. We regulatory mechanisms (such as through We do not have any new information expect that Eureka Valley evening- the Park Service’s Organic Act and other regarding this factor, and we conclude primrose has adapted to withstand some laws guiding management of Park that overutilization for commercial, level of herbivory and seed predation. Service lands) in place since listing recreational, scientific, or educational Given that Eureka Valley evening- have resulted in beneficial effects to the purposes are not a short-term or long- primrose continues to occupy the same species (including management term threat to the continued existence of general distribution identified at the measures to control recreational Eureka Valley evening-primrose. time of listing, it does not appear that activities) (see additional discussion herbivory and seed predation by under Factor D, below). Therefore, the C. Disease or Predation themselves are occurring at such a level best available information at this time At the time of listing, disease and to cause population-level declines or indicates that other recreational predation were not identified as a other adverse effects to the species as a activities, if they occur, are not causing potential threat to Eureka Valley whole. Based on the best available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8585

information at this time (including the species are within congressionally spp. (Russian thistle) is the only research observations provided by Chow designated wilderness. The best invasive, nonnative species that has and Klinger (2013b) and USGS (Scoles- available information indicates that spread onto the dunes in the Eureka Sciulla and DeFalco 2014, 2015); the these existing regulatory mechanisms Valley. Previous information (available expectation that this species has have reduced the previously identified at the time of our 2007 5-year reviews) evolved with some level of herbivory/ significant adverse effects to individual was generally limited to personal seed predation; and the fact that plants and populations, especially observations and collections with no herbivory/seed predation is naturally impacts associated with OHV activity specific information regarding the occurring and some level of herbivory/ (Factors A and E) and other recreational density or distribution of Russian seed predation is expected, we conclude activities (i.e., sandboarding, camping, thistle. However, due to continuing that the observed impacts are not and associated access routes) (Factors A concerns expressed by the Park Service causing population-level effects for and E). There are no existing regulatory and other parties since 2007, we Eureka Valley evening-primrose mechanisms to address other potential conducted a more thorough review of currently, nor are they expected to do so stressors, including herbivory, seed the life-history characteristics of in the future. predation, competition with Russian Russian thistle and the potential D. The Inadequacy of Existing thistle, effects of climate change, and impacts it could have on Eureka Valley Regulatory Mechanisms stochastic events. evening-primrose, particularly the While most of these laws, regulations, potential for Russian thistle to compete Under this factor, we evaluate and policies are not specifically directed with Eureka Valley evening-primrose for whether the stressors identified within toward protection of Eureka Valley resources such as water and nutrients, the other factors may be ameliorated or evening-primrose, they mandate which would potentially result in fewer exacerbated by any existing regulatory consideration, management, and or smaller individuals of Eureka Valley mechanisms or conservation efforts. protection of resources that benefit the evening-primrose. We also reviewed Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires species. We expect these laws, information provided by the Park that the Service take into account ‘‘those regulatory mechanisms, and Service concerning the distribution of efforts, if any, being made by any State management plans to remain in place Russian thistle on and around the dunes or foreign nation, or any political into the future. in Eureka Valley and preliminary results subdivision of a State or foreign nation, For a detailed discussion regarding of an ex situ competition study (Chow to protect such species. . . .’’ In inadequacy of existing regulatory and Klinger 2013b). For a detailed relation to Factor D under the Act, we mechanisms, both at the time of listing discussion regarding the potential for interpret this language to require the and since then, see the proposed competition between Eureka Valley Service to consider relevant Federal, delisting rule (79 FR 11053, February evening-primrose and Russian thistle, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and 27, 2014) and the Background both at the time of listing and since other such binding legal mechanisms Information document (Service 2014), then, see the proposed delisting rule (79 that may ameliorate or exacerbate any of which are available under Docket No. FR 11053, February 27, 2014) and the the threats we describe in threat FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// Background Information document analyses under the other four factors or www.regulations.gov. There is no new (Service 2014), which are available otherwise enhance the species’ information concerning these regulatory under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– conservation. Our consideration of these 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. mechanisms is described in detail mechanisms. within each of the threats or stressors to E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors New Information comprises the the species (see discussion under each Affecting Its Continued Existence following: A preliminary study of the other factors). regarding interspecific competition The following existing regulatory OHV Activity and Other Recreational (competition between individuals of mechanisms and conservation actions Activities different species) and intraspecific were specifically considered and See the ‘‘OHV Activity’’ and ‘‘Other competition (competition between discussed as they relate to the stressors, Recreational Activities’’ sections, above individuals of the same species) under the applicable factors, affecting under Factor A, for a complete initiated in 2012 was updated by Chow Eureka Valley evening-primrose: The discussion of realized and potential and Klinger (2016) and Chow (2016). Wilderness Act, the Park Service impacts since the time of listing. As They found that competition Organic Act, and the other laws guiding stated there, we included a complete (interspecific and intraspecific) reduced management of Park Service lands are discussion of potential impacts to both the relativized biomass of target adequate to minimize threats to habitat and individual plants under individuals for both Eureka Valley populations of Eureka Valley evening- Factor A for ease of analysis. We evening-primrose and Russian thistle primrose from OHV activity, conclude, based on the best available (Chow and Klinger 2014, p. 16). They sandboarding, and horseback riding. information, that the Wilderness Area were unable to determine if competition Beneficial effects for Eureka dune grass designation, coupled with Park Service (inter- and intraspecific) affected the include: (1) Management measures to management of OHV activity and other reproductive potential of either taxa, control illegal OHV activity (see Factor recreational activity, has significantly although they did observe that Eureka A discussion, above), including the Park reduced potential impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose produced more Service’s management policies (Park Valley evening-primrose individuals, vegetative material, whereas Russian Service 2006); (2) the Organic Act; (3) currently and into the future. See thistle produced more reproductive the legal and stewardship mandates additional discussion above under material (Chow and Klinger 2014, p. 20). outlined in the Park Service’s General Factors A and D. This is likely the result of the different Management Plan (Park Service 2002, reproductive strategies (annual versus entire); and (4) the Wilderness and Competition With Russian Thistle perennial) employed by these two taxa Backcountry Stewardship Plan (Park Invasive, nonnative plants can (Chow and Klinger 2014, p. 20). As in Service 2013b, pp. 4, 5, 10, 16), given potentially affect the long-term their preliminary study, Chow and all areas containing populations of the persistence of endemic species. Salsola Klinger (2013b, p. 16) found that Eureka

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Valley evening-primrose tolerated Climate Change indicate that suitable climate for Eureka interspecific competition better than For a detailed discussion regarding Valley evening-primrose will shift to the Russian thistle. However, the effect of the potential effects of climate change northwest of Eureka Valley dunes by intraspecific competition between on Eureka Valley evening-primrose, 2050 (Evans in litt. 2014). Eureka Valley evening-primrose both at the time of listing and since In 2016, USGS completed 3 years of individuals was less clear. For example, then, see the proposed delisting rule (79 field study at all three dune systems to the highest number of neighbors (i.e., FR 11053, February 27, 2014) and the evaluate the influence of rainfall and six individuals) in one of the treatments Background Information document temperature patterns on germination did not result in the greatest impact to (Service 2014), which are available and growth of Eureka Valley evening- the target individual (Chow and Klinger under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– primrose and Eureka dune grass (Scoles- 2014, p. 16). This may be because of 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. Sciulla and DeFalco 2017); final competition occurring below ground. Potential effects of climate change analysis will not be complete until Rooting depth of Eureka Valley may include a variety of potential 2018. Preliminary results indicate that: evening-primrose was observed during changes, such as the following: (1) Temperature regime, wind speeds, the course of two different studies. Most (1) A decrease in the level of soil and precipitation patterns at the three of the Eureka Valley evening-primrose moisture that could increase dunes show some differences that likely roots examined from a laboratory evaporation and transpiration rates and are due to their relative position within thus impact the growth or performance experiment were located at the bottom Eureka Valley (for instance, the Main of individual plants (Weltzin et al. 2003, of pots as opposed to Russian thistle Dunes has lower daily temperatures roots, which were more concentrated in p. 943). (2) Altered timing and amount of than the other two dunes, while other the mid-section of the pot (Chow and patterns, such as rainfall, vary among Klinger 2014, pp. 17–18). This finding rainfall could influence germination and possibly establishment of Eureka dune the three dunes on both a temporal and suggests the possibility that the spatial spatial scale); (2) soil moisture probes separation of the roots of Eureka Valley grass (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 47). (3) The timing of phenological phases, installed near Eureka Valley evening- evening-primrose and Russian thistle is primrose individuals suggest that why the effects of intraspecific such as flowering, leafing out, and seed moisture at depths greater than 11.8 in competition examined on the dunes was release in both Eureka Valley evening- (30 cm) varied little over the spring and greater for Eureka Valley evening- primrose and Eureka dune grass, could early summer when the species was primrose than interspecific competition. change, which has been noted in many actively growing; and (3) rooting depth Rooting depth relative to soil moisture other plant species (Bertin 2008, pp. for Eureka Valley evening-primrose was was also observed by USGS (Scoles- 130–131). Additionally, pollinator within the top 11.8 in (30 cm) of Sciulla and DeFalco 2015, p. 10); they availability could become limited concluded that Eureka Valley evening- (Hegland et al. 2009) during the time substrate (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco primrose likely uses soil moisture Eureka Valley evening-primrose is 2017). Although the study is within the top 11.8 in (30 cm) of soil flowering, which in turn could affect incomplete, this information indicates because soil moisture at greater depths pollination effectiveness, and that the extent of the annual expression varied little over the spring and early consequently the amount of seed it of Eureka Valley evening-primrose may summer, when primrose individuals produces. vary between dunes in part due to the (4) Lower rainfall could affect survival were actively growing. variation in precipitation between the of individual plants (e.g., reproductive dunes and that the species is accessing The growing phenologies (timing) of adults, seedlings) and result in less soil moisture at a deeper level than Eureka Valley evening-primrose and frequent germination events, both of Russian thistle, which may reduce Russian thistle are likely sufficiently which could affect recruitment. potential competition. different that competition for water Alternatively, increased rainfall could In summary, effects of climate change resources is minimal. The Park Service increase germination and survival, but on Eureka Valley evening-primrose may (Park Service 2014) observed the could also increase competition with occur in the future, although we cannot ‘‘phenological asynchrony’’ between invasive, nonnative plants or increase these two species and noted that, the population size of herbivores. With predict what the effects will be. although they share habitat in semi- respect to herbivores, a subsequent Regardless, climate change will be stabilized sand, they do not appear to be decrease in rainfall could result in affecting the climatic norms with which stimulated by the same precipitation increased herbivory of certain plants this species has previously persisted, events and so do not reproduce at the due to a decreased availability in the and it is probable that this shift could same time or compete for the same variety of vegetation. cause stress to the species. We note that, resources. Overall at the present time, New information comprises the as a short-lived perennial, the ability of the best available information presented following: The most recent global this species to shift geographically over by Chow and Klinger (2013b) and Chow climate models from the time in accordance with shifting (2016) suggest that Russian thistle does Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climatic norms is greater than would be not outcompete the Eureka Valley Change (IPCC) fifth assessment (IPCC for a long-lived perennial plant species. evening-primrose. Additionally, recent 2013) do not resolve how two important However, because of the uncertainty reports from the Park Service (2013, weather patterns (i.e., the El Nin˜ o regarding the magnitude and the 2014) indicate that Eureka Valley Southern Oscilliation (ENSO) imminence of such a shift, we are evening-primrose continues to occupy phenomenon and North American unable to determine the extent that this areas where it was known to occur monsoon) will change over the next may become a stressor in the future. around the time of listing. Therefore, we century (Cook and Seager 2013). These Additionally, while uncertainty exists, do not consider impacts from Russian two weather patterns may be important we expect the Park Service will thistle to be a threat to the continued drivers of the Eureka Valley evening- continue to manage and monitor the existence of the Eureka Valley evening- primrose population dynamics (Evans species so that corrective actions may primrose both now and in the future. in litt. 2014); climate envelope forecasts occur in the future.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8587

Stochastic Events Combination of Factors are affecting the viability of the species at this time or into the future. For a detailed discussion regarding For a detailed discussion regarding the potential effects of stochastic events the potential effects of a combination of Summary of Factors Affecting the on Eureka Valley evening-primrose, factors on Eureka Valley evening- Species—Eureka Dune Grass both at the time of listing and since primrose, both at the time of listing and A. The Present or Threatened then, see the proposed delisting rule (79 since then, see the proposed delisting Destruction, Modification, or FR 11053, February 27, 2014) and the rule (79 FR 11053, February 27, 2014) Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Background Information document and the Background Information (Service 2014), which are available document (Service 2014), which are OHV Activity under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– available under Docket No. FWS–R8– OHV activity may impact Eureka 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. In ES–2013–0131 at http:// dune grass and its habitat in the same those documents, we discussed that www.regulations.gov. In those fashion and magnitude as that described environmental stochasticity (variation documents, we discussed that a above for Eureka Valley evening- in recruitment and mortality rates in combination of favorable climatic primrose (see the OHV Activity section response to weather, disease, conditions could lead to an increase in under Factor A for Eureka Valley competition, predation, or other factors food sources for small mammal evening-primrose, above). This includes external to the population) could result populations, which could then cause 4-wheel drive vehicular use of roads from such events as drought, additional stress on Eureka Valley and trails, predominantly on public windstorms, and timing and amount of evening-primrose through seed lands, for the purpose of touring, rainfall. There is no new information predation and herbivory. During the hunting, fishing, or other public land regarding the potential effects of comment period, one peer reviewer use. Existing regulatory mechanisms stochastic events on Eureka Valley commented that, although boom and (such as through the Park Service’s evening-primrose. bust population cycles of small Organic Act and other laws guiding management of Park Service lands) in Overall, it is possible that mammals and their impacts on native place since listing have resulted in environmental stochasticity (in the form vegetation are well known, in the case beneficial effects to the species, of extreme weather events) could cause of Eureka Valley, there may be another including management measures to stress to Eureka Valley evening- confounding factor: Prior to the control OHV and recreational activities) primrose. However, the best available introduction of Russian thistle to the (see additional discussion under Factor information at this time does not Valley in the last century, lagomorph D, below). As a result, OHV-related indicate the impacts associated with the populations were likely smaller. The spread of Russian thistle around the impacts to Eureka dune grass have observed and predicted range of essentially been ameliorated, in large stochastic events would affect the long- dunes may have increased the size of lagomorph populations above historical part due to the designation of Federal term persistence of Eureka Valley wilderness areas throughout the species’ evening-primrose. levels, and thus could potentially result in increased herbivory on Eureka Valley range, with the exception of some minor In our proposed rule and supporting evening-primrose (Thomas in litt. 2014). unauthorized OHV activity that the Park documents, we also discussed that low Service acknowledges, also noting that genetic diversity theoretically could During field studies since the the remote location of the dunes and affect the ability of plant species to proposed delisting rule was published, limited resources make enforcing adjust to novel or fluctuating researchers (Chow and Klinger 2014, pp. restrictions difficult (Park Service environments, survive stochastic events, 19–20, 46) observed evidence of small 2011b, p. 17). or maintain high levels of reproductive mammal predation and lagomorph Additional discussion regarding performance (Huenneke 1991, p. 40). predation on Eureka Valley evening- potential impacts and the Park Service’s The species-rich genus Oenothera has primrose during their field studies. management of OHV activity, land use been used as a model for the study of However, no quantitative data are designations, and the potential for plant evolution, particularly regarding available regarding the extent of future adaptive management strategies reproductive systems (Theiss et al. herbivory on Eureka Valley evening- regarding OHV activities that are 2010). DNA analysis has been used to primrose throughout its range, the size established to benefit Eureka dune grass clarify phylogenetic relationships; of the lagomorph population (or other and other Eureka Dunes ecosystem evidence indicates that the genus small mammal populations), nor how species are described in detail under the Oenothera is polyphyletic (relating to a their numbers fluctuate with the OHV Activity section under Factor A for taxonomic group that does not include presence of Russian thistle. In addition, the Eureka Valley evening-primrose, the common ancestor of the members of the ‘‘superbloom’’ year of 2014 provided above, and in the proposed delisting the group, and whose members have a qualitative confirmation that, despite rule (79 FR 11053, February 27, 2014). two or more separate origins) (Levin et the large expression of Russian thistle Overall, the current level of al. 2003, 2004). Despite the number of that occurred in 2010 and the unauthorized OHV use is sporadic and studies, however, we have no specific observations of small mammal does not occur across the range of the information for O. californica ssp. herbivory in the intervening years, species, and there does not appear to be eurekensis indicating the level of Eureka Valley evening-primrose was any correlation between OHV recreation genetic diversity within or among the sufficiently resilient to have an and the status of the species. Given the populations. However, given the aboveground expression of more than 1 management of OHV activity through resiliency exhibited by the species, at million individuals. land use designations has resulted in this time, the best available information While the combination of factors the near elimination of OHV activity on does not indicate the species is could potentially affect Eureka Valley Eureka Dunes at the current time, and experiencing any potential negative evening-primrose, the best available given the likelihood that these effects of low genetic diversity within information does not indicate that protections and adaptive management and among the Eureka Valley evening- cumulative or synergistic effects are of strategies will continue into the future primrose populations. sufficient magnitude or extent that they at the remote locations where Eureka

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

dune grass occurs, we conclude that this a priority area for rangers to patrol 2013; and an additional 4 plants grew OHV activity no longer impacts the and to have visitor contact. but did not reproduce (Scoles-Sciulla species or its habitat at the population Given the existing conservation and DeFalco 2015, p. 8). In 2015, the or rangewide levels currently and into measures in place across the Eureka same 16 individuals still did not grow, the future. Dunes (i.e., reduction or elimination of and 3 of the additional 4 plants grew but impacts associated with horseback did not reproduce (Scoles-Sciulla and Other Recreational Activities riding, sandboarding, camping, and DeFalco 2016, p. 8). No herbivory effects In addition to unauthorized OHV establishment of access points via were discussed with the findings for the activity that may occur currently (as implementation of patrols, illegal road year 2016 (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco described above), other recreational closures, interpretative signs, barriers, 2017). activities have historically and currently etc.), the best available information at In their 2015 monitoring report, the occur (occasionally) within the Eureka this time indicates that unauthorized Park Service made note of rodent Dunes, including horseback riding, OHV and other recreational activities, if herbivory on leaves and stems of Eureka sandboarding, camping outside of they occur, are not causing population- dune grass, most likely from kangaroo designated areas, and creation of access level effects (as compared to pre-listing rats (Dipodomys sp.) that underwent a routes. Potential impacts from these levels) for Eureka dune grass habitat population surge in the previous year recreational activities are described in currently, nor are they expected to do so (Park Service 2015, pp. 18–19). detail either above in the Other in the future. Additionally, abundant rodent tracks Recreational Activities section under were found in the central and southern B. Overutilization for Commercial, Factor A for Eureka Valley evening- portions of the Main Dunes (Park Recreational, Scientific, or Educational primrose, or in the associated Other Service 2015, pp. 18–19). No studies Purposes Recreational Activities section of the have been done to quantify the extent of proposed delisting rule. Existing Given the same scenario and herbivore damage to the species. regulatory mechanisms (such as through discussion applies, please see the Factor However, because Eureka dune grass the Park Service’s Organic Act and other B section for Eureka Valley evening- produces seed in low abundance, the laws guiding management of Park primrose, above, regarding collection of loss of any of this seed to herbivores Service lands) in place since listing seeds or leaves for laboratory could affect the ability of the species to have resulted in beneficial effects to the experiments or collection of voucher bank seed and germinate in abundance species (including management specimens for herbaria as a potential when suitable conditions arise in the measures to control recreational stressor to Eureka dune grass. Of the future. activities) (see additional discussion three section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued New information is also noted with above for Eureka Valley evening- for studies involving the removal of regards to potential herbivory from primrose, as well as under Factor D, plants, seeds, or plant parts, only two of lagomorphs. Thomas (in litt. 2014) cited below). these were for Eureka dune grass. We do two references that were inadvertently New information is the same as that not consider this level of research and excluded in the proposed rule or presented above for Eureka Valley collection to pose any potential threat of Background Information document evening-primrose: In response to overutilization for the species. We also (Service 2014, entire). This information publication of the proposed delisting do not have any new information indicates that Russian thistle is rule, the Park Service referred back to a regarding this factor, and we conclude consumed by black-tailed jackrabbits study conducted by Pavlik (1979a), that collection of seeds or leaves is not and cottontail rabbits (Daniel et al. 1993, which found that seedlings of Eureka a short-term or long-term threat to the p. 5; Fagerstone et al. 1980, pp. 230– dune grass are extremely fragile and continued existence of Eureka dune 231) and may be a preferred food source cannot tolerate even the lightest grass. (Fagerstone et al. 1980, p. 230). Thomas disturbance by foot traffic. Although the (in litt. 2014) suggests that it is possible C. Disease or Predation Park Service has not been able to that Russian thistle may have increased measure the amount of foot traffic, the At the time of listing, disease and lagomorph populations above historical potential impacts from such traffic can predation were not identified as levels, and thus, increased herbivory on be qualitatively observed on stabilized potential threats to Eureka dune grass. Eureka dune grass. Although anecdotal sand following rain events (Park Service Since then, studies imply that herbivory in nature, we also note that the Park 2014, p. 5). In addition, one peer and seed predation are a potential Service staff has made observations of reviewer observed evidence (i.e., tracks) stressor to the species. For a detailed herbivory by small mammals on Eureka of unauthorized OHV activity at the discussion regarding disease and dune grass (Park Service 2015, pp. 18– base of the Main Dunes, as well as predation, both at the time of listing and 20). increased visitor use, specifically since then, see the proposed delisting Seed predation and herbivory are camping, at the dunes since the 1980s rule (79 FR 11053, February 27, 2014) naturally occurring processes. We (McLaughlin in litt. 2014). and the Background Information expect that Eureka dune grass can adapt Our current assessment is that, while document (Service 2014), which are to withstand some level of herbivory the Park Service has documented some available under Docket No. FWS–R8– and seed predation. Given that the unauthorized activity (e.g., ES–2013–0131 at http:// species continues to occupy the same sandboarding, OHV activity in closed www.regulations.gov. range as identified at the time of listing, areas) that may result in minor or New information comprises the it does not appear that herbivory and occasional impact to individual plants, following: Updated results from one seed predation by themselves are these are infrequent occurrences and study on plant growth and reproduction occurring at such a level to cause affect very small areas and are not (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco 2015) that population-level declines or other spread throughout the range of the was ongoing at the time of the proposed adverse effects to the species as a whole. species. The Park Service is aware of the delisting rule. Results indicate that in Based on the best available information potential for impacts to Eureka dune 2014, out of 90 Eureka dune grass at this time (i.e., observations by USGS grass from hikers accessing the north individuals tagged in 2013, 16 did not and the Park Service between 2013 and end of the Main Dunes and considers grow due to severe herbivore damage in 2015, the expectation that this species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8589

has evolved with some level of OHV activity (see Factor A discussion, listing. As stated there, we conclude, herbivory/seed predation, that above), including the Park Service’s based on the best available information, herbivory/seed predation is naturally management policies (Park Service that the Wilderness Area designation, occurring, and some level of herbivory/ 2006); (2) the Organic Act; (3) the legal coupled with Park Service management seed predation is expected for the and stewardship mandates outlined in of OHV activity and other recreational species), we conclude that the observed the Park Service’s General Management activity, has significantly reduced impacts in and of themselves are not Plan (Park Service 2002, entire); and (4) potential impacts to Eureka dune grass likely causing population-level effects the Wilderness and Backcountry individuals currently and into the for Eureka dune grass currently. Stewardship Plan (Park Service 2013b, future. Even so, there is one portion of However, given that Eureka dune grass pp. 4, 5, 10, 16), given all areas the range of this species (and not is already experiencing low to no containing populations of the species affecting Eureka Valley evening- reproduction, any additional loss of are within congressionally designated primrose)—the Main Dunes adjacent to biomass due to herbivory will likely wilderness. The best available the campground area—that is subject to place additional stress on individual information indicates that these existing the most impact from recreational plants and limit their ability to expend regulatory mechanisms have reduced hiking. The National Park Service has resources on reproduction. Therefore, the previously identified significant anecdotally documented foot traffic in we acknowledge that herbivory or seed adverse effects to individual plants and this area when it is most observable, i.e., predation could be a concern for this populations, especially impacts after a rain event (Park Service 2014, p. species into the future, and recommend associated with OHV activity (Factors A 5). If the area being trampled overlaps that observations of this stressor should and E) and other recreational activities with an area where there has been a continue. (i.e., sandboarding, camping, and localized germination event of Eureka dune grass, it could result in the loss of D. The Inadequacy of Existing associated access routes) (Factors A and those individuals as well as potentially Regulatory Mechanisms E). We also expect the Park Service to continue using these mechanisms to prevent the species from recovering Under this factor, we evaluate assist in reducing impacts into the (e.g., limiting the species’ ability to whether the stressors identified within future. At this time, there are no existing expend resources on growth and the other factors may be ameliorated or regulatory mechanisms to address establishment that would increase exacerbated by any existing regulatory herbivory, seed predation, effects of abundance of individuals) in the area. mechanisms or conservation efforts. climate change, and stochastic events We expect the Park Service to continue Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires under Factor E (see below). to manage OHV and other recreational that the Service take into account ‘‘those Downlisting Eureka dune grass from activities to assist in reducing impacts efforts, if any, being made by any State an endangered species to a threatened to Eureka dune grass into the future. or foreign nation, or any political species on the Federal List of subdivision of a State or foreign nation, Competition With Russian Thistle Endangered or Threatened Plants would to protect such species. . . .’’ In Invasive, nonnative plants can not significantly change the protections relation to Factor D under the Act, we potentially impact the long-term afforded this species under the Act. interpret this language to require the persistence of endemic species. Russian Additionally, while most of the other Service to consider relevant Federal, thistle is the only invasive, nonnative laws, regulations, and policies State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and species that has spread onto the dunes considered are not specifically directed other such binding legal mechanisms in the Eureka Valley. Potential impacts toward protection of Eureka dune grass, that may ameliorate or exacerbate any of associated with Russian thistle are they mandate consideration, the threats we describe in threat described under the Competition with management, and protection of analyses under the other four factors or Russian Thistle section under Factor E otherwise enhance the species’ resources that benefit the species. We for Eureka Valley evening-primrose, conservation. Our consideration of these expect these laws, regulatory above, and in the associated section of mechanisms is described in detail mechanisms, and management plans to the proposed delisting rule (79 FR within each of the threats or stressors to remain in place into the future. 11053, February 27, 2014) and the the species (see discussion under each For a more detailed discussion of the Background Information document of the other factors). various existing regulatory mechanisms, (Service 2014), which are available As similarly described above under both at the time of listing and since under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– the Factor D section for Eureka Valley then, see the proposed delisting rule (79 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. evening-primrose, the following existing FR 11053, February 27, 2014) and the The potential for Russian thistle to regulatory mechanisms and Background Information document impact Eureka dune grass is unlikely conservation actions were specifically (Service 2014), which are available because: (1) Eureka dune grass typically considered and discussed as they relate under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– occurs on the steeper, unstable slopes of to the stressors, under the applicable 0131 at http://www.regulations.gov. the dunes, which appears to limit the factors, affecting Eureka dune grass: The There is no new information concerning establishment of Russian thistle; and (2) Wilderness Act, the Park Service these regulatory mechanisms. Russian thistle roots are shallower than Organic Act, and the other laws guiding E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors those of Eureka dune grass, which management of Park Service lands. We Affecting Its Continued Existence reduces the likelihood of potential concluded they are adequate to competition between the two species. minimize and control threats to OHV Activity and Other Recreational New information comprises the populations of Eureka dune grass from Activities following: The Park Service continued OHV activity, sandboarding, and See the OHV Activity and Other to note the presence/absence of Russian horseback riding. Eureka dune grass and Recreational Activities sections, above, thistle during the hectare grid its habitat benefit from existing under Factor A for Eureka dune grass monitoring in 2014 and 2015; at the regulatory mechanisms and and Eureka Valley evening-primrose for Main Dunes, the number of hectares in conservation actions, including: (1) a complete discussion of realized and the monitoring grid where Russian Management measures to control illegal potential impacts since the time of thistle and Eureka dune grass both occur

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

was 19 percent in 2013 (Park Service field study at all three dune systems to to that since 1984 (Park Service 2014; 2014, pp. 4, 12, 15; 2015, p. 3), and 4 evaluate the influence of rainfall and Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 50). At this percent in 2015 (Hoines in litt. 2017). temperature patterns on germination time, we have no further information Due to the steeper terrain occupied by and growth of Eureka dune grass and regarding the extent to which the 2014 Eureka dune grass on the Main Dunes, Eureka Valley evening-primrose; the germinants may have survived or the percentage of hectares of Russian results of this study are not yet available become established within the thistle that overlap with dune grass is (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco 2017, p. 9). population. less than that for overlap between To date, they note the following: In summary, impacts from climate Russian thistle and Eureka Valley (1) Temperature regime, wind speeds, change on Eureka dune grass may occur evening-primrose. At the two smaller and precipitation patterns at the three in the future. Although we cannot dunes, there is a greater percentage of dunes show some differences that likely predict what the effects will be, they hectares of Russian thistle that overlap are due to their relative position with could impact various aspects of the life with Eureka dune grass than at the Main Eureka Valley. For instance, the Main history of the species, including altering Dunes (in 2013, 91 percent at Saline Dunes has lower daily temperatures germination and establishment success, Spur Dunes, and 76 percent at Marble than the other two sites, while other as well as growth, reproduction, and Canyon Dunes). However, on a finer patterns, such as rainfall, vary among longevity. Regardless, climate change spatial scale, the cover of each of these the three dunes on both a temporal and will be affecting the climatic norms with species (Eureka dune grass and Russian spatial scale. which this species has previously thistle) is so low that the opportunity for (2) Soil moisture probes installed near persisted, and it is probable that this competition is limited. In addition, in dune grass individuals suggest that shift could cause stress to the species. their ecological study of Eureka dune moisture from a summer storm event (11 We note that, as a long-lived perennial, grass, USGS measured the rooting in (29 cm)) may infiltrate the soil near the ability of this species to shift depth, and found it to be approximately plants more deeply than away from geographically over time in accordance 35 in (90 cm) (Scoles-Sciulla and plants. Also, soil moisture down to 35 with shifting climatic norms is less than DeFalco 2016, p. 9). The rooting depth in (90 cm) declined more rapidly near would be for a short-lived perennial (for for annual species of Russian thistle is the dune grass than in the interspaces example, Eureka Valley evening- shallower (in one study, the average was during this time when Eureka dune primrose) or annual plant species. The 24 in (60 cm) (Padilla and Pugnare grass is actively growing. conditions for germination (specifically, 2007)). There are also phenological (3) Rooting depth for Eureka dune late summer/early fall precipitation) differences in the growing season grass was 35 in (90 cm) during the 2014 occur less frequently than the typical between Eureka dune grass and Russian and 2015 growth seasons, as compared winter precipitation to which most thistle: During the growing season for to a ‘‘within top [11 in] 30 cm’’ rooting annual and perennial Mojave desert Russian thistle (summer), adult dune depth for Eureka Valley evening- species respond. Although several grass individuals are extracting water primrose (Scoles-Sciulla and DeFalco patches of germination were observed from lower depths (Scoles-Sciulla and 2017, pp. 5–8). by the Park Service in 2014, that was the DeFalco 2016). Therefore, based on the There are two primary ways in which only year since rangewide monitoring best available information, although a shift in local climatic conditions could began in 2008 that they observed such competition between individuals of affect the long-term persistence of germination. Because of the uncertainty Russian thistle and individuals of Eureka dune grass. First, because the regarding the magnitude and the Eureka dune grass may occasionally species taps into water at deeper soil imminence of such a shift in climatic occur, because of their separation in levels in the dune sands, a reduction in norms, we are unable to determine the space and time, we conclude that the availability of this water could affect extent to which this will become a competition with Russian thistle does the persistence of mature, established stressor in the foreseeable future, and not pose a population-level impact to individuals; a loss of these mature particularly how it will affect the Eureka dune grass at this time. individuals from the population is interval between successful germination significant, because most of the seed and establishment events that the Climate Change production for the future of the species needs to replace the loss of For a detailed discussion of climate population is contributed by these older senescent individuals. change in the Eureka Valley and its individuals. Second, a shift in potential effects to Eureka dune grass precipitation patterns during the Stochastic Events and its habitat, please see the proposed summer and fall season could affect the For a detailed discussion of the delisting rule (79 FR 11053, February ability of Eureka dune grass to have potential impacts of stochastic events on 27, 2014) and the Background successful germination events. Water Eureka dune grass and its habitat, see Information document (Service 2014), year precipitation (i.e., the total annual the ‘‘Stochastic Events’’ section of the which are available under Docket No. rainfall between October 1 of one year proposed delisting rule (79 FR 11053, FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// until September 30 of the following February 27, 2014) and the Background www.regulations.gov. At the time we year) has been on a declining trend Information document (Service 2014, published the proposed rule, we between 1896 and 2013 (Willoughby in pp. 62–64). At the time we published concluded that there is considerable litt. 2014); summer precipitation (April the proposed rule, we concluded that uncertainty in local climate projections, through September) has also been on a neither windstorms nor a variation in and we expected Eureka dune grass is declining trend between 1896 and 2013 rainfall represent a substantial threat to adapted to withstand drier climate (Willoughby in litt. 2014). It is Eureka dune grass. We have no new conditions. We also stated that impacts reasonable to assume the lack of information regarding the potential from climate change on Eureka dune summer precipitation is one of the threat posed by stochastic events. grass may occur in the future, although parameters affecting the ability of With regard to genetic stochasticity, we cannot predict what the effects will Eureka dune grass to experience we stated in the proposed delisting rule be. germination events. Park Service staff that low genetic diversity may affect the New information comprises the had documented a germination event in ability of plant species to adjust to novel following: In 2016, USGS completed a 2014, but none had been observed prior or fluctuating environments, survive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8591

stochastic events, or maintain high monitoring, 30 years of photopoints, (A) The present or threatened levels of reproductive performance and trends analysis by three different destruction, modification, or (Huenneke 1991, p. 40). Although Bell parties (Kendall in litt. 2014; Park curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) (2003, p. 6) concluded that there was Service 2014; and Willoughby in litt. Overutilization for commercial, low genetic diversity within and among 2014) indicate that the status of this recreational, scientific, or educational the three populations of Eureka dune species is not yet stable or improving. purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) grass, there is no past information This species exhibits life-history The inadequacy of existing regulatory available regarding the level of genetic characteristics (intrinsic factors) that mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or diversity within and among the three include low seed production, low manmade factors affecting its continued populations of Eureka dune grass that frequency of germination, and low existence. would allow us to determine if genetic frequency of establishment of new The fundamental question before the diversity has changed over time or the individuals that reach reproductive age. Service is whether the species meets the extent to which low genetic diversity These characteristics contribute to the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or may affect the species’ fitness or its difficultly of maintaining robust ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act. To ability to adapt to changing conditions populations of individuals over time. make this determination, we evaluated over time. Overall, we concluded in the Any additional external (extrinsic) the projections of extinction risk, proposed delisting rule that genetic factors, such as trampling, herbivory, or described in terms of the condition of stochasticity does not pose a threat to drought, that impact these critical life- current and future populations and their Eureka dune grass currently or in the history stages in Eureka dune grass will distribution (taking into account the risk future. reduce its reproductive potential, and factors and their effects on those Currently, we have no additional its ability to persist, in the future. populations). For any species, as information on whether genetic Please see the Climate Change section population condition declines and diversity has changed over time, or under Factor E, above, for a discussion distribution shrinks, the species’ whether genetic stochasticity poses a of its potential effect as a stressor to extinction risk increases and overall threat to Eureka dune grass in the Eureka dune grass. At this time, our viability declines. future. evaluation of the best available The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ‘‘in danger Combination of Factors information indicates that the combination of stress caused by of extinction throughout all or a For a detailed discussion of the changing climatic norms with other significant portion of its range’’ and a combination of various factors and stressors, such as herbivory, are likely threatened species as any species potential impacts on Eureka dune grass exacerbating the species’ ability to ‘‘which is likely to become an and its habitat, see the ‘‘Combination of exhibit a stable or increasing population endangered species within the Factors’’ section of the proposed size across its range into the future. We foreseeable future throughout all or a delisting rule (79 FR 11053, February also note that the best available significant portion of its range.’’ On July 27, 2014), and the Background information suggests this species is 1, 2014, we published a final policy Information document (Service 2014), physiologically adapted to the specific interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant which are available under Docket No. hydrologic and soil conditions on the portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// dunes. However, both water year 37578). In our policy, we interpret the www.regulations.gov. We concluded phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ precipitation and summer precipitation that while the combination of factors in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered have declined in the region between could potentially impact Eureka dune species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ to 1896 and 2013; these declines could grass, the best available information did provide an independent basis for listing affect the species by reducing successful not indicate that the magnitude or a species in its entirety; thus there are germination events and recruitment in extent of cumulative or synergistic two situations (or factual bases) under the summer-fall months and also by effects was impacting the species to the which a species would qualify for reducing the health and longevity of point that they are affecting the viability listing: A species may be in danger of established adults due to lower annual of the species at this time or into the extinction or likely to become so in the rainfall. future (although the available foreseeable future throughout all of its With respect to herbivory (please see information indicates some uncertainty range; or a species may be in danger of the Factor C section above), it is about how synergistic effects could extinction or likely to become so possible that the abundance of impact the species in the future). throughout a significant portion of its lagomorphs (due to presence of Russian The best available information for range. If a species is in danger of thistle that it feeds on) has increased Eureka dune grass indicates that the extinction throughout an SPR, it, the greater than historical levels, and thus rangewide distribution (as represented species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ may contribute to elevated levels of by presence in the grid monitoring), as The same analysis applies to well as the number of large individuals herbivory on Eureka dune grass ‘‘threatened species.’’ of the dune grass, is in decline at two (Thomas in litt. 2014). Although Our final policy addresses the (the Main Dunes and Marble Canyon anecdotal in nature, we also note that consequences of finding a species is in Dunes) out of three of the dune systems. the Park Service staff has made danger of extinction in an SPR, and In addition, since most of Eureka dune observations of herbivory by small what would constitute an SPR. The final grass occurs at the Main Dunes, the mammals on Eureka dune grass (Park policy states that (1) if a species is found decline in abundance and distribution Service 2015, pp. 18–20). to be endangered or threatened at the Main Dunes represents a larger Determinations throughout a significant portion of its proportion of the decline rangewide for range, the entire species is listed as an the species. Although we do not know Introduction endangered species or a threatened specifically what the combination of Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we species, respectively, and the Act’s factors may be contributing to the determine whether a species is an protections apply to all individuals of decline of Eureka dune grass, the endangered species or threatened the species wherever found; (2) a combination of rangewide distribution species because of any of the following: portion of the range of a species is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8592 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘significant’’ if the species is not extrapolated, because it is the length of Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose— currently endangered or threatened time that the Park has planned for Determination of Status Throughout All throughout all of its range, but the managing the habitat of Eureka Valley of Its Range portion’s contribution to the viability of evening-primrose and Eureka dune As required by section 4(a)(1) of the the species is so important that, without grass, and during which time the Park Act, we conducted a review of the status the members in that portion, the species will be monitoring the status of the of this plant and assessed the five would be in danger of extinction, or populations. Although we expect this factors to evaluate whether Eureka likely to become so in the foreseeable beneficial management to occur for at Valley evening-primrose is in danger of future, throughout all of its range; (3) least the length of this timeframe, we extinction currently or likely to become the range of a species is considered to expect management of the Eureka Dunes so in the foreseeable future throughout be the general geographical area within to continue well into the future beyond all of its range. We examined the best which that species can be found at the 20 years. Based on the Park Service’s scientific and commercial information time the Service or the National Marine track record for natural resource available regarding the past, present, Fisheries Service makes any particular management and revisions to and future threats faced by the species. status determination; and (4) if a management plans, we can reasonably We reviewed information presented in vertebrate species is endangered or expect such revisions to incorporate the 2010 petition, information available threatened throughout an SPR, and the protective management consistent with in our files and gathered through the population in that significant portion is the needs of the species well into the status review initiated with our 90-day a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather future and beyond the existing 20-year finding in response to this petition, than the entire taxonomic species or additional information that became subspecies. stewardship plan timeframe described The SPR policy is applied to all status above. We expect future revisions to be available since the time our 2007 5-year determinations, including analyses for consistent with laws, regulations, and status reviews were completed, and the purposes of making listing, policies governing Federal land other available published and delisting, and reclassification management planning; however, we unpublished information, including determinations. The procedure for cannot predict the exact contents of public comments and information analyzing whether any portion is an future plans. For additional information available after publication of the SPR is similar, regardless of the type of used to determine foreseeable future for proposed rule. We also consulted with status determination we are making. these species, see the discussion of the species experts and land management The first step in our assessment of the Park Service’s responsibilities and a staff with Death Valley National Park status of a species is to determine its description of Death Valley National who are actively managing for the status throughout all of its range. Park’s Wilderness and Backcountry conservation of Eureka Valley evening- Depending on the status throughout all Stewardship Plan in the ‘‘Recovery’’ and primrose. of its range, we will subsequently ‘‘Factor D’’ sections of the Background We examined the following stressors examine whether it is necessary to Information document (Service 2014, that may be affecting Eureka Valley determine its status throughout a pp. 32–38, 48–51). evening-primrose: Unauthorized OHV significant portion of its range. If we activity, and other unauthorized In considering what factors might recreational activities (specifically, determine that the species is in danger constitute threats to the species, we of extinction, or likely to become so in horseback riding, sandboarding, must look beyond the mere exposure of camping, and access routes) (Factor A); the foreseeable future, throughout all of the species to the factor to determine its range, we list the species as an collection for scientific research (Factor whether the exposure causes actual B); herbivory and seed predation (Factor endangered (or threatened) species and impacts to the species. If there is no SPR analysis will be required. The C); the inadequacy of existing regulatory exposure to a factor, but no response, or mechanisms (Factor D); and other same factors apply whether we are only a positive response, that factor is analyzing the species’ status throughout unauthorized recreational activities (i.e., not a threat. If there is exposure and the all of its range or throughout a horseback riding, sandboarding, species responds negatively, the factor significant portion of its range. camping, and access routes), As described in our policy, once the may be a threat and we then attempt to competition with Russian thistle, effects Service determines that a ‘‘species’’— determine how significant the threat is. of climate change, and stochastic events which can include a species, If the threat is significant, it may drive, (Factor E). Our analysis indicates that subspecies, or distinct population or contribute to, the risk of extinction of measures have been put in place since segment (DPS)—meets the definition of the species such that the species the time of listing that have resulted in ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened warrants listing as an endangered management and the elimination or species,’’ the species must be listed in species or a threatened species as those reduction of the significant impacts to its entirety and the Act’s protections terms are defined by the Act. This does Eureka Valley evening-primrose applied consistently to all individuals of not necessarily require empirical proof populations identified at the time of the species wherever found (subject to of a threat. The combination of exposure listing (i.e., OHV activity, and to a lesser modification of protections through and some corroborating evidence of how extent camping and unauthorized OHV special rules under sections 4(d) and the species is likely impacted could activity) that could have resulted in the 10(j) of the Act). suffice. The mere identification of extirpation of all or parts of populations. For the purpose of these factors that could impact a species These impacts have been eliminated or determinations, we note that the negatively is not sufficient to compel a reduced to the extent that they are implementation timeline of Death finding that listing is appropriate; we considered negligible currently, and are Valley National Park’s Wilderness and require evidence that these factors expected to continue to be negligible Backcountry Stewardship Plan (Park individually or cumulatively are into the future. Service 2013b) is 20 years. We think this operative threats that act on the species It is important to acknowledge the is an appropriate timeframe over which to the point that the species meets the significant commitment made initially events or effects reasonably can or definition of an endangered species or by BLM and subsequently by the Park should be anticipated, or trends threatened species under the Act. Service in their efforts to provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8593

permanent protection to Eureka Valley to become in danger of extinction in the hiking on the Main Dunes, climate evening-primrose and its habitat, as well foreseeable future throughout all of its change, or potentially a combination of as ongoing management, research, and range. Thus, we conclude that Eureka these stressors may have the potential to public outreach opportunities. Since the Valley evening-primrose is not in impact Eureka dune grass currently or publication of the proposed delisting danger of extinction throughout all of its into the foreseeable future. We found rule in 2014, the Park Service continued range nor is it likely to become so in the that the best available information does to monitor the species for presence/ foreseeable future. not indicate that these stressors are absence throughout its range in 2014 affecting individual populations or the Eureka Dune Grass—Determination of and 2015 and developed a new species as a whole across its range to the Status Throughout All of Its Range subsampling method that was initiated extent that they currently are of in 2017. In addition, the Park Service As required by section 4(a)(1) of the sufficient imminence, scope, or coordinated with researchers to promote Act, we conducted a review of the status magnitude to rise to the level that additional studies on monitoring of Eureka dune grass and assessed the Eureka dune grass is an endangered methodologies (Chow and Klinger five factors to evaluate whether it is species (i.e., presently in danger of 2016), examine competition with endangered or threatened throughout all extinction throughout all of its range). Russian thistle (Chow and Klinger of its range. We examined the best However, our review of new 2016), and investigate how growth and scientific and commercial information information and comments received reproduction are influenced by changes available regarding the past, present, indicate that, while the overall range of in local climate (Scoles-Sciulla and and future threats faced by the species. the species is generally the same as it DeFalco 2017). The Park Service worked We reviewed information presented in has been since the time of listing, the with us to develop a post-delisting the 2010 petition, information available abundance and density of the species is monitoring plan for Eureka Valley in our files and gathered through the being reduced across much of its range. evening-primrose, which commits the status review initiated with our 90-day Specifically, the best available Park Service to continued monitoring of finding in response to this petition, information indicates there is a this species for a period of 10 years. additional information that became continued decline in abundance and The recovery criteria in the recovery available since the time our 2007 5-year density, low seed production, and low plan have been achieved and the status reviews were completed, and recruitment, despite the Park Service’s recovery objectives identified in the other available published and management. Thus, one or more recovery plan have been met for Eureka unpublished information, including stressors are likely still acting on the Valley evening-primrose, based on the public comments and information species at the population level, likely information presented in this final rule, available after publication of the 2014 contributing to the observed decline in the proposed rule (79 FR 11053, proposed delisting rule. We also abundance and density, and likely February 27, 2014), and the Background consulted with species experts and land contributing to the lack of sufficient Information document (Service 2014), management staff with Death Valley recruitment necessary for stable or which are available under Docket No. National Park who are actively ideally increasing populations. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131 at http:// managing for the conservation of Eureka Although some factors may be causing www.regulations.gov. dune grass. stress to portions of populations within In conclusion, as discussed in the We examined the following stressors the range of the species (e.g., Summary of Factors Affecting the that may be affecting Eureka dune grass: documented herbivory and seed Species—Eureka Valley Evening- Unauthorized OHV activity, other predation at the north end of the Main primrose section above, herbivory, seed unauthorized recreational activities Dunes), we do not know the cause of the predation, stochastic events, climate (specifically, horseback riding, reduction in abundance and density change, and competition with Russian sandboarding, camping, and access rangewide. The observed decline does thistle during years the thistle is routes)) (Factor A); collection for not appear to be an imminent issue for abundant have the potential to impact scientific research (Factor B); herbivory the species. Rather, the decline appears Eureka Valley evening-primrose and seed predation (Factor C); the to be occurring slowly over time. It is currently or into the foreseeable future. inadequacy of existing regulatory likely that, as a long-lived species in However, the best available information mechanisms (Factor D); and other which adults have well-established root at this time indicates a negligible impact unauthorized recreational activities (i.e., systems and are able to persist through or lack of impact to the species across horseback riding, sandboarding, short periods of stress, it may be its range, although localized impacts camping, hiking, and access routes), difficult to detect the effects of that may be affecting individual Eureka competition with Russian thistle, stress until sometime into the future. Valley evening-primrose plants in climate change, and stochastic events Furthermore, the existing regulatory portions of populations within the range (Factor E). The most significant impacts mechanisms are sufficient to manage the (e.g., documented herbivory and seed to Eureka dune grass populations at the habitat of the species, with respect to predation at the north end of the Main time of listing (i.e., OHV activity, and to potential impacts from OHV and other Dunes). a lesser extent camping and recreation. Therefore, after review and analysis of unauthorized OHV activity) that placed In conclusion, we have carefully the information regarding stressors as the species in danger of extinction at assessed the best scientific and related to the five statutory factors, we that time have been eliminated or commercial information available find that the ongoing stressors are not of reduced (as a result of the significant regarding the past, present, and future sufficient imminence, scope, or commitment made initially by BLM and threats faced by Eureka dune grass. magnitude, either individually or in subsequently by the Park Service to After review and analysis of the best combination, to indicate that Eureka implement management measures) to available information regarding stressors Valley evening primrose is presently in the extent that they are considered as related to the five statutory factors, danger of extinction throughout all of its negligible currently, and are expected to we find that Eureka dune grass is not range, nor are any potential stressors continue to be negligible into the future. currently in danger of extinction described herein expected to rise to the Of the factors identified above, throughout its range; however, the level that would likely cause the species herbivory, seed predation, recreational ongoing threats are of sufficient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8594 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

imminence, scope, or magnitude to extinction or likely to become so in the If we have identified portions of the indicate that this species is likely to foreseeable future throughout all of its species’ range for further analysis, we become an endangered species within range and the threats to the species are conduct a detailed analysis of the the foreseeable future throughout all of essentially uniform throughout its significance of the portion and the its range. range, then the species is not likely to status of the species in that portion. be in danger of extinction or likely to Depending on the biology of the species, Significant Portion of the Range become so in the foreseeable future in its range, and the threats it faces, it Introduction any portion of its range and no portion might be more efficient for us to address Consistent with our interpretation is likely to warrant further the significance question first or the that there are two independent bases for consideration. Moreover, if any status question first. If we address listing species as described above, after concentration of threats applies only to significance first and determine that a portion of the range is not ‘‘significant,’’ examining the status of Eureka Valley portions of the species’ range that are we do not need to determine whether evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass not ‘‘significant,’’ such portions will not the species is in danger of extinction or throughout all of their ranges, we now warrant further consideration. likely to become so in the foreseeable examine whether it is necessary to We evaluate the significance of the future there; if we address the status of determine their status throughout a portion of the range based on its the species in portions of its range first significant portion of their ranges. Per biological contribution to the and determine that the species is not in our final SPR policy, we must give conservation of the species. For this danger of extinction or likely to become operational effect to both the reason, we describe the threshold for so in a portion of its range, we do not ‘‘throughout all’’ of its range language ‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction for the species. We need to determine if that portion is and the SPR phrase in the definitions of ‘‘significant.’’ ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened conclude in our policy that such a species.’’ We have concluded that to biologically based definition of Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose— give operational effect to both the ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the Significant Portion of Its Range ‘‘throughout all’’ language and the SPR purposes of the Act, is consistent with Analyses judicial interpretations, and best phrase, the Service should conduct an Because we determined that Eureka ensures species’ conservation. We SPR analysis if (and only if) a species Valley evening-primrose is not in does not warrant listing according to the determine if a portion’s biological danger of extinction or likely to become ‘‘throughout all’’ language. contribution is so important that the so in the foreseeable future throughout If the species is neither endangered portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by all of its range, we will consider nor threatened throughout all of its asking whether, without that portion, whether there are any significant range, we determine whether the the status of the species would be so portions of its range in which Eureka species is endangered or threatened impaired that the species would be in Valley evening-primrose is in danger of throughout a significant portion of its danger of extinction or likely to become extinction or likely to become so in the range. To undertake this analysis, we so in the foreseeable future (i.e., would foreseeable future. first identify any portions of the species’ be an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a Applying the process described above range that warrant further consideration. ‘‘threatened species’’). Conversely, we to identify whether any portions of a The range of a species can theoretically would not consider the portion of the species’ range warrant further be divided into portions in an infinite range at issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there consideration, we determine whether number of ways. However, there is no is sufficient viability elsewhere in the there is substantial information purpose in analyzing portions of the species’ range that the species would indicating that: (1) Particular portions range that have no reasonable potential not be in danger of extinction or likely may be significant, and (2) the species to be significant or in analyzing portions to become so throughout its range even may be in danger of extinction in those of the range in which there is no if the population in that portion of the portions or likely to become so within reasonable potential for the species to be range in question became extirpated the foreseeable future. To identify endangered or threatened. To identify (extinct locally). portions where a species may be in only those portions that warrant further If we identify any portions (1) that danger of extinction or likely to become consideration, we determine whether may be significant and (2) where the so in the foreseeable future, we consider there is substantial information species may be in danger of extinction whether there is substantial information indicating that there are any portions of or likely to become so in the foreseeable to indicate that any threats or effects of the species’ range: (1) That may be future, we engage in a more-detailed threats are geographically concentrated ‘‘significant’’ and (2) where the species analysis to determine whether these in any portion of the species’ range. may be in danger of extinction or likely standards are indeed met. The We consider the ‘‘range’’ of Eureka to become so within the foreseeable identification of an SPR does not create Valley evening-primrose to include future. We emphasize that answering a presumption, prejudgment, or other three populations, all encompassed these questions in the affirmative is not determination as to whether the species within the three dune systems (Marble a determination that the species is in is in danger of extinction or likely to Canyon Dunes, Saline Spur Dunes, and danger of extinction or likely to become become so in the foreseeable future in the Main Dunes (the latter also so in the foreseeable future throughout that identified SPR. We must go through sometimes referred to as the Eureka a significant portion of its range—rather, a separate analysis to determine Dunes)) that span a distance of 9 mi it is a step in determining whether a whether the species is in danger of (14.4 km) from west to east within more-detailed analysis of the issue is extinction or likely to become so in the Eureka Valley in Death Valley National required. SPR. To make that determination, we Park, Inyo County, California. The three In practice, one key part of identifying will use the same standards and populations have likely been present portions for further analysis may be methodology that we use to determine since the beginning of the Holocene era whether the threats or effects of threats if a species is in danger of extinction or when pluvial lakes retreated during a are geographically concentrated in some likely to become so in the foreseeable warming phase, leaving behind the way. If a species is not in danger of future throughout all of its range. dune systems in Eureka Valley.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8595

Historical distribution of Eureka Valley populations as a whole might be factors cause stress to the species: (1) evening-primrose beyond the three different at any one of the populations The type of dune system that supports currently recognized populations is relative to each other. The factors we each of the populations, and (2) the unknown. In other words, the current identified that could still cause stress to extent of the sandy dune habitat that distribution of the species is the only the species include: Herbivory, seed supports each of the populations (please known distribution, which has predation, stochastic events, climate see the ‘‘Environmental Setting’’ section remained generally the same since it change, and competition with Russian of the Background Information was first recorded in 1976. thistle during years the thistle is document (Service 2014, pp. 4–7) for We considered whether the factors abundant. There are two characteristics more information). We compare the that could cause stress to Eureka Valley of the habitat for the species that could three dunes to each other as follows. evening-primrose individuals or to the influence the extent to which these

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF DUNE HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS AT THREE DUNE SYSTEMS IN EUREKA VALLEY

Extent of dune habitat Dune system Type of dune system (acres (ac)) (hectares (ha))

1. Marble Canyon Dunes ...... Obstacle dune ...... 610 ac (247 ha). 2. Saline Spur Dunes ...... Obstacle dune ...... 238 ac (96 ha). 3. Main Dunes (a.k.a. Eureka Dunes) ...... Sand mountain/Transverse ...... 2,003 ac (811 ha).

The type of dune system is important is still a useful relative measure of Because Marble Canyon Dunes and because of the way each of them potentially suitable habitat: The Main Saline Spur Dunes are obstacle dunes intercepts, stores, and delivers moisture Dunes is over three times as large as with less water-holding capacity than (from precipitation) to a plant at critical Marble Canyon Dunes, and eight times the Main Dunes and comprise a smaller times in its life cycle, specifically as large as Saline Spur Dunes. Thus, if extent of dune habitat than the Main during seed germination (needs rainfall were abundant and equal at all Dunes, they likely will, over time (under moisture closer to the surface where the three dune systems, the Main Dunes conditions of abundant and equal seeds are), and during growth (needs provides an inherent advantage to rainfall), support smaller populations of moisture deeper below the surface Eureka Valley evening-primrose relative Eureka Valley evening-primrose than where the roots are). As Park Service to Marble Canyon Dunes and Saline the Main Dunes. Furthermore, these monitoring over the last 9 years Spur Dunes, both with respect to type smaller populations could be more indicates, a ‘‘good’’ year for Eureka of dune system and extent of dune vulnerable to factors that cause stress Valley evening-primrose at one dune habitat, and would theoretically support than the population at the Main Dunes; system is not necessarily a ‘‘good’’ year the largest population of the species. therefore, the level of stress to which for the species at another dune system. The factors we identified that could populations at Marble Canyon Dunes Although the mechanisms are complex cause stress to Eureka Valley evening- and Saline Spur Dunes are subjected and not entirely understood, it is likely primrose currently or in the future are could be higher than the level of stress that obstacle dunes have little capacity herbivory, seed predation, stochastic to which the populations at the Main to store water, and thus intercept and events, climate change, and competition Dunes are subjected. However, the best deliver moisture over a shorter period of with Russian thistle during years the available data at this time do not time. In comparison, the sand mountain thistle is abundant. All of these factors indicate a higher level of stress at any type of dune system has a greater are known to cause stress in plant of the populations/dunes as compared capacity to store water, and to deliver species; the extent to which they cause to other populations/dunes (although moisture to plants over a longer period stress to Eureka Valley evening- 2014 had the largest abundance for all of time. Therefore, if rainfall were primrose has not been studied in detail. three dunes, over the monitoring period abundant and equal at all three dune Stress in plant populations can manifest since 2008, each of the dunes has shown systems, the Main Dunes would provide in many forms, ranging from death of increases and decreases over time, with an inherent advantage relative to Marble individuals to reduced vigor and growth no discernible pattern). In addition, we Canyon Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes, of individuals to reduced reproductive think that the three dune systems are with respect to the ability of the dune success. In general, small plant close enough in proximity to each other system to provide sustained moisture populations are more vulnerable than that given Eureka Valley evening- for germination and growth of Eureka large plant populations to factors that primrose’s abundant seed production in Valley evening-primrose. cause stress because there are fewer favorable years, migration of propagules The extent of dune habitat is numbers of individuals to act as a from areas of higher concentration to important because, if rainfall were ‘‘reserve’’ from which the species can areas of lower concentration likely abundant and equal at all three dune recover. Moreover, once populations mitigates for the increased vulnerability systems, the greater extent of dune become small because of stress caused of the populations at Marble Canyon habitat at the Main Dunes would by one factor, they are more vulnerable Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes as provide more space for Eureka Valley to stress caused by other factors, hence compared to the Main Dunes (Pavlik evening-primrose to germinate and grow the ‘‘Combination of Factors’’ and Barbour 1985, pp. 24–53; and see than at Marble Canyon Dunes and phenomenon as discussed under the discussion on seed dispersal and Saline Spur Dunes. While not every Summary of Factors Affecting the metapopulations in Cain et al. 2000, p. hectare of each dune provides suitable Species section. The best available 1,220). conditions for germination and growth information indicates that the factors Based on our evaluation of the factors of Eureka Valley evening-primrose, a that cause stress could be equally that cause stress to Eureka Valley comparison of the extent of dune habitat present at all three dunes. evening-primrose at the three

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

populations where it occurs, the factors indicate that this species is presently in is not likely to jeopardize the continued that may cause stress are neither danger of extinction throughout all or a existence of this species. sufficiently concentrated nor of significant portion of its range. This rule also revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) sufficient magnitude to indicate that the Additionally, no threats exist currently to reclassify Eureka dune grass from an species is in danger of extinction, or nor are any potential stressors expected endangered species to a threatened likely to become so within the to rise to the level that would likely species on the Federal List of foreseeable future, at any of the areas cause the species to become in danger Endangered and Threatened Plants. that support populations of the species. of extinction in the foreseeable future However, this reclassification does not Therefore, no portion of Eureka Valley throughout all or a significant portion of significantly change the protection evening-primrose’s range warrants a its range. Because the species is neither afforded to this species under the Act. detailed SPR analysis. in danger of extinction now nor likely Anyone removing and reducing to to become so in the foreseeable future possession the species from areas under Eureka Dune Grass—Significant Portion Federal jurisdiction, or otherwise of Its Range Analyses throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the species does not meet engaging in activities prohibited under Because we found that Eureka dune the definition of an endangered species 50 CFR 17.71, is subject to a penalty grass is likely to become in danger of or threatened species. As a consequence under section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to extinction in the foreseeable future of this determination, we find that the section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies throughout all of its range, per our Eureka Valley evening-primrose no must ensure that any actions they Service’s Significant Portion of its Range longer requires the protection of the Act, authorize, fund, or carry out are not (SPR) Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), and we are removing Eureka Valley likely to jeopardize the continued no portion of its range can be significant evening-primrose from the Federal List existence of Eureka dune grass. for purposes of the definitions of of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Whenever a species is listed as a endangered species and threatened threatened species, the Act allows species. We therefore do not need to Summary of the Determination for promulgation of special rules under conduct an analysis of whether there is Eureka Dune Grass section 4(d) to prohibit any act any significant portion of its range We have carefully assessed the best prohibited by section 9(a)(1) (for where the species is in danger of scientific and commercial information wildlife) or section 9(a)(2) (for plants) extinction or likely to become so in the available regarding the past, present, when it is deemed necessary and foreseeable future. advisable to provide for the and future threats faced by Eureka dune While we conclude an SPR analysis is conservation of the species. The Service grass. After review and analysis of the not necessary, we note that, similar to has promulgated a general rule information regarding stressors as Eureka Valley evening primrose, the providing standard protections for related to the five statutory factors, we type of dune system and extent of sandy threatened species found under section find that the ongoing stressors are no dune habitat could influence the extent 9 of the Act and Service regulations at longer of sufficient imminence, to which factors continuing to affect the 50 CFR 17.31 (for wildlife) and 17.71 intensity, or magnitude to indicate that species could cause stress to Eureka (for plants). No species-specific special this species is presently in danger of dune grass. However, as noted above, all section 4(d) rule is proposed, or extinction throughout all or a significant three populations of dune grass benefit anticipated to be proposed, for Eureka from management by the National Park portion of its range. However, we find dune grass, and the general prohibitions Service that has eliminated or that the stressors acting upon Eureka provided under 50 CFR 17.71 will substantially reduced the impacts dune grass are of sufficient imminence, apply. Recovery actions directed toward associated with OHV and other scope, or magnitude to indicate that Eureka dune grass will continue to be recreational activities, removing the they are continuing to result in impacts implemented, as funding allows, and in imminent threat of habitat destruction at either the population or rangewide coordination with the Park Service. or modification. Similar to Eureka scales, albeit to a lesser degree than at Future Conservation Measures Valley evening-primrose, the available the time of listing, and we find that data do not indicate a higher level of Eureka dune grass meets the statutory Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, stress at any of the populations/dunes as definition of a threatened species (i.e., in cooperation with the States, to compared to the others and the likely to become an endangered species implement a system to monitor remaining stressors are likely affecting in the foreseeable future throughout all effectively for not less than 5 years the all three populations similarly such that or a significant portion of its range). As status of all species that have been none are likely to have a different status a consequence of this determination, we recovered and delisted. The purpose of or be at greater risk. are reclassifying the species from an this requirement is to develop a program Therefore, we conclude the species is endangered species to a threatened that detects the failure of any delisted a threatened species because of its status species on the Federal List of species to sustain itself without the throughout all of its range. Endangered and Threatened Plants. protective measures provided by the Effects of the Rule Act. If at any time during the monitoring Summary of the Determination for period, data indicate that protective Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) status under the Act should be We have carefully assessed the best by removing Eureka Valley evening- reinstated, we can initiate listing scientific and commercial information primrose from the List of Endangered procedures, including, if appropriate, available regarding the past, present, and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) and future threats faced by Eureka and conservation measures provided by of the Act. The management practices Valley evening-primrose. After review the Act, particularly through sections 7 of, and commitments by, the Park and analysis of the information and 9, no longer apply to this species. Service under existing laws, regulations, regarding stressors as related to the five Federal agencies are no longer required and policies should afford adequate statutory factors, we find that the to consult with the Service under protection to Eureka Valley evening- ongoing stressors are not of sufficient section 7 of the Act to ensure that any primrose into the foreseeable future imminence, intensity, or magnitude to action they authorize, fund, or carry out upon delisting, as the entire known

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8597

range of this species occurs within monitoring is conducted and to ensure three populations, herbivory, and low Death Valley National Park. future management strategies are genetic diversity. Another peer reviewer implemented (as warranted) to benefit suggested that herbivory and Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan—Eureka Eureka Valley evening-primrose. competition with Russian thistle are Valley Evening-Primrose potential threats to Eureka dune grass Summary of Comments and We have worked cooperatively with and that we needed to continue to Recommendations the National Park Service, California monitor impacts of these stressors as Department of Fish and Wildlife, and In the proposed rule published on well as the effects of climate change. other interested parties to develop a February 27, 2014, in the Federal Overall, peer reviewers suggested that strategy to implement appropriate Register (79 FR 11053), we requested stressors to Eureka dune grass were monitoring activities for Eureka Valley that all interested parties submit written more severe than our analysis indicated. evening-primrose for a term of 10 years. comments on the proposal by April 28, We have addressed specific peer The results of such monitoring, if not 2014. We also contacted appropriate review comments below in the consistent with a recovered status for Federal and State agencies, scientific following order: Comments of a general the species, could trigger additional experts and organizations, and other nature or applicable to both species, management actions, trigger additional interested parties and invited them to comments specific to Eureka Valley or extended monitoring, or trigger status comment on the proposal. We did not evening-primrose, and comments reviews or listing actions. We anticipate receive any requests for a public specific to Eureka dune grass. coordinating with the Park Service, hearing. All substantive information USGS, universities, and other interested provided during the comment period Peer Reviewer Comments of a General entities that may be able to contribute has either been incorporated directly Nature or Applicable to Both Species funding or resources to assist the Park into this final determination or is (1) Comment: Three peer reviewers Service in their efforts to monitor this addressed below. commented on competition with species, thereby providing the Russian thistle as a potential threat to Peer Reviewer Comments information necessary to determine Eureka Valley evening-primrose, Eureka whether protections under the Act In accordance with our peer review dune grass, or both. Of these three, one should be reinstated. The post-delisting policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR expressed concern that Russian thistle monitoring plan includes measures to: 34270), we solicited expert opinion was a potential threat to Eureka Valley Monitor recreation traffic in Eureka from five knowledgeable individuals evening-primrose. Additionally, one Valley; maintain a Remote Automated with scientific expertise that included peer reviewer stated there was Weather Station in Eureka Valley; and familiarity with Eureka Valley evening- insufficient information to reach a continue annual population monitoring. primrose, Eureka dune grass, their conclusion regarding Eureka Valley The annual population monitoring will habitat, biological needs and potential evening-primrose and Russian thistle, be based on a subsampling threats, or principles of conservation and another suggested we further methodology, first implemented in the biology. We received responses from all evaluate competition with Russian spring of 2017, and will also include five of the peer reviewers. thistle as a potential stressor for both observations of any damage to Eureka We reviewed all comments received species. The latter peer reviewer Valley evening-primrose resulting from from the peer reviewers for substantive provided information concerning the recreation or herbivory. issues and new information regarding spread of Russian thistle over time on Given the mission of the Park Service the proposed delisting of Eureka Valley another desert dune system (in Petrified and its past and current stewardship evening-primrose and Eureka dune Forest National Park (PFNP), Arizona efforts, it is important to note that grass. The peer reviewers provided (Thomas et al. 2009)). management for Eureka Valley evening- additional information, clarifications, Our Response: Our analysis used the primrose has been effective to date, and and suggestions to improve the final best available information in analyzing it is reasonable to expect that rule. Peer reviewer comments are the potential threat posed to Eureka management will continue to be addressed in the following summary, Valley evening-primrose and Eureka effective for Eureka Valley evening- and new information was incorporated dune grass by competition with Russian primrose and its habitat beyond a post- into the final rule as appropriate. thistle. In this final rule, we provided delisting monitoring period, the 20-year For Eureka Valley evening-primrose, additional information regarding timeframe associated with the one peer reviewer cautioned that our potential competition between the Wilderness and Backcountry proposed delisting was based on current plants and Russian thistle (see Stewardship Plan (Park Service 2013b), and reasonably predicted conditions. A ‘‘Competition With Russian Thistle’’ and well into the future. In addition to second peer reviewer expressed concern sections above for both Eureka Valley post-delisting monitoring, the Park related to the potential of future rainfall evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass Service anticipates continuing to decline and possible competition with for additional discussion). The results of manage the Eureka Valley dunes, Russian thistle. A third peer reviewer one study (Chow and Klinger 2014, including such tasks as conducting expressed concerns regarding potential 2016) elucidated that, in a nursery ranger patrols, maintaining educational climate change effects into the future. setting, Eureka Valley evening-primrose signs, and making contact with visitors And a fourth peer reviewer suggested was more competitive with itself than it within the range of the species (Cipra in that we need additional information to was with Russian thistle, and Park staff litt. 2013). Additional monitoring or support our conclusions on herbivory, observed differences in growing season research (beyond post-delisting competition with Russian thistle, and phenology that would minimize monitoring requirements) may occur in effects of climate change. competition in the field between the the future for Eureka Valley evening- For Eureka dune grass, three peer two species (Park Service 2015). In primrose and other rare endemics reviewers expressed concerns based on addition, we concluded that Russian within the Park based on congressional potential effects related to climate thistle is not likely having a population- funding and resource levels (Cipra in change (changes in rainfall), infrequent level impact on the Eureka Valley litt. 2013). We will work closely with germination and establishment, evening-primrose, which is a longer the Park Service to ensure post-delisting declining numbers of plants at two of lived perennial species with a seedbank

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8598 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

and a means of going into dormancy and Eureka Valley evening-primrose and including OHV activity, to the species if lasting through unfavorable years. By Eureka dune grass (see ‘‘Competition they occur. contrast, Russian thistle is an annual With Russian Thistle’’ sections, above, Peer Reviewer Comments Specific to species with a short-lived seedbank. See for both Eureka Valley evening-primrose Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose the ‘‘Competition with Russian Thistle’’ and Eureka dune grass for additional section under Eureka Valley evening- discussion). We have forwarded the (5) Comment: One peer reviewer primrose, above, for further discussion. recommendation to investigate expressed concerns about seed We are aware of no studies that have demography of black-tailed jackrabbits predation and herbivory impacts to focused on potential competition in relationship to Russian thistle Eureka Valley evening-primrose, stating between Russian thistle and Eureka infestations and levels of herbivory on that if herbivory impacts are high on an dune grass, and there are only a few the two plants species to the Park individual, the individual would not studies that have looked at competition Service. produce seed before succumbing to between Russian thistle and other grass (3) Comment: Two peer reviewers predation impacts, potentially resulting species. The USGS study (Scoles-Sciulla suggested we conduct additional in a net loss of seed bank. Alternatively, and DeFalco 2016) found that rooting analyses on the potential effects of another peer reviewer asserted that seed depths for established Eureka dune climate change on Eureka Valley predation and herbivory were not grass individuals were deeper than evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass significant threats to Eureka Valley those typical of Russian thistle, which and continue to monitor their evening-primrose, although no would also serve to minimize populations to assess the effects of information was provided to support competition. In addition, the dune grass herbivory and competition with Russian this view. also occupies a higher elevation thistle. A third peer reviewer suggested Our Response: Based on observations compared to where Russian thistle that we defer our determination until made by USGS researchers (Scoles- occurs. Thus, at this time, we have USGS completes its study of these two Sciulla and DeFalco 2013) and determined that Russian thistle is not a species. University of California-Davis (Chow threat to either species (see Our Response: We appreciate the peer and Klinger 2013a), there is information ‘‘Competition With Russian Thistle’’ reviewers’ recommendations regarding to indicate that herbivory, particularly sections, above, for both Eureka Valley additional analyses and monitoring; by lagomorphs, is a stressor for Eureka evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass however, we are unable at this time to Valley evening-primrose, at least in for additional discussion). defer our determination until a later those portions of the dunes where such (2) Comment: One peer reviewer date. Our analysis of the various herbivory has been observed. In contrast asserted we made a premature stressors and our final agency action has to Eureka dune grass, Eureka Valley conclusion that Russian thistle was not been guided by the Act and its evening-primrose has two reproductive a threat to Eureka Valley evening- implementing regulations, considering strategies that provide resilience in the primrose and Eureka dune grass, the five listing factors and using the best face of herbivory: First, it produces large suggesting there may be an interaction available information, as per our policy amounts of seed, so that even if the between Russian thistle and lagomorph on Information Standards under the population sustains some impact from abundance. The peer reviewer provided ESA (59 FR 34271, July 1, 1994). seed herbivory, it has a mechanism for additional information regarding Although we are not proceeding with a replacing itself over time through the lagomorph populations and Russian final delisting rule for Eureka dune grass seedbank; second, individuals are able thistle that was not considered in the at this time, we have shared the peer to regenerate vegetatively through the proposed rule (see, for instance, Daniel reviewer’s recommendations for future development of clonal rosettes. et al. 1993, and Fagerstone et al. 1980). monitoring with staff from Death Valley Although we acknowledge that any The peer reviewer indicated that National Park for their consideration. stress caused by loss of biomass due to Russian thistle may have increased (4) Comment: One peer reviewer herbivory could place additional stress lagomorph abundance and thus an provided recommendations regarding on individual plants and limit their increased level of herbivory on both future monitoring of both species. The ability to expend resources on species. The peer reviewer peer reviewer recommended monitoring reproduction, the best available recommended that we collect OHV activity, discussed how to improve information indicates that the life- information on the demography of the upon the current monitoring strategy, history strategies of this species serve to black-tailed jackrabbits in relationship and suggested an appropriate model to counteract the effects of herbivory such to Russian thistle infestations and levels analyze data. that herbivory does not significantly of herbivory and the reproductive Our Response: We appreciate the peer affect the viability of the species, or its success of Eureka Valley evening- reviewer’s recommendations regarding ability to respond to favorable primrose and Eureka dune grass. future monitoring of Eureka Valley conditions for germination, growth, and Our Response: In both the proposed evening-primrose and Eureka dune reproduction when they occur. rule and in response to the information grass, and the suggested model to use (6) Comment: One peer reviewer provided by the peer reviewer, we for analyzing the data. We agree that stated that the effects of climate change considered the interaction between selecting the appropriate model for data was a threat to Eureka Valley evening- Russian thistle and lagomorph analysis is important because even with primrose, asserting that climate change populations. Although we have no data gathered over the last 5 years, it has would lead to increased drought stress, information regarding lagomorph been difficult to detect population and that we did not provide evidence to populations on the dunes in Eureka trends. We shared the peer reviewer’s support our conclusion that Eureka Valley and how their abundance may be recommendations for future monitoring Valley evening-primrose possesses influenced by Russian thistle, we with staff from Death Valley National adaptations that would allow it to incorporated the new information Park for their consideration. The persist into the future. The peer provided by the peer reviewer into the monitoring outlined in the post- reviewer also provided climate envelope final rule and discussed the delisting monitoring plan for the Eureka forecasts for Eureka Valley evening- combination of Russian thistle and Valley evening-primrose will include primrose, using species locality data, lagomorphs as a potential threat to notation of any observed impacts, climate layers from the IPCC fifth

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8599

assessment report’s Coupled Model annual patterns of correlation between Our Response: Based on observations Intercomparison Project Phase 5 amount of rainfall and expression of made by USGS researchers (Scoles- (CMIP5), and Maxent. The peer reviewer Eureka Valley evening-primrose. Sciulla and DeFalco 2013) and a claimed that the results of this (7) Comment: One peer reviewer researcher from the University of information and modeling exercise stated that stochastic events were not a California-Davis (Chow 2012b), there is indicate that the species is projected to significant threat, although no information to indicate that herbivory, disappear from the Main Dunes by information was provided or discussed particularly by lagomorphs, is affecting approximately 2050. The peer reviewer to support this position. Two other peer Eureka dune grass, at least in those also stated that Eureka Valley evening- reviewers discussed how the life history portions of the dunes where such primrose is a microendemic, which, by of Eureka Valley evening-primrose herbivory has been observed. Given that definition, is found only at one or a very affects population persistence in Eureka dune grass is already small number of locations. Furthermore, response to stochastic events. Both of experiencing low to no reproduction, the peer reviewer declared that when these peer reviewers agreed that the any additional loss of biomass due to the climate changes at that one or few long-lived seed bank of Eureka Valley herbivory will likely place additional locations, species are at risk of falling evening-primrose and its ability to form stress on individual plants and limit outside of their climatic envelope, or are clones help to ensure the long-term their ability to expend resources on at risk of extinction. viability of this species. However, one of reproduction. However, based on the Our Response: We appreciate the these peer reviewers thought population best available information at this time, work the peer reviewer did to develop persistence could be impacted by mass we concluded that the observed impacts a climate envelope forecast for this germination events and herbivores from herbivory, by themselves, are not species. With respect to adaptations, we through a reduction of the seed bank. causing population- or rangewide-level discussed in the proposed delisting rule Our Response: We agree that the effects for the Eureka dune grass. We that the phenology of Eureka Valley ability of Eureka Valley evening- acknowledge that herbivory could be a evening-primrose makes it likely to have primrose to persist in the face of concern for a species that has low high germination, recruitment, and stochastic events (in addition to other recruitment and apparent declines, and reproduction in El Nin˜ o years when recommend that observations on the potential stressors) is in part dependent winter rainfall is above average (see the extent of herbivory should continue to on the life-history characteristics of the sections on Species Description, be made in the future. species (see the ‘‘Life History’’ sections Taxonomy, and Life History in the (9) Comment: Two peer reviewers proposed rule). In the proposed rule to on Eureka Valley evening-primrose asserted that climate change is a threat delist, we concluded that a shift in above and in the proposed delisting to Eureka dune grass. One of these peer climatic norms will likely cause stress rule). The copious seed production of reviewers indicated that climate change to Eureka Valley evening-primrose. individuals (and formation of seed would lead to increased drought stress Furthermore, we stated that the best bank), once they are established, works and stated that we did not provide available information indicated that the in favor of long-term persistence even in evidence to support our conclusion that species is physiologically adapted to the the face of stochastic events, as does the Eureka dune grass possesses adaptations specific hydrologic and soil conditions species’ ability to establish many new that allow this species to persist into the on the dunes, and the stress imposed by individuals (mass establishment) when future. Both peer reviewers also stated projected climate change effects conditions are favorable. The best that climate change may cause currently and in the future is not likely available information indicates that reductions in rainfall or changes in to rise to the level that the long-term current and projected future impacts rainfall patterns, which could affect persistence of Eureka Valley evening- associated with stochastic events (with germination and establishment of primrose would be impacted. the exception of extreme weather Eureka dune grass. For instance, one Based on the new and clarifying events) are not likely to rise to the level peer reviewer provided summer information we received, we conclude that the long-term persistence of Eureka precipitation data showing that over the that of all the potential future stressors Valley evening-primrose would be last 15 years, there were fewer years of on Eureka Valley evening-primrose, a impacted. The National Park Service above-average summer rainfall (required shift in climatic norms may be will continue to monitor the status of for the germination of Eureka dune important in affecting its long-term Eureka Valley evening-primrose grass) as compared to the previous 15- persistence. We note that, as a short- populations into the future (for 10 years) year period, and thus indicating that lived perennial, the ability of this as a means of determining whether any current climatic weather patterns are species to shift geographically over time potential stressors, including stochastic not conducive to the germination events with shifting climatic norms is greater events, are impacting the species (see needed for long-term persistence of the than would be for a long-lived perennial ‘‘Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan— species. plant species. However, because of the Oenothera californica ssp. eurekensis,’’ Our Response: We appreciate the uncertainty regarding the magnitude above). analysis of summer precipitation and the imminence of such a shift, we Peer Reviewer Comments Specific to rainfall data provided by one of the peer are unable to determine the extent that Eureka Dune Grass reviewers. Previous research also this may become a stressor in the indicates that summer precipitation is foreseeable future. Because climate (8) Comment: Two peer reviewers likely critical for the germination of change science is a rapidly evolving commented on seed predation and Eureka dune grass (Pavlik and Barbour field, we updated our climate change herbivory as potential threats to Eureka 1986, pp. 11, 47–59). Although the discussion in this final rule to include dune grass. One of these peer reviewers correlation shown by the new information from more recent modeling provided information on how herbivory precipitation data provided by the peer efforts for the southwest region. As one could impact sensitive plant species by reviewer does not prove causation, of the measures in the post-delisting reducing their seed production. The given what we know about the life- monitoring plan, the Park Service will other peer reviewer asserted that seed history characteristics of this species, continue to track seasonal rainfall from predation and herbivory were not we agree it is reasonable to assume the local weather stations and observe significant threats to Eureka dune grass. lack of summer precipitation is one of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

the parameters affecting the ability of photopoints rather than assume Eureka potential threat to Eureka dune grass. Eureka dune grass to experience dune grass has experienced declines The peer reviewer indicated that the germination events. Since February only in these specific areas. This peer ability of the Eureka dune grass 2014 when our proposed rule reviewer also noted that Eureka dune population to persist was dependent published, Park staff were able to grass has a small range despite our upon mass establishment events from observe several patches of germination assertion that it continues to occupy seed and the longevity of adult plants. of Eureka dune grass, particularly on the almost the same geographic area it did Furthermore, based on recent climate west side of Saline Spur Dunes and the at the time of listing. Additionally, the analyses, the peer reviewer asserted that northwest end of Main Dunes in the fall peer reviewer stated that Eureka dune the frequency of conditions thought to of 2015. Park staff were unable to grass has very low population numbers, be suitable for mass establishment monitor these germinants over time, and and few, if any, plants have been events is apparently decreasing, noting thus, we have no information on recruited into the population since that there have not been any mass whether these germinants may have 1999. establishment events since 1984–1985. successfully recruited into the Our Response: Recent survey population. information from the Park Service Our Response: We agree with the peer In the proposed rule to delist, we indicates that, although the rangewide reviewer that the ability of Eureka dune concluded that a shift in climatic norms distribution of Eureka dune grass grass to persist in the face of stochastic will likely cause stress to Eureka dune continues to be similar over the years events (in addition to other stressors) is grass (79 FR 11067–11069, February 27, when observed at a large scale (e.g., it in part dependent on the life-history 2014). Furthermore, we stated that the continues to occur scattered across the characteristics of the species. The best available information currently entirety of all three dunes), the large- longevity of individuals, once they are indicated that this species was scale monitoring (1-ha grid system) has established, works in favor of long-term physiologically adapted to the specific not been as effective in detecting persistence even in the face of stochastic hydrologic and soil conditions on the changes in abundance in smaller, events, as does its ability to establish dunes, and the stress imposed by localized areas. Such changes are more many new individuals (mass projected climate change effects readily observed with smaller-scale establishment) when conditions are currently and in the future is not likely monitoring techniques, such as the favorable. Future monitoring of the to rise to the level that the long-term photopoint monitoring and the mapping patches of germination observed by Park persistence of Eureka dune grass would of individual clumps over time. The staff in fall 2015 will be useful to add be impacted. declines in the number of Eureka dune to our knowledge of recruitment Based on the new and clarifying grass clumps are shown in repeat potential that follows from a information we received, it is possible photopoints at both Eureka and Marble germination event. that of all the potential future stressors Canyon Dunes. on Eureka dune grass, a shift in climatic As of 2017, there are two additional Comments From the State norms may be important in affecting its years of Park Service data from the Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states long-term persistence. We note that, as rangewide distribution monitoring grid that the Secretary must give actual a long-lived perennial, the ability of this that show continuing declines at the notice of a proposed regulation under species to shift geographically over time Main Dunes and Marble Canyon Dunes. section 4(a) to the State agency in each with shifting climatic norms is less than This distribution data, combined with State in which the species is believed to would be for a short-lived perennial or recent photopoint survey information occur, and invite the comments of such annual plant species. However, because from the Park corroborates that the agency. Section 4(i) of the Act states, of the uncertainty regarding the declines documented at both Eureka ‘‘the Secretary shall submit to the State and Marble Canyon Dunes are likely magnitude and the imminence of such agency a written justification for his a shift, we are unable to determine the representative of rangewide impacts. failure to adopt regulations consistent extent that this may become a stressor Because the Main Dunes support over with the agency’s comments or in the foreseeable future. Given the half the Eureka dune grass, the decline petition.’’ The Service submitted the modeled predictions of a continued in abundance and density on that dune proposed regulation to the State of changing climate in this region, this is relatively more important for the California but received no formal potential stressor should continue to be species. comments from the State regarding the monitored and evaluated in the future. (11) Comment: One peer reviewer proposal. However, we did conclude that climate- stated that there was a low degree of related impacts may be acting in concert evolutionary potential within and Public Comments with other stressors to contribute to the between populations of Eureka dune decrease in population numbers and grass based on the available genetic We received five letters from the distribution for Eureka dune grass. We information (low levels of allelic public that provided comments on the also note that continuing to track variation relative to other grass taxa). proposed rule. All five commenters seasonal and annual rainfall from local Our Response: We acknowledge the stated that Eureka dune grass did not weather stations will be a part of the low levels of allelic variation found, as warrant delisting. Four of these ongoing population monitoring for this per Bell (2013). However, Eureka dune commenters maintained that Eureka species. grass has persisted for a long Valley evening-primrose did not (10) Comment: Two peer reviewers evolutionary time. While it is possible warrant delisting, and cited continuing suggested that the monitoring data that low allelic variation may contribute concerns with unauthorized OHV use collected by the Park Service, to the demographic characteristics, we and competition with nonnative specifically distribution data and repeat do not know to what extent that may species. The fifth suggested the species photopoints, indicated that Eureka dune affect the species’ fitness. may warrant either downlisting or grass has experienced a decline (12) Comment: One peer reviewer delisting, stating that the most recent throughout its range. One peer reviewer stated that stochastic events (for data indicated a general increasing thought we should extrapolate the instance, a spring wind storm that trend, albeit episodic, despite results from repeat transects and would desiccate new germinants) are a significant herbivory.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8601

Public Comments of a General Nature or decreasing resources for Park Service (16) Comment: One commenter stated Applicable to Both Species law enforcement. One commenter that the recovery of Eureka Valley (13) Comment: One commenter asserted that we should not delist evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass indicated that the Park Service’s Eureka Valley evening-primrose or depends on the long-term commitment monitoring program has demonstrated Eureka dune grass because there of the Park Service to conduct that threats still exist for Eureka Valley remains a low level of unauthorized monitoring and management, including evening-primrose and Eureka dune OHV use in these species’ habitat, and enforcement of closures to OHV use and grass. The commenter asserted that we the Eureka Valley evening-primrose and other recreational impacts, management of Russian thistle, continued population were ignoring threats information and Eureka dune grass populations have monitoring, and additional research. proposing to delist the Eureka Valley failed to respond positively to current Another commenter suggested that it evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass management. was premature to delist Eureka dune because they were, at one time, Our Response: In the proposed rule grass until USGS completed their study. considered ‘‘Spotlight Species.’’ and in this final rule, we acknowledge The second commenter noted that Our Response: In 2008, as part of a that unauthorized OHV use continues; despite Eureka dune grass occurring nationwide initiative, we identified however, we conclude that, based on within a federally designated Eureka Valley evening-primrose and the best available information, this wilderness, the population continues to Eureka dune grass as ‘‘Spotlight unauthorized activity occurs decline, and additional research is Species’’; this initiative was intended to sporadically, and does not appear to be necessary to determine the reasons for set performance targets and identify having a population-level impact on either species. We disagree that Eureka this decline. actions to achieve those targets for the Our Response: The Park Service has spotlighted species. We developed 5- Valley evening-primrose has not responded positively to BLM’s and the demonstrated its commitment to year Spotlight Species Action Plans for continue monitoring and protecting the each species and identified specific Park Service’s management of the area. Most notably, both agencies have taken populations of Eureka Valley evening- goals, measures, and actions; the goal primrose and Eureka dune grass, and was to delist or downlist the species. steps to protect Eureka Valley from unauthorized recreational activities, has worked with us to develop a post- The 2010 Spotlight Species Action delisting monitoring plan for Eureka Plans themselves did not influence our especially OHV use. Prior to these efforts, unrestricted OHV use occurred Valley evening-primrose. Additionally, decision when evaluating the status of under the Act, we are tasked with using throughout Eureka Valley, concentrated the species. As with all listed species, the best available information, and at on and around the Main Dunes. we conduct a thorough review of the this time, while the information Additionally, the monitoring program best available scientific and commercial generated by the USGS study may be developed by the Park Service has information and determine whether the useful, we cannot delay our demonstrated that, though the Eureka threats to the species have been determination until this or additional Valley evening-primrose population eliminated or reduced to the point that studies are completed. the species no longer meets the fluctuates in above-ground expression, (17) Comment: One commenter stated definition of an endangered species or a it continues to be distributed throughout that we should discuss how the removal threatened species under the Act. its known range. For example, in 2014, of either or both species from the Act (14) Comment: Three commenters the Park Service documented the largest may impact the availability and suggested that there is inadequate expression of Eureka Valley evening- allocation of funding for enforcement of information to conclude that Russian primrose ever observed. the Park Service regulations and patrols thistle is not competing with Eureka Although monitoring the status of of Eureka Valley under Factor D. The Valley evening-primrose and Eureka Eureka dune grass has been more commenter stated that the designation dune grass given the limited water and challenging over time, the Park Service under the Act provides a level of nutrients available; they suggested has, since 2007, documented a larger protection by mandating that the Park further study is warranted to determine geographic distribution for the species Service maintain monitoring, patrols, the potential impact. One of these than was known previously. Monitoring and enforce existing regulations, and commenters cited a study (Cannon et al. also indicates that, while the density of also protect the ecosystem. 1995) that found Russian thistle Eureka dune grass has declined across Our Response: Under the Act, we impacted grassland succession. much of its range (including the Main determine whether a species is an Our Response: Please refer to Dunes that harbor the majority of the endangered species or threatened Comment and Response (1) above. species’ range), there are certain small species because of any of five listing (15) Comment: There were numerous areas where density has increased. factors. We evaluate the impacts of comments regarding the potential Overall, the current level of current and future stressors acting on impacts of OHV use on the two plants. unauthorized OHV use is sporadic and the species and habitat where it occurs For instance, three commenters asserted does not occur across the range of the and any conservation measures or that impacts from unauthorized species, and there does not appear to be regulatory mechanisms that may offset recreational activities, specifically OHV any correlation between OHV recreation those impacts. The Eureka Valley use, continue to represent a threat to and the status of the species. In evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass Eureka Valley evening-primrose and addition, we consider the Park Service’s occur entirely within Eureka Valley, Eureka dune grass. One of these current efforts adequate to monitor and which is managed by the Park Service. commenters and a fourth commenter enforce closures in the Eureka Valley, We concluded in the proposed rule and suggested there is a need for additional and we anticipate that these efforts will reaffirm here that the Park Service’s interpretive and directional signage, as continue into the future. Therefore, we laws, policies, and plans will continue well as ongoing monitoring and conclude it is likely that there are other to protect the habitat of Eureka Valley enforcement. Further, one of these factors that are affecting the status of evening-primrose and Eureka dune commenters stated that unauthorized Eureka dune grass, rather than grass, and effectively minimize those OHV activity may increase on and management efforts on behalf of the stressors described under Factors A, B, around the Eureka Dunes due to Park Service. and E (specifically in relation to OHV

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 8602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

activities). Additionally, the Park that herbivory could have significant above, for Eureka dune grass. The size Service plans to continue monitoring impacts on individuals in certain years of the three dunes is also described in both species. when the Eureka Valley evening- ‘‘Environmental Setting’’ section of the (18) Comment: One commenter primrose population is small. However, Background Information document indicated that coyote poaching, we anticipate that the life-history (Service 2014, pp. 4–5), and we noted specifically at the Ash Meadows characteristics of this species (e.g., that the Main Dunes was the largest National Wildlife Refuge, was a abundant and precocious seed with the largest population of Eureka potential factor affecting lagomorph production, production of clones to dune grass. Overall, following our (Lepus and Sylvilagus) populations and spread risk, a portion of the population evaluation of comments and new leading to increased herbivory of rare remains dormant) help to maintain its information received since the time of plants. However, the commenter noted viability despite years when herbivory the proposal, we conclude that a that because Eureka Valley is remote, is high. combination of factors are likely poaching may not be a factor that affects contributing to Eureka dune grass Public Comments Specific to Eureka levels of herbivory experienced by lowered abundance and density. Thus, Dune Grass Eureka Valley evening-primrose or we have determined that although the Eureka dune grass. (20) Comment: Four commenters species is not currently in danger of Our Response: We acknowledge that a questioned why we proposed to delist extinction (endangered), it may become reduction in the number of predators Eureka dune grass given the Park so in the foreseeable future (threatened). such as coyotes could lead to an Service’s information indicating See the Summary of the Determination increase in lagomorph numbers, and we portions of the populations at Main and for Eureka Dune Grass section, above. appreciate the commenter submitting Marble Canyon Dunes have declined. (22) Comment: Two commenters this information. However, our Some of these commenters questioned our determination that the evaluation of the best available acknowledged that recent surveys (2008 effects of climate change were not a information at this time does not to 2013) indicated populations at threat now or in the future to Eureka indicate that coyote poaching has Marble Canyon and Saline Spur Dunes dune grass. The first commenter occurred or is occurring in Eureka were stable. However, all four indicated that prolonged drought could Valley. commenters also noted that none of the impact the Eureka dune grass populations showed a statistically Public Comments Specific to Eureka population due to the loss of adult significant net increase in population Valley Evening-Primrose plants, and the failure of seeds to size over the same time period, and that become established. The second (19) Comment: One commenter long-term data (i.e., repeat photopoints) commenter argued that, while the exact asserted that the evidence provided in demonstrated local extirpations have impacts to Eureka dune grass are the proposed delisting rule supported occurred at Main and Marble Canyon unclear, scientific models indicate that downlisting of Eureka Valley evening- Dunes. Two commenters argued that the Mojave Desert will become hotter primrose. However, the commenter monitoring by the Park Service indicates and drier. Additionally, this commenter expressed concern that herbivory and that Eureka dune grass continues to argued that these changing conditions unauthorized recreational activities still decline at the Main Dunes, which may exceed the physiological tolerance pose a threat to important population contains the largest segment of the of the species, and lead to decreases in sites, such as the occurrence located to population. Finally, one commenter plant density and a range contraction. the east of the Main Dunes. indicated that we did not provide an Our Response: Please refer to Our Response: In the proposed rule, explanation why the declines we Comment and Response (9), above. we concluded that herbivory and described were not significant. This (23) Comment: One commenter unauthorized recreational activities, commenter also stated that we did not argued that the best available specifically OHV use, were not threats explain why large reproductive plants information indicates Eureka dune grass to the Eureka Valley evening-primrose. had died or why they have not been has low genetic diversity, which While we acknowledge that replaced by seedlings and young plants. increases its vulnerability to changes in unauthorized recreational activities do Our Response: Please refer to the environment and increases its risk of occur on a sporadic basis, we concluded Comment and Response (10) above. extinction. The commenter also stated that these activities were limited in (21) Comment: One commenter that low genetic diversity may be a extent. We also received new asserted that the low density of Eureka factor in the low seed production and information from the Park Service in dune grass plants is due to several infrequent establishment of Eureka dune 2014 indicating there was another mass factors, such as water and nutrient grass. germination of Eureka Valley evening- availability, and inability of individuals Our Response: Please refer to primrose in the sand flats to the east of to become established on the steepest Comment and Response (11), above. the Main Dunes, including observations slopes. The commenter also highlighted (24) Comment: One commenter of the species in locations that it specifics about the Main Dunes that we referenced recent information collected previously had not been documented should take into consideration, i.e., that by USGS on the amount of herbivory (Park Service 2014). This new the Main Dunes are much larger than occurring on Eureka dune grass. The information indicates that Eureka Valley Marble Canyon and Saline Spur Dunes, commenter acknowledged that the evening-primrose maintains a large and that the majority of Eureka dune amount of herbivory experienced by seedbank, and when conditions are grass individuals occur on the Main plants varies with the number of favorable, it can result in mass Dunes. herbivores; however, the commenter germination events. While we do not Our Response: We added language indicated that a combination of high know how many of these seedlings will into this final rule to indicate several levels of herbivory (as documented by be recruited into the population, if even factors that may limit the distribution of USGS) and Eureka dune grass’ life- a portion of the seedlings survive to Eureka dune grass across its range. We history characteristics (e.g., low annual become adults, this will help to provided population estimates for all seed production, no vegetative maintain the viability of this three dunes in the Abundance Surveys reproduction, and infrequent population. Finally, we acknowledge and Population Estimates section, germination and establishment of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 8603

seedlings) could affect the long-term from current studies can be with the Ventura Fish and Wildlife persistence and recovery of the incorporated into monitoring efforts that Office in Ventura, California, and the population. will be continued by the Park Service. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in Our Response: Please refer to Carlsbad, California. Comment and Response (8) above. Required Determinations List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 (25) Comment: Three commenters National Environmental Policy Act (42 claimed that Recovery Plan objectives 1 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Endangered and threatened species, and 2 (Service 1982, pp. 26–31) have Exports, Imports, Reporting and not been met for Eureka dune grass, and We have determined that environmental assessments and recordkeeping requirements, thus, the species should not be delisted. Transportation. These commenters argued that we failed environmental impact statements, as to consider evidence that indicates the defined under the authority of the Regulation Promulgation population of Eureka dune grass National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection Accordingly, we hereby amend part continues to decline at several locations 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of throughout its range, especially at the with listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species as an endangered or the Code of Federal Regulations, as set most dense occurrence at the northern forth below: end of the Main Dunes. One of these threatened species under the commenters indicated that despite the Endangered Species Act. We published PART 17—ENDANGERED AND reduction in unauthorized OHV activity, a notice outlining our reasons for this THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS the Eureka dune grass population determination in the Federal Register continues to decline. This commenter on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 suggested the continued population References Cited continues to read as follows: decline may be the result of impacts Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– from past OHV activity, or due to other A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available on the 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise factors. Finally, two additional noted. commenters suggested that we postpone internet at http://www.regulations.gov making a decision until USGS under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013– ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of completes its study. 0131 or upon request from the Deputy Endangered and Threatened Plants, Our Response: For our discussion of Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and under FLOWERING PLANTS, by: the Recovery Plan Objectives, please Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER ■ a. Removing the entry for ‘‘Oenothera refer to the Recovery and Recovery Plan INFORMATION CONTACT). avita ssp. eurekensis’’; and Implementation section, above. While ■ Authors b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Swallenia we agree the information generated by alexandrae’’ to read as set forth below. the USGS study may be useful, we The primary authors of this final rule cannot delay our determination until are staff members of the Pacific § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. this study is completed. We note that Southwest Regional Office in * * * * * any additional information forthcoming Sacramento, California, in coordination (h) * * *

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Swallenia alexandrae ..... Eureka dune grass, Eureka Valley dune Wherever found ...... T 82 FR [Federal Register page where grass, or Eureka dunegrass. the document begins], February 27, 2018.

*******

Dated: December 3, 2017. James W. Kurth Deputy Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Exercising the Authority of the Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2018–03769 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:19 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2