Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 111 June 9, 2011

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechera (Arabis) pusilla, and Penstemon gibbensii as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:51 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FWS–R6–ES–2011–0023. Supporting proimanthus as an endangered species documentation used in preparing this (House Document 94–51, pp. 57, 90, Fish and Wildlife Service finding is available for public 163). On July 1, 1975, we published a inspection, by appointment, during notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 50 CFR Part 17 normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 27823) accepting the Smithsonian [FWS–R6–ES–2011–0023; MO 92210–0– and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Institution report as a petition within 0008–B2] Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 the context of section 4(c)(2) (petition Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, provisions are now found in section Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Cheyenne, WY 82009. Please submit 4(b)(3) of the Act), and giving notice of and Plants; 12–Month Finding on a any new information, materials, the Service’s intention to review the Petition To List Abronia ammophila, comments, or questions concerning this status of the plant taxa listed therein. Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus finding to the above address. As a result of that review, we proimanthus, Boechera (Arabis) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. published a proposed rule on June 16, pusilla, and Penstemon gibbensii as Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, 1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR Threatened or Endangered Wyoming Ecological Services Field 24523) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act for Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, Interior. 307–772–2374; or by facsimile at 307– 772–2358. If you use a including Astragalus proimanthus. This ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition list of plant taxa was assembled based telecommunications device for the deaf finding. on comments and data received by the (TDD), please call the Federal Smithsonian Institution and the Service SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Information Relay Service (FIRS) at in response to House Document No. 94– Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 800–877–8339. 51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal 12-month finding on a petition to list SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abronia ammophila (Yellowstone sand Register publication. General comments verbena), Agrostis rossiae (Ross’ Background received in response to the 1976 bentgrass), Astragalus proimanthus proposal are summarized in an April 26, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 1978, Federal Register publication (43 (precocious milkvetch), Boechera U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for (Arabis) pusilla (Fremont County FR 17909). In 1978, amendments to any petition to revise the Federal Lists section 4(f)(5) of the Act required that rockcress or small rockcress), and of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Penstemon gibbensii (Gibbens’ all proposals over 2 years old be and Plants that contains substantial withdrawn. However, proposals already beardtongue) as threatened or scientific or commercial information endangered, and to designate critical over 2 years old were given a 1-year that listing the species may be grace period. On December 10, 1979, we habitat under the Endangered Species warranted, we make a finding within 12 Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After published a notice in the Federal months of the date of receipt of the Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the review of all available scientific and petition. In this finding, we will commercial information, we find that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal determine that the petitioned action is: that had not been made final. This listing A. ammophila, A. rossiae, A. (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) proimanthus, and P. gibbensii is not removed both A. proimanthus and warranted, but the immediate proposal Agrostis rossiae from proposed status, warranted at this time. However, we ask of a regulation implementing the the public to submit to us any new but retained both species as candidate petitioned action is precluded by other ‘‘ information that becomes available plant taxa that may qualify for listing pending proposals to determine whether ’’ concerning the threats to A. ammophila, under the Act. species are threatened or endangered, On December 15, 1980, we published A. rossiae, A. proimanthus, and P. and expeditious progress is being made a current list of those plant taxa native gibbensii or their habitats at any time. to add or remove qualified species from to the United States being considered After a review of all the available the Federal Lists of Endangered and for listing under the Act; this identified scientific and commercial information, Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section both Agrostis rossiae and Astragalus we find that listing B. pusilla as 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we proimanthus as category 1 taxa (45 FR threatened or endangered is warranted. treat a petition for which the requested 82480). The Service defined category 1 However, currently listing B. pusilla is action is found to be warranted but taxa as a taxonomic group for which we precluded by higher priority actions to precluded as though resubmitted on the presently had sufficient information on amend the Federal Lists of Endangered date of such finding, that is, requiring a hand to support the biological and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. subsequent finding to be made within appropriateness of these taxa being Upon publication of this 12-month 12 months. We must publish these 12- listed as threatened or endangered petition finding, we will add B. pusilla month findings in the Federal Register. species (45 FR 82480). On November 28, to our candidate species list. We will 1983, A. rossiae was lowered to a Previous Federal Actions develop a proposed rule to list B. pusilla category 2 taxon ‘‘currently under as our priorities allow. We will make Federal action for Agrostis rossiae and review,’’ whereas A. proimanthus was any determinations on critical habitat Astragalus proimanthus began as a moved to the ‘‘taxa no longer under during development of the proposed result of section 12 of the original Act, review’’ list, and given a 3C rank, listing rule. In any interim period, we which directed the Secretary of the indicating the species was more will address the status of the candidate Smithsonian Institution to prepare a abundant or widespread than previously taxon through our annual Candidate report on plants considered to be believed or not subjected to any Notice of Review. endangered, threatened, or extinct in the identifiable threat (48 FR 53640). We DATES: The finding announced in this United States. This report, designated as defined category 2 taxa as those for document was made on June 9, 2011. House Document No. 94–51, was which we had information at that time ADDRESSES: This finding is available on presented to Congress on January 9, that indicated proposing to list was the Internet at http:// 1975. That document lists A. rossiae as possibly appropriate, but for which www.regulations.gov at Docket Number a threatened species and A. substantial data on biological

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:51 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33925

vulnerability and threat(s) was not Guardians), requesting that we: (1) Register a finding as to whether currently known or on file to support Consider all full species in our WildEarth Guardians’ petitions present proposed rules. Boechera (formerly Mountain-Prairie Region ranked as G1 substantial information indicating that Arabis) pusilla and Penstemon gibbensii or G1G2 by the organization the petitioned actions may be warranted were added as category 2 taxa during NatureServe, except those that are for the remaining 38 mountain-prairie the same review (48 FR 53640). These currently listed, proposed for listing, or species by August 9, 2009. four species retained the same ranking candidates for listing; and (2) list each On June 18, 2008, we received a for the subsequent review on September species as either threatened or petition from WildEarth Guardians 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). The February endangered. The petition identified 206 dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list 21, 1990, list kept A. rossiae, B. pusilla, species as petitioned entities, including and P. gibbensii as category 2 taxa, and the 5 species we address in this status 32 species under the Administrative reverted A. proimanthus back to a review. A species ranking of G1 is Procedure Act and the Endangered category 2 taxon (55 FR 6184). defined as a species that is critically Species Act. Of those 32 species, 11 The September 30, 1993, review imperiled across its entire range (or were included in the July 24, 2007, changed the status of Boechera pusilla global range) (NatureServe 2010b, p. 3). petition to be listed on a non-emergency to a category 1 species (58 FR 51144). A ranking of G1G2 means the species is basis. Although the Act does not This review added a ‘‘status trend’’ either ranked as a G1 or a G2 species, provide for a petition process for an column. Each species was identified as with G2 defined as imperiled across its interested person to seek to have a increasing (I), stable (S), declining (D), entire range (NatureServe 2010b, pp. 3– species emergency listed, section 4(b)(7) or unknown (U). The 1993 review added 4). The petition incorporated all of the Act authorizes the Service to Abronia ammophila and assigned it a analysis, references, and documentation issue emergency regulations to 2U rank, moved Boechera pusilla up to provided by NatureServe in its online temporarily list a species. In a letter a 1D rank, and listed Agrostis rossiae as database at http://www.natureserve.org/ dated July 25, 2008, we stated that the 2U, Astragalus proimanthus as 2S, and into the petition. The petition clearly information provided in both the 2007 Penstemon gibbensii as 2U (58 FR identified itself as a petition and and 2008 petitions and in our files did 51144). included the identification information, not indicate that an emergency situation On February 28, 1996, we proposed as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent existed for any of the 11 species. The discontinuing the designation of a letter to the petitioners, dated August Service’s decisions whether to exercise category 2 species as candidates due to 24, 2007, acknowledging receipt of the its authority to issue emergency the lack of sufficient information to petition and stating that, based on regulations to temporarily list a species justify issuance of a proposed rule (61 preliminary review, we found no are not judicially reviewable. See Fund FR 7596). This proposal included compelling evidence to support an eliminating candidate status for four of for Animals v. Hogan, 428 F.3d 1059 emergency listing for any of the species the five species addressed in this (DC Cir. 2005). covered by the petition. finding; only Boechera pusilla was On August 18, 2009, we published a proposed to remain a candidate (61 FR On March 19, 2008, WildEarth notice of 90-day finding (74 FR 41649) 7596). This policy change was finalized Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– on the remaining 38 species from the on December 5, 1996, stating that the 472–CKK) indicating that the Service petition to list 206 species in the listing of category 2 species was not failed to comply with its mandatory mountain-prairie region of the United needed because of other lists already duty to make a preliminary 90-day States as threatened or endangered maintained by other entities such as finding on their two multiple-species under the Act. We found that the petitions—one for mountain-prairie Federal and State agencies (61 FR petition presented substantial scientific species and one for southwest species. 64481). and commercial information for 29 of We subsequently published two initial On September 19, 1997, we published the 38 species, indicating that listing 90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74 a notice of review that retained may be warranted for those species. The FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR Boechera pusilla as a candidate species 5 species we address in this 12-month 6122). The February 5, 2009, finding (62 FR 49398). However, on October 25, finding were included within these 29 1999, we published a notice of review determined that there was not species. We also opened a 60-day public that indicated our intent to remove substantial scientific or commercial comment period to allow all interested several species, including B. pusilla, information indicating that listing 165 parties an opportunity to provide from the list of candidate species of the 206 petitioned species in the because evidence suggested that these mountain-prairie region may be information on the status of the 29 taxa were either more abundant than warranted (74 FR 6122). Two additional species (74 FR 41649). The public previously believed or that the taxa species were evaluated in a January 6, comment period closed on October 19, were not subject to the degree of threats 2009, 90-day finding (74 FR 419), and 2009. We received 224 public sufficient to warrant continuance of no determination was made on whether comments. Of these, 38 specifically candidate status, issuance of a proposed substantial information had been addressed Abronia ammophila, Agrostis listing, or a final listing (64 FR 57534). presented on the remaining 39 species rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, The change of status for B. pusilla was included in the petition (74 FR 6122). Boechera pusilla, and Penstemon finalized on October 20, 2000, on the The 5 species covered in this 12-month gibbensii. All information received has basis that regulatory mechanisms and finding were among the remaining 39 been carefully considered in this changes to management of the species. An additional species was finding. This notice constitutes the 12- associated land reduced or eliminated determined to qualify for candidate month finding on 5 of the 206 species the threats facing B. pusilla and ensured status (73 FR 75175; December 10, identified in WildEarth Guardians’ the survival and conservation of this 2008). On March 13, 2009, the Service petition dated July 24, 2007, to list species (65 FR 63044). and WildEarth Guardians filed a Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, On July 30, 2007, we received a stipulated settlement in the District of Astragalus proimanthus, Boechera formal petition dated July 24, 2007, Columbia Court, agreeing that the pusilla, and Penstemon gibbensii as from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Service would submit to the Federal threatened or endangered.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Summary of Procedures for Determining endangered or is likely to become determine if that portion is significant. the Listing Status of Species endangered in the foreseeable future However, if the Service determines that (threatened). Section 3(16) of the Act both a portion of the range of a species Review of Status Based on Five Factors defines a species to include only a is significant and the species is Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) vertebrate species as a DPS. Therefore, threatened or endangered there, the and implementing regulations (50 CFR the Service’s Policy Regarding the Service will specify that portion of the part 424) set forth procedures for adding Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate range as threatened or endangered species to, removing species from, or Population Segments Under the under section 4(c)(1) of the ESA. reclassifying species on the Federal Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) Lists of Endangered and Threatened (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) is not Evaluation of the Status of Each of the Wildlife and Plants. Under section applicable to plants and no population Five Plant Species 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be segments under the review could For each of the five species, we determined to be endangered or qualify as DPSs under the Act. Although provide a description of the species and threatened based on any of the the Service’s DPS Policy is not its life-history and habitat, an evaluation following five factors: applicable to plants, we do determine in of listing factors for that species, and (A) The present or threatened our findings whether a plant species is our finding that the petitioned action is destruction, modification, or threatened or endangered in a warranted or not for that species. We curtailment of its habitat or range; significant portion of its range. follow these descriptions, evaluations, (B) Overutilization for commercial, Significant Portion of the Range and findings with a discussion of the recreational, scientific, or educational In determining whether a species is priority and progress of our listing purposes; actions. (C) Disease or predation; threatened or endangered in a (D) The inadequacy of existing significant portion of its range, we first Species Information for Abronia regulatory mechanisms; or identify any portions of the range of the ammophila species that warrant further (E) Other natural or manmade factors Species Description affecting its continued existence. consideration. The range of a species In making these findings, information can theoretically be divided into Abronia ammophila is a low-growing, pertaining to each species in relation to portions an infinite number of ways. mat-forming perennial herb (Clark et al. the five factors provided in section However, there is no purpose to 1989, p. 7; Fertig 1994, unpaginated; 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In analyzing portions of the range that are (National Park Service (NPS) 1999b, p. considering what factors might not reasonably likely to be both (1) 3; Fertig 2000b, unpaginated; Saunders constitute threats to a species, we must significant and (2) threatened or and Sipes 2006, p. 76). A. ammophila is look beyond the exposure of the species endangered. To identify only those a highly restricted endemic (occurring to a particular factor to evaluate whether portions that warrant further only in one location or region) to the the species may respond to the factor in consideration, we determine whether Yellowstone Plateau (NPS 1999a, p. 1). a way that causes actual impacts to the there is substantial information In addition to the common name of species. If there is exposure to a factor indicating that: (1) The portions may be Yellowstone sand verbena, A. and the species responds negatively, the significant, and (2) the species may be ammophila has been called Tweedy’s in danger of extinction there or likely to factor may be a threat, and during the sand verbena (Clark et al. 1989, p. 7; become so within the foreseeable future. status review, we attempt to determine Marriott 1993, p. 1) and Wyoming sand In practice, a key part of this analysis is how significant a threat it is. The threat verbena (Integrated Taxonomic whether the threats are geographically is significant if it drives or contributes Information System 2010a, concentrated in some way. If the threats to the risk of extinction of the species unpaginated). to the species are essentially uniform such that the species warrants listing as throughout its range, no portion is likely Abronia ammophila has a large endangered or threatened as those terms to warrant further consideration. taproot (primary root that grows are defined by the Act. However, the Moreover, if any concentration of vertically downward, not highly identification of factors that could threats applies only to portions of the branched) that can be over 0.5 meter (m) impact a species negatively may not be species’ range that are not significant, (1.6 feet (ft)) in length, which helps the sufficient to compel a finding that the such portions will not warrant further plant root into the loose sand (Whipple species warrants listing. The consideration. 1999, p. 3; Whipple 2002, p. 257; information must include evidence If we identify portions that warrant Saunders and Sipes 2004, p. 9). Its sufficient to suggest that the potential further consideration, we then stems can grow up to 2 to 4 decimeters threat has the capacity (i.e., it should be determine whether the species is (dm) (0.66 to 1.31 ft) in length; however, of sufficient magnitude and extent) to threatened or endangered in these this plant is only 2.5 to 10.2 centimeters affect the species’ status such that it portions of its range. Depending on the (cm) (1 to 4 inches (in.)) tall (Rydberg meets the definition of endangered or biology of the species, its range, and the 1900, p. 137; Galloway 1975, p. 344; threatened under the Act. threats it faces, the Service may address Fertig 1994, unpaginated; NPS 1999b, p. Findings either the significance question or the 3; Fertig 2000b, unpaginated; NPS 2000, status question first. Thus, if the Service unpaginated). A. ammophila is covered Distinct Population Segments considers significance first and by sticky glands, which result in the After considering the five factors, we determines that a portion of the range is plants being covered with sand (Coulter assess whether each species is not significant, the Service need not and Nelson 1909, p. 175; NPS 1999b, p. threatened or endangered throughout all determine whether the species is 3; NPS 2000, unpaginated; Whipple of its range. Generally, we next consider threatened or endangered there. 2002, pp. 257–258; Saunders and Sipes in our findings whether a distinct Likewise, if the Service considers status 2006, p. 76). The leaf blades are vertebrate population segment (DPS) or first and determines that the species is succulent (fleshy) and oval or diamond- any significant portion of the species’ not threatened or endangered in a shaped with smooth edges (Fertig 1994, range meets the definition of portion of its range, the Service need not unpaginated; NPS 1999b, p. 3).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33927

The flowers of Abronia ammophila 1999b, p. 2, Flora of North America 7; Whipple 2002, p. 258). Water also are whitish to light pink or light green 2010a, unpaginated). Most Abronia may facilitate dispersal (Saunders and and grow in a capitulum (head-like occur in the western United States and Sipes 2006, p. 79). As A. ammophila group of flowers) typically containing 4 Mexico, but some extend into southern occurs in locations that are not located to 21 flowers (Saunders and Sipes 2006, Canada and east into the Great Plains adjacent to each other, there appears to p. 79). The flowers are hermaphroditic and Texas (NPS 1999b, p. 2). A. be an effective method of seed dispersal (possessing both male and female ammophila is similar to Abronia (NPS 1999b, pp. 6–7; Whipple 2002, p. reproductive organs) (Saunders and mellifera (Fertig 1994, unpaginated) and 258). However, the longevity of A. Sipes 2004, p. 9; 2006, p. 76). As with Abronia fragrans (Flora of North ammophila seeds in the seed bank in other members of the Nyctaginaceae (the America 2010, unpaginated). We unknown (NPS 1999b, p. 7; Whipple Four O’Clock) family, A. ammophila recognize A. ammophila as a valid 2002, p. 258). lacks true petals (Saunders and Sipes species and a listable entity. Habitat 2004, p. 9; 2006, p. 76). Biology and Life History Abronia ammophila is endemic to Discovery and Taxonomy Abronia ammophila starts to flower YNP, within Park and Teton Counties of Frank Tweedy made the first by the middle of June and continues Wyoming (Whipple 2002, p. 256; Fertig collection of Abronia ammophila in producing flowers until a frost occurs 2000b, unpaginated; Saunders and Sipes 1885; however, he labeled it as Abronia that kills its aboveground parts, usually 2006, p. 76). Specifically, A. ammophila villosa (desert sand verbena). The in late August or early September (NPS occurs around Yellowstone Lake collection was from the sandy beaches 1999b, p. 6; Whipple 1999, p. 3; NPS typically within 40 m (131.2 ft) of the on the north side of Yellowstone Lake 2000, unpaginated; Whipple 2002, p. shoreline (NPS 1999b, p. 5; Whipple at the mouth of Pelican Creek (Tweedy 258). This extended blooming period is 1999, p. 3; Fertig 2000b, unpaginated; 1886, p. 59). A. villosa is a common unusual in comparison to other plants Whipple 2002, p. 262). The plant has purple-flowered species of the in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) been found up to 60 m (196.9 ft) inland American southwest (Whipple 2002, p. (Whipple 1999, p. 3). Additionally, and up to approximately 10 m (32.8 ft) 256). In 1900, Per Axel Rydberg unlike many of its associated species, A. above the high-water line (NPS 1999b, determined that Tweedy’s sample was ammophila continues to flower p. 5; Whipple 1999, p. 3; Fertig 2000b, sufficiently different from other Abronia vigorously even after setting fruit (NPS unpaginated; Whipple 2002, p. 262). A. to warrant recognition as a unique 1999b, p. 6; Whipple 2002, p. 258). ammophila generally occurs above the species; he named it Abronia arenaria Abronia ammophila is visited by high-water mark; no plants grow in (coastal sand verbena) (NPS 1999b, p. 2; several orders of insects (Saunders and areas that are regularly inundated (NPS Whipple 1999, p. 3; 2002, p. 256). Sipes 2004, p. 10; 2006, p. 80). The most 1999b, p. 5; Whipple 1999, p. 3; 2002, However, the name A. arenaria had frequent visitors to A. ammophila are p. 262). Yellowstone Lake is a high- previously been used (NPS 1999b, p. 2; lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) elevation (2,360 m (7,742 ft)), freshwater Whipple 1999, p. 2; 2002, p. 256). E.L. (Saunders and Sipes 2004, p. 10; 2006, lake that was formed by volcanic Greene proposed the name A. p. 80). Even though Abronia ammophila activity (Pierce et al. 2007, pp. 131–132; ammophila for the Yellowstone sand is visited by a diverse range of NPS 2006a, unpaginated). The lake level verbena species (Greene 1900 as cited in pollinators, the total number of was originally 61 m (200 ft) higher than Whipple 2002, p. 256). pollinator visitations is extremely low its present level, and the level is not The name Abronia ammophila was (Saunders and Sipes 2006, p. 81). The entirely stable (Pierce et al. 2007, pp. formally recognized (Coulter and Nelson low level of pollinator visits may be 131–132; NPS 2006a, unpaginated). A. 1909, p. 175); however, midway through offset by A. ammophila exhibiting a ammophila appears to be able to adapt the 20th century it was combined with mixed-mating system (Saunders and to the continually changing boundaries Abronia fragrans (snowball sand Sipes 2004, pp. 6, 10, 12; 2006, p. 82). of its habitat as defined by Yellowstone verbena), a widespread western species In addition to cross-pollination Lake’s fluctuations. (Hitchcock et al. 1964 and Despain 1975 facilitated by pollinators, A. ammophila Occurring between the area of beach as cited in Whipple 2002, p. 257). In is able to self-pollinate with or without affected by wave action and the more 1975, a study of the Abronia genus a pollen vector (Saunders and Sipes densely vegetated areas inland, Abronia determined that the Yellowstone species 2004, pp. 6, 10, 12; 2006, pp. 80–82; ammophila prefers open, sunny, was unique (Galloway 1975, p. 344; NPS Whipple 2010b, pers. comm.). Self- sparsely vegetated sites (NPS 1999b, p. 1999b, p. 3; Whipple 2002, p. 257). pollination is highly likely due to the 5; Whipple 2002, p. 262; Saunders and Plant material collected from scrub floral morphology (the structure of the Sipes 2006, p. 77). Associated vegetative communities of sandy hills near Big flower) and the functional phenology species include Phacelia hastata (silver- Piney, Sublette County, Wyoming, also (life cycle) of A. ammophila (Saunders leaf scorpion-weed), Rumex venosus was included under A. ammophila and Sipes 2006, p. 81). (veiny dock), Polemonium (Galloway 1975, p. 344, NPS 1999b, p. Abronia ammophila is capable of pulcherrimum (Jacob’s-ladder), and 3; Whipple 2002, p. 257). Further producing large numbers of flowers Lupinus argenteus (silvery lupine) (NPS examination revealed that the (Saunders and Sipes 2004, p. 13). Seed 1999b, p. 5; Whipple 2002, p. 262; specimens from Sublette County are dispersal mechanisms of Abronia Saunders and Sipes 2006, p. 77). A. actually Abronia mellifera (white sand ammophila have not been extensively ammophila loses its competitive verbena) (Marriott 1993, pp. 6, 9; Fertig studied. Primary seed dispersal appears advantage on more stable soils or in 1994, unpaginated). to occur beneath the parent plant areas where Artemisia tridentata (big Abronia ammophila is a member of (Saunders and Sipes 2006, p. 79). Seeds sagebrush) or Eriogonum umbellatum the New World plant family also accumulate in depressions of the (sulfur flower buckwheat) occur Nyctaginaceae that typically lives in sand, where the wind has blown them (Whipple 2002, p. 262; Saunders and warmer climates, such as deserts and (NPS 1999b, p. 6; Whipple 2002, p. Sipes 2006, p. 77). tropical areas (NPS 2000, unpaginated). 258). The sticky surface of the seeds Abronia ammophila occurs at four The genus Abronia contains may facilitate dispersal, for example on locations around Yellowstone Lake; approximately 20 to 30 species (NPS the feet of waterfowl (NPS 1999b, pp. 6– these locations are identified as North

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Shore, Rock Point, Pumice Point, and populations where an exact count was seedlings were observed (NPS 1999b, p. South Arm (NPS 1999a, pp. 3–6; NPS easily obtained (Correy 2009, entire; 7). Extensive surveys during the 1998– 1999b, pp. 4–5; Whipple 2002, p. 262). Whipple 2010d, pers. comm.). 1999 field seasons conservatively These populations cover an area of 0.6 estimated the North Shore population to hectares (ha) (1.48 acres (ac)) (Whipple TABLE 1—POPULATION ESTIMATES OF consist of 7,978 Abronia ammophila 2011, pers. comm.). The populations all ABRONIA AMMOPHILA plants, with 45 percent of the occur in loose, unconsolidated (loosely population represented by young arranged) sand with a minimal amount Population Estimated numbers recruitment within the prior 2 years of fines (powdered material), gravel, or (year of discovery) (year) (recruit and medium class plants) (NPS organic matter (NPS 1999b, p. 5; 1999a, p. 1). The record high lake levels North Shore (prior to Approx. 1,000 (early Whipple 2002, p. 262; Saunders and 1998). 1990s). of 1996 and 1997 appeared to improve Sipes 2006, p. 77). All sites are located 7,978 (1998–1999) the habitat conditions for A. ammophila on beach sand except the Pumice Point rigorous count. by eroding the southern edge of the site, which occurs on black sand (NPS Approx. 3,600 (2010). stabilized sand along the northern 1999b, p. 5; Whipple 2002, p. 262). Rock Point (1998) ..... 325 (1998). shoreline (NPS 1999b, p. 7; Whipple Some of the populations occur in 120 (2009). 2002, p. 265). Although this erosion horseshoe-shaped, sandy depressions Pumice Point (1998) .. 22 (1998). washed away part of the existing (blowouts) (NPS 1999a, p. 3; 1999b, p. 1 (2001). habitat, it also improved conditions for 5; Whipple 2002, p. 262; Saunders and 5 (2009). recruitment of seedlings (NPS 1999b, p. Sipes 2006, p. 77). Additionally, the 24 (2010). 7; Whipple 2002, p. 265). South Arm (1998) ...... 1 (1998). largest subpopulation in the North 3 (2005). During the 2009–2010 field season, Shore area—the ‘‘Thermal’’ site—is 2 (2010). surveys of the North Shore population located adjacent to a small thermal yielded an approximate count of 3,600 barren (area where no vegetation grows) Totals ...... 1,000 (early 1990s) A. ammophila plants (Correy 2009, p. 3; (NPS 1999a, p. 6; NPS 1999b, p. 6). This (only North Shore Whipple 2010d, pers. comm.; Whipple area hosts an extremely dense known). 2011, pers. comm.). The North Shore population of Abronia ammophila with 8,326 (1998–1999) population can be split into four some of the largest individuals (NPS rigorous count. subpopulations (Correy 2009, p. 2). Two 1999b, p. 6). A. ammophila is able to 2,728 (2009) esti- of these subpopulations had comparable mate. coexist with thermal influences; 3,626 (2010) esti- population counts during both the however, most of the populations grow mate. 1998–1999 survey and the 2009–2010 on ground that is not thermally estimate (Correy 2009, pp. 3–4). The influenced (NPS 1999a, p. 6). References: NPS 1999a, Appendix A; Corry remaining two subpopulations, the 2009, Table 1; Whipple 2002, p. 259; 2010d pers. comm. Thermal and Long Skinny groups, had Distribution and Abundance decreased in both total area populated Herbarium records show that Abronia The majority of Abronia ammophila and total number of plants (Correy 2009, ammophila was previously more widely is found in the North Shore population p. 5). The central portion of the Thermal distributed along the northern shore of scattered along a 2.41-km (1.5-mi) group is now bare or mostly bare sand Yellowstone Lake (NPS 1999b, p. 9; stretch of beach on the northern due to increased ground temperatures Whipple 2002, p. 258). Locations such shoreline of Yellowstone Lake between (due to changes within the Yellowstone as 0.40 kilometer (km) (0.25 mile (mi)) the mouth of Pelican Creek and Storm geothermal basin), ground subsidence, west of the mouth of Pelican Creek and Point (NPS 1999a, p. 3; 1999b, p. 4; increased scouring during storms, or a several locations near the current Correy 2009, p. 2). This population combination of such factors (Correy Fishing Bridge development have been contains 95 percent or more of all A. 2009, p. 5). The Long Skinny group also recorded as collection locations of A. ammophila (NPS 1999a, pp. 2, may have been affected by increased ammophila (NPS 1999b, p. 9; Whipple Appendix A; Whipple 2002, p. 264; ground temperatures, particularly on the 2002, pp. 258–259). Many additional Correy 2009, p. 4). Prior to surveys western end; furthermore, some of the areas of the northern shoreline provide conducted between 1995 and 1999, the habitat may have eroded (Correy 2009, suitable habitat for A. ammophila, such North Shore population of A. p. 5). Additional factors potentially as west of Pelican Creek to the outlet of ammophila was the only known affecting the low population count the Yellowstone River and Mary Bay population (NPS 1999a, p. 3; Correy include many years of drought (Whipple (NPS 1999b, p. 9; Whipple 2002, p. 259; 2009, p. 2). Of the additionally 2002, p. 265; Correy 2009, pp. 5–6) and Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). discovered sites, two are located on the lack of rigorous survey methods (Correy Construction of the East Entrance Road west shore of Yellowstone Lake: One at 2009, pp. 5–6). and the Fishing Bridge campground, an Rock Point, and one at a picnic area 1.6 The Rock Point and Pumice Point area that was near the current parking km (1 mi) west of Pumice Point (NPS Abronia ammophila populations were area for the Fishing Bridge Museum, as 1999a, p. 5; NPS 1999b, p. 4). accurately counted in 1998 and 2009 well as higher human use may have Additionally, a single plant was found (Correy 2009, Table 1). In 1998, the extirpated populations of A. ammophila during surveys on the east shore of the Rock Point population consisted of 324 in these areas (NPS 1999b, pp. 8–9; South Arm (NPS 1999a, p. 5). Not all individual plants; the 2009 survey Whipple 2002, pp. 258–259; Whipple suitable habitat within YNP has been counted 120 individual plants (NPS 2010a, pers. comm.). surveyed (NPS 1999a, pp. 6–7). 1999a, p. 6; Correy 2009, Table 1). An Table 1 below presents available Casual surveys of the North Shore area of Rock Point surveyed in 1998 had information regarding the four area in the early 1990s estimated the no A. ammophila in June, but contained populations of Abronia ammophila. The population to be around 1,000 plants many medium-sized plants later in the 1998–1999 survey was a rigorous (Correy 2009, pp. 1–2), with the summer (NPS 1999a, p. 6). The Pumice population count (NPS 1999a, entire). majority of the plants of a large-size Point population consisted of 22 plants The other years were generally class representing mature, older plants in 1998, whereas only 5 were counted estimates, except for some of the smaller (NPS 1999a, p. 1; 1999b, p. 7). No in 2009 (NPS 1999a, p. 6; Correy 2009,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33929

Table 1). In 1998, the Pumice Point Trends sensitive plants and animals (See population contained a higher Natural fluctuations in the Abronia Yellowstone National Park under Factor percentage of large (diameter greater ammophila population from year to year D. The Inadequacy of Existing than or equal to 5 up to 30 cm (2 up to or even within a season are not Regulatory Mechanisms in this Five 11.8 in.)) and very large (diameter understood (Correy 2009, p. 6). From Factor Evaluation for Abronia greater than or equal to 30 cm (11.8 in.)) the first population estimates of the ammophila section). YNP was plants when compared to the North North Shore population in the early established prior to the States in which Shore population distribution (NPS 1990s to the more rigorous survey it is located (Mazzu 2010, pers. comm.; 1999a, p. 6). Additionally, the Pumice conducted in 1998–1999, there was Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). This Point population contained 24 plants in extensive recruitment and the A. means that YNP owns not only the land, the 2010 field survey (Whipple 2010e, ammophila population increased but also the mineral rights; therefore, pers. comm.), which is comparable to approximately 87 percent (NPS 1999a, energy development is not a threat the 1998 population count. p. 1; Correy 2009, pp. 6, Table 1). (Mazzu 2010, pers. comm.; Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). Construction of The South Arm population contained Notably, 1996 and 1997 had high precipitation, with resultant high lake new roads, trails, or structures within only one large Abronia ammophila YNP is rare, with reconstruction of plant when it was discovered in 1998 levels (NPS 1999a, p. 2). The 1998–1999 surveys recorded approximately 20 existing features occurring occasionally. (NPS 1999a, p. 6). When this site was percent of the population to be When new construction or revisited in 2005, the large individual seedlings or recruit size class (NPS reconstruction occurs in areas where found in 1998 was no longer present, 1999a, Appendix A). The 2009 there are sensitive species, YNP but three small A. ammophila plants population estimate of the North Shore analyzes and carries out construction in were present (Correy 2009, p. 2). populations shows a decrease from the a manner that minimizes adverse Additionally, during the 2010 field 1998–1999 survey (Correy 2009, Table effects. A. ammophila populations are survey, this population consisted of two 1). However, the 1998–1999 survey was located a sufficient distance from roads; plants (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). an exact count, whereas the 2009 was an therefore, road reconstruction does not Dead and dying plants were counted estimate. Additionally, the subsequent impact any of the A. ammophila during the 1998–1999 field surveys. 2010 population estimate shows a slight populations (Whipple 2010e, pers. Dead and dying Abronia ammophila increase in the population size comm.). As noted above (see Distribution and plants accounted for 1.3 percent of the compared to the 2009 population Abundance), Abronia ammophila has total population (NPS 1999a, Appendix estimate (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). Hypotheses for population fluctuations been extirpated in some areas in which A). Of the dead A. ammophila plants, there is no longer habitat due to the many were large individuals; however, are changing thermal activity of the underlying area, ground subsidence, construction of roads or structures. some were failed seedlings (NPS 1999b, However, the construction in these areas p. 7). The majority of dead and dying changing precipitation levels, and human and animal activity (Correy occurred prior to YNP identifying A. plants did not display obvious causes of ammophila as a species of conservation mortality; they were interspersed 2009, pp. 5–6). The A. ammophila population seems to be stable within the concern. Now, when new construction throughout the communities (NPS or reconstruction occurs, YNP analyzes 1999b, p. 7). Additionally, stressed A. parameters of a population that lives in an unstable habitat that fluctuates with and carries out construction in a manner ammophila plants are able to recover that avoids adverse effects to sensitive and put out new growth later in the wave action and weather (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). species. Additionally, projects must be season (NPS 1999b, p. 7). accompanied by a Resource Compliance The Wyoming Natural Diversity Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia Checklist that requires the evaluation of Database (WNDD) has designated ammophila any potential impacts to resources Abronia ammophila as a plant species Information pertaining to Abronia including rare plants; if there are of concern with ranks of G1 and S1 ammophila in relation to the five factors impacts, mitigation measures are (Heidel 2007, p. 1). This designation provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is developed (Schneider 2010, pers. indicates that A. ammophila is discussed below. comm.). The majority of YNP remains considered to be critically imperiled undeveloped, and we have no Factor A. The Present or Threatened information that this will change; because of extreme rarity (i.e., often less Destruction, Modification, or than five occurrences (a location where therefore, we do not consider Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range development to be a threat to the a plant or plants has been recorded)) or species now or in the foreseeable future. because some factor makes it highly Potential factors that may affect the habitat or range of Abronia ammophila vulnerable to extinction both at the Trampling are discussed in this section, including: global and State level; however, this (1) Development, (2) trampling, (3) Trampling of Abronia ammophila, by ranking does not grant A. ammophila nonnative invasive plants, (4) climate both humans and wildlife, is a potential any special status under State change, and (5) drought. concern at most sites (Whipple 2010a, legislation (WNDD 2009, unpaginated; pers. comm.). The Abronia genus is WNDD 2010, unpaginated). Since A. Development vulnerable to disturbance by trampling ammophila is endemic to Wyoming, the Abronia ammophila occurs entirely (NPS 1999b, p. 8; Whipple 2010e, pers. Wyoming occurrences encompass the inside YNP, which limits potential comm.). Trampling is frequently entire global range. Additionally, YNP threats to its habitat. By statute, indicated as a threat to A. ammophila considers A. ammophila to be a regulation, and policy, YNP conserves (e.g., NPS 1999a; 1999b); however, sensitive species of concern; therefore, it wildlife and habitat; preserves and studies that seek to document trampling evaluates effects to this species in maintains biological processes, indicate that there is very little foot conjunction with any project or action ecosystem components, and ecological traffic actually impacting the that has the potential to affect the plant integrity; controls invasive plants; and populations of A. ammophila (NPS (Whipple 2011, pers. comm.). protects and monitors populations of 1999a, pp. 2, 5).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

The North Shore population is located of visitors correlates with increased (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). in one of the least visited portions of the trampling of Abronia ammophila Additionally, some B. tectorum was north side of Yellowstone Lake’s populations to a level that poses a threat documented around the Storm Point shoreline (NPS 1999b, p. 8). A large to the species. population (NPS 1999b, p. 8). To wetland restricts access to this site from Wildlife trampling, particularly by combat these occurrences, YNP has an the west (NPS 1999b, p. 8). The Storm ungulates, is occasionally indicated as a exotic vegetation management plan in Point Trail approaches the east end of concern (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.) place that emphasizes prevention, the North Shore population, and visitors We believe that these anecdotal education, early detection and occasionally walk down the beach observations do not add up to routine eradication, control, and monitoring toward this population (NPS 1999b, p. impacts on a scale that would cause the (Olliff et al. 2001, entire). 8). The YNP plans to install a sign just species to be threatened or endangered. In summary, nonnative invasive past the Storm Point Trail requesting Additionally, we believe that trampling plants occur within YNP; however, the that visitors remain near the water and by wildlife represents a natural majority of these species do not impact avoid sensitive vegetation areas ecological interaction in YNP that the the habitat of Abronia ammophila. A (Schneider 2010, pers. comm.). species would have evolved with and few nonnative invasive species have The Pelican Creek Nature Trail is also poses no threat to long-term persistence. been documented near the habitat of A. near the North Shore population In summary, the populations of ammophila. These species are being (Schneider 2010, pers. comm.). No Abronia ammophila are located in areas monitored and the National Park System plants currently occur in this area; of YNP that do not receive the bulk of (NPS) has mechanisms in place to help however, it is historical habitat visitor traffic. When surveys have control these encroachments. We have (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.; attempted to document trampling by no information indicating that Schneider 2010, pers. comm.). YNP is humans, observers had determined that nonnative invasive species are currently considering conservation the impact is minor. We have only modifying the species habitat to the measures, including closing all or part anecdotal evidence of wildlife extent that it represents a threat to the of this trail to protect the potential trampling. Therefore, we have no species now or in the foreseeable future. habitat (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.; information indicating that trampling by Climate Change Schneider 2010, pers. comm.). A final either humans or wildlife is a threat to decision, on this trail, has not been the species now or in the foreseeable The Intergovernmental Panel on made at this time (Whipple 2011, pers. future. Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological comm.). Nonnative Invasive Plants The Pumice Point population of Organization and the United Nations Abronia ammophila is located near an After habitat loss, the spread of Environment Program in response to unmarked picnic area; the plants are nonnative invasive species is growing concerns about climate change located within 10 m (32.8 ft) of the considered the second largest threat to and, in particular, the effects of global picnic tables (NPS 1999b, p. 8). This imperiled plants in the United States warming. The IPCC Fourth Assessment area is currently unsigned (not marked (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 608). Nonnative Report (IPCC 2007, entire) synthesized as a picnic area from the main road), invasive plants alter ecosystem the projections of the Coupled Model and the entrance is inconspicuous attributes including geomorphology, fire Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 3, (Whipple 2010c, pers. comm.). regime, hydrology, microclimate, a coordinated large set of climate model Additionally, the A. ammophila in this nutrient cycling, and productivity runs performed at modeling centers area may be benefiting from the (Dukes and Mooney 2004, pp. 411–437). worldwide using 22 global climate disturbance; if foot traffic did not occur, Nonnative invasive plants can models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 11). Based on the area might be more densely detrimentally affect native plants these projections, the IPCC has vegetated and not available as habitat through competitive exclusion, altered concluded that the warming of the for A. ammophila (NPS 1999b, p. 8; pollinator behaviors, niche climate system is unequivocal, as Whipple 2010c, pers. comm.). displacement, hybridization, and evidenced from observations of The two remaining populations are in changes in insect predation (D’Antonio increases in global average air and ocean areas with little visitation (NPS 1999b, and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74–75; temperatures, widespread melting of p. 8). The Rock Point population is DiTomaso 2000, p. 257; Mooney and snow and ice, and rising global average approximately a half-hour walk from the Cleland 2001, p. 5449; Levine et al. sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 30; Karl et closest access point (Whipple 2010c, 2003, p. 776; Traveset and Richardson al. 2009, p. 17). Changes in the global pers. comm.). The South Arm 2006, pp. 211–213). climate system during the 21st century population is accessible by boat, with a As of 2010, YNP has documented 218 are likely to be larger than those backcountry campsite located about 200 nonnative plant species occurring observed during the 20th century (IPCC m (656.2 ft) from the population within its boundaries (NPS 2010e, p. 1). 2007, p. 19). Several scenarios are (Whipple 2010c, pers. comm.). This Encroachment of invasive plants may virtually certain or very likely to occur backcountry campsite has no trail access potentially affect A. ammophila, as this in the 21st century including: (1) Over (Whipple 2010c, pers. comm.). species prefers open, sparsely vegetated most land, weather will be warmer, with YNP has received approximately 3 sites and does not compete well in areas fewer cold days and nights, and more million visitors a year for the past 20 that are more densely vegetated. frequent hot days and nights; (2) areas years; visitation was over 3 million for Currently, nonnative invasive plants affected by drought will increase; and 11 of those years (NPS 2010a, have affected only a few sites occupied (3) the frequency of warm spells and unpaginated). From January to by Abronia ammophila (NPS 1999b, p. heat waves over most land areas will September of 2010, YNP received 3.4 8; Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). The likely increase (IPCC 2007, pp. 13, 53). million visitors, an increase of 8.7 invasive grass Bromus tectorum In some cases, climate change effects percent over the previous year (NPS (cheatgrass) has been noted in the can be demonstrated and evaluated (e.g., 2010b, unpaginated). Even with vicinity of the North Shore population, McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6073). Where increases to visitation, we have no and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) regional effects from global climate information indicating that the number occurs near the Rock Point population change have been demonstrated, we can

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33931

rely on that empirical evidence to empirical studies are needed on what turn affect the habitat conditions for predict future impacts, such as determines the distributions of species Abronia ammophila. For example, fire increased stream temperatures (see and species assemblages. frequency, insect populations (e.g., status review for Rio Grande cutthroat Regional landscapes also can be mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus trout, 73 FR 27900; May 14, 2008) or examined by downscaling global ponderosae), and forest pathogens may loss of sea ice (see determination of climate models. Two common methods be influenced by climate change (Logan threatened status for the polar bear, 73 of downscaling are statistical and Powell 2001, p. 170; Westerling et FR 28212; May 15, 2008), and treat these downscaling and dynamic downscaling al. 2006, pp. 942–943) and may in turn effects as a threat that can be analyzed. (Fowler et al. 2007, p. 1548). These affect forest canopy cover and the In instances for which a direct cause downscaled models typically inherit the timing of snowmelt within the and effect relationship between global broad-scale results of global climate Yellowstone Lake watershed. The climate change and regional effects to a change models, imbed additional increased rate of snowmelt caused by specific species has not been information, and run the models at a fire-generated openings in the forest documented, we rely primarily on finer scale (Ray et al. 2010, p. 25, canopy from the 1988 fires in YNP may synthesis documents (e.g., IPCC 2007, Hostetler 2011, pers. comm.). These have slightly reduced the annual entire; Independent Scientific Advisory methods provide additional information maximum Yellowstone Lake level Board 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, at a finer spatial scale (i.e., all of because it spread the snowpack melt entire) to inform our evaluation of the Wyoming downscaled to a 15-km (9.3- rate over a longer period of time (Farnes extent that regional impacts due to mi) resolution (Hostetler 2010, pers. 2002, p. 73). Impacts of specific events climate change may affect our species. comm.). However, they are not able to on A. ammophila and its habitat have These synthesis documents present the account for the myriad of processes that not been analyzed. consensus view of climate change may affect a species that only inhabits Climate change is likely to affect experts from around the world. a narrow range, as local effects may multiple variables that may influence Additionally, we have examined models reduce or amplify the large-scale the availability of habitat for A. downscaled to specific regions (e.g., Ray patterns that are projected over the ammophila. As lake levels have et al. 2010, entire; WRCC 2011, p. 1; CIG larger spatial resolution of the global fluctuated in the past and A. ammophila 2011, p. 1)—including some in-progress climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 24). has adapted to these fluctuations, this finer-scaled models that include In summary, global climate models can species should be able to persist so long Wyoming and the surrounding area—in play an important role in characterizing as climate change does not result in order to inform our evaluation of the the types of changes that may occur, so extreme changes to important extent that regional impacts may that the potential impacts on natural characteristics of the species habitat, threaten species. Typically, the systems can be assessed (Shafer et al. such as the complete loss of water from projections of downscaled models agree 2001, p. 213). However, they are of Yellowstone Lake. At this time, the best with the projections of the global limited use to assess local impacts to available scientific information does not climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 25). species with a limited range, such as the indicate that impacts from climate Climate change projections are based on five plants discussed in this finding. change are likely to threaten the species Climate change is likely to affect the models with assumptions and are not now or in the foreseeable future. habitat of Abronia ammophila, but we absolute. lack scientific information on what Drought Portions of the global climate change those changes may ultimately mean for Precipitation studies show that YNP models can be used to predict changes the status of the species. Yellowstone weather cycles typically follow the at the regional-landscape scale; Lake water levels affect habitat larger weather patterns across the larger however, this approach contains higher conditions for A. ammophila. As noted Northern Rockies ecosystem (Gray et al. levels of uncertainty than using global previously, the record high lake levels 2007, p. 24). The reconstruction of models to examine changes on a larger of 1996 and 1997 (due to increased precipitation levels in YNP from AD scale. The uncertainty arises due to snowpack and subsequent spring 1173–1998 shows strong interannual various factors related to difficulty in snowmelt) had both positive and variability (Gray et al. 2007, entire). applying data to a smaller scale, and to negative effects on A. ammophila (NPS Moreover, extreme wet and dry years, the paucity of information in these 1999b, p. 7; Whipple 2002, p. 265). In which have occurred recently, fall models such as regional weather general, the outflow and maximum within the range of past variability (Gray patterns, local physiographic water surface elevation of Yellowstone et al. 2007, entire). conditions, life stages of individual Lake are functions of winter snow We believe that Abronia ammophila species, generation time of species, and accumulation and spring precipitation has evolved to adapt to recurring species reactions to changing carbon inputs; these vary significantly from drought conditions because it persists in dioxide levels. Additionally, global year to year (Farnes 2002, p. 73). this type of environment. Short-term climate models do not incorporate a Analysis of snow depth and last date of population fluctuations appear to be variety of plant-related factors that snow cover in YNP from 1948 to 2003 typical for the species. The population could be informative in determining has shown that winters are getting at Rock Point was thought to have been how climate change could affect plant shorter, as measured by the number of extirpated due to drought; however, a species (e.g., effect of elevated carbon days with snow on the ground (Wilmers survey in 2004 located seedlings at this dioxide on plant water-use efficiency, and Getz 2005, entire). This change is site (Saunders and Sipes 2004, p. 4). the physiological effect to the species of due to decreased snowfall and an The Pumice Point population exceeding the assumed (modeled) increase in the number of days with completely vanishes some years. It is bioclimatic limit, the life stage at which temperatures above freezing (Wilmers located on sand that does not connect to the limit affects the species (seedling and Getz 2005, entire). the aquifer, and during drought years versus adult), the life span of the Climate change effects are not limited the population can be 9.1 m (30 ft) species, and the movement of other to the timing and amount of above water (Whipple 2010e, pers. organisms into the species’ range) precipitation; other factors potentially comm.). Although drought may (Shafer et al. 2001, p. 207). Moreover, influenced by climate change may in temporarily influence the abundance of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

plants at some specific locations, we recreational, scientific, or educational the discussion below focuses on Federal have no information indicating that purposes. laws. Actions adopted by local groups, drought threatens the species now or in States, or Federal entities that are Factor C. Disease or Predation the foreseeable future. discretionary, including conservation Disease strategies and guidance, are not Summary of Factor A Abronia ammophila is not known to regulatory mechanisms; however, we YNP offers protection of Abronia be affected or threatened by any disease. may discuss them in relation to their ammophila populations from all kinds Therefore, we do not consider disease to effects on potential threats to the of development including roads, be a threat to A. ammophila now or in species. campgrounds, buildings, mining, and the foreseeable future. Federal Laws and Regulations energy development. There are currently no plans for any further Predation—Grazing and Herbivory Yellowstone National Park development in YNP near the existing No studies have been conducted All known populations of Abronia populations or potential habitat of A. investigating the effects of grazing or ammophila occur within YNP. The YNP ammophila. We have no information to herbivory on Abronia ammophila. was established as the first national park suggest that trampling, nonnative Minimal insect herbivory has been on March 1, 1872, under control of the invasive plants, climate change, or noted. Sphingid moth larvae and others Secretary of the Department of the drought represents a threat to the tentatively identified in the family Interior (NPS 2010c, unpaginated). The species. Noctuidae have been seen feeding on NPS was established by the NPS We conclude that the best scientific the aboveground plant parts (Saunders Organic Act of 1916, and reaffirmed by and commercial information available and Sipes 2004, p. 11). Also, what the General Authorities Act, as amended indicates that Abronia ammophila is not appeared to be an army cutworm (NPS 2008a, unpaginated; Schneider in danger of extinction or likely to caterpillar was observed eating the 2010, pers. comm.). The NPS Organic become so within the foreseeable future belowground parts of an uprooted plant Act states, ‘‘[The NPS] shall promote because of the present or threatened (NPS 1999b, p. 7). and regulate the use of the Federal areas destruction, modification, or Additionally, some uprooted, known as national parks, monuments, curtailment of its habitat or range. partially eaten taproots were found in and reservations* * * to conserve the areas with abundant rodent tunnels scenery and the natural and historic Factor B. Overutilization for (NPS 1999b, p. 7). Ungulate grazing has objects and the wild life therein and to Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or been noted on species that grow near provide for the enjoyment of the same Educational Purposes Abronia ammophila; however, none has in such manner and by such means as been noted on A. ammophila (NPS There has been limited use and will leave them unimpaired for the 1999b, p. 7). Any predation, as noted collection of Abronia ammophila and enjoyment of future generations’’ (16 above, would represent a natural its parts for scientific study (Saunders USC 1) (NPS 2006b, p. 8; NPS 2008a, ecological interaction in YNP. We have and Sipes 2006, p. 77). Additionally, the unpaginated; Schneider 2010, pers. no evidence that the extent of such Denver Botanical Gardens (DBG) comm.). predation represents a population level collected approximately 3,300 A. Additionally, the Management threat to A. ammophila. Therefore, we ammophila seeds in 2005 (DBG 2008, Policies of the NPS state that do not consider predation to be a threat p. 3). The DBG is a participating conservation is paramount in situations to the species now or in the foreseeable institution in the Center for Plant of conflict between conserving resources future. Conservation, an organization dedicated and values and providing for enjoyment to preventing the extinction of plants Summary of Factor C of them (NPS 2006b, p. 9; Schneider native to the United States (Center for We have no evidence of adverse 2010, pers. comm.). These policies also Plant Conservation 2010, unpaginated). impacts to Abronia ammophila from charge the NPS with preserving the Because these collections were limited, disease or predation. We conclude that fundamental physical and biological we do not believe this collection the best scientific and commercial processes, and maintaining all the constituted a threat to the species. The information available indicates that A. components and processes of a naturally collections also contribute to the long- ammophila is not in danger of evolving park ecosystem, including the term conservation of the species. extinction or likely to become so within natural abundance, diversity, and Specimens, seeds, and parts of the foreseeable future because of disease genetic and ecological integrity of the Abronia ammophila are occasionally or predation from herbivory or grazing. plant and animal species native to those collected for scientific purposes in order ecosystems (NPS 2006b, pp. 35–36; to increase the knowledge of this Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Schneider 2010, pers. comm.). The NPS species (e.g., Saunders and Sipes 2006; Regulatory Mechanisms is responsible for the inventory of native DBG 2008); however, these collections The Act requires us to examine the species that are of special management are rare. We do not have any evidence adequacy of existing regulatory concern to parks (such as rare, of risks to A. ammophila from mechanisms with respect to threats that declining, sensitive, or unique species overutilization for commercial, may place Abronia ammophila in and their habitats) and will manage recreational, scientific, or educational danger of extinction or likely to become them to maintain their natural purposes, and we have no reason to so in the future. Existing regulatory distribution and abundance (NPS 2006b, believe this factor will become a threat mechanisms that could have an effect pp. 45–46; Schneider 2010, pers. to the species in the future. We on potential threats to A. ammophila comm.). The Management Policies also conclude that the best scientific and include (1) local land use laws, direct the NPS to control detrimental commercial information available processes, and ordinances; (2) State nonnative species and manage indicates that A. ammophila is not in laws and regulations; and (3) Federal detrimental visitor access (NPS 2006, p. danger of extinction or likely to become laws and regulations. A. ammophila 45). so within the foreseeable future because occurs entirely on Federal land under As stated above, YNP is required, to of overutilization for commercial, the jurisdiction of the YNP; therefore, the maximum extent practicable, to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33933

prevent exotic (nonnative invasive) invasive plants. We expect that A. suggesting that Abronia ammophila was plant introduction and to control ammophila and its habitat will be previously more abundant across the established exotic plants by law, generally protected from direct human landscape. Co-flowering species (species executive order, and management policy disturbance. Therefore, we conclude that flower during the same timeframe) (e.g., Executive Order 13112, National that the existing regulatory mechanisms also may be important to pollination of Park Service Management Policies (NPS are adequate to protect A. ammophila A. ammophila; the pollinators recorded 1988), and the Federal Noxious Weed from the known potential threat factors. as visiting A. ammophila also were Act of 1974) (Olliff et al. 2001, pp. 348– We conclude that the best scientific observed visiting other dune plants in 349). YNP’s approach emphasizes and commercial information available the vicinity (Saunders and Sipes 2004, prevention, education, early detection indicates that Abronia ammophila is not p. 13). and eradication, control, and monitoring in danger of extinction or likely to Only very limited information is (Olliff et al. 2001, entire). become so within the foreseeable future available regarding pollination of Visitors to national parks are because of inadequate regulatory Abronia ammophila. However, A. prohibited from removing, defacing, or mechanisms. ammophila is a historically rare species destroying any plant, animal, or Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade that exhibits a mixed-mating system. A mineral; this includes collecting natural mixed-mating system and co-flowering or archeological objects (NPS 2006c, p. Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence species may help alleviate negative 2). Visitors are prohibited from driving effects that may occur due to low off roadways or camping outside of Natural and manmade factors with the pollination visitation rates. Therefore, designated campgrounds (NPS 2010d, potential to affect Abronia ammophila we have no information indicating that unpaginated). Additionally, YNP has include: (1) Small population size, (2) poor pollination is a threat to the developed a Conservation Plan for pollination, and (3) genetic diversity. species now or in the foreseeable future. Abronia ammophila (NPS 1999b, Small Population Size entire). This plan recommends the Genetic Diversity Small populations can be especially protection of all known (and any newly Small population size can decrease discovered) populations, monitoring of vulnerable to environmental disturbances such as habitat loss, genetic diversity due to genetic drift (the the populations, reestablishment of random change in genetic variation each historical occupancy areas, long-term nonnative species, grazing, and climate change (Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 7; generation), and inbreeding (mating of seed storage, and research (NPS 1999b, related individuals) (Antonovics 1976, pp. 10–11). Oostermeijer 2003, p. 21; O’Grady 2004, pp. 513–514). However, plants that are p. 238; Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. National Environmental Policy Act historically rare may have certain 218–219). Genetic drift can decrease All Federal agencies are required to adaptations to rarity (e.g., early genetic variation within a population by adhere to the National Environmental blooming, extended flowering, or favoring certain characteristics and, Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. mixed-mating systems) that enable them thereby, increasing differences between 4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, to persist (Brigham 2003, p. 61). populations (Ellstram and Elam 1993, authorize, or carry out. The Council on Based on herbarium records, pp. 218–219). Self-fertilization and low Environmental Quality’s regulations for extirpation of Abronia ammophila sites dispersal rates can cause low genetic implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500– has occurred (see Distribution and diversity due to inbreeding (Antonovics 1518) state that agencies shall include a Abundance discussion above). However, 1976, p. 238; Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. discussion on the environmental additional sites also have been recently 21). This decreased genetic diversity impacts of the various project discovered, and not all suitable habitat diminishes a species’ ability to adapt to alternatives, any adverse environmental within YNP has been surveyed (NPS the selective pressures of a changing effects which cannot be avoided, and 1999a, pp. 6–7). We have no environment (Newman and Pilson 1997, any irreversible or irretrievable information on whether these new sites p. 360; Ellstrand 1992, p. 77). commitments of resources involved (40 represent recent expansion of the Limited information is available CFR 1502). Additionally, activities on species or if surveys were not regarding the genetic diversity of the non-Federal lands are subject to NEPA previously conducted in these areas. Abronia genus. No information is if there is a Federal nexus. The NEPA We do not have any indication that available regarding the genetic diversity is a disclosure law, and does not require Abronia ammophila was ever present exhibited by Abronia ammophila. subsequent minimization or mitigation on the landscape over a more extensive Therefore, we have no information measures by the Federal agency range. Existing sites are monitored, and indicating that a lack of genetic involved. Although Federal agencies surveys have located new occurrences. diversity is a threat to the species now may include conservation measures for We have no information indicating that or in the foreseeable future. sensitive species as a result of the NEPA random demographic or environmental Summary of Factor E process, any such measures are typically events are a threat to the species now or voluntary in nature and are not required in the foreseeable future because of its Abronia ammophila is a historically by the statute. small population size. rare species that, as such, has adaptations such as a mixed-mating Summary of Factor D Pollination system and prolific flowering, which We considered the adequacy of Small populations may represent an minimize the risks of small population existing regulatory mechanisms to unreliable food source, which may be size, low pollinator abundance, and protect Abronia ammophila. We believe visited by fewer pollinators than larger, genetic diversity. Therefore, we the existing regulatory mechanisms, less fragmented populations conclude that the best scientific and especially the NPS Organic Act, (Oostermeijer 2003, p. 23). However, commercial information available adequately protect the Yellowstone Lake low visitation rates may be more of a indicates that Abronia ammophila is not shore habitat of Abronia ammophila concern in currently rare species that in danger of extinction or likely to from the potential threats of were historically abundant (Brigham become so within the foreseeable future development, trampling, and nonnative 2003, p. 84). We have no information because of small population size,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

pollination, or reduced genetic extinction or is likely to become 2000c, unpaginated). The panicle diversity. endangered in the foreseeable future. remains compact at maturity (Fertig In determining whether Abronia 1994, unpaginated). Branches of the Finding for Abronia ammophila ammophila is threatened or endangered panicle are scabrous (rough), purple, As required by the Act, we considered in a significant portion of its range, we and lack spikelets at the base (Clark et the five factors in assessing whether first addressed whether any portions of al. 1989, p. 8; Dorn 1980, p. 59; Fertig Abronia ammophila is threatened or the range of A. ammophila warrant 2000c, unpaginated). endangered throughout all of its range. further consideration. We evaluated the We examined the best scientific and current range of A. ammophila to Discovery and Taxonomy commercial information available determine if there is any apparent Edith A. Ross collected the first regarding the past, present, and future geographic concentration of the primary recorded specimen of Agrostis rossiae in threats faced by A. ammophila. We stressors potentially affecting the July of 1890 (Vasey 1982, p. 77; reviewed the petition, information species including trampling, nonnative Hitchcock 1905, p. 41). The genus available in our files, other available invasive plants, drought, small Agrostis consists of over 100 species published and unpublished population size, limited pollinators, and occurring in both hemispheres, typically information, and we consulted with genetic diversity. This species’ small in cooler areas of temperate climates recognized A. ammophila experts and range suggests that stressors are likely to (Hitchcock 1905, p. 5). More recent other Federal and State agencies. affect it in a uniform manner throughout sources list 150 to 200 species (Harvey The primary factor potentially its range. However, we found the 2007, unpaginated), or up to 220 species impacting Abronia ammophila is stressors are not of sufficient within the Agrostis genus (Watson and human disturbance through trampling. imminence, intensity, magnitude, or Dallwitz 1992, unpaginated). However, studies that have sought to geographically concentrated such that it quantify foot traffic in the habitat of A. Species of the Agrostis genus are able warrants evaluating whether a portion to form morphologically similar ammophila have found that there is of the range is significant under the Act. little foot traffic occurring (NPS 1999a, ecotypes (subspecies that survives as a We do not find that A. ammophila is in distinct group due to environmental pp. 2, 5). Additionally, A. ammophila danger of extinction now, nor is likely prefers open sites and thrives under pressures and isolation) in response to to become endangered within the variations in climate, heavy metals in some disturbance. Other factors foreseeable future, throughout all or a potentially affecting A. ammophila— the soil, and other unusual soil significant portion of its range. conditions (Bradshaw 1959, entire; including nonnative invasive plants, Therefore, listing A. ammophila as drought, small population size, limited Jowett 1964, p. 78; Aston and Bradshaw threatened or endangered under the Act 1966, entire; Jain and Bradshaw 1966, pollinators, and genetic diversity—are is not warranted at this time. either limited in scope, or lacking pp. 415–417). Therefore, morphology of We request that you submit any new Agrostis species is not a reliable evidence apparent to us indicating that information concerning the status of, or they adversely impact the species. We indicator of species (Tercek 2003, p. 9). threats to, Abronia ammophila to our In the geothermally influenced areas have no evidence that overutilization, Wyoming Ecological Services Field disease, or predation are affecting this of YNP, thermal Agrostis scabra (rough Office (see ADDRESSES section) bentgrass) is sympatric (occurs in the species. Although climate change will whenever it becomes available. New likely impact the status of some plant same area) with Agrostis rossiae (Tercek information will help us monitor A. 2003, pp. 9–10). A. scabra occurs as an species in the future, we do not have ammophila and encourage its enough information to determine that annual in the thermal areas of YNP; conservation. If an emergency situation however, this species is typically a climate change will result in a species- develops for A. ammophila, or any other level response from A. ammophila. perennial when it occurs in nonthermal species, we will act to provide habitats (Fertig 2000c, unpaginated; Additionally, the existing regulatory immediate protection. mechanisms directing management of Tercek 2003, pp. 9–10). A. scabra can be YNP appear to be adequate to protect Species Information for Agrostis distinguished from A. rossiae, when the species from potential threats. rossiae mature, by its spreading panicle (Fertig Based on our review of the best 1994, unpaginated; 2000c, unpaginated; Species Description available scientific and commercial Tercek 2003, pp. 9–10). Another similar information pertaining to the five Agrostis rossiae is a small annual species, although not sympatric, is factors, we find that the threats are not grass in the family Poaceae (Clark et al. Agrostis variabilis (mountain bentgrass), of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 1989, p. 8; Fertig 1994, unpaginated; which is a perennial with panicle magnitude to indicate that Abronia 2000c, unpaginated). A. rossiae grows as branches bearing spikelets nearly to the ammophila is in danger of extinction a dense clump about 5 to 15 cm (2.0 to base (whereas A. rossiae lacks spikelets (endangered) or likely to become 5.9 in.) high (Fertig 2000c, at the base) (Fertig 1994, unpaginated; endangered within the foreseeable unpaginated). The short leaves are 1.0 to Fertig 2000c, unpaginated). Genetic future (threatened), throughout all of its 2.5 cm (0.39 to 0.98 in.) long, and 0.5 studies have shown that thermal range. Therefore, we find that listing A. to 2.0 millimeters (mm) (0.02 to 0.08 in.) Agrostis species occurring in YNP are ammophila as a threatened or wide, with slightly inflated and smooth more closely related to other thermal endangered species is not warranted sheaths (the lower part of the leaf that Agrostis species worldwide than to the throughout its range. surrounds the stem) (Clark et al. 1989, nonthermal Agrostis scabra (Tercek p. 8; Clark and Dorn 1981, p. 10; Fertig 2003, pp. 17–21). Additionally, A. Significant Portion of the Range 1994, unpaginated; 2000c, unpaginated). rossiae and thermal A. scabra are Having determined that Abronia The one-flowered spikelets (flowers) closely related to each other (Tercek et ammophila does not meet the definition form at the top of the stems in a narrow, al. 2003, p. 1308–1309); however, of a threatened or endangered species, compact panicle (a structure in which additional genetic studies need to be we must next consider whether there the flowers mature from the bottom completed to quantify their relationship. are any significant portions of the range upwards) that is 2.0 to 6.0 cm (0.79 to We recognize A. rossiae as a valid where A. ammophila is in danger of 2.36 in.) long (Dorn 1980, p. 59; Fertig species and a listable entity.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33935

Biology and Life History nonthermal soils (pH 4.3–6.4) (Tercek than 50 plants) subpopulation northeast Agrostis rossiae is a thermal species and Whitbeck 2004, p. 1964). Agrostis of Infant Geyser in Geyser Hill that takes advantage of the warmth from rossiae demonstrates peak growth in disappeared due to changes in soil its environment and germinates from acidic soils (pH 3.0), whereas the temperatures between 1992 and 2008 December to January, when nonthermal optimal growth of both thermal and (Fertig 2000c, unpaginated; Whipple areas remain covered in snow (Tercek nonthermal Agrostis scabra occurs at a 2010e, pers. comm.). 2003, pp. 12, 45, 51). The growing pH of 5.0 (Terceck and Whitbeck 2004, The WNDD has designated Agrostis season for A. rossiae is from December p. 1964). While A. rossiae is more rossiae as a plant species of concern tolerant of acidity than other sympatric 1 to April 1; it blooms in May, matures with ranks of G1 and S1 (Heidel 2007, Agrostis species, its growth declines at in June, and dies by mid-June when the p. 1). This designation indicates that A. pH of less than 3.0 (Tercek and thermal ground temperature reaches rossiae is considered to be critically Whitbeck 2004, p. 1964). Many of the between 40 and 45 °C (104 and 113 °F) imperiled because of extreme rarity. For thermal features in YNP have a very (a temperature that kills A. rossiae) background information on G1 and S1 high acidity (Whipple 2011, pers. (Beetle 1977, p. 40; Tercek 2003, pp. 10, rankings, please refer to the last comm.). paragraph under Distribution and 34, 12, 45, 51–52). In addition to Agrostis scabra, a Agrostis rossiae plants do not have a Abundance in the Species Information limited number of thermally adapted for Abronia ammophila section. Since reduced seed set when isolated from species occur in the same habitat as external pollen sources; this suggests A. rossiae is endemic to Wyoming, the Agrostis rossiae: Racomitrium Wyoming occurrences encompass the that A. rossiae reproduces through canescens (Racomitrium moss), several apomixis (reproduction that does not entire global range. Additionally, YNP heat-loving soil fungi, a heat-tolerant considers A. rossiae to be a sensitive involve pollination) (Tercek 2003, p. grass—Dichanthelium lanuginosum 19). Seeds remain viable for about 100 species of concern; therefore, it (panicgrass), and a few annual forbs evaluates effects to this species in years in artificial conditions, but persist (Tercek and Whitbeck 2004, p. 1956). for less time in natural conditions conjunction with any project or action Annual forbs include Conyza that has the potential to affect the plant (Tercek 2010, pers. comm.). Seeds do canadensis (Canadian horseweed), (Whipple 2011, pers. comm.). not disperse very far from the parent Gnaphalium stramineum (cottonbatting plant (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). plant), Plantago elongata (Prairie Trends plantain), Mimulus guttatus (seep Habitat Subpopulations can range in size from monkeyflower), and Heterotheca a solitary plant up to several thousand Typically, Agrostis rossiae grows on depressa (hairy false goldenaster) (Fertig plants, in an area with a diameter of 100 glacial deposits, which are at a slightly 2000c, unpaginated). higher elevation than nearby hot springs m (328.1 ft) (Tercek 2003, p. 10; Tercek (Tercek 2003, p. 11). These deposits Distribution and Abundance and Whitbeck 2004, p. 1956). Surveys border active geysers and hot springs at Agrostis rossiae is endemic to YNP, conducted in 1995 suggest that the total elevations of 2,210 to 2,256 m (7,250 to occurring only in Teton County, population of all known Agrostis rossiae 7,400 ft) (Clark et al. 1989, p. 8; Fertig Wyoming (Beetle 1977, p. 40; Clark and plants is approximately 5,000 to 7,500 1994, unpaginated; 2000c, unpaginated). Dorn 1981, p. 10; Clark et al. 1989, p. individuals (Fertig 2000a, p. 36; 2000a, These geothermally influenced soils 8; Fertig 2000c, unpaginated, Tercek unpaginated). The 1998 survey remain moist throughout the year even 2003, p. 10). Even though there are determined the total population though they are partially isolated from many thermal areas in YNP, Agrostis consisted of between 5,580 and 7,735 the water table of nearby hot springs by rossiae only occurs in the west-central plants (Whipple in litt. 2009, entire). the higher elevation or a nonpermeable portion of YNP (Tercek 2003, p. 10). The entire population has not been rock layer (White et al. 1971, p. 77; Specifically, A. rossiae only occurs in surveyed in any additional years Fournier 1989, pp. 20–21; Tercek 2003, the Firehole River drainage and the (Whipple in litt. 2009, entire). Surveys pp. 36, 45–46; Tercek and Whitbeck Shoshone Geyser Basin (Greater have been completed on a sporadic 2004, p. 1956). Yellowstone 2010, unpaginated). The schedule, with not all populations The geysers in YNP are vapor- reason for this restriction is not known. surveyed in a given year (Whipple 2009 dominated, meaning that steam and One proposed hypothesis is that the in litt., unpaginated). All population other gases rise out of the ground high acidity of some of the other counts are estimates as A. rossiae is an (Fournier 1989, pp. 20–21; Tercek 2003, thermal areas restricts the species’ annual with a clumped growth form, p. 36). The geysers are important to the distribution; another is that A. rossiae is and exact counts are unable to be soils because the elements and a fairly recently evolved species that has obtained without destroying the plants chemicals produced from the geysers not had time for successive generations (Whipple 2010d, pers. comm.). Overall, affect the composition of the soil on to disperse and colonize a wider area there is not enough information to which this species grows. The (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). conclusively determine rangewide accompanying soils are rich in silica Four known populations of the plant trends; however, the total population and calcium, and contain gases such as occur in an area of approximately 4.86 numbers appear to be stable despite hydrogen sulfide and iron sulfide that ha (12 ac); these populations are named subpopulation fluctuations. are converted into sulfuric acid by Upper Geyser Basin, Shoshone, Additionally, the known populations bacteria (Tercek and Whitbeck 2004, p. Midway, and Lower Geyser (Whipple have expanded in the last 3 years 1956; White et al. 1971, p. 77; Fournier 2010a, pers. comm.). Many of these (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). 1989, pp. 20–21; Tercek 2003, p. 36). occurrences are ephemeral (only persist Five Factor Evaluation for Agrostis The sulfuric acid lowers the pH (a for a short period) subpopulations rossiae measure of acidity and alkalinity) of the (Fertig 2000c, unpaginated). Because of soil (White et al. 1971, p. 77; Fournier the changing thermal habitat, Information pertaining to Agrostis 1989, pp. 20–21; Tercek 2003, p. 36). subpopulation numbers and locations rossiae in relation to the five factors YNP’s thermal soils are more acidic (pH may fluctuate greatly (Fertig 2000c, provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is 3.9–5.6), in general, than the unpaginated). One small (generally less discussed below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Factor A. The Present or Threatened maintenance (Whipple 2010a, pers. evolved and poses no threat to long- Destruction, Modification, or comm.; 2010e, pers. comm.). term persistence. Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The majority of YNP remains We have no information indicating undeveloped, and we have no that trampling by either humans or The following potential factors that information that this will change; wildlife is a threat to the species now or may affect the habitat or range of therefore, we do not view development in the foreseeable future. Agrostis rossiae are discussed in this to be a threat to the species now or in section, including: (1) Development, the foreseeable future. Nonnative Invasive Plants (2) trampling, (3) nonnative invasive species, (4) climate change, (5) thermal Trampling For general background information fluctuations, (6) drought, and (7) fire. Most habitat of Agrostis rossiae is on nonnative invasive plants, please easily accessible to visitors, as it is Development refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Nonnative generally located near popular thermal Invasive Plants’’ under Factor A. The Agrostis rossiae occurs entirely inside features in YNP (Whipple 2010a, pers. Present or Threatened Destruction, YNP, which limits potential threats to comm.). However, visitors are required Modification, or Curtailment of Its its habitat from development. As stated to stay on boardwalks and designated Habitat or Range in the Five Factor above (see Factor D under Abronia trails around thermal areas (NPS 2006c, Evaluation for Abronia ammophila ammophila), YNP owns both its land unpaginated). Human impact to A. section. rossiae was noted in a survey of the and the mineral rights so energy As stated above, as of 2010, YNP has development within the YNP’s Shoshone Geyser Basin area (Whipple 2009 in litt., unpaginated). This documented 218 nonnative plant boundary is not a threat (Mazzu 2010, species occurring within its boundaries pers. comm.; Whipple 2010e, pers. trampling was partially mitigated by the (NPS 2010e, p. 1). The majority of these comm.). reroute discussed above; surveys in 2000, after the trail was rerouted, plants have not been documented in or In the late 1970s and early 1980s, documented a healthy A. rossiae around Agrostis rossiae habitat. potential for geothermal energy population (Whipple 2009 in litt., Encroachment of nonnative species has development outside YNP was unpaginated). No studies have the potential to affect Agrostis rossiae. considered a threat to Agrostis rossiae specifically examined disturbance due However, at this time, none of the because of the potential to affect the to trampling or its effects on A. rossiae. nonnative species are able to tolerate the thermal basin that underlies YNP (Fertig However, A. rossiae is typically located hottest of the thermal habitats, where A. 2000, unpaginated). Currently, no in the vicinity of thermal features that rossiae primarily grows (Whipple known applications for geothermal could be detrimental for humans to 2010e, pers. comm.). Several nonnative leases have this potential (Mazzu 2010, walk near, and any areas that have the species that are considered either pers. comm.; Whipple 2010e, pers. potential for trampling are protected by invasive or exotic occur near the comm.). However, applications are YNP’s policies. thermal habitats of A. rossiae (Whipple occasionally made for geothermal leases For information on impacts of 2009 in litt., entire). In order to combat in the geothermal areas outside of YNP increased visitation to YNP, please refer nonnative invasives that can tolerate the (NPS 2008b, unpaginated). The to the ‘‘Trampling’’ discussion under transition areas closer to the thermal Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 Factor A. The Present or Threatened habitat of A. rossiae, YNP is targeting U.S.C. 1001–1027, December 24, 1970), Destruction, Modification, or as amended in 1977, 1988, and 1993, Rumex acetosella (common sheep Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in sorrel) around the Shoshone Geyser provides protections for the thermal the Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia features in YNP (see Factor D. The Basin (Schneider 2010 pers. comm.) and ammophila section. As the plant is Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s wort) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory located in YNP, it is afforded Mechanisms below) (Legal Information near the Lower Geyser Basin (Whipple protections (see Factor D: The 2010f, pers. comm.). Additionally, NPS Institute 2010, unpaginated). This law Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory should protect the species, unless high plans to establish trial plots in some of Mechanisms below). the geyser basins to determine the best energy costs, such as occurred in the Wildlife, also, have the potential to control mechanisms (Schneider 2010 late 1970s and early 1980s, encourage trample Agrostis rossiae. American pers. comm.). Nonnative species development interest that results in bison (Bison bison) scat (fecal currently occur only within the changes that weaken these protections. droppings) has been found in the transition zones and not in the hot Therefore, A. rossiae is not threatened vicinity of A. rossiae at several sites; thermal habitat of A. rossiae. by geothermal energy development however, no trampling of A. rossiae was Additionally, the NPS has an exotic inside or outside of YNP’s boundary. noted in the survey notes (Whipple plant management plan (see Factor D: As stated above, new construction of 2009 in litt., unpaginated). In 1998, a The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory roads, trails, or structures occurring in small patch of A. rossiae was highly YNP is rare, with reconstruction of impacted by the actions of a rutting bull Mechanisms in the Five Factor existing features occurring occasionally elk (Cervus canadensis); however, that Evaluation for Abronia ammophila (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). When A. rossiae population was reported to be section), which includes measures to new construction or reconstruction healthy when resurveyed in 2000 identify and treat any new nonnatives; occurs in areas where there are sensitive (Whipple 2009 in litt., unpaginated). We therefore, we believe that A. rossiae will species, YNP analyzes and carries out believe that these anecdotal be protected from nonnative plant construction in a manner that observations do not add up to routine invasions. minimizes adverse effects. For example, impacts on a scale that would cause the We have no information indicating the reconstruction of the Biscuit Basin species to be threatened or endangered. that nonnative invasive species are Boardwalk in the summer of 2010 Additionally, we believe that trampling modifying the habitat of Agrostis rossiae included rerouting the boardwalk and by wildlife, as noted above, represents to the extent that they represent a threat restoration of Agrostis rossiae habitat a natural ecological interaction in YNP to the species now or in the foreseeable that had been impacted during prior with which the species would have future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33937

Climate Change or the ground level hotter, the affect the habitat of A. rossiae, we do For general background information distribution shifts, or the plant may not know that this species is resilient to on climate change, please refer to the be present at all in a given year changes in the thermal basins of its first paragraphs of ‘‘Climate Change’’ (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). As environment. Therefore, we do not under Factor A. The Present or discussed above, the Geothermal Steam believe that drought will rise to the level Threatened Destruction, Modification, Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001–1027, of a threat to the species now or in the or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in December 24, 1970), as amended in foreseeable future. 1977, 1988, and 1993, prevents the Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia Fire significant adverse effects to the thermal ammophila section. features in YNP (see Factor D: The As Agrostis rossiae completes its Agrostis rossiae is adapted to an annual life cycle by mid-June, it is ephemeral habitat subject to lethal Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms below) (Legal Information typically dead by the time fire season summer soil temperatures and appears Institute 2010, unpaginated). occurs (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.); most clearly influenced by the condition Additionally, the NPS is included in YNP’s fire season generally extends of thermal features as opposed to other discussions of activities that may affect from late June to the first large rain climatic factors. Although climate the groundwater or geothermal areas of events in September. The fires in 1988 change has the potential to affect the YNP (Mazzu 2010, unpaginated). burned the area where A. rossiae occurs; species’ habitat, it is not clear that Therefore, we have no information however, the fire did not carry on the climate change has relevance to the indicating that human-caused changes ground through the A. rossiae condition or availability of habitat for to the thermal features are likely to populations and, therefore, did not have this species because we have no threaten the species now or in the any effect on the population (Whipple information that climate change will foreseeable future. 2010e, pers. comm.). We have no play a significant role in altering information indicating that fire is likely geothermal features. Climate change Drought to threaten the species now or in the may affect the timing and amount of For background information, please foreseeable future. precipitation as well as other factors refer to the first paragraph of the linked to habitat conditions for this ‘‘Drought’’ discussion under Factor A. Summary of Factor A species. We are uncertain how these The Present or Threatened Destruction, YNP offers protection to the changes will affect the geothermal Modification, or Curtailment of Its populations of Agrostis rossiae from all habitat of A. rossiae. At this time the Habitat or Range in the Five Factor kinds of development, including roads, available scientific information does not Evaluation for Abronia ammophila campgrounds, buildings, mining, and clearly indicate that climate change is section. As noted above under the energy development. There are likely to threaten the species now or in Habitat section for this species, the currently no plans for any further the foreseeable future. vapor-dominated geothermally development in YNP near the existing Thermal Fluctuations influenced soils on which Agrostis populations or potential habitat of A. rossiae typically grows remain moist rossiae. We have no information to The thermal features in YNP are part throughout the year (Tercek 2003, pp. show that Agrostis rossiae is likely to be of the largest and most varied geyser 36, 45–46). However, these soils are threatened by trampling, nonnative basin in the world; this basin is influenced by the amount and timing of species, climate change, thermal essentially undisturbed (NPS 2008b, the rain that falls in the area (Tercek and fluctuations, drought, or fire. unpaginated). Few of YNP’s thermal Whitbeck 2004, p. 1958). Typically We conclude that the best scientific features have ever been diverted for around May or June, the snow in the and commercial information available human use (such as bathing pools or surrounding area has melted and rains indicates that Agrostis rossiae is not in energy), despite the proximity of roads are no longer frequent enough for the danger of extinction or likely to become and trails (NPS 2008b, unpaginated). soils in the areas surrounding the so within the foreseeable future because Thermal features can be affected by habitat of A. rossiae to remain moist of the present or threatened destruction, nearby ground-disturbing activities; (Tercek and Whitbeck 2004, p. 1958). modification, or curtailment of its water, sewer, and other utility systems This decrease in soil moisture of the habitat or range. adjacent to YNP have likely affected the surrounding habitat is accompanied by Factor B. Overutilization for park’s features in the past (NPS 2008b, a sharp increase in the thermal soil Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or unpaginated). In other countries, temperatures (Tercek and Whitbeck geothermal drill holes and wells located 2004, p. 1958). The typical growing Educational Purposes 4.02 to 9.98 km (2.5 to 6.2 mi) from season in the hot thermal habitats is There has been limited use and thermal features have reduced geyser approximately 120 days (Tercek and collection of the leaves of Agrostis activity and hot spring discharges (NPS Whitbeck 2004, p. 1963). A. rossiae rossiae for scientific purposes to 2008b, unpaginated). Connections requires only 30 to 70 days to complete determine the genetic relationship between YNP’s underlying geothermal its life cycle (Tercek and Whitbeck between different Agrostis species basins are not fully understood. 2004, p. 1963). A decrease in the (Tercek 2003, p. 12). We have no Therefore, if geothermal activities were growing season of 40 percent could indications of A. rossiae being collected to occur outside YNP, they could have occur prior to drought having a for any other purposes (Whipple 2010e, the potential to affect this species. detrimental effect on this species. pers. comm.). Therefore, we conclude Agrostis rossiae tends to follow very Prediction models indicate that areas that the best scientific and commercial subtle geothermal features, growing already affected by drought will suffer information available indicates that A. along geothermal cracks and edges of greater effects from temperature rossiae is not in danger of extinction or sunken pools (Whipple 2010e, pers. increases caused by climate change and likely to become so within the comm.). For example, in Cathos Springs, that high precipitation effects will foreseeable future because of A. rossiae currently grows along one become more frequent (IPCC 2007, overutilization for commercial, crack and in a ring around the spring; entire). Although we do not fully recreational, scientific, or educational however, when the water level is higher understand how these changes will purposes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Factor C. Disease or Predation Competition and Hybridization Evaluation for Abronia ammophila section. Agrostis rossiae is not known to be Previously, Agrostis scabra has been affected or threatened by any disease. listed as a threat to Agrostis rossiae, We do not have any indication that We have no records showing predation possibly because of competition or Agrostis rossiae was ever present on the by grazing or herbivory on A. rossiae. hybridization (e.g., Fertig 2000a; 2000c; landscape over a more extensive range. Therefore, we conclude that the best NatureServe 2010a, p. 1). However, A. Nor do we have any evidence that the scientific and commercial information scabra is a native species that does not populations of A. rossiae are sufficiently available indicates that A. rossiae is not compete with or restrict A. rossiae small to experience the problems that in danger of extinction or likely to (Whipple 2010a, pers. comm.). The occur in some species because of small become so within the foreseeable future thermal areas in which A. rossiae grows population size. Additionally, A. rossiae because of disease or predation. have lethal summer soil temperatures has the potential to expand its habitat, (greater than 45 °C (113 °F)) that although potential habitat may be Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing limited (see Distribution and Regulatory Mechanisms preclude the growth of perennial roots and reproduction of any plant that Abundance) (Whipple 2010e, pers. All known populations of Agrostis requires greater than 120 days to comm.). We have no information rossiae occur within YNP, which is complete its life cycle (Tercek 2003, p. indicating that random demographic or under the jurisdiction of the NPS. Please 51). Nonthermal A. scabra is able to environmental events are a threat to the refer to Yellowstone National Park germinate in garden experiments of species because of a small population under the Factor D: The Inadequacy of thermal temperatures; however, size. Therefore, we do not consider Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section nonthermal A. scabra seldom occurs in small population size to be a threat to in the Five Factor Evaluation for the interior of the thermal habitats A. rossiae now or in the foreseeable Abronia ammophila section for where A. rossiae occurs (Tercek 2003, p. future. additional information. 53). Additionally, nonthermal A. scabra Genetic Diversity The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 requires a growing season of (30 U.S.C. 1001–1027, December 24, approximately 160 days in order to For general background information 1970), as amended in 1977, 1988, and flower; the typical growing season in the on genetic diversity, please refer to the 1993, governs the lease of geothermal transition zone between thermal and first paragraph of ‘‘Genetic Diversity’’ resources on public lands (Legal nonthermal ground is approximately under Factor E. Other Natural or Information Institute 2010, 105 days (Tercek 2003, p. 52). Manmade Factors Affecting Its unpaginated). In addition to preventing Therefore, even if the nonthermal A. Continued Existence in the Five Factor the issuance of geothermal leases on scabra germinated in the transition Evaluation for Abronia ammophila lands in YNP, it prevents the issuance zone, it would be unable to reproduce section. of any lease that is reasonably likely to before desiccation occurred. Decreased genetic diversity result in a significant adverse effect on diminishes a species’ ability to adapt to thermal features within YNP (Legal Conversely, thermal Agrostis scabra is able to flower at the same time as the selective pressures of a changing Information Institute 2010, environment (Newman and Pilson 1997, unpaginated). Agrostis rossiae (Tercek 2003, p. 10). However, each thermal area is typically p. 360; Ellstrand 1992, p. 77). However, Summary of Factor D populated by only one of these species Agrostis rossiae continually adapts to the changing thermal conditions of its The existing regulatory mechanisms, because of differences in microhabitat requirements (e.g., soil temperature, soil environment and is able to shift its especially the NPS Organic Act and the distribution to follow these changes Geothermal Steam Act, appear to pH) (Tercek 2003, p. 10). A few thermal areas do support populations of both A. (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.). adequately protect Agrostis rossiae and Therefore, potential decreased genetic its habitat in YNP. We expect that A. rossiae and thermal A. scabra (Whipple 2010e, pers. comm.); however, A. diversity does not appear to be affecting rossiae and its habitat will be generally A. rossiae. protected from direct human rossiae and thermal A. scabra maintain disturbance. Therefore, we conclude separate morphologies in these locations Gene flow can also have negative that the existing regulatory mechanisms and when they are grown under uniform effects on a species (Ellstrand 1992, p. are adequate to protect A. rossiae from laboratory conditions (Tercek et al. 77). Genes favoring adaptations to a the known potential threat factors. 2003, p. 1311; Whipple 2010e, pers. different environment or hybridization We conclude that the best scientific comm.). Additionally, attempts to cross- between two species can result and commercial information available pollinate A. rossiae and thermal A. (Ellstrand 1992, p. 77). Gene flow indicates that Agrostis rossiae is not in scabra were unsuccessful; however, between Agrostis populations is low danger of extinction or likely to become experiments that are more rigorous are (Tercek 2003, p. 19). Therefore, there so within the foreseeable future because needed to determine conclusively may be some risk to the species, but we of the inadequacy of existing regulatory whether these two Agrostis species can do not fully understand this risk based mechanisms, provided the existing hybridize (Tercek 2003, p. 19) and to on currently available information. mechanisms are not weakened or confirm that there is not a crossbreeding Limited information is available about removed. effect that could be a threat to A. the genetic diversity of Agrostis rossiae. rossiae. We do not have any indication that A. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Small Population Size rossiae is at risk of suffering from Factors Affecting Its Continued reduced genetic diversity and consider Existence For general background information it capable of adapting to changes based Natural and manmade factors with the on small population size, please refer to on our current understanding of the potential to affect Agrostis rossiae the first paragraph of ‘‘Small Population species’ genetics. Therefore, we do not include: (1) Competition and Size’’ under Factor E. Other Natural or consider reduced genetic diversity to be hybridization, (2) small population size, Manmade Factors Affecting Its a threat to A. rossiae now or in the and (3) genetic diversity. Continued Existence in the Five Factor foreseeable future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33939

Summary of Factor E rossiae is in danger of extinction up to 4 cm (1.6 in.) in height (Dorn 1979 Agrostis scabra is a native species that (endangered), or likely to become in litt., unpaginated). The densely does not outcompete or invade the endangered within the foreseeable clustered, 1.0- to 3.5-cm-long (0.39- to habitat of Agrostis rossiae. Typically, future (threatened), throughout all of its 1.38-in.-long) leaves are divided into these two species do not occur together. range. Therefore, we find that listing A. three narrow, 5- to 9-mm-long (0.2- to Additionally, we have no information to rossiae as a threatened or endangered 0.4-in.-long) leaflets (small leaflike suggest that small population size or species is not warranted throughout all divisions of a larger compound leaf) reduced genetic diversity limit A. of its range. (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 7). The plants are covered with fine hairs and appear rossiae. We conclude that the best Significant Portion of the Range silvery, with leaflets that are equally scientific and commercial information Having determined that Agrostis hairy on both sides (Barneby 1964, p. available indicates that Agrostis rossiae rossiae does not meet the definition of 1153). The 17-mm-long (0.67-in.-long), is not in danger of extinction or likely a threatened or endangered species, we asymmetrical, pea-like flowers have five to become so within the foreseeable must next consider whether there are petals: one large broad upper petal, two future because of competition or any significant portions of the range side petals, and two lower petals that hybridization, small population size, or where A. rossiae is in danger of form a canoe shape (Fertig and Welp reduced genetic diversity. extinction or is likely to become 2001, p. 7). The broad upper petal, Finding for Agrostis rossiae endangered in the foreseeable future. called the banner petal, is constricted As required by the Act, we considered In determining whether Agrostis along the midline, forming a fiddle the five factors in assessing whether rossiae is threatened or endangered in a shape (Roberts 1977, p. 63). The yellow Agrostis rossiae is threatened or significant portion of its range, we first to whitish flowers are often tinged with endangered throughout all of its range. addressed whether any portions of the lavender or pink, especially near the center, and occur in pairs at the base of We examined the best scientific and range of A. rossiae warrant further the leaves (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 7). commercial information available consideration. We evaluated the current This plant has a taproot that is woody regarding the past, present, and future range of A. rossiae to determine if there and branching (Barneby 1964, p. 1153). threats faced by A. rossiae. We reviewed is any apparent geographic the petition, information available in concentration of the primary stressors Discovery and Taxonomy our files, and other available published potentially affecting the species including visitor-related impacts The first specimens of Astragalus and unpublished information, and we proimanthus were discovered and consulted with recognized A. rossiae (trampling), changing thermal activity, nonnative invasive plants, drought, collected 9.7 km (6 mi) north of the experts and other Federal and State town of McKinnon (Sweetwater County, agencies. small population size, and genetic diversity. This species’ small range Wyoming) on June 13, 1946, by H.C. The primary factors potentially Ripely and R.C. Barneby (Barneby 1964, impacting Agrostis rossiae are visitor suggests that stressors are likely to affect it in a uniform manner throughout its p. 1154). A second population was impacts, the invasion of Agrostis scabra, located in 1961 (Barneby 1964, p. 1154). and changing thermal activity. However, range. Furthermore, we found the stressors are not of sufficient The population discovered in 1961 was A. scabra is a native species that collected from and revisited multiple typically does not compete with A. imminence, intensity, magnitude, or geographically concentrated such that it times in the decades that followed; rossiae, the existing boardwalks and however, the population discovered in trails offer sufficient pathways for warrants evaluating whether a portion of the range is significant under the Act. 1946 could not be relocated after visitors to navigate around the thermal multiple attempts (Fertig and Welp areas, and sufficient regulatory We do not find that A. rossiae is in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely 2001, p. 8). In 2000, two populations mechanisms exist to prevent human- were discovered, one of which may be caused changes to the thermal basin by to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a the original site collected by Barneby in groundwater or geothermal 1946 as this population was found 9.7 significant portion of its range. development. Other factors affecting A. km (6 mi) north of the town of Therefore, listing A. rossiae as rossiae—including nonnative invasive McKinnon (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 9). plants, drought, small population size, threatened or endangered under the Act The flowering plant genus Astragalus and genetic diversity—are either limited is not warranted at this time. is the largest genus of vascular plants in scope, or lacking evidence apparent We request that you submit any new (Montana Plant Life 2010, unpaginated). to us indicating that they adversely information concerning the status of, or With the common names ‘‘milk-vetch’’ impact the species as a whole. We have threats to, Agrostis rossiae to our or ‘‘locoweed’’ (family Fabaceae or no evidence that overutilization, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Leguminosae), the genus contains more disease, or predation are affecting this Office (see ADDRESSES section) than 2,000 species, which are species. Although climate change may whenever it becomes available. New distributed worldwide, although they impact the species in the future, we do information will help us monitor A. are primarily found in the northern not have enough information to rossiae and encourage its conservation. hemisphere (Barneby 1989, p. 1; determine that climate change will elicit If an emergency situation develops for Montana Plant Life 2010, unpaginated). a species-level response from A. rossiae. A. rossiae, or any other species, we will Based on similar morphological features Based on our knowledge of the species, act to provide immediate protection. of the flower, calyx (collective term for the regulatory mechanisms to protect Species Information for Astragalus the sepals, which are the green, leaflike the species appear appropriate. proimanthus structures that protect the delicate inner Based on our review of the best parts of the flower while it is available scientific and commercial Species Description developing), and fruits, Astragalus information pertaining to the five Astragalus proimanthus is a mat- proimanthus is in a taxonomic grouping factors, we find that the threats are not forming, stemless, perennial herb within Oropahca (subgenus) with of sufficient imminence, intensity, or measuring 2 to 3 dm (7.9 to 11.8 in.) in Astragalus gilviflorus (Dubois magnitude to indicate that Agrostis diameter (Fertig 2001, unpaginated) and milkvetch) and Astragalus hyalinus

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(summer milkvetch), which both occur dispersal appears passive and limited to result of passive seed dispersal in Wyoming (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. short distances (Fertig and Welp 2001, (addressed above) or episodic (occurring 6). A. proimanthus has been considered p. 14). at irregular intervals) establishment a descendant of A. hyalinus (Roberts Although Astragalus proimanthus is events, such as gully washouts (Fertig 1977, p. 63). A. proimanthus is similar perennial, its lifespan may be shorter and Welp 2001, p. 14). to A. hyalinus in its dwarf habit of than is commonly assumed for mat- Average annual precipitation where growth and short flower with fiddle- forming perennials, as is evidenced by Astragalus proimanthus occurs is 25 cm shaped banner petal, but it is dissimilar shifts in location of plant (9.8 in.), with peak precipitation events in having smooth, hairless petals and an subpopulations and disappearances of occurring in May and June (Martner earlier flowering period (by a month or previously documented plant 1986 as cited in Fertig and Welp 2001, so) (Barneby 1964, p. 1154). occurrences (Fertig and Welp 2001, pp. p. 12). Mean annual temperature is 4.4 Additionally, A. proimanthus grows in 13–14, 17). Longevity is an important °C (40 °F), with mean lows of ¥14.4 °C a small, compact form and not in a life-history trait for the persistence and (6 °F) in January, and mean highs of large, highly curved cushion survival of species occurring in harsh 28.9 °C (84 °F) in July (Martner 1986 as characteristic of A. hyalinus. A. environments where recruitment cited in Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 12). proimanthus resembles A. gilviflorus in (reproductive success) is variable and The average number of days per year at its growth form and has a similar range unpredictable (Garcia et al. 2008, p. or below freezing are 225 (Martner 1986 of numbers of seeds in the fruits; 261). as cited in Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 12). however, unlike A. gilviflorus, it has Habitat Distribution and Abundance narrow, oval-shaped fruit and short, differently shaped banner petals Astragalus proimanthus is a narrow The distribution of Astragalus (Barneby 1964, p. 1154). The only other endemic occurring only on the shale proimanthus consists of 3 populations Astragalus species in Wyoming with bluffs of the Henrys Fork River, near the which are made up of 26 three leaflets have smaller flowers than town of McKinnon, which is in the subpopulations (Fertig and Welp 2001, A. proimanthus (Fertig 1994, southern Green River Basin of pp. 12–13; Heidel 2010a, pers. comm.). unpaginated). All species within the southwestern Sweetwater County, The largest population contains 21 subgenus Oropahca have 12 Wyoming (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 8). subpopulations and occurs within 3.2 chromosomes (Roberts 1977, p. 1), but it Sparsely vegetated rims and gullied km (2 mi) of the Henrys Fork River is unknown if they are interfertile upper slopes of benches, bluffs, and along an 8-km (5-mi) stretch (WNDD in (capable of cross-pollinating or breeding mesa-like ridges at elevations of 1,950 to litt. 2010, unpaginated). The second with other Astragalus species) (Fertig 2,195 m (6,400 to 7,200 ft) provide largest population consists of four and Welp 2001, p. 14). No evidence of habitat for A. proimanthus (Fertig and subpopulations and occurs 12.9 km (8 hybridization between A. proimanthus Welp 2001, p. 11). mi) further upstream on the Henrys Fork and other Astragalus species has been Astragalus proimanthus inhabits River, near the mouth of Cottonwood documented (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. cushion plant and bunchgrass Creek (WNDD in litt. 2010, 14). Based on this information, we communities dominated by Phlox unpaginated). The smallest population recognize A. proimanthus as a valid hoodii (spiny phlox or carpet phlox), consists of one subpopulation and species and a listable entity. Haplopappus nuttallii (rayless aster), occurs 2.5 km (1.5 mi) north of the Cryptantha sericea (silky cryptantha), largest population, along Lane Meadow Biology and Life History and Elymus spicatus (bluebunch Creek—a tributary to the Henrys Fork Astragalus proimanthus (precocious wheatgrass) in openings within River (WNDD in litt. 2010, milkvetch) is named for its early Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) and unpaginated). The entire distribution of flowering period. It has been observed grasslands intermixed with Juniperus A. proimanthus is limited to an area of in flower as early as April 28, and it may osteosperma (Utah juniper) (Fertig and less than 129.5 ha (320 ac) within an continue to bloom until mid-June (Fertig Welp 2001, p. 11). A. proimanthus also area of 6.4 by 22.5 km (4 by 14 mi) and Welp 2001, p. 14). Astragalus occurs on gentle slopes at the base of (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 8). species are typically insect-pollinated; ridges within a matrix of Artemisia nova Population estimates of A. however, we have no information (black sagebrush), Sarcobatus proimanthus have varied widely, specific to A. proimanthus (Heidel 2003, vermiculatus (greasewood), J. probably reflecting variability in survey p. 19). Both insects and birds have been osteosperma, and Grayia spinosa (spiny methods and discovery of new observed visiting the flowers of A. hopsage) (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 11). subpopulations (Fertig and Welp 2001, proimanthus and may be involved in This species grows in fine-textured p. 13). In 1980, prior to the discovery of pollination (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. limestone shale clays that are dry, all 26 subpopulations, an estimated 200 14). Fruits are continuously produced shallow, and covered by a dense layer plants were documented as occurring from mid-May through late July (Roberts of coarse cobbles, whitish flakey shale, within 2 populations (Dorn 1980, p. 49). 1977, pp. 43, 97). The narrow, oval fruit and dark volcanic rock (Fertig and Welp The first survey to inventory the entire pods (7 to 10 mm (0.28 to 0.39 in.) long) 2001, pp. 11–12). known distribution was completed in are attached to the stems and are Individual Astragalus proimanthus May of 1981, with the total number of covered in dense, fine hair (Fertig and plants are often separated by apparently A. proimanthus plants estimated at Welp 2001, p. 7). The fruit pods contain suitable, nonvegetated habitat, and 22,000 plants occurring on 97.1 ha (240 11 to 14 seeds (Barneby 1964, p. 1154) typically occur in densities ranging from ac) (Whiskey Basin Consultants 1981, p. that are brown and 2.0 to 3.1 mm (0.08 0.18 to 3.4 plants per square meter (m2) 5). Conclusions from field studies to 0.12 in.) long (Roberts 1977, p. 64). (0.15 to 2.8 plants per square yard (yd2)) conducted in 1989 are that, although the Fruit production may be limited during (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 14). The distribution of A. proimanthus was drought years as evidenced by low habitat in which A. proimanthus grows limited, subpopulations within that fruiting rates observed in 2000 (Fertig typically has less than 5 to 10 percent distribution were large, containing and Welp 2001, p. 14). Due to the vegetative cover (Fertig and Welp 2001, thousands of individual plants; the total absence of seed structures (e.g., winged pp. 11–12). The absence of plants from population size was estimated at 25,000 edges) to enhance dispersal, seed seemingly suitable habitat may be the to 40,000 individuals (Fertig and Welp

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33941

2001, p. 13). However, the 1989 field numbers and densities of plants (Fertig largest known trona (a source of sodium studies focused on identifying new and Welp 2001, pp. 37–47). However, carbonate) deposit in the world subpopulations and initiating a numbers along a third transect (Headwaters Economics 2009, p. 26). monitoring program, not on conducting decreased by 7 percent from 1989 to Uranium and coal (Headwaters a quantitative census (Fertig and Welp 1998, and then the transect could not be Economics, p. 26) as well as oil shale 2001, p. 13). In June 2000, a survey of relocated in 2000 possibly due to a local resources (Congressional Research 11 subpopulations representing the 3 extirpation of plants (Fertig and Welp Service 2008, p. 3) occur throughout the known populations, conducted by the 2001, pp. 14, 37–47). Surveys from the county. There also is the potential for WNDD, resulted in a count of 2,644 fourth transect showed a steady decline wind energy development in individuals; this was extrapolated to a in overall plant numbers, reaching a 43 Sweetwater County (BLM 2010a, minimum total population estimate of percent decrease in numbers by 2000 unpaginated). 10,500 to 13,000 individuals (Fertig and (Fertig and Welp 2001, pp. 14, 37–47). Oil and gas exploration and Welp 2001, p. 13). Surveys from the fifth transect revealed extraction; coal, uranium, and trona The distribution of A. proimanthus short-term oscillations in the population mining; and oil shale and wind energy may be associated with the presence of size, with numbers increasing between development may involve ground- a light-colored shale formation, where it 1989 and 1998 and then decreasing 8 disturbing actions that have the is the uppermost soil layer (Whiskey percent by 2000 (Fertig and Welp 2001, potential to remove or disturb Basin Consultants 1981, p. 9). The pp. 37–47). Changes in numbers and Astragalus proimanthus and its habitat Henrys Fork River has eroded this shale plant densities may be attributed to the (Marriott 1989, p. 8; Fertig and Welp formation away in some areas, causing short lifespans of individual plants or 2001, p. 16). Oil and gas exploration and it to be exposed over a distance of 9 km the lack of new plants becoming coal mining may involve drilling, using (5.5 mi) near the river (Whiskey Basin established (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. explosives, driving heavy earth-moving Consultants 1981, p. 9). Approximately 14). Localized increases and decreases equipment off road, clearing land for 95 percent of the known occurrences of in population numbers and density may resource extraction or project A. proimanthus have been found on be expected for this species, as infrastructures, and constructing roads BLM-administered lands, with 4 percent evidenced by the variable numbers and and utility lines. Oil shale development occurring on State lands, and 1 percent changes in spatial distributions along may involve converting oil shale into on private lands (Heidel 2010b, pers. survey transects (Fertig and Welp 2001, crude oil through a process called comm.). p. 40). However, overall monitoring data destructive distillation, which may The WNDD has designated Astragalus suggest that the main population along require land removal (Congressional proimanthus as a plant species of the bluffs of the Henrys Fork River was Research Service 2008, p. 4). Wind concern with ranks of G1 and S1 (Heidel relatively stable from 1998 to 2000 energy development involves clearing 2007, p. 3). For background information despite localized shifts in distribution land for constructing turbine sites and on G1 and S1 rankings, please refer to (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 14). infrastructure including utility lines and the last paragraph under Distribution roads. Additionally, all energy and Abundance in the Species Five Factor Evaluation for Astragalus Information for Abronia ammophila proimanthus development may result in increased human use and vehicular traffic, which section. Since A. proimanthus is Information pertaining to Astragalus can result in trampling and increased endemic to Wyoming, the Wyoming proimanthus in relation to the five erosion in the area. occurrences encompass this species’ factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the In 2000, seismic explorations took entire global range. Act is discussed below. place near the mouth of Cottonwood Trends Factor A. The Present or Threatened Creek, where a population of Astragalus Population trends for Astragalus Destruction, Modification, or proimanthus occurs (Fertig and Welp, proimanthus are difficult to determine Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 2001, p. 16). Associated road because survey methodologies have not The following potential factors that construction may have disturbed A. remained consistent, baseline data are may affect the habitat or range of proimanthus habitat, but there is no lacking, and precipitation has varied Astragalus proimanthus are discussed indication that plants were removed by significantly during survey years (Fertig in this section, including: (1) energy these activities and any population-level and Welp 2001, p. 13). Shifts in the development, (2) road construction, (3) effects are unknown. Presently, there is distribution suggest that A. proimanthus off-road vehicle use, (4) range no ongoing energy development near may be shorter-lived than is often improvements, (5) disposal sites, (6) the known occurrences of A. assumed for mat-forming perennials nonnative invasive plants, (7) fire, and proimanthus on BLM-administered (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 14). The (8) climate change and drought. lands (Glennon 2010a, pers. comm.). importance of yearly fluctuations in Astragalus proimanthus is a special precipitation and temperature to the Energy Development status species designated by the BLM establishment and survival of this Energy development has been State Director as sensitive (BLM 1997, p. species is unknown (Fertig and Welp identified as a potential threat to 19). This status requires that potential 2001, p. 14). Astragalus proimanthus (Marriot 1989, habitat on Federal or split estate (i.e., Population counts and distribution of p. 8, Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 16). The mixed surface and mineral ownership) Astragalus proimanthus along distribution of A. proimanthus is lands be searched to determine if established transects have varied during limited to Sweetwater County, sensitive plants are located in the the past two decades (Fertig and Welp Wyoming (WNDD in litt. 2010, project area before the project occurs 2001, p. 14). Five transects were unpaginated). Sweetwater County sits (BLM 1997, p. 19). Areas with special established in 1989 to evaluate changes atop the coal seams and oil and gas status plant populations are closed to in abundance and density of plants reserves of the Upper Green River Basin, activities that would adversely affect (Marriott 1989, Appendix D). Surveys which by some estimates contain 10 them, including surface disturbances, from two transects monitored from 1989 percent of the nation’s total onshore locating new mining claims, mineral to 1998 showed a long-term increase in natural gas reserves, as well as the material sales, all off-road vehicle (ORV)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

use, and use of explosives and blasting Habitat for Astragalus proimanthus There are many ORV opportunities (BLM 1997, p. 19). has been lost at several locations due to closer to these communities than those In the Green River Resource road construction (Fertig and Welp on the BLM-administered lands near the Management Plan (RMP), the BLM has 2001, p 16). Wyoming State Highway 1 town of McKinnon. established a Special Status Plant intersects two subpopulations (Fertig In addition, Astragalus proimanthus Species Area of Critical Environmental and Welp 2001, p. 13). Several two-track habitat is generally not attractive to ORV Concern (ACEC) that covers four plant vehicle trails are located near users. Recreational destinations in the species including Astragalus populations of A. proimanthus (BLM area where A. proimanthus occurs are proimanthus (BLM 1997, pp. 19, 34). 1997, p. 199). During the summer of largely limited to a few historic sites This ACEC protects 100 percent of A. 1993, BLM personnel documented and trails (BLM 1997, pp. 4–6). proimanthus that occurs on BLM land surface disturbance due to traffic; this Available two-track vehicle trails (BLM 2011, unpaginated). This ACEC is was partially associated with vehicles provide access to most common closed to energy development activities accessing the unauthorized McKinnon destinations, such as water sources and that have the potential to adversely Dump, which is no longer in use and hunting campsites, so that off-road affect A. proimanthus and its habitat. has since been reclaimed (BLM 1997, p. access is not often necessary (Glennon Prohibited activities include surface 199). 2010a, pers. comm.). Additionally, A. disturbing activities and surface On BLM lands, special status plant proimanthus occurs on slopes and occupancy (such as leasable mineral populations are closed to activities that ridges (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 11) that exploration and development or could adversely affect them or their are not conducive to ORV travel that is construction of long-term facilities or habitat (BLM 1997, p. 19), and the ACEC destination-oriented. structures), mineral material sales, and is closed to all direct surface-disturbing Finally, the ACEC is closed to ORV use of explosives and blasting (BLM road construction (BLM 1997, p. 34). use (BLM 1997, p. 72). However, there 1997, pp. 19, 34). The ACEC has Future road development is a potential are no physical barriers to keep ORVs provisions by which any newly located threat to occurrences of Astragalus out of the ACEC, except for in the 48.6- A. proimanthus individuals and habitat proimanthus that are not on BLM- ha (120-ac) fenced exclosure (Glennon can be added to the ACEC by an managed lands. However, future road 2010a, pers. comm.). At other locations amendment to the RMP (BLM 1997, pp. construction does not rise to the level of in southwestern Wyoming, violators of 19, 34). a threat to A. proimanthus, because the BLM and U.S. Forest Service travel Additionally, BLM-administered species primarily occurs on BLM- restrictions on ORV use have been lands under a 48.6-ha (120-ac) fenced administered lands and, therefore, is reported (WGFD 2010, unpaginated). enclosure around one of the protected by the provisions in the ACEC The potential for impacts from illegal subpopulations of Astragalus and its designation as a special status ORV use on BLM-administered lands is proimanthus, north of the town of plant species (BLM 1997, pp. 19, 34). possible even within the ACEC. McKinnon, have been withdrawn from Therefore, we do not consider road However, impacts from illegal ORV use mineral exploration and mining (BLM construction to be a threat to A. are unlikely due to the low human 1999, p. 6; Glennon 2010a, pers. proimanthus now or in the foreseeable populations in the area, the difficulty of comm.). The BLM has committed to future. traversing the habitats occupied by pursuing the withdrawal of mining Astragalus proimanthus, and the greater claims in all areas of the Special Status Off-Road Vehicle Use likelihood of enforcement of the Plants Species ACEC (BLM 1997, p. 34). The use of ORVs is both a means of prohibition of ORV use within an ACEC Although occurrences of Astragalus transportation and recreation in due to critical resource concerns (BLM proimanthus on BLM-administered Wyoming. Approximately 35.5 percent 1997, p. 110). Therefore, we do not lands are protected from the impacts of of Wyoming’s 506,000 residents use consider ORV use to be a threat to A. energy development, future energy ORVs for recreational purposes (Foulke proimanthus now or in the foreseeable development remains a potential threat et al. 2006, p. 3). During 2004 and 2005, future. to occurrences of A. proimanthus that Sweetwater County had the fifth highest Range Improvements are not located on Federal land. ORV permit sales in the State (Foulke et However, this potential threat is al. 2006, pp. 8–9). Habitat modifications due to range unlikely to rise to the level of a threat The area of BLM-administered land in improvement projects for livestock have to the species as the vast majority of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, where been identified as a potential threat to known occurrences (95 percent) of A. Astragalus proimanthus occurs has not Astragalus proimanthus (Marriott 1989, proimanthus are located on BLM- experienced the high level of ORV use p. 8). However, this was prior to the administered lands (Heidel 2010b, pers. seen in some other areas of Wyoming designation of the ACEC that provides comm.; WNDD in litt. 2010, (Glennon 2010a, pers. comm.). There are special protections for A. proimanthus unpaginated). Therefore, we do not no large communities nearby to support (BLM 1997, p. 34). As stated in the consider energy development to be a local ORV recreational activities. The Green River RMP, within the ACEC: threat to A. proimanthus now or in the closest town (within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the ‘‘Livestock grazing objectives and foreseeable future. nearest populations of A. proimanthus) management practices will be evaluated is McKinnon, with a population of 49 in and, as needed, modified to be Road Construction 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, consistent with the management Roads can destroy or modify habitat unpaginated). The larger communities objectives for this area’’ (BLM 1997, p. and increase human access that may of Green River (estimated population of 34). The plan also specifies, ‘‘Grazing lead to trampling or the introduction of 12,411 in 2009), Rock Springs systems will be designed to achieve nonnative invasive plants (discussed (estimated population of 20,905 in desired plant communities and proper below). Additionally, road construction 2009), and Evanston (estimated functioning conditions of watersheds can lead to increased erosion, and population of 11,958 in 2009) (U.S. (upland and riparian)’’ (BLM 1997, p. vehicle traffic on unimproved roads can Census Bureau 2009, unpaginated) are 34). Additionally, no wild horse traps result in increased atmospheric dust 78.9, 106.2, and 120.7 km (49, 66, and will be constructed within this area and dust deposition on vegetation. 75 mi) from McKinnon, respectively. (BLM 1997, p. 34). Movement of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33943

livestock between areas of known use invasive plants. A. proimanthus grows 2004, Chapter 6.2). As noted previously, and range improvements will be in shallow, dry soils that support only monitoring data suggest that the main evaluated and monitored, and locations sparse vegetation (Fertig and Welp 2001, population along the bluffs of the of range improvements will be pp. 11–12). The characteristics of its Henrys Fork River was relatively stable modified, if necessary, to ensure that the harsh habitat may explain why no from 1998 to 2000 (Fertig and Welp habitat where A. proimanthus occurs nonnative invasive plants have been 2001, p. 14). During this same period, will not be trampled (Glennon 2010a, reported in proximity to the known this species’ habitat experienced pers. comm.). The fact that populations occurrences. Therefore, we do not drought conditions, including severe from 1989 through 2000 were relatively consider nonnative invasive plants to be droughts (Curtis 2004, unpaginated). stable (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 14) a threat to this species now or in the Although climate change may affect the suggests that range management did not foreseeable future. duration and severity of drought in adversely affect A. proimanthus Fire some locations, we do not have populations during that time. No information to suggest A. proimanthus impacts from livestock have been noted We find the potential impact of is unlikely to be able to respond to this recently (Glennon 2010a, pers. comm.). wildfire to the species to be minimal potential stressor. Therefore, we do not Since 1997, range management practices due to the sparse vegetation cover in consider climate change and drought to also are evaluated pursuant to the habitats occupied by Astragalus be a threat to this species now or in the management objectives of the ACEC proimanthus. From 1980 through 2009 foreseeable future. (BLM 1997, p. 19). Additionally, known (29 years), seven wildfires occurred in locations of A. proimanthus are the area BLM mapped as potential Summary of Factor A protected and closed to surface- habitat for Astragalus proimanthus Occurrences of Astragalus disturbing activities or any disruptive (Caldwell 2011, pers. comm.). However, proimanthus have experienced activity that could adversely affect the no fires burned in areas with known historical impacts from road plants or their habitat (BLM 1997, p 19). occurrences of A. proimanthus; development and illegal trash dumps. moreover, the total acreage burned Therefore, we do not consider range Additionally, seismic exploration for oil during this 29-year period was 0.3 ha improvements to be a threat to A. and gas occurred near one population (0.7 ac) (Caldwell 2011, pers. comm.). proimanthus now or in the foreseeable where associated road construction may All seven wildfires were caused by future. have disturbed A. proimanthus habitat, lightning strikes to isolated junipers, but there is no indication that plants Disposal Sites and only that individual tree burned were destroyed. Currently, the habitat Disturbance associated with garbage (Stephenson 2011, pers. comm.). Areas disturbance due to the McKinnon dump disposal sites (dumps) has been of barren ground between widely spaced has effectively been addressed. The identified as a potential threat to vegetation and low fuel loads prevent special species status of A. proimanthus Astragalus proimanthus (Marriott 1989, fires from spreading far beyond points p. 8). Surveys conducted by the BLM in of ignition (Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 5), and the provisions in the ACEC are 1993 and 1994 documented as the existence of adequate fuels is one adequate to alleviate the threats to A. disturbances to the habitat of A. of the requirements for a fire to start and proimanthus from energy development, proimanthus due to the presence of the continue to burn (Moritz Lab 2010, road construction, ORV use, range McKinnon Dump (BLM 1997, p. 199). entire). Therefore, we do not consider improvements, and other land uses that The McKinnon Dump was an illegal fire to be a threat to this species now or have the potential to disturb the habitat dump located on BLM land (Board of in the foreseeable future. of A. proimanthus. Although potential County Commissioners of Sweetwater threats on State and private lands may Climate Change and Drought County 1992, unpaginated). The BLM exist, such as ORV use or range and Sweetwater County worked together For general background information improvements, only 5 percent of this to clean up and reclaim the McKinnon on climate change, please refer to the species’ distribution occurs on private Dump (Board of County Commissioners first paragraphs of ‘‘Climate Change’’ lands, and no impacts to the species on of Sweetwater County 1992, under Factor A. The Present or private lands has been documented. unpaginated; BLM 1997, p. 199). Since Threatened Destruction, Modification, In summary, we note that procedural 1997, the ACEC appears to have or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in considerations for amending the Green effectively protected A. proimanthus the Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia River RMP to ensure that all individual from surface disturbance, such as ammophila section. Astragalus proimanthus plants on BLM- dumps, on BLM-administered lands Although assessing the magnitude administered lands are protected by the (BLM 1997, p. 34). Therefore, we do not and type of effect climate change may Special Status Plant Species ACEC view disposal sites to be a threat to A. have on Astragalus proimanthus is (BLM 1997, pp. 19–20, 34) are lengthy proimanthus now or in the foreseeable complex, we believe climate change has and may not accurately delineate the future. the potential to affect the species given oscillating distributions and new the predictions discussed previously of discoveries of this species. However, Nonnative Invasive Plants increased springtime temperatures, maintenance actions may be used in For general background information decreased springtime precipitation, and certain situations including new on nonnative invasive plants, please increased drought. The importance of population discoveries and species’ refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Nonnative yearly fluctuations in precipitation and range shifts (see Factor D: Bureau of Invasive Plants’’ under Factor A. The temperature on the establishment and Land Management below). Therefore, Present or Threatened Destruction, survival of A. proimanthus is unknown we find that the protections provided by Modification, or Curtailment of Its (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 14). However, the special status plant species Habitat or Range in the Five Factor drought is not unusual or unnatural in designation (BLM 1997, p. 19) in Evaluation for Abronia ammophila Wyoming. Severe or extreme drought combination with the protections section. conditions occur more than 20 percent provided by the Special Status Plant We have no evidence of impacts to of the time over the southwestern ACEC, as documented in the Green Astragalus proimanthus from nonnative regions of the State (Curtis and Grimes River RMP (BLM 1997, p. 34), provide

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

effective protection to 95 percent of the Summary of Factor C threatened, and endangered plant population of A. proimanthus. We conclude that the best scientific species (BLM 1997, p. 19), and locations We conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available of special status plant species are closed and commercial information available indicates that Astragalus proimanthus is to activities that could adversely affect indicates that Astragalus proimanthus is not in danger of extinction or likely to them or their habitat (BLM 1997, p. 19). not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future Additionally, the ACEC delineates become so within the foreseeable future because of disease or predation. known distributions of A. proimanthus because of the present or threatened and its essential habitat, while destruction, modification, or Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing furthering the protection of newly curtailment of its habitat or range. Regulatory Mechanisms discovered locations on BLM lands Factor B. Overutilization for The Act requires us to examine the (BLM 1997, p. 34). The BLM conducts Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or adequacy of existing regulatory searches to identify additional areas Educational Purposes mechanisms with respect to threats that where A. proimanthus may be located may place Astragalus proimanthus in (BLM 1997 p. 34). In January 2011, the Astragalus proimanthus is not known danger of extinction or likely to become BLM took a maintenance action on the to be collected for any purposes. One so in the future. Existing regulatory Green River RMP to include all newly species of this genus, Astragalus mechanisms that could have an effect discovered locations of A. proimanthus membranaceus (Huang qi), has been on potential threats to A. proimanthus on BLM-administered lands in the used in traditional Chinese medicine for include (1) Federal laws and ACEC (BLM 2011, unpaginated). thousands of years (University of regulations; (2) State laws and Maintenance actions are based on new Maryland 2006, unpaginated). However, regulations; and (3) local land use laws, or changed data, and document or refine this species is native to Asia, and processes, and ordinances. Most (95 previously approved decisions Astragalus species that grow in the incorporated into an RMP (43 CFR United States do not share similar percent) of A. proimanthus occurs on Federal land; therefore, the discussion 1610.5–4). A maintenance action does medicinal properties (University of not require formal public involvement Maryland 2006, unpaginated). We have below focuses on Federal laws. Actions adopted by local groups, States, or and interagency coordination as this no information to indicate that A. action is limited to refining or proimanthus is threatened by Federal entities that are discretionary, including conservation strategies and documenting a previously approved overutilization for commercial, decision incorporated in the plan (43 recreational, scientific, or educational guidance, are not regulatory mechanisms; however, we may discuss CFR 1610.5–4). As a result of this purposes. maintenance action 100 percent of the We conclude that the best scientific them in relation to their effects on known locations of A. proimanthus and commercial information available potential threats to the species. occurring on BLM-administered lands indicates that Astragalus proimanthus is Federal Laws and Regulations are protected by the ACEC (BLM 2011, not in danger of extinction or likely to unpaginated). become so within the foreseeable future Bureau of Land Management because of overutilization for As discussed previously, the special National Environmental Policy Act commercial, recreational, scientific, or status species designation and the All Federal agencies are required to educational purposes. Special Status Plant Species ACEC, as adhere to the NEPA for projects they documented in the Green River RMP Factor C. Disease or Predation fund, authorize, or carry out. For more (BLM 1997, pp. 19, 34), have adequate information about NEPA, please refer to Disease provisions to effectively protect 95 Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Astragalus proimanthus is not known percent of the population distribution of Regulatory Mechanisms in the Five to be affected or threatened by any Astragalus proimanthus. An RMP, the Factor Evaluation for Abronia disease. Therefore, we do not consider primary management tool that ammophila section. disease to be a threat to A. proimanthus implements regulatory mechanisms, now or in the foreseeable future. goes through revisions approximately State and Local Laws and Regulations every 15 years, and a revision to the The remaining 5 percent of the Predation—Grazing and Herbivory Green River RMP is anticipated by 2013 distribution of A. proimanthus occurs Grazing and herbivory effects on (Dana 2010b, pers. comm.). This on State and private lands, and are not Astragalus proimanthus have not been revision has been started and the special protected by regulatory mechanisms. studied. Bird or insect predation on status plant designation, based on the many A. proimanthus flowers was noted BLM State Directors’ designation, will Summary of Factor D on at least one occasion (Barneby 1964, carry over into the newly revised RMP. The existing ACEC appears to p. 1154). Most occurrence reports do not Astragalus proimanthus was adequately protect the majority (95 mention any instances of herbivory designated by the BLM State Director as percent) of the habitat of Astragalus (WNDD in litt. 2010, unpaginated; a BLM State-sensitive species (BLM proimanthus. We expect that A. Marriot 1989, p. 16). Domestic sheep 2010b, p. 23). The BLM focuses proimanthus and its habitat will be apparently do not graze A. proimanthus sensitive species management on generally protected from direct human (Mutz 1981, p. 6), and direct impacts maintaining species habitat in disturbance. We have no evidence of from grazing are thought to be unlikely functional ecosystems, ensuring the impacts to A. proimanthus from due to the plant’s low stature, coarse species is considered in land inadequate regulatory mechanisms. pubescence (fine, short hairs), and low management decisions, preventing a We conclude that the best scientific palatability (Mutz 1981, p. 6; Marriott need to list the species under the Act, and commercial information available 1989, unpaginated; Fertig and Welp and prioritizing conservation that indicates that Astragalus proimanthus is 2001, p. 14). Therefore, we do not emphasizes habitat (BLM 2010b, p. 1). not in danger of extinction or likely to consider predation to be a threat to A. The BLM sensitive species are become so within the foreseeable future proimanthus now or in the foreseeable automatically included as special status because of inadequate regulatory future. plant species, along with candidate, mechanisms.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33945

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade present across the landscape with a regulatory mechanisms, reduced genetic Factors Affecting Its Continued broader range. We have no indication diversity, or reduced pollination. Existence that A. proimanthus is suffering from Based on our review of the best Natural and manmade factors with the any problems associated with small available scientific and commercial potential to affect Astragalus population size. We also have no information pertaining to the five proimanthus include: (1) Small information showing that A. factors, we find that the threats are not population size, (2) pollination, and (3) proimanthus is suffering from low of sufficient imminence, intensity, or genetic diversity. pollination rates or reduced genetic magnitude to indicate that Astragalus diversity. Therefore, we conclude that proimanthus is in danger of extinction Small Population Size the best scientific and commercial (endangered), or likely to become For background information, please information available indicates that endangered within the foreseeable refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Small Astragalus proimanthus is not in danger future (threatened), throughout all of its Population Size’’ under Factor E. Other of extinction or likely to become so range. Therefore, we find that listing A. Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting within the foreseeable future because of proimanthus as a threatened or Its Continued Existence in the Five small population size, reduced endangered species is not warranted Factor Evaluation for Abronia pollination, or reduced genetic throughout all of its range. ammophila section. diversity. We have no evidence that the Significant Portion of the Range Finding populations of Astragalus proimanthus Having determined that Astragalus are experiencing the problems that As required by the Act, we considered proimanthus does not meet the occur in some species with small the five factors in assessing whether definition of a threatened or endangered population size. We do not have any Astragalus proimanthus is threatened or species, we must next consider whether indication that A. proimanthus was ever endangered throughout all of its range. there are any significant portions of the present on the landscape over a more We examined the best scientific and range where A. rossiae is in danger of extensive range. We also have no commercial information available extinction or is likely to become information indicating that random regarding the past, present, and future endangered in the foreseeable future. demographic or environmental events threats faced by the species. We In determining whether Astragalus are a threat to the species because of its reviewed the petition, information proimanthus is threatened or small population size. Therefore, we do available in our files, other available endangered in a significant portion of its not consider small population size to be published and unpublished range, we first addressed whether any a threat to A. proimanthus now or in the information, and we consulted other portions of the range of A. proimanthus foreseeable future. Federal and State agencies. warrant further consideration. We Pollination Occurrences of Astragalus evaluated the current range of A. proimanthus to determine if there is any Please refer to the first paragraph of proimanthus experienced historical apparent geographic concentration of ‘‘Pollination’’ under Factor E. Other impacts from road development and the primary stressors potentially Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting illegal trash dumps. Additionally, affecting the species including energy Its Continued Existence in the Five seismic exploration for oil and gas development, road construction, ORV Factor Evaluation for Abronia occurred near one population, with no use, range improvements, and other ammophila section for background known impacts to the species. However, land uses. This species’ small range information. Astragalus proimanthus is the provisions in the ACEC now in suggests that stressors are likely to affect believed to have been historically rare, place are adequately alleviating any it in a uniform manner throughout its with populations appearing to be stable potential threats to A. proimanthus from range. However, we found the stressors (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 13). We have energy development, road construction, are not of sufficient imminence, no information indicating that a lack of ORV use, range improvements, and intensity, magnitude, or geographically pollinators is a threat to the species. other land uses that have potential to concentrated such that it warrants Therefore, we do not consider lack of disturb A. proimanthus and its habitat. evaluating whether a portion of the pollinators to be a threat to A. Although potential threats on State and range is significant under the Act. We proimanthus now or in the foreseeable private lands exist, such as ORV use or do not find that A. proimanthus is in future. range improvements, no impacts to the plants on these lands have been danger of extinction now, nor is likely Genetic Diversity documented or are reasonably to become endangered within the For background information, please anticipated. We have no information to foreseeable future throughout all or a refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Genetic show that A. proimanthus is threatened significant portion of its range. Diversity’’ under Factor E. Other Natural by overutilization for commercial, Therefore, listing A. proimanthus as or Manmade Factors Affecting Its recreational, scientific, or educational threatened or endangered under the Act Continued Existence in the Five Factor purposes at this time. We conclude that is not warranted at this time. Evaluation for Abronia ammophila the best scientific and commercial We request that you submit any new section. We have no information information available indicates that information concerning the status of, or indicating that a lack of genetic Astragalus proimanthus is not in danger threats to, Astragalus proimanthus to diversity is a threat to the species. of extinction or likely to become so our Wyoming Ecological Services Field Therefore, we do not consider lack of within the foreseeable future because of Office (see ADDRESSES section) genetic diversity to be a threat to A. climate change, drought, nonnative whenever it becomes available. New proimanthus now or in the foreseeable invasive plants, fire, small population information will help us monitor A. future. size, lack of pollinators, or reduced proimanthus and encourage its genetic diversity. We have no conservation. If an emergency situation Summary of Factor E information regarding actual or develops for A. proimanthus, or any We have no information to suggest potential adverse impacts due to other species, we will act to provide that Astragalus proimanthus was ever overutilization, disease, inadequate immediate protection.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Species Information for Penstemon has much narrower leaves (Dorn 1982, reduce percolation (water seeping into gibbensii p. 334). The current taxonomic status of the ground) and increase evaporation P. gibbensii is accepted (Integrated (Heidel 2009, p. 20). P. gibbensii has Species Description Taxonomic Information System 2010b, been reported at elevations from 1,634 Penstemon gibbensii is a perennial unpaginated). We recognize P. gibbensii to 2,347 m (5,360 to 7,700 ft) (Dorn forb (herbaceous plant that is not a as a valid species and a listable entity. 1990a, p. 5; CNHP 2010a, unpaginated). grass) averaging approximately 23 cm (9 Soils are typically highly erodible, with Biology and Life History in.) in height (Dorn 1990a, p. 3). Its low nutrient levels, low soil moisture, leaves are long and narrow, often folded Reproduction of Penstemon gibbensii and high selenium content (Spackman down the length of the mid-rib, is by seed, with no evidence of and Anderson 1999, p. 3). pubescent (covered with fine, short vegetative reproduction (Fertig and Biological soil crusts are well- hairs) to smooth, and typically less than Neighbours 1996, p. 16). Based upon developed in Penstemon gibbensii 5 mm (0.2 in.) wide (Fertig and flower color and shape, this species is habitat in Colorado and Utah, but were Neighbours 1996, p. 4). Populations at probably insect pollinated (Fertig and not noted at any sites in Wyoming lower elevations are conspicuously Neighbours 1996, p. 16). Bees have been (Heidel 2009, p. 14). Biological soil more pubescent, possibly as an seen visiting flowers at sites in Colorado crusts are commonly found in semiarid adaptation to conserve moisture in and Utah (Langton 2010, pers. comm.). and arid environments such as the Great warmer habitats (Dorn 1990a, p. 6). The Fruits are oval, light-brown capsules Basin and Colorado Plateau, and are bright blue flower is tube-shaped, 15 to (Fertig 2000d, unpaginated). Seeds are formed by a community of living 20 mm (0.6 to 0.8 in.) long, and may probably dispersed primarily by gravity organisms that can include appear from early June to September, or wind (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, p. cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, depending on moisture levels (Fertig 16). P. gibbensii appears to have mosses, liverworts, and lichens (USGS 2000d, unpaginated). minimal reproductive success, as 2006, unpaginated). These crusts evidenced by below-normal seedling Taxonomy provide many positive benefits for the numbers in most years due to dry larger biotic community including Penstemon, with an estimated 271 conditions (Heidel 2009, p. 21). In 1985, decreased erosion, improved water species, is the largest plant genus 1988, and 1991, at three transects in the infiltration, increased seed germination, endemic to North America, and the Cherokee Basin occurrence, 0 to 56 and improved plant growth (Spackman Intermountain Region represents the percent of P. gibbensii plants were and Anderson 1999, p 3; USGS 2006, p. center of diversity (Wolfe et al. 2006, p. seedlings (Warren in litt. 1992, Table 2). 2). 1699). In the early 1970s, Robert Seedling establishment is probably Penstemon gibbensii exploits a largely Gibbens collected the first specimens of episodic and dependent on occasional barren, challenging environment (Dorn Penstemon gibbensii in Sweetwater years with adequate summer moisture 1990a, p. 3). This species is generally County, Wyoming (Dorn 1982, p. 334). (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, p. 16). P. not tolerant of competition from other These specimens were sent to a gibbensii is able to take advantage of species or other Penstemon plants; Penstemon specialist for identification summer precipitation, as it is a warm- individual plants are usually spaced one and subsequently lost (Dorn 1990a, p. season species (Warren in litt. 1992, to several meters (3 or more ft) apart 1). In 1981, Robert Dorn resurveyed the unpaginated). (Dorn 1990a, pp. 8–9). Total vegetative area and relocated P. gibbensii in the No information was available cover is typically 5 to 10 percent (Fertig field (Dorn 1982, p. 334; Heidel 2009, p. regarding chilling requirements for 2000, p. 2). Associated species include 1). P. gibbensii was determined to be a seeds of P. gibbensii. However, close Elymus spicatus (bluebunch new, undescribed species based on its relatives (i.e., Penstemon cyananthus, wheatgrass), Achnatherum hymenoides morphology (Dorn 1982, p. 334; Fertig Penstemon fremontii, and Penstemon (Indian ricegrass), Herperostipa comata and Neighbours 1996, pp. 4–6). This scariosus) have seeds that are largely (needle-and-thread grass), Eriogonum species has been reproductively isolated dormant at harvest and require a long brevicaule (shortstem wild buckwheat), for some time as each known population chilling period prior to germination Eremogone hookeri (Hooker’s of P. gibbensii exhibits slight (Meyer and Kitchen 1994, p. 354). These sandwort), and Minuartia nuttallii morphological and habitat differences species have evolved seed germination (Nuttall’s stitchwort) (Heidel 2009, p. (Dorn 1989 as cited in Fertig and mechanisms that permit the carryover of 13). Adjacent vegetative communities Neighbours 1996, pp. 3–4). seeds between years as a persistent seed may include pinyon-juniper woodlands, Penstemon gibbensii is a member of bank, which maximizes the probability sagebrush shrublands, or greasewood- the Scrophulariaceae (figwort or of seedling survival in favorable years saltbush shrublands (Dorn 1990a, p. 9). snapdragon) family (Dorn 1982, p. 334; (Meyer and Kitchen 1994, p. 363). Distribution Fertig and Neighbours 1996, p. 2). Recognizing the similarities between Similar species include Penstemon these Penstemon species and their Penstemon gibbensii is a regional cyananthus (Wasatch beardtongue), climatic conditions, we assume that P. endemic, with a range that includes Penstemon fremontii (Fremont’s gibbensii also requires a chilling period Carbon and Sweetwater Counties in beardtongue), Penstemon saxosorum and has a persistent seed bank. Wyoming, Moffat County in Colorado, (upland beardtongue), and Penstemon and Daggett County in Utah (Dorn scariosus (White River beardtongue) Habitat 1990a, p. 6; Heidel 2009, p. 31). P. (Fertig 2000d, unpaginated). P. Penstemon gibbensii occurs in a cold gibbensii was not recognized as a new gibbensii, which occurs at a lower steppe climate on barren shale or sandy- species until 1981 (Dorn 1982, p. 334; elevation than P. saxosorum, can be clay slopes (Dorn 1990a, p. 6). Habitat Fertig and Neighbours 1996, pp. 4–6). distinguished by stems that are is often located on steep upper or Consequently, its historical range is pubescent nearly to the base, narrower middle slopes eroding below a more unknown. However, P. gibbensii was leaves, and corollas (all the petals of the resistant caprock (Heidel 2009, p. 13). possibly always uncommon (Heidel flower) that are pubescent inside and Slopes are generally 20 to 30 degrees 2009, pp. 5, 8). The species is currently out (Dorn 1982, p. 334). P. gibbensii is and predominately south- or west-facing known from nine occurrences more pubescent than P. cyananthus, and (Dorn 1990a, p. 8). These conditions including: Cherokee Basin, Sand Creek,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33947

Flat Top Mountain, T84N R18W, Colorado, and in Daggett County, Utah; and the Sterling Place occurrence is on Willow Creek, and Red Creek Rim in no new populations have been found in BLM land. The Daggett County, Utah, Wyoming; Spitzie Draw and Sterling these areas (Dorn 1990a, p. 6; Spackman occurrence is on State land (Heidel Place in Colorado; and Dagget County, and Anderson 1999, p. 31). 2009, p. 27). Management Utah. These nine occurrences are spread Most known Penstemon gibbensii responsibilities are described in Table 2 across 193 km (120 mi) and occupy (approximately 77 percent) occur on below. approximately 109 ha (270 ac) in State and Federal land. All Wyoming Abundance Wyoming, 10 ha (25 ac) in Colorado, occurrences, with the exception of the T84N R18W occurrence and a small and 2 ha (5 ac) in Utah (Heidel 2009, p. portion of the Sand Creek occurrence Table 2 presents available information 31). Three of the six Wyoming are on land managed by BLM (Heidel regarding the known occurrences of occurrences and the Colorado and Utah 2009, p. 27). The Nature Conservancy Penstemon gibbensii. The plant occurrences are within 5 to 8 km (3 to (TNC) manages the T84N R18W numbers and occupied habitat do not 5 mi) of each other (Heidel 2009, p. 9). occurrence, which is on State and sum to the exact current total due to In Wyoming, surveys for additional private land (Heidel 2009, p. 31). A slight differences between references. occurrences have been conducted in small portion of the Sand Creek Most estimates are based on walking over 100 sections (each section is 259 ha occurrence also is on State land (Heidel surveys through occupied habitat; two (640 ac)), primarily along the Carbon- 2009, p. 27). In Colorado, the Spitzie sites (Cherokee Basin and Flat Top Sweetwater County line (Heidel 2009, p. Draw occurrence is on Browns Park Mountain) also have permanent 12). Additional potential habitat also National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) transects for trend monitoring (Heidel has been searched in Moffat County, (managed by the Service) and BLM land, 2009, Appendix B).

TABLE 2—KNOWN OCCURRENCES OF PENSTEMON GIBBENSII

Species occurrence Estimated plant numbers (year identified) (year surveyed) Occupied habitat Management

Cherokee Basin, WY (1981) ...... 450 (1985) ...... 6.2 ha (15.2 ac) ...... BLM-Rawlins Field Office. 1,400 (1988) 2,766 (1991) 1,000 (1995) 50–100 (2007) Sand Creek, WY (1987) ...... 2,000 (1989) ...... 48.1 ha (118.7 ac) ...... BLM-Rawlins Field Office and 1,900–2,000 (1995) State of WY. 3,000 (2005)

Flat Top Mountain, WY (1987) ...... 300 (1989) ...... 7.2 ha (17.9 ac) ...... BLM-Rawlins Field Office. 1,000–1,200 (1995) 300 (2008)

T84N R18W, WY (1997) ...... 4,500–5,000 (1999) ...... 28.8 ha (71.2 ac) ...... TNC. 500–1,000 (2008) Willow Creek, WY (2004) ...... 2,200 (2008) ...... 15.6 ha (38.5 ac) ...... BLM-Rawlins Field Office. Red Creek Rim, WY (2008) ...... 120 (2008) ...... 3.3 ha (8.1 ac) ...... BLM-Rawlins Field Office. Spitzie Draw, CO (1982) ...... 263 (2009) ...... ∼5 ha (12 ac) ...... Service-Browns Park NWR. BLM-Little Snake Field Office. Sterling Place, CO (1984) ...... 656 (2010) ...... ∼4 ha (9 ac) ...... BLM-Little Snake Field Office. Daggett County, UT (1989) ...... 300 (2010) ...... 5 ha (12 ac) ...... State of UT.

Current Total ...... ∼11,000–14,000 ...... ∼122 ha (300 ac) Table 2 References: Heidel 2009, pp. 22, 31; CNHP in litt. 2009a, p. 2; in litt. 2009b, p. 2; in litt. 2010a, p. 2.

The Colorado Natural Heritage affecting P. gibbensii, but do not result slightly increasing in 2000; this was Program (CNHP) has designated in any regulatory protection for the attributed to favorable climatic Penstemon gibbensii as a plant species species. conditions in the preceding years (Fertig of special concern (CNHP 2010b, 2000d, unpaginated). Since 2000, Trends unpaginated). The WYNDD also has populations appear to be stable to designated P. gibbensii as a plant Long-term population trend data for increasing at the Sand Creek occurrence species of concern (Heidel 2007, p. 18). Penstemon gibbensii is not available. and declining at the other three The Utah Native Plant Society ranks P. Short-term trends can be examined at Wyoming sites. Seedling establishment gibbensii as a rare plant of ‘‘extremely four of the nine occurrences, where is probably episodic (occurring at high priority’’ (Utah Rare Plants 2010, population estimates are available for irregular intervals) and dependent on unpaginated). These designations are more than 1 year (see Table 1). Only a rare years of adequate summer moisture typically based on TNC’s natural single population estimate is available (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, p. 16; heritage State rank. P. gibbensii is from the two most recently discovered Heidel 2009, p. 22). The resultant ranked S1 in all three States because of sites in Wyoming and the three sites in uneven survival of seedlings may its extreme rarity. These designations Colorado and Utah. Short-term trends account for short-term population indicate that particular consideration for the three Wyoming populations of P. fluctuations in this species (Fertig and may be taken by the States with regard gibbensii that have been surveyed more Neighbours 1996, p. 16). Survey results to management decisions potentially frequently were described as stable to from 1995 may represent peak

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

population estimates due to ideal Consequently, further energy negative effects to the species. climatic conditions, rather than mean or development is possible within the Additionally, we have no information low estimates (Heidel 2009, p. 23). foreseeable future; however, potential on dust or levels of travel on these roads Overall, there is not enough information impacts from it are unknown. impacting P. gibbensii or its habitat. to conclusively determine rangewide In addition to oil and gas In conclusion, only minimal impacts trends for the species. development, uranium is mined near to Penstemon gibbensii were noted from the Red Creek Rim occurrence (Heidel roads. Therefore, we do not consider Penstemon Five Factor Evaluation for 2009, p. 28). No impacts to Penstemon roads to be a threat to P. gibbensii now gibbensii gibbensii have been documented as a or in the foreseeable future. Information pertaining to Penstemon result of uranium mining. Sub- Trampling gibbensii in relation to the five factors bituminous coal underlies portions of provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is the range of Penstemon gibbensii; Trampling by livestock, ORVs, or discussed below. however, this coal is not suitable for human foot traffic can destroy plants and increase soil erosion, especially at Factor A. The Present or Threatened strip mining (Heidel 2009, p. 28). Oil shale rock also is present (Heidel 2009, sites with steep, loose soils. It has been Destruction, Modification, or mentioned as a potential concern at Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range p. 28). Wind energy development and gravel quarry development are possible, seven of nine occurrences (Warren in The following potential factors that but have not occurred to date (Heidel litt. 1992, unpaginated; Fertig and may affect the habitat or range of 2009, p. 28). Neighbours 1996, p. 20; Spackman and Penstemon gibbensii are discussed in In conclusion, minimal impacts to Anderson 1999, p. 31; Fertig 2000d, this section: (1) Energy development, (2) Penstemon gibbensii were noted from unpaginated; Heidel 2009, p. 28; CNHP roads, (3) trampling, (4) nonnative oil and gas development, no impacts in litt. 2010a, p. 4). Penstemon gibbensii invasive plants, and (5) climate change have been documented from uranium may colonize the margins of disturbed and drought. mining, and the other types of areas, but cannot become established Energy Development development are currently only within an area of active use (Heidel speculative. Therefore, we do not 2009, p. 28). Soil disturbance has been As previously discussed, many consider energy development to be a noted at the Sterling Place occurrence activities associated with energy threat to P. gibbensii now or in the from cattle bedding down (CNHP in litt. development can destroy or modify foreseeable future. 2010a, p. 4) and at the Cherokee Basin habitat. Since 1989, energy exploration occurrence from humans (Warren in litt. Roads has increased in the Wyoming portion 1992, unpaginated). Survey activities at of the range of Penstemon gibbensii Roads can destroy or modify habitat. Cherokee Basin in 1988 left distinct (Heidel 2009, p. 28). However, most Roads also can increase access, leading footprints that were still distinguishable occurrences of P. gibbensii are on to trampling or the introduction of in places 3 years later (Warren in litt. unstable slopes that are unlikely to be nonnative invasive plants (discussed 1992, unpaginated). developed for roads, pipelines, or well below). A few roads cross or are As stated above, biological soil crusts pads (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, pp. adjacent to occurrences of Penstemon have been noted at occurrences in 19–20; Heidel 2009, p. 28). However, gibbensii. As mentioned under energy Colorado and Utah, but not in Wyoming the Sand Creek occurrence, which is on development, one access road intersects (Spackman and Anderson 1999, pp. 22, flatter terrain, is located in an active oil a limited portion of a subpopulation at 26; Heidel 2009, pp. 14, 20; CNHP and gas field, with one pipeline passing the Sand Creek occurrence, but also may 2010a, unpaginated; in litt. 2010d, p. 2). through a subpopulation of P. gibbensii provide additional habitat as P. The absence of biological soil crusts in and an accompanying access road gibbensii is able to colonize the margins Wyoming may reflect the effects of intersecting a limited portion (does not of disturbed areas (Heidel 2009, pp. 28, trampling from historically heavy sheep impact a lot of potential habitat of P. 43). Another road crosses the edge of the (Ovis aries) grazing (Heidel 2009, p. 27). gibbensii) of another subpopulation Willow Creek occurrence (Heidel 2009, In summary, trampling is a potential (Heidel 2009, p. 43). A well pad also is p. 43). At the Spitzie Draw occurrence, concern at most sites and has been located nearby (Heidel 2009, p. 28). State Route 318 passes within 0.4 km documented at two sites. However, we While this development has destroyed (0.25 mi), and an access road passes have no information regarding whether some P. gibbensii habitat, some of the within 200 m (656 ft) (Spackman and any Penstemon gibbensii plants were land disturbances at Sand Creek have Anderson 1999, p. 23). State Route 318 actually trampled. Additionally, P. provided additional habitat by exposing also passes within 50 m (164 ft) of a gibbensii is able to colonize the margins appropriate substrate for plant portion of the Sterling Place occurrence of disturbed habitats and is able to live establishment (Dorn 1990a, p. 13; (CNHP in litt. 2010a, p. 3). A steep road in Wyoming where there is no evidence Heidel 2009, p. 43). Two pipelines have is adjacent to the Flat Top Mountain of biological crusts in their habitat. We been laid at the Willow Creek occurrence (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, have no information indicating that occurrence, one adjacent to a p. 35). The Flat Top Mountain road is trampling is a threat to the species. subpopulation and the other through a experiencing erosion that, if unchecked, Therefore, we do not consider trampling subpopulation that may have destroyed could eventually encroach on P. to be a threat to P. gibbensii now or in plants (Heidel 2009, p. 55). However, gibbensii occupied habitat (Fertig and the foreseeable future. these developments dissect limited Neighbours 1996, p. 35; Heidel 2009, p. areas of occupied habitat at Willow 59). We have no information on the Nonnative Invasive Plants Creek, and the current impacts are likely building of future roads, but do not For general background information not severe as most of P. gibbensii is anticipate any based on the topography on nonnative invasive plants, please located on unstable slopes (Heidel 2009, and isolated nature of most of P. refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Nonnative p. 28). The sale of leases for oil and gas gibbensii’s distribution. Although some Invasive Plants’’ under Factor A. The development continues in Carbon and roads occur in and near the habitat of Present or Threatened Destruction, Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming (BLM P. gibbensii, we do not have any Modification, or Curtailment of Its 2010c, pp. 51–63, 75–77, 83). indication that they have significant Habitat or Range in the Five Factor

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33949

Evaluation for Abronia ammophila habitat, cannot be predicted. Dorn future energy development projects section. (1990a, p. 6) noted that P. gibbensii has being planned in or near any of the P. Encroachment of nonnative invasive fewer and smaller flowers than most gibbensii occurrences. Furthermore, the plants may potentially impact species of Penstemon and hypothesized topography at most occurrences does Penstemon gibbensii. However, P. that this species may have once grown not lend itself to energy development or gibbensii is typically restricted to bare, under moister conditions and could be road construction (Fertig and sparsely vegetated slopes with large in long-term decline due to climatic Neighbours 1996, pp. 19–20; Heidel areas of exposed soil where competition change. However, no additional 2009, p. 28). Therefore, we do not with other plant species, including supporting data were provided. He also anticipate substantial habitat nonnative invasive species, is minimal noted that populations at lower, hotter disturbance in the future. Trampling has (Heidel 2009, p. 26). Nonnative invasive elevations are more pubescent, a been documented at two sites, but there plant numbers are generally low in, and possible adaptation to conserve is no information indicating that plants adjacent to, P. gibbensii occurrences, moisture (Dorn 1990a, p. 6). have been destroyed. Nonnative and are most common near roads Drought is a natural and common invasive plants are present at or near six (Spackman and Anderson 1999, p. 23; phenomenon within the range of occurrences of P. gibbensii. However, Heidel 2009, p. 29). Alyssum Penstemon gibbensii (Dorn 1990a, p. 6). nonnative invasive plant numbers are desertorum (desert madwort) has been Average annual precipitation ranges generally low, and there is no evidence documented at or near Cherokee Basin from approximately 26 cm (10 in.) at that they are problematic. Climate and Red Creek Rim; Bromus tectorum, Wyoming occurrences to about 41 cm change and drought could potentially at or near Cherokee Basin, Red Creek (16 in.) at Colorado and Utah modify habitat at all occurrences. Rim, Sand Creek, Sterling Place, and occurrences (Heidel 2009, pp. 19–20). However, the species appears to have Dagget County; Halogeton glomeratus As discussed above, P. gibbensii appears adapted to recurrent drought and (halogeton), at or near Cherokee Basin, to have minimal reproductive success in variations in climatic conditions. Red Creek Rim, Spitzie Draw, and most years because of dry conditions, Adverse impacts due to habitat Sterling Place; and Salsola australis but responds favorably to late-summer destruction, modification, or (Russian thistle), at or near Spitzie Draw moisture that occurs infrequently (Fertig curtailment appear minimal at the and Sterling Place (Heidel 2009, p. 29; and Neighbours 1996, p. 16; Heidel present time. CNHP 2010a, p. 2; in litt 2010d, p. 2). 2009, p. 22). Penstemon gibbensii is a We conclude that the best scientific These species have been occasionally warm-season plant that remains and commercial information available noted for at least 10 years (Spackman succulent through the summer; indicates that Penstemon gibbensii is and Anderson 1999, pp. 23, 27; Heidel therefore, it can take advantage of not in danger of extinction or likely to 2009, p. 29; CNHP 2010a, unpaginated; summer thunderstorms after other become so within the foreseeable future CNHP 2010e, unpaginated), but there is species have stopped growing or because of the present or threatened no evidence of increasing trends completed their life cycle (Warren in destruction, modification, or regarding their numbers at these sites. litt. 1992, unpaginated). Morphological curtailment of its habitat or range. There is no evidence that any of these adaptations discussed above (pubescent, nonnative invasive species have had a narrow leaves in hotter climes) also Factor B. Overutilization for negative impact on P. gibbensii. indicate that the species is not limited Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Nonnative invasive plants are present by variations in the regional climate to Educational Purposes at or near six occurrences of Penstemon a great degree. We are not aware of any adverse gibbensii. However, their numbers are We believe that Penstemon gibbensii impacts to Penstemon gibbensii from generally low, and there is no evidence has evolved to adapt to recurring overutilization for commercial, drought conditions. Short-term that they are problematic. We have no recreational, scientific, or educational population fluctuations, in response to information indicating that nonnative purposes at this time. We conclude that varying climatic conditions from year to invasive plants are a threat to the the best scientific and commercial year, appear to be typical for the species. Therefore, we do not consider information available indicates that P. species. We have no information nonnative invasive plants to be a threat gibbensii is not in danger of extinction indicating that climate change or to P. gibbensii now or in the foreseeable or likely to become so within the drought is a threat to the species. future. foreseeable future because of Therefore, we do not consider climate overutilization for commercial, Climate Change and Drought change or drought to be a threat to P. recreational, scientific, or educational For general background information gibbensii now or in the foreseeable purposes. on climate change, please refer to the future. first paragraphs of ‘‘Climate Change’’ Factor C. Disease or Predation under Factor A. The Present or Summary of Factor A Threatened Destruction, Modification, Two occurrences (Sand Creek and Disease or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in Willow Creek) have experienced minor We are not aware of any adverse the Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia impacts from energy development. Five impacts to Penstemon gibbensii from ammophila section. occurrences (Sand Creek, Willow Creek, disease at this time. Therefore, we do Plant species with restricted ranges Spitzie Draw, Sterling Place, and Flat not consider disease to be a threat to P. that also are climatically limited may Top Mountain) have roads that are gibbensii now or in the foreseeable experience population declines as a nearby or cross a portion of the future. result of climate change (Schwartz and occurrence. The Sand Creek occurrence, Brigham 2003, p. 11). Whether which appears to be experiencing more Predation—Grazing and Herbivory Penstemon gibbensii would be disturbances from energy development Penstemon gibbensii is relatively positively impacted by an increase in and road usage than the other sites, has succulent and may be grazed by mule barren land due to drought that had an increase in P. gibbensii numbers deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn provided potential habitat, or negatively according to survey results despite these (Antilocapra americana), domestic impacted by a loss of current marginal disturbances. We are not aware of any cattle (Bos taurus), and other herbivores

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

during late summer when green observations regarding the potential for (1) Native, (2) at risk or populations vegetation is sparse (Heidel 2009, p. 26). grazing by livestock and wildlife. trending downward throughout all or a Currently, there is no sheep grazing in Grazing intensity is variable between significant portion of its range, and (3) the habitat of P. gibbensii (Fertig and years and sites, but appears to have dependent on special or unique habitat Neighbours 1996, p. 19); as discussed minimal impact to Penstemon gibbensii, on BLM lands (Sierra 2009, in litt.). As above, historical sheep use may have possibly because of steep slopes, discussed above, these species are been heavy in Wyoming (Heidel 2009, unstable footing, and overall low forage managed to promote their conservation p. 14). Grazing appears to be restricted production in the species’ habitat. and minimize the likelihood and need almost entirely to flowering stems, Fluctuations in plant numbers have for listing under the Act. The oldest which could impact seed production, occurred at Flat Top Mountain, despite known occurrence at Cherokee Basin seed bank replenishment, and long-term consistent levels of grazing, and at was fenced by the BLM for added viability (Fertig and Neighbours 1996, p. Cherokee Basin, in the absence of protection (see Factor C). Four 19). However, steep slopes, unstable grazing, which supports the conclusion occurrences (Cherokee Basin, Flat Top footing, and overall low forage that grazing causes minimal adverse Mountain, Spitzie Draw, and Sterling production in P. gibbensii habitat may impacts to P. gibbensii. Therefore, we do Place) were recommended by the BLM limit use by wildlife and livestock not consider grazing to be a threat to P. for designation as ACECs (Heidel 2009, (Warren in litt. 1992, unpaginated; gibbensii now or in the foreseeable pp. 30–31). However, the final records Heidel 2009, p. 27). future. of decision for the Rawlins RMP in Grazing intensity often varies between Summary of Factor C Wyoming and the Little Snake River years and between sites and does not RMP in Colorado did not designate any appear to negatively affect Penstemon We have no evidence of adverse of these occurrences as ACECs (Heidel gibbensii. At the Spitzie Draw impacts to Penstemon gibbensii from 2009, pp. 30–31). Designation as an occurrence, variable levels of browsing disease. P. gibbensii is relatively ACEC would have protected these sites by mule deer were noted in 2009 (CNHP succulent and may be grazed by both from surface disturbances associated in litt. 2009a, unpaginated; in litt. wildlife and livestock, particularly in with energy and road development. 2009b, unpaginated), but little evidence late summer when most sympatric Nevertheless, as discussed under Factor of grazing or browsing was found in vegetation has dried. However, the A, additional energy development is not 2010 (CNHP in litt. 2010c, p. 2). At the typical habitat of P. gibbensii (steep anticipated, and the steep slopes found Sterling Place occurrence, there was slopes, loose substrate, and sparse at these sites render them ill-suited for little evidence of damage to P. gibbensii vegetative cover) appears to limit heavy most road construction. from mule deer or elk (Cervus grazing at most sites and minimize canadensis), but there was moderate to impacts from grazing. National Wildlife Refuge heavy cattle grazing (CNHP in litt. We conclude that the best scientific Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge 2010a, p. 2). At the Daggett County and commercial information available maintains a variety of native habitats occurrence, there was little evidence of indicates that Penstemon gibbensii is and wildlife, with emphasis on any grazing (CNHP in litt. 2010b, p. 2). not in danger of extinction or likely to migratory birds, threatened and P. gibbensii numbers at Flat Top become so within the foreseeable future endangered species, and species of Mountain were high in 1995 and low in because of disease or predation. special concern. The NWR has a portion 2008 (see Table 2). However, plants Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing of one occurrence of Penstemon experienced low levels of herbivory Regulatory Mechanisms gibbensii, which is protected by refuge (approximately 5 percent) in both years regulations that require all vehicles to The Act requires us to examine the (Heidel 2009, p. 24). Cattle grazing also remain on developed roads and prohibit adequacy of existing regulatory was observed at the Sand Creek the collection, possession, or mechanisms with respect to threats that occurrence in 2005 (Heidel 2009, p. 43). destruction of any plant (Service 2010, may place Penstemon gibbensii in The Cherokee Basin occurrence is the unpaginated). only site that is fenced. In 1985, the danger of extinction or likely to become BLM fenced 95 percent of the site to so in the future. Existing regulatory National Environmental Policy Act exclude cattle, and 5 percent or less was mechanisms that could have an effect Most known Penstemon gibbensii left unfenced (Warren in litt. 1992, on potential threats to P. gibbensii (approximately 77 percent) occur on unpaginated). The allotment, an area include (1) Federal laws and Federal and State land (Heidel 2009, pp. larger than the P. gibbensii occurrence, regulations; (2) State laws and 22, 27). All Federal agencies are was monitored to compare the effects of regulations; and (3) local land use laws, required to adhere to the NEPA for grazing pressure (Warren in litt. 1992, processes, and ordinances. Actions projects they fund, authorize, or carry unpaginated). In 1992, the overall level adopted by local groups, States, or out. Please refer to the NEPA discussion of livestock use in the allotment was Federal entities that are discretionary, under Factor D. The Inadequacy of low to moderate, the range was in good including conservation strategies and Existing Regulatory Mechanisms in the to excellent condition with an guidance, are not regulatory Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia improving trend, and a reduced stocking mechanisms; however, we may discuss ammophila section for additional rate was not recommended (Warren in them in relation to their effects on information. litt. 1992, unpaginated). The Cherokee potential threats to the species. State Regulatory Mechanisms Basin exclosure has been critical in Federal Laws and Regulations ruling out grazing as the cause of recent The Penstemon gibbensii occurrence declines at this occurrence, where plant Bureau of Land Management in Daggett County, Utah, and a portion numbers have declined since the early Most known Penstemon gibbensii of the T84N R18W, Wyoming 1990s (see Table 1) (Heidel 2009, p. 30). occurrences are on BLM land (see Table occurrence are on State lands. P. No specific information regarding 2). The BLM recognizes P. gibbensii as gibbensii is designated as a rare plant in grazing is available for the T84N R18W, a sensitive species throughout its range Utah and a species of concern in Willow Creek, or Red Creek Rim (Heidel 2009, p. 6). Sensitive species Wyoming (WNDD 2007, p. 2; Utah Rare occurrences, other than general designation requires that the species is: Plants 2010, p. 2). These designations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33951

signify recognition by the States widely separated distribution suggest Genetic Diversity regarding the rarity of the species, but that the species is a paleoendemic (has For general background information do not confer any specific protection. been in existence for a long period of on genetic diversity, please refer to the Local Land Use Laws, Ordinances, and time in a single region) (Dorn 1990a, p. first paragraph of ‘‘Genetic Diversity’’ Contracts 6; Heidel 2009, p. 5). Detailed under Factor E. Other Natural or descriptions of the species’ abundance The Nature Conservancy Manmade Factors Affecting Its and trends are provided under the Continued Existence in the Five Factor TNC has a conservation easement on Abundance and Trends sections for this Evaluation for Abronia ammophila the private land portion of the T84N species. No occurrences have been section. R18W occurrence that protects the area extirpated since the species was first The risk of negative consequences to from many development activities identified in 1981, indicating some rare plants from reduced genetic (Heidel 2009, p. 31). This is a resilience to perturbation. diversity varies (Brigham 2003, p. 88). permanent easement that includes New occurrences of Penstemon Penstemon gibbensii is one of several surface rights, but not mineral rights gibbensii continue to be documented plant species being studied in a (Browning 2010, pers. comm.). including Willow Creek in 2004 and comparative population genetics Summary of Factor D Red Creek Rim in 2008 (Heidel 2009, p. analysis. Initial results from a study of two Wyoming populations document We have no evidence of impacts to 9). P. gibbensii is presently known from high variation of DNA sequences within Penstemon gibbensii from inadequate nine occurrences that span a distance of populations examined to date; however, regulatory mechanisms. All but a 193 km (120 mi) (Heidel 2009, p. 31). between-population differentiation portion of one occurrence are on Federal Some potentially suitable areas have not analysis has not yet been conducted or State lands. The portion on private yet been surveyed (Heidel 2009, pp. 10– land is largely protected by a 12), and more occurrences may be (Heidel 2009, p. 5). These results are conservation easement. Seven of the located. preliminary and limited in scope, but nine known occurrences are managed indicate that an adequate level of Penstemon gibbensii is likely a genetic diversity exists in these all or in part by BLM, which promotes historically rare plant that has the conservation of sensitive species populations. Genetic exchange could be nonetheless persisted. Existing sites are possible as three of the Wyoming and minimizes the likelihood and need monitored, and surveys have located for their listing under the Act. The occurrences and the three occurrences new occurrences. No occurrences have in Colorado and Utah are within 5 to 8 Service has refuge regulations that been extirpated. We have no protect P. gibbensii occurring on their km (3 to 5 mi) of each other (Heidel information indicating that random 2009, p. 9). lands. demographic or environmental events We conclude that the best scientific Only very limited information are a threat to the species because of its and commercial information available regarding the genetic diversity exhibited small population size. Therefore, we do indicates that Penstemon gibbensii is by Penstemon gibbensii is available. not in danger of extinction or likely to not consider small population size to be However, we have no information become so within the foreseeable future a threat to P. gibbensii now or in the indicating that a lack of genetic because of inadequate regulatory foreseeable future. diversity is a threat to the species. Therefore, we do not consider reduced mechanisms. Pollination genetic diversity to be a threat to P. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Penstemons are pollinated by a gibbensii now or in the foreseeable Factors Affecting Its Continued variety of insects and hummingbirds, future. Existence but most commonly by insects from the Summary of Factor E Natural and manmade factors with the Order Hymenoptera (Wolfe et al. 2006, potential to affect Penstemon gibbensii pp. 1699, 1709). Bees have been seen We conclude that the best scientific include: (1) Small population size, (2) visiting flowers at sites in Colorado and and commercial information available pollination, and (3) genetic diversity. Utah (Langton 2010, pers. comm.). As indicates that Penstemon gibbensii is not in danger of extinction or likely to Small Population Size discussed above, pollinators may regard small populations as inferior or become so within the foreseeable future For general background information unreliable food sources, leading to low because of small population size, on small population size, please refer to visitation rates (Oostermeijer 2003, p. reduced pollination, or reduced genetic ‘‘ the first paragraph of Small Population 23). Low visitation rates may be more of diversity. Size’’ under Factor E. Other Natural or a concern in currently rare species that Finding Manmade Factors Affecting Its were historically abundant (Brigham Continued Existence in the Five Factor As required by the Act, we considered 2003, p. 84). However, as identified Evaluation for Abronia ammophila the five factors in assessing whether above, Penstemon gibbensii is believed section. Penstemon gibbensii is threatened or No information exists regarding the to have been historically rare (Dorn endangered throughout all of its range. historical range or population numbers 1990a, p. 6; Fertig and Neighbours 1996, We examined the best scientific and of Penstemon gibbensii, but experts p. 4; Spackman and Anderson 1999, p. commercial information available familiar with the species conclude that 32; Heidel 2009, p. 5). regarding the past, present, and future it was likely historically rare (Dorn Only very limited information is threats faced by the species. We 1990a, p. 6; Fertig and Neighbours 1996, available regarding pollination of reviewed the petition, information p. 4; Spackman and Anderson 1999, p. Penstemon gibbensii. However, we have available in our files, other available 32; Heidel 2009, p. 5). P. gibbensii is a no information indicating that poor published and unpublished local endemic that has evolved to pollination is a threat to the species. information, and we consulted other exploit a barren, erodible habitat (Dorn Therefore, we do not consider lack of Federal and State agencies. 1990a, p. 3). The slight morphological pollinators to be a threat to P. gibbensii Five occurrences (Sand Creek, Willow differences, different substrates, and now or in the foreseeable future. Creek, Spitzie Draw, Sterling Place, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Flat Top Mountain) have experienced range. Therefore, we find that listing P. gibbensii and encourage its some minimal adverse impacts to the gibbensii as a threatened or endangered conservation. If an emergency situation habitat of Penstemon gibbensii due to species is not warranted throughout all develops for P. gibbensii, or any other oil and gas development and road of its range. species, we will act to provide construction. The topography at most Significant Portion of the Range immediate protection. occurrences does not lend itself to Boechera energy development or road Having determined that Penstemon Species Information for pusilla construction; therefore, we do not gibbensii does not meet the definition of anticipate substantial habitat a threatened or endangered species, we Species Description must next consider whether there are disturbance in the future. All Boechera pusilla (Fremont County occurrences could experience increased any significant portions of the range rockcress or small rockcress) is a temperatures and precipitation changes where P. gibbensii is in danger of perennial herb with several decumbent from climate change. Whether this extinction or is likely to become (lying down), unusually slender stems would result in a net gain or net loss in endangered in the foreseeable future. up to 17 cm (6.7 in.) long. The plant has potential habitat cannot be predicted. In determining whether Penstemon basal leaves that are linear (at least 10 However, differing morphological gibbensii is threatened or endangered in times longer than wide) and erect, with adaptations at the various occurrences a significant portion of its range, we first relatively sparse forked spreading hairs indicate that the species can adapt to addressed whether any portions of the located on the leaves. Plants generally variable climate conditions. range of P. gibbensii warrant further Five occurrences (Sand Creek, Flat consideration. We evaluated the current have three to five stem leaves that are Top Mountain, Spitzie Draw, Sterling range of P. gibbensii to determine if nonclasping (not encircling the stem) Place, and Daggett County) have there is any apparent geographic and widely spaced. Flowers are small, documentation of grazing. However, the concentration of the primary stressors light lavender, four-petaled, and typical habitat of P. gibbensii (steep potentially affecting the species blossom from May to mid-June. The slopes, loose substrate, and sparse including energy development, roads, fruits, which are present from mid-June vegetative cover) appears to limit heavy climate change, grazing, trampling, to July, are hairless linear siliques grazing. Two occurrences (Cherokee drought, nonnative invasive plants, and (narrow elongated seed capsule) that Basin and Sterling Place) have small population size. P. gibbensii is spread at right angles from the drooping experienced some trampling by humans likely a historically rare endemic plant main stem on pedicels (small stalks) less and livestock. However, we are not known from nine occurrences spanning than 3 mm (0.12 in.) (Marriott 1986, p. aware of any loss of P. gibbensii at either a distance of 193 km (120 mi) (Heidel 3; Dorn 1990b, pp. 2–3; Fertig 1994, of these sites from trampling. 2009, p. 31). This species’ small range unpaginated; Heidel 2005, p. 3). All occurrences experience drought as suggests that stressors are likely to affect Discovery and Taxonomy a natural and regular phenomenon, it in a uniform manner throughout its which likely results in short-term range. All stressors occur at or near most Boechera pusilla was first collected population fluctuations. However, P. sites, with the exception of energy near South Pass in Fremont County, gibbensii has evolved to adapt to development, which has been Wyoming, in 1981 (Dorn 1990b, p. 1). B. recurring drought conditions. Six documented at or near three pusilla is a member of the Brassicaceae occurrences (Cherokee Basin, Sand occurrences. However, the sale of oil (mustard) family and was formerly Creek, Red Creek Rim, Spitzie Draw, and gas leases is ongoing; consequently, classified as Arabis pusilla (Fertig 1994, Sterling Place, and Daggett County) have it is a potential stressor at most sites. unpaginated), which was the name used nonnative invasive plants at or near the Effects to P. gibbensii from these in the petition (Forest Guardians 2007, site. However, the typical habitat of P. stressors are not disproportionate in any p. 23). However, studies in 2003 suggest gibbensii is sparsely vegetated slopes portion of the species’ range. As we that most North American Arabis with large areas of bare soil where explained in detail in our analysis of the species should be placed in the competition with other plant species, status of the species, none of the Boechera genus (Al-Shehbaz 2003, including nonnative invasive plants, is stressors faced by the species are entire). This determination was based minimal. sufficient to place it in danger of on their distinct chromosome numbers All occurrences have relatively small extinction now (endangered) or in the and on molecular data indicating that populations. However, P. gibbensii is foreseeable future (threatened). American and Eurasian species that considered historically rare. No Therefore, no portion is likely to were classified as Arabis have more occurrences have been extirpated since warrant further consideration, and a dissimilarities between them than they the species was first identified, and new determination of significance is not do with many other widely recognized occurrences continue to be documented. necessary. genera in the mustard family (Al- We have no information regarding We do not find that Penstemon Shehbaz 2003, pp. 382–383). Although actual or potential adverse impacts due gibbensii is in danger of extinction now, some botanists do not fully support the to overutilization, disease, inadequate nor is it likely to become endangered change (Murray and Elven 2009, regulatory mechanisms, reduced genetic within the foreseeable future throughout unpaginated), reclassification to the diversity, or reduced pollination. all or a significant portion of its range. Boechera genus has been widely Based on our review of the best Therefore, listing P. gibbensii as accepted (Holmgren et al. 2005, p. 537; available scientific and commercial threatened or endangered under the Act Flora of North America 2010b, information pertaining to the five is not warranted at this time. unpaginated). For the purposes of this factors, we find that the threats are not We request that you submit any new finding, we primarily refer to the of sufficient imminence, intensity, or information concerning the status of, or species as Boechera pusilla, but magnitude to indicate that Penstemon threats to, Penstemon gibbensii to our consider Arabis pusilla to be the same gibbensii is in danger of extinction Wyoming Ecological Services Field species. (endangered), or likely to become Office (see ADDRESSES section) Boechera pusilla is genetically closely endangered within the foreseeable whenever it becomes available. New related to Boechera demissa var. future (threatened), throughout all of its information will help us monitor P. languida (nodding rockcress), Boechera

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33953

pendulina var. russeola (Daggett Dispersal vector information is (Marriott 1986, p. 9). Boechera pusilla rockcress), and Boechera oxylobula unknown at this time (Heidel 2005, p. may be adapted to wide fluctuations in (Glenwood Springs rockcress) and 15). available moisture as the soil goes occurs in a similar geographic area as B. through cycles of rapid drying and Habitat demissa var. languida and B. pendulina saturation (Dorn 1990b, p. 6). var. russeola (Dorn 1990b, p. 5; Heidel Boechera pusilla occupies sparsely Distribution and Abundance 2005, p. 2). Five additional species of vegetated, coarse granite soil pockets in rockcress occur in or near B. pusilla exposed granite-pegmatite outcrops, The distribution of Boechera pusilla habitat, representing a high amount of with slopes generally less than 10 is extremely limited due to its very diversity within the genus (Heidel 2005, degrees, at an elevation between 2,438 specific habitat requirements (Dorn p. 2). B. pusilla requires a highly to 2,469 m (8,000 to 8,100 ft) (Dorn 1990b, p. 8). The only known specialized habitat (discussed below 1990b, pp. 3, 6). A pegmatite is a very population of B. pusilla is located on under Habitat) that is newly formed, coarse-grained igneous (formed from lands administered by the BLM Rock which suggests the species is relatively magma or lava) rock that usually occurs Springs Field Office in the southern recently derived from a common in dikes (sheet-like body of magma) foothills of the Wind River Range (Fertig ancestor (Dorn 1990b, p. 5). Based on (Heidel 2005, p. 8). The soils are sandy 2000a, p. 39; Heidel 2005, pp. ii, 6). The morphological evidence, B. pusilla may to loamy (mixture of clay, silt and sand), species’ range is approximately 64.8 ha be a hybrid of B. pendulina and B. poorly developed, very shallow, and (160 ac), with occupied habitat lemmonii (Lemmon’s rockcress) (Flora possibly subirrigated by runoff from the estimates ranging from 2.4 to 6.5 ha (6 of North America 2010b, unpaginated). adjacent exposed bedrock (solid to 16 ac) (Dorn 1990b, p. 8; Heidel 2005, We recognize B. pusilla as a valid consolidated rock) (Dorn 1990b, pp. 6– p. 15). Botanists have surveyed for B. species and a listable entity. 8). B. pusilla is likely restricted in pusilla systematically in other areas and distribution by the limited occurrence of discovered no additional populations, Biology and Life History pegmatite in the area (Heidel 2005, p. 8). but some areas with potential habitat Due to the short growing season A distribution model shows potential have not been surveyed (Marriott 1986, (approximately 30 days) in the areas habitat could occur in an area no greater p. 8; Heidel 2005, p. 6). that Boechera pusilla occupies, the than two townships (186.5 km2; 72 mi2) To explain the trend of Boechera plant only flowers in May and June with (Heidel 2005, p. 7). The dense nature of pusilla numbers, we use the estimates of fruits maturing several weeks later pegmatite does not allow for fertile soil, total flowering plants in the entire (Dorn 1990b, p. 9; Fertig 1994, therefore restricting vegetation growth population (i.e., total for the species) unpaginated; Heidel 2005, pp. 3, 15). (Heidel 2005, p. 15). The specialized and the total flowering plants in a plot Fruits are only evident during the short habitat requirements of B. pusilla have located in the largest subpopulation. frost-free period during the middle of allowed the plant to persist without These two indicators are the most summer (primarily July) and shatter competition from other herbaceous consistently documented information thereafter (Heidel 2005, p. 15). Remnant plants or sagebrush-grassland species we could find. The number of flowering flower stalks persist through the winter that are present in the surrounding plants is used, at least in part, to ensure and into the next flowering season landscape (Dorn 1990b, pp. 6, 8). identification of the species (Heidel (Heidel 2005, p. 15). Although the surrounding vegetation 2010d, pers. comm.). In 1988, the total Not all plants produce fruit in a is sparse (less than 10 percent cover), population estimate was 800 to 1,000 particular year (Heidel 2005, pp. 15–16), Boechera pusilla is associated with flowering individuals (Heidel 2005, p. which is thought to be caused by numerous mat-forming perennial herbs 14). This was an increase from the 50 freezing conditions in spring or possibly (e.g., Erigeron caespitosus (tufted plants found in 1986; however, only 1 drought (Heidel 2005, pp. 15–16). All fleabane)), perennial grasses (e.g., subpopulation was discovered that year Boechera pusilla reproduction is Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian (Marriott 1986, p. 15). In 1990, numbers apparently by seed (Dorn 1990b, p. 9; ricegrass)), and shrubs (e.g., Artemesia were down to about 600 flowering Heidel 2005, p. 15), and the species is arbuscula (dwarf sagebrush)) (Heidel plants for the entire population (Dorn apomictic (i.e., reproduces by seed with 2005, p. 9). Rolling hills with a gradual 1990b, p. 8). Although the 1988 survey no fertilization, resulting in offspring sloping impediment are the indicated no evidence that B. pusilla that are essentially clones) (Flora of predominant landscape features in the was affected by the 1988 drought North America 2010b, unpaginated). area, which is a transition zone between (Marriott and Horning in litt. 1988, p. However, similar Boechera species have the montane conifer forests and the high B2), drought impacts, such as reduced variation in the amount of sexual and sagebrush desert (Heidel 2005, pp. 8–9). seed fecundity or germination, may not asexual reproduction (Roy 1995, pp. The adjacent vegetation consists be immediately apparent (Heidel 2010c, 874–876), and we are unsure whether B. primarily of sagebrush-grassland or pers. comm.; 2010d, pers. comm.). The pusilla exhibits a mixed-mating system. open Pinus flexilis (limber pine) habitat decrease to 600 flowering plants We do not have information about how (Dorn 1990b, p. 8). documented in 1990 may be due to a long the species’ seeds remain viable or Annual precipitation in the area pattern of short-term decline under under what conditions they germinate. averages 30.5 cm (12 in.), with the drought conditions that occurred in this Apomictic species within the Boechera majority falling in the form of winter area between 1988 and 1990 (Heidel genus result from hybridization of snow (Marriott 1986, p. 9). Average 2005, p. 14). sexual Boechera species (Flora of North minimum and maximum temperatures In 2003, WYNDD estimated total America 2010b, unpaginated). in this area range between ¥16.1 and flowering plants for the entire Reproduction of B. pusilla is by ¥3.9 °C (3 and 25 °F) in January and 4.6 population at 150 to 250 (Heidel 2005, (nonwinged) seeds that likely drop near and 24.4 °C (42 and 76 °F) in July (Dorn p. 14). The mean density of flowering the parent plant, with some seeds 1990b, p. 6), with strong, frequent winds plants derived from the 1988 and 2003 dispersed via wind or water (Dorn present year-round (Heidel 2005, p. 10). surveys indicate that the density 1990b, p. 9). It has relatively few seeds This area has a very short growing dropped from 1.68 down to 0.33 per fruit compared to some other season; approximately 30 frost-free days flowering plants per m2 (0.156 down to Boechera species (Dorn 1990b, p. 9). occur between mid-June and mid-July 0.031 flowering plants per ft2) during

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33954 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

this 15-year period (Heidel 2005, p. 14). Five Factor Evaluation for Boechera In addition, on February 23, 1998, the Declines in 2003 may be attributed to pusilla Secretary of the Interior issued Public severe drought conditions recorded in Information pertaining to Boechera Land Order No. 7312, the Withdrawal of the Wind River Range between 2000 and pusilla in relation to the five factors Public Land for the Protection of Arabis 2003 (NOAA 2005 as cited in Heidel provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is Pusilla Plant Habitat. This order 2005, p. 14). Flowering plants for the discussed below. pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal entire population in 2010 were Land Policy and Management Act of Factor A. The Present or Threatened estimated at approximately 350 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), withdrew Destruction, Modification, or ‘‘ individuals (Heidel 2010d, pers. from settlement, sale, location, or entry Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range under the general land laws, including comm.). The following potential factors that the United States mining laws (30 The subpopulation plot, where the may affect the habitat or range of U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), but not from largest number of plants is found, had Boechera pusilla are discussed in this leasing under the mineral leasing laws’’ 671 individual flowering Boechera section: (1) Recreational activities, (2) on 412.8 ha (1,020 ac) to protect pusilla plants in 1988 (Heidel 2005, p. energy development, (3) nonnative Boechera pusilla habitat (63 FR 9012). 14). This area had 87 flowering plants invasive plants, (4) climate change, and This withdrawal expires in 50 years when it was counted again in 2003 (5) drought. (2048) unless the Secretary determines (Heidel 2005, p. 14). In 2010, the plot that the withdrawal shall be extended. Recreational Activities had 56 flowering plants (Heidel 2010c, Therefore, we do not consider energy pers. comm.). Flowering plant numbers Boechera pusilla’s current known development to be a threat to B. pusilla in the subpopulation plot has range is highly restricted. All known now or in the foreseeable future. occurrences are on BLM land, which is consistently declined. However, Nonnative Invasive Plants numbers of flowering plants for the public land managed for multiple use For general background information entire subpopulation where the plot is (Dorn, 1990, p. 10; Heidel 2005, p. 6). on nonnative invasive plants, please located increased from between 100 and Prior to the development of a Habitat Management Plan (BLM 1994, entire) refer to the first paragraph of ‘‘Nonnative 150 in 2003 (Heidel 2005, p. 14) to 283 Invasive Plants’’ under Factor A. The in 2010 (Heidel 2010c, pers. comm.). and the closure of vehicle access in 1994 (59 FR 37258), B. pusilla was more Present or Threatened Destruction, The decrease of plants in the plot but readily exposed to recreation activity Modification, or Curtailment of Its increase in the subpopulation over this from ORV use associated with fishing Habitat or Range in the Five Factor period suggests the distribution of the and camping, unauthorized ORV use, Evaluation for Abronia ammophila subpopulation shifted over that period horse boarding and feeding, plant section. of time (Heidel 2010c, pers. comm.). collecting, mountain biking and The habitat adjacent to the area Boechera pusilla has at least eight pedestrian use. In addition, a nearby occupied by Boechera pusilla is subpopulations (Amidon 1994, in litt., quarry, that is now inactive, may have primarily sagebrush steppe, which is unpaginated), the largest of which has destroyed potential habitat (Dorn 1990b, highly vulnerable to nonnative invasive been surveyed periodically as described p. 11; Heidel 2005, p. 17). Previously, species (Anderson and Inouye 2001, pp. above (Heidel 2005, p. 14; Heidel 2010c, ORV use has been identified as a 531–532); however, surveys conducted pers. comm.). Additional potential threat; however, conservation by WNDD in 2003 found the area subpopulations are small; in 2003, 1 measures, such as the habitat generally free of nonnative invasive subpopulation had 30 to 50 flowering management plan, have been species (Heidel 2005, p. 10). As noted plants, another had 10 to 15 flowering implemented to eliminate this threat. previously, the restrictive habitat plants, and 5 of the subpopulations had Currently, the only access to the area occupied by B. pusilla may limit the potential for competition from other less than 5 flowering plants each occupied by B. pusilla is by foot, but herbaceous plants (Dorn 1990b, pp. 6, (Heidel 2005, p. 14). due to the rocky substrate associated with the habitat, recreational use in the 8). We have no information that Based on a limited number of surveys, area primarily occurs on adjacent nonnative invasive plants are a threat to the plant appears to have an overall riparian areas, away from occupied B. pusilla. Therefore, we do not pattern of decline documented since habitat (Dana 2010a, pers. comm.). consider nonnative invasive plants to be estimates were first provided in 1988 Therefore, recreational activities are not a threat to B. pusilla now or in the (Heidel 2005, p. 17; Heidel 2010c, pers. considered a threat now or in the foreseeable future. comm.; Windham 2010, pers. comm.). foreseeable future. Climate Change Boechera pusilla numbers increased in Energy Development 2010 compared to 2003, but the overall For general background information trend is downward, with 2010 The extraction of natural gas occurs in on climate change, please refer to the population numbers at 350 compared to several developments in southwest first paragraphs of ‘‘Climate Change’’ 800 to 1000 in 1988. Wyoming, which could be a potential under Factor A. The Present or threat to the habitat of Boechera pusilla Threatened Destruction, Modification, Reproductive success may vary (USGS 2010, p. 3). However, the area or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range in considerably from year to year occupied by B. pusilla is incorporated the Five Factor Evaluation for Abronia depending on climate conditions, into a Special Recreation Management ammophila section. leading to wide fluctuations in Area (SRMA), which is closed to Plant species with restricted ranges populations (Dorn 1990b, p. 10). mineral and energy development (BLM may experience population declines as Possible evidence of these fluctuations 1997, pp. 17–18). Currently the nearest a result of climate change. The habitat is low levels of fruit production in 2003 gas development occurs approximately for Boechera pusilla appears to be that visibly increased in 2010 (Heidel 10.1 km (6.3 mi) from the location of B. exposed to variation in moisture, and B. 2010c, pers. comm.). However, 2010 pusilla (Kile 2010, pers. comm.) and pusilla may be adapted to some plant numbers are low compared to does not appear to be a threat to the variation in moisture availability (Dorn those documented in 1988 and 1990. plant. 1990b, p. 6). Climate change has the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33955

potential to affect the species’ habitat, variable climate do not suggest that that covers all known locations of B. but we lack scientific information on climate change currently, or in the pusilla (BLM 1997, p. 34) and the what those changes may ultimately foreseeable future, will threaten this presence of an exclosure fence that mean for B. pusilla. Climate change may species’ existence. We do not fully encloses all of the occupied habitat affect the timing and amount of understand the response of B. pusilla to (Dunder 1984, unpaginated; Marriott precipitation as well as other factors drought conditions, but limited 1986, p. 14) have resolved this potential linked to habitat conditions for this evidence indicates that drought may be threat. These protections are described species. However, at this time the contributing to this species’ reduced in additional detail under Factor D. available scientific information does not population size (see Factor E. Other Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory indicate that climate change is likely to Natural Or Manmade Factors Affecting Mechanisms below. Insects, such as threaten the species. Therefore, we do Its Continued Existence discussion caterpillars, do not appear to favor B. not consider climate change to be a below). However, we do not have pusilla over other vegetation (Heidel threat to B. pusilla now or in the sufficient information to say that 2005, p. 10), and no known observations foreseeable future. drought alone, or in combination with suggest that herbivory from wild ungulates or small mammals is a threat. Drought other factors, threatens the species currently or is likely to do so in the Therefore, we do not consider predation Limited evidence shows there may be foreseeable future. to be a threat to B. pusilla now or in the some response of Boechera pusilla to We conclude that the best scientific foreseeable future. drought conditions, but those effects and commercial information available Summary of Factor C may be delayed (Heidel 2010c, pers. indicates that Boechera pusilla is not in comm.). As discussed above, a 1988 danger of extinction or likely to become We do not have any information to survey, conducted during a drought so within the foreseeable future because suggest that disease or predation are a year, found increased abundance of of the present or threatened destruction, threat to this species. We conclude that plants from 1986 (Marriott and Horning modification, or curtailment of its the best scientific and commercial in litt. 1988, p. B2), but surveys habitat or range. information available indicates that conducted in 1990 found reduced Boechera pusilla is not in danger of numbers (Dorn 1990b, p. 8) that may Factor B. Overutilization for extinction or likely to become so within have been caused by continued drought Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or the foreseeable future because of disease conditions (Heidel 2005, p. 14). Educational Purposes or predation. Reproductive success may vary Field notes from 1993 suggest that Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing considerably from year to year some Boechera pusilla seed had been Regulatory Mechanisms depending on climate conditions, collected and sent to the DBG; however, The Act requires us to examine the leading to wide fluctuations in they do not have a record of receiving populations (Dorn 1990b, p. 10). Overall adequacy of existing regulatory any B. pusilla seeds (Neale 2010b, pers. mechanisms with respect to threats that reductions in population size since 1988 comm.). Some specimens collected in may be linked to periods of drought may place Boechera pusilla in danger of the 1980s were provided to the Gray extinction or likely to become so in the conditions that have occurred between Herbarium of Harvard University, the 1988 and 2010, but B. pusilla future. Existing regulatory mechanisms New York Botanical Garden, and the that could have an effect on potential monitoring efforts are not sufficient Rocky Mountain Herbarium at the during this period to understand the threats to B. pusilla include (1) Federal University of Wyoming (Dorn 1990b, p. role of drought in population decline. laws and regulations; (2) State laws and 5, 14). We have no other indication that Therefore, because of lack of evidence, regulations; and (3) local land use laws, any collections or utilization have been we do not consider drought to be a processes, and ordinances. Because the made of B. pusilla. Therefore, we find threat to B. pusilla now or in the entire population of Boechera pusilla that B. pusilla is not in danger of foreseeable future. occurs on BLM lands, we focus our extinction or likely to become so within discussion on Federal laws. Actions Summary of Factor A the foreseeable future because of adopted by local groups, States, or In summary, we found that numerous overutilization for commercial, Federal entities that are discretionary, management actions taken previously recreational, scientific, or educational including conservation strategies and by the BLM alleviated several potential purposes. guidance, are not regulatory threats to Boechera pusilla and its Factor C. Disease or Predation mechanisms; however, we may discuss habitat. These potential threats included them in relation to their effects on ORV use, heavy foot traffic, and mining. Disease potential threats to the species. The ORV use and mining are no longer Boechera pusilla is not specifically Federal Laws and Regulations permitted in the area due to the known to be affected or threatened by implementation of numerous regulatory any disease. Systemic rust disease is Bureau of Land Management mechanisms (see Factor D. Inadequacy known to affect many Boechera species Several regulatory mechanisms are in of existing regulatory mechanisms (Ladyman 2005, p. 26), but we have no place to protect Boechera pusilla, some below) in addition to the construction of information that it is found in B. pusilla. of which were mentioned under Factor an exclosure. We have no information Therefore, we do not consider disease to A. The Present or Threatened that nonnative invasive plants are a be a threat to B. pusilla now or in the Destruction, Modification, or threat to the species. Other activities in foreseeable future. Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range the area, such as limited foot traffic, are above. The BLM has excluded grazing Predation—Grazing and Herbivory not considered threats. Although from the habitat area, developed a climate change may be a potential long- Prior to conservation measures taken habitat management plan for the term stressor to B. pusilla, the limited by the BLM, the habitat of Boechera species, designated the habitat area as information available regarding climate pusilla was grazed by cattle. Prior to an ACEC, incorporated the habitat area change impacts on B. pusilla and the 1982, cattle grazing may have formed a into a SRMA, and designated B. pusilla species’ adaptations to an already- threat, but the establishment of an ACEC as a sensitive species. Additionally, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:51 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33956 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Secretary of the Interior removed completion date of 2013 (Dana 2010b, causing reduced population levels and essentially the entire area with occupied pers. comm.). Existing protections for consider the reduction to be an habitat from mineral development. The the species will likely remain in place indicator that a threat is present; Service previously published a notice of in the revised RMP as a no-action however, we are not able to fully review in 2000 removing B. pusilla as a alternative under NEPA, but we are describe this threat at this time (see candidate species, largely based on uncertain whether additional Factor E. Other Natural Or Manmade protections provided by these regulatory protections for B. pusilla will be Factors Affecting Its Continued mechanisms and land management developed. Existence discussion below). The approaches. current small population size creates a National Environmental Policy Act The BLM designated the Pine Creek vulnerability that may work in Special Management Area in 1978 The entire known population of combination with the threat that we are (Heidel 2005, p. 16) and built an Boechera pusilla occurs on Federal not able to explain. Since the primary exclosure fence in 1982 to keep cattle land. All Federal agencies are required management tool that implements out of the 35.6-ha (88-ac) area where to adhere to the NEPA for projects they regulatory mechanisms, the RMP, goes recreational activities occur (Dunder fund, authorize, or carry out. Please through revisions approximately every 1984, unpaginated). Boechera pusilla refer to the NEPA discussion under 15 years (Dana 2010b, pers. comm.), it occurs within this management area Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing will be important for the BLM to ensure (Marriott 1986, p. 14). The fenced Regulatory Mechanisms in the Five that the protective measures are portion of the area is smaller than that Factor Evaluation for Abronia sustained in future revisions to the of the known species range, but protects ammophila section for additional Green River RMP and that measures be much of the occupied habitat. As information. taken to alleviate any potential described under Factor A. The Present Public Land Order No. 7312 vulnerabilities created by small or Threatened Destruction, population size. Modification, or Curtailment of Its On February 23, 1998, the Secretary of We conclude that the best scientific Habitat or Range above, the BLM the Interior issued Public Land Order and commercial information available provided a Habitat Management Plan for No. 7312 to withdraw public land from indicates that Boechera pusilla is not in B. pusilla (BLM 1994, entire) and certain uses for 50 years as a measure danger of extinction or likely to become processed an emergency closure of to protect Boechera pusilla. This order so within the foreseeable future because vehicle access to 202.3 ha (500 ac) in a withdrew 412.8 ha (1,020 ac) from of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Habitat Management Area for the settlement, sale, location of minerals, or We recognize that the existing species in 1994 (59 FR 17718). entry under the general land laws, regulatory mechanisms do not appear to The BLM 6840 Manual requires that including mining laws; this did not have protected the species from decline; RMPs should address sensitive species, eliminate the area from being leased however, we are unable to conclude that and that implementation ‘‘should under the mineral leasing laws (63 FR regulatory mechanisms are inadequate consider all site-specific methods and 9012). In addition to these measures, B. since the cause for decline is procedures needed to bring species and pusilla was listed as a BLM sensitive unidentified. their habitats to the condition under species in 2002 (BLM 2002, p. 9). which management under the Bureau Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Summary of Factor D sensitive species policies would no Factors Affecting Its Continued longer be necessary’’ (BLM 2008, p. Because the entire population of Existence 2A1). The Federal Land Policy and Boechera pusilla occurs on BLM lands, Natural and manmade factors with the Management Act of 1976 mandates this agency has responsibility for the potential to affect Boechera pusilla Federal land managers to develop and land management decisions that protect include: (1) Small population size, and revise land use plans. The RMPs are the B. pusilla and its habitat. B. pusilla (2) threats not yet fully identified. basis for all actions and authorizations receives adequate protection from the Small Population Size involving BLM-administered lands and BLM in the form of regulatory resources (43 CFR 1601.0–5(n)). The mechanisms, designations, and the For general background information 1997 RMP for the area that includes construction of animal exclosures. on small population size, please refer to Boechera pusilla habitat provided These protections greatly limit the the first paragraph of ‘‘Small Population designation of a Special Status Plant amount of disturbance that can occur Size’’ under Factor E. Other Natural or ACEC that closed the area to: (1) Direct within the plant’s limited range. Manmade Factors Affecting Its surface-disturbing activities, (2) mining Although these mechanisms do not Continued Existence in the Five Factor claims, (3) surface occupancy and entirely exclude the area from foot Evaluation for Abronia ammophila surface-disturbance activities, (4) traffic, they have adequately reduced section. mineral material sales, and (5) use of this potential threat. Various regulatory In order for a population to sustain explosives and blasting (BLM 1997, p. mechanisms are in place to address itself, there must be enough reproducing 34). B. pusilla habitat also fits within an potential threats over which the BLM individuals and habitat to ensure its SRMA designated in the RMP, which: has control. We expect that B. pusilla survival. Conservation biology defines (1) Prohibited major facilities (e.g., and its habitat will be generally this as the ‘‘minimum viable power lines), (2) closed the area to protected from direct human population’’ requirement (Grumbine mineral leasing, (3) closed the ACEC to disturbance. 1990, pp. 127–128). This requirement ORV use, and (4) required avoidance We have no evidence of impacts to may be between 500 and 5,000 and extensive planning of long, linear Boechera pusilla from inadequate individuals for other species of facilities (e.g., roads) (BLM 1997, pp 17– regulatory mechanisms. We recognize Boechera depending on variability 18). All activities concerning B. pusilla that the existing regulatory mechanisms among species, demographic in the RMP have been implemented have not been able to stem the decline constraints, and evolutionary history (Glennon 2010b, pers. comm.). The next of the species, but we are not able to (Ladyman 2005, p. 26). Boechera pusilla RMP revision for the area is currently identify that regulatory mechanisms are occurs in relatively small numbers, with underway, with an estimated inadequate. We are uncertain what is the total population size no greater than

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33957

1,000 flowering plants in the past threat or threats may be present that is Five Factor Evaluation Summary for (Heidel 2005, p. 14) and at 350 causing reduced numbers of the plant. Boechera pusilla flowering plants in 2010 (Heidel 2010d, The species was removed from the Boechera pusilla has a threat that is pers. comm.). Plant numbers are at candidate list in 2000 based on the not identified, but that is indicated by levels that may not ensure this species’ regulatory protections that were in the small and declining population size. continued existence over the long term. place. Based on our current The population size may be declining As noted above, botanists who have understanding of the species, these from a variety of unknown causes, with studied B. pusilla note an overall regulatory protections appear drought or disease possibly contributing declining trend of the species (Heidel appropriate and sufficient. However, the to the trend. The trend may have been 2005, p. 14; Heidel 2010c, pers. comm.; species still has small population reversed somewhat, but without Windham 2010, pers. comm.). This numbers that have declined overall improved population numbers, the decline has been rapid compared to since the implementation of these species may reach a population level at declines observed in other rare species protections. We do not understand the which other stressors become threats. and has continued after habitat nature of the threat or threats, but the The species may already be below the protections were put in place (Windham reduced population numbers minimum viable population, so other 2010, pers. comm.). As established in an demonstrate that some type of threat is stressors may begin to present threats to earlier section, the number of flowering present. We have limited data to inform the species. We are unable to determine plants in the population in 2010 was our understanding of what this threat how climate change may affect the approximately 350, an increase from could be. The decline could be linked species in the future. To the extent that 2003 estimates of 150 to 250. However, to drought cycles, but we do not have if a decline similar to the significant sufficient data to correlate numbers of B. we understand the species, other decrease between 1988 (800 to 1,000 pusilla with drought. A disease could be potential habitat-related threats have flowering plants) and 2003 (150 to 250 present in the species, but we have no been removed through the flowering plants) occurs again, the information to indicate disease is implementation of Federal regulatory species may have difficulty perpetuating reducing the number of plants. mechanisms and associated actions. itself into the future. Overutilization, predation, and the Boechera pusilla relies on soils Summary of Factor E inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms formed from a certain type of granitic Boechera pusilla has a small are not viewed as threats to the species. outcrop that is limited in extent, so the population size that is confined to a Finding range of the species is not likely to small area because of habitat expand beyond this area in the future. requirements. The species may be As required by the Act, we considered The relatively small area that B. pusilla vulnerable to stochastic events due to its the five factors in assessing whether occurs within also may predispose the small population size. B. pusilla Boechera pusilla is threatened or species to be more sensitive to reproduces itself asexually, which may endangered throughout all of its range. stochastic events that might occur reduce some risks of a small population We examined the best scientific and (Menges 1990, p. 53; Boyce 1992, pp. size, but does not fully eliminate this commercial information available 482–484), such as climate shift that the threat. Declines have occurred in the regarding the past, present, and future species is not adapted to or factors that species, even after habitat protection threats faced by B. pusilla. We reviewed lead to reduced reproductive success measures were put in place. Although the petition, information available in (Ladyman 2005, pp. 30–31). A single the population numbers increased from our files, other available published and unforeseen event in a relatively small 2003 (150–250 flowering plants) to 2010 unpublished information, and we area could eliminate the species. (350 flowering plants), numbers remain consulted with recognized B. pusilla Boechera pusilla is apomictic, so low, the plant appears to have an overall experts and other Federal agencies. when it uses this reproductive process, trend of decline, and this overall trend This status review identified threats the species essentially clones itself. We may continue in the foreseeable future. to Boechera pusilla attributable to are uncertain how long the species’ A viable population for the species may Factor E. The primary threat to the apomictic seeds remain viable or under be 500 to 5,000 plants (Ladyman 2005, species is from a threat that is not fully what conditions they germinate. This p. 26), and species numbers are below identified, but is indicated by the reproductive process may reduce some that level. We are uncertain what is species’ small, declining population of the risks associated with small causing reduced population levels and size. This threat to B. pusilla is not fully population size for species that only consider the reduction to be an understood, but may be connected with sexually reproduce. If the species indicator that a threat is present for the drought conditions, disease, or other reproduces only asexually, risks related species. We are not able to fully factors. Protective measures have been to lack of genetic variability may describe this threat. Some of the decline taken previously to maintain the increase, but we are uncertain if B. may be attributable to drought species’ habitat, but the species pusilla also reproduces sexually as do conditions, but we do not fully continues to experience declines. B. some other species of Boechera. understand the cause of the decline. pusilla has only one population, with Apomixis has been shown to reduce Additionally, disease may be present most of the individuals occurring in a extinction risk if certain other variables but has not been documented. The small single subpopulation. The range of the are present, such as high levels of population size creates a vulnerability species is small due to limitations of a biomass and no soil acidity (Freville et that may work in combination with the highly specialized habitat. Although al. 2007, p. 2666). However, information threat that we are not able to explain. population levels increased in 2010, the on what apomixis means for Therefore, the species appears likely to species is experiencing an overall conservation of a species remains be in danger of extinction or likely to pattern of decline that we anticipate limited (Freville et al. 2007, p. 2669). become so within the foreseeable future will continue. B. pusilla numbers because of the combination of small already may be below the minimum Threats Not Yet Fully Identified population size and a threat that we viable population requirement, so other In addition to the small population cannot fully identify but that is manifest vulnerabilities associated with the small size of Boechera pusilla, an unknown by an overall declining population. population may now present threats to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33958 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the species. Therefore, the species pusilla a Listing Priority Number (LPN) population vulnerability to occur more appears likely to be in danger of of 8, based on our finding that the quickly in the future. We expect some extinction currently, or in the species faces threats that are of additional declines will occur in the foreseeable future, as result of a threat moderate magnitude and are imminent. future, and if declines occur at rates that is not fully identified, but is These threats include a threat that is not similar to those in the past, population manifest by an ongoing declining fully identified that may work in levels could be precariously low. population trend. combination with the small population. Therefore, we consider the threat to be On the basis of the best scientific and Our rationale for assigning B. pusilla an imminent. commercial information available, we LPN of 8 is outlined below. The third criterion in our Listing find that the petitioned action to list Under the Service’s guidelines, the Priority Number guidance is intended to Boechera pusilla under the Act is magnitude of threat is the first criterion devote resources to those species warranted. We will make a we look at when establishing a listing representing highly distinctive or determination on the status of the priority. The guidance indicates that isolated gene pools as reflected by species as threatened or endangered species with the highest magnitude of taxonomy. Boechera pusilla is a valid when we do a proposed listing threat are those species facing the taxon at the species level and, therefore, determination. However, as explained greatest threats to their continued receives a higher priority than in more detail below, an immediate existence. These species receive the subspecies, but a lower priority than proposal of a regulation implementing highest listing priority. We consider the species in a monotypic genus. this action is precluded by higher threats that Boechera pusilla faces to be Therefore, we assigned B. pusilla an priority listing actions, and progress is moderate in magnitude. Although the LPN of 8. being made to add or remove qualified threat, as described in Factor E. Other We will continue to monitor the species from the Lists of Endangered Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting threats to Boechera pusilla and the and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Its Continued Existence under Five species’ status on an annual basis, and We reviewed the available Factor Evaluation for Boechera pusilla, should the magnitude or the imminence information to determine if the existing is not fully understood, we know it of the threats change, we will revisit our and foreseeable threats render the exists as indicated by the declining assessment of the LPN. species at risk of extinction now such population. Because we have not While we conclude that listing that issuing an emergency regulation detected the source or nature of the Boechera pusilla is warranted, an temporarily listing the species under threat, we consider the threat to be immediate proposal to list this species section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. moderate in magnitude. The population is precluded by other higher priority We determined that issuing an levels have decreased significantly from listings, which we address in the emergency regulation temporarily the recorded high in 1988 (800 to 1,000), Preclusion and Expeditious Progress listing the species is not warranted for but they also increased between 2003 section below. Because we have this species at this time, because threats (150 to 250) and 2010 (350), so we do assigned B. pusilla an LPN of 8, work on to the species would not be further not consider the magnitude of the threat a proposed listing determination for the controlled with a change in status. to be high. The threat is not fully species is precluded by work on higher Additionally, the most recent survey understood, but is manifest by a priority listing actions with absolute information suggests that, while the declining population that may have statutory, court-ordered, or court- population has not rebounded to stabilized somewhat; therefore, we approved deadlines and final listing previous highs, the population declines consider the magnitude of the threat to determinations for those species that also have not continued. However, if at be moderate. were proposed for listing with funds any time we determine that issuing an Under our LPN guidelines, the second from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. This work emergency regulation temporarily criterion we consider in assigning a includes all the actions listed in the listing Boechera pusilla is warranted, listing priority is the immediacy of tables below under Preclusion and we will initiate this action at that time. threats. This criterion is intended to Expeditious Progress. ensure that the species facing actual, Listing Priority Number identifiable threats are given priority Preclusion and Expeditious Progress The Service adopted guidelines on over those for which threats are only Preclusion is a function of the listing September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to potential or that are intrinsically priority of a species in relation to the establish a rational system for utilizing vulnerable but are not known to be resources that are available and the cost available resources for the highest presently facing such threats. We and relative priority of competing priority species when adding species to consider the threat to Boechera pusilla demands for those resources. Thus, in the Lists of Endangered or Threatened as described in Factor E. Other Natural any given FY, multiple factors dictate Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying or Manmade Factors Affecting Its whether it will be possible to undertake species listed as threatened to Continued Existence under Five Factor work on a listing proposal regulation or endangered status. These guidelines, Evaluation for Boechera pusilla to be whether promulgation of such a titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened imminent because, although not fully proposal is precluded by higher priority Species Listing and Recovery Priority identified, we have evidence that the listing actions. Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and species is currently facing a threat The resources available for listing magnitude of threats, and the level of indicated by reduced population size. actions are determined through the taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning The threat appears to be ongoing, annual Congressional appropriations priority in descending order to although we are unsure of the extent process. The appropriation for the monotypic genera (genus with one and timing of its effects on B. pusilla. Listing Program is available to support species), full species, and subspecies (or The threat is occurring in the only work involving the following listing equivalently, distinct population known population in the United States, actions: Proposed and final listing rules; segments of vertebrates). and the population may already be 90-day and 12-month findings on As a result of our analysis of the best below the minimum viable population petitions to add species to the Lists of available scientific and commercial requirement, which may allow Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information, we have assigned Boechera population reductions and increases in and Plants (Lists) or to change the status

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33959

of a species from threatened to designations of critical habitat, and precluded finding, which is made when endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ consequently none of the critical habitat the Service has already determined the petition findings on prior warranted- subcap funds were available for other degree of threats facing the species and but-precluded petition findings as listing activities. In some FYs since is deciding whether or not to commence required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 2006, we have been able to use some of a rulemaking. the Act; critical habitat petition the critical habitat subcap funds to fund In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the findings; proposed and final rules proposed listing determinations for amount of money that Congress designating critical habitat; and high-priority candidate species. In other appropriated for the Listing Program litigation-related, administrative, and FYs, while we were unable to use any (that is, the portion of the Listing program-management functions of the critical habitat subcap funds to Program funding not related to critical (including preparing and allocating fund proposed listing determinations, habitat designations for species that are budgets, responding to Congressional we did use some of this money to fund already listed). Therefore, a proposed and public inquiries, and conducting the critical habitat portion of some listing is precluded if pending proposals public outreach regarding listing and proposed listing determinations so that with higher priority will require critical habitat). the proposed listing determination and expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and The work involved in preparing proposed critical habitat designation expeditious progress is the amount of various listing documents can be could be combined into one rule, work that can be achieved with extensive and may include, but is not thereby being more efficient in our $10,471,000. Since court orders limited to: Gathering and assessing the work. In FY 2011 we anticipate that we requiring critical habitat work will not best scientific and commercial data will be able to use some of the critical require use of all of the funds within the available and conducting analyses used habitat subcap funds to fund proposed critical habitat subcap, we used as the basis for our decisions; writing listing determinations. $1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap and publishing documents; and We make our determinations of funds in order to work on as many of obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating preclusion on a nationwide basis to our required petition findings and public comments and peer review ensure that the species most in need of listing determinations as possible. This comments on proposed rules and listing will be addressed first and also brings the total amount of funds we had incorporating relevant information into because we allocate our listing budget for listing actions in FY 2010 to final rules. The number of listing on a nationwide basis. Through the $11,585,417. actions that we can undertake in a given listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, year also is influenced by the and the amount of funds needed to The $11,585,417 was used to fund complexity of those listing actions; that address court-mandated critical habitat work in the following categories: is, more complex actions generally are designations, Congress and the courts Compliance with court orders and more costly. The median cost for have in effect determined the amount of court-approved settlement agreements preparing and publishing a 90-day money available for other listing requiring that petition findings or listing finding is $39,276; for a 12-month activities nationwide. Therefore, the determinations be completed by a finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule funds in the listing cap, other than those specific date; section 4 (of the Act) with critical habitat, $345,000; and for needed to address court-mandated listing actions with absolute statutory a final listing rule with critical habitat, critical habitat for already listed species, deadlines; essential litigation-related, the median cost is $305,000. set the limits on our determinations of administrative, and listing program- We cannot spend more than is preclusion and expeditious progress. management functions; and high- appropriated for the Listing Program Congress identified the availability of priority listing actions for some of our without violating the Anti-Deficiency resources as the only basis for deferring candidate species. For FY 2011, on Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In the initiation of a rulemaking that is September 29, 2010, Congress passed a addition, in FY 1998 and for each FY warranted. The Conference Report continuing resolution which provides since then, Congress has placed a accompanying Pub. L. 97–304, which funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. statutory cap on funds which may be established the current statutory Until Congress appropriates funds for expended for the Listing Program, equal deadlines and the warranted-but- FY 2011, we will fund listing work to the amount expressly appropriated precluded finding, states that the based on the FY 2010 amount. In 2009, for that purpose in that FY. This cap amendments were ‘‘not intended to the responsibility for listing foreign was designed to prevent funds allow the Secretary to delay species under the Act was transferred appropriated for other functions under commencing the rulemaking process for from the Division of Scientific the Act (for example, recovery funds for any reason other than that the existence Authority, International Affairs removing species from the Lists), or for of pending or imminent proposals to list Program, to the Endangered Species other Service programs, from being used species subject to a greater degree of Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, for Listing Program actions (see House threat would make allocation of we use a portion of our funding to work Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st resources to such a petition [that is, for on the actions described above as they Session, July 1, 1997). a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ apply to listing actions for foreign Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget Although that statement appeared to species. This has the potential to further has included a critical habitat subcap to refer specifically to the ‘‘to the reduce funding available for domestic ensure that some funds are available for maximum extent practicable’’ limitation listing actions. Although there are other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The on the 90-day deadline for making a currently no foreign species issues critical habitat designation subcap will ‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that included in our high-priority listing ensure that some funding is available to finding is made at the point when the actions at this time, many actions have address other listing activities’’ (House Service is deciding whether or not to statutory or court-approved settlement Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st commence a status review that will deadlines, thus increasing their priority. Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and determine the degree of threats facing The budget allocations for each specific each year until FY 2006, the Service had the species, and therefore the analysis listing action are identified in the to use virtually the entire critical habitat underlying the statement is more Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part subcap to address court-mandated relevant to the use of the warranted-but- of our administrative record).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33960 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Based on our September 21, 1983, 40 candidates, we apply the ranking process. Therefore, as we work on guidance for assigning an LPN for each criteria to the next group of candidates proposed rules for the highest priority candidate species (48 FR 43098), we with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the species in the next several years, we are have a significant number of species next set of highest priority candidate preparing multi-species proposals when with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, species. Finally, proposed rules for appropriate, and these may include we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 reclassification of threatened species to species with lower priority if they to 12, depending on the magnitude of endangered are lower priority, since as overlap geographically or have the same threats (high or moderate to low), listed species, they are already afforded threats as a species with an LPN of 2. immediacy of threats (imminent or the protection of the Act and In addition, we take into consideration nonimminent), and taxonomic status of implementing regulations. However, for the availability of staff resources when the species (in order of priority: efficiency reasons, we may choose to we determine which high-priority monotypic genus (a species that is the work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species will receive funding to sole member of a genus); species; or part species to endangered if we can minimize the amount of time and of a species (subspecies, distinct combine this with work that is subject resources required to complete each population segment, or significant to a court-determined deadline. listing action. portion of the range)). The lower the We assigned Boechera pusilla an LPN As explained above, a determination listing priority number, the higher the of 8. This is based on our finding that that listing is warranted but precluded listing priority (that is, a species with an the species faces immediate and also must demonstrate that expeditious LPN of 1 would have the highest listing moderate magnitude threats from a progress is being made to add and priority). threat we do not fully understand but is remove qualified species to and from Because of the large number of high- manifest by reduced population levels the Lists of Endangered and Threatened priority species, we have further ranked that may be below the minimum viable Wildlife and Plants. As with our the candidate species with an LPN of 2 population requirement. Under our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of by using the following extinction-risk 1983 Guidelines, a ‘‘species’’ facing whether progress in adding qualified type criteria: International Union for the imminent moderate-magnitude threats species to the Lists has been expeditious Conservation of Nature and Natural is assigned an LPN of 7, 8, or 9 is a function of the resources available Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, depending on its taxonomic status. for listing and the competing demands Heritage rank (provided by Because B. pusilla is a species, we for those funds. (Although we do not NatureServe), Heritage threat rank assigned it an LPN of 8. Therefore, work discuss it in detail here, we also are (provided by NatureServe), and species on a proposed listing determination for making expeditious progress in currently with fewer than 50 B. pusilla is precluded by work on removing species from the list under the individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. higher priority candidate species (i.e., Recovery program in light of the Those species with the highest IUCN species with LPN of 7); listing actions resource available for delisting, which is rank (critically endangered), the highest with absolute statutory, court ordered, funded by a separate line item in the Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage or court-approved deadlines; and final budget of the Endangered Species threat rank (substantial, imminent listing determinations for those species Program. During FY 2010, we have threats), and currently with fewer than that were proposed for listing with completed two proposed delisting rules 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 funds from previous FYs. This work and two final delisting rules.) Given the populations, originally comprised a includes all the actions listed in the limited resources available for listing, group of approximately 40 candidate tables below under expeditious we find that we made expeditious species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate progress. progress in FY 2010 in the Listing species have had the highest priority to With our workload so much bigger Program and are making expeditious receive funding to work on a proposed than the amount of funds we have to progress in FY 2011. This progress listing determination. As we work on accomplish it, it is important that we be included preparing and publishing the proposed and final listing rules for those as efficient as possible in our listing following determinations:

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/08/2009 ...... Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) Final Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 52013–52064. as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range. 10/27/2009 ...... 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dip- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 74 FR 55177–55180. per in the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threat- substantial. ened or Endangered. 10/28/2009 ...... Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Re- 74 FR 55524–55525. in the Upper Missouri River System. view for Listing Decision. 11/03/2009 ...... Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Seg- Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 56757–56770. ment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule. 11/03/2009 ...... Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 56770–56791. Throughout Its Range with Special Rule. 11/23/2009 ...... Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Re- 74 FR 61100–61102. (Centrocercus minimus). view for Listing Decision. 12/03/2009 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 74 FR 63343–63366. Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered. warranted. 12/03/2009 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 74 FR 63337–63343. Threatened or Endangered. stantial.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33961

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

12/15/2009 ...... 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 74 FR 66260–66271. Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered stantial. With Critical Habitat. 12/16/2009 ...... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Spe- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 74 FR 66865–66905. cies in the Southwestern United States as Threat- substantial & Substantial. ened or Endangered With Critical Habitat. 12/17/2009 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 74 FR 66937–66950. Listing of the Distinct Population Segment of the ranted but precluded. Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico. 01/05/2010 ...... Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru & Bolivia as En- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 605–649. dangered Throughout Their Range. 01/05/2010 ...... Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 286–310. Their Range. 01/05/2010 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel ...... Proposed rule, withdrawal ...... 75 FR 310–316. 01/05/2010 ...... Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel & Heinroth’s Final Listing Threatened ...... 75 FR 235–250. Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges. 01/20/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana & Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Re- 75 FR 3190–3191. Solanum conocarpum. view for Listing Decision. 02/09/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 6437–6471. Pika as Threatened or Endangered. warranted. 02/25/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 8601–8621. Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threat- warranted. ened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment. 02/25/2010 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the South- Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List ...... 75 FR 8621–8644. western Washington/Columbia River Distinct Popu- lation Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened. 03/18/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 13068–13071. salamander as Endangered. stantial. 03/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 13717–13720. Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as En- substantial. dangered or Threatened. 03/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 13720–13726. as Threatened. stantial. 03/23/2010 ...... 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 13910–14014. Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as ranted but precluded. Threatened or Endangered. 03/31/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 16050–16065. Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis ranted but precluded. klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. 04/05/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 17062–17070. Hairstreak Butterfly as threatened or Endangered. stantial. 04/06/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 17352–17363. Whitefish in the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endan- warranted. gered or Threatened. 04/06/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 17363–17367. (Isoperla jewetti) & a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as substantial. Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. 04/7/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 17667–17680. Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout ranted but precluded. Its Range. 04/13/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 18959–19165. on Kauai & Designation of Critical Habitat. 04/15/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wol- Notice of Initiation of Status Review for 75 FR 19591–19592. verine in the Contiguous United States. Listing Decision. 04/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 19592–19607. Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with warranted. Critical Habitat. 04/16/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Popu- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 19925–19935. lation Segment of the Fisher in Its United States stantial. Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. 04/20/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail Notice of Initiation of Status Review for 75 FR 20547–20548. (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus). Listing Decision. 04/26/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin But- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 21568–21571. terfly as Endangered. stantial. 04/27/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 22012–22025. making Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threat- warranted. ened or Endangered.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33962 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

04/27/2010 ...... 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 22063–22070. Ground Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat. stantial. 05/04/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 23654–23663. Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered. stantial. 06/01/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 30313–30318. var. ozarkensis. stantial. 06/01/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 30338–30363. Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened. warranted. 06/09/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 32728–32734. Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened. stantial. 06/16/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Spe- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 34077–34088. cies of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered. stantial. 06/22/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 35398–35424. as Threatened or Endangered. ranted but precluded. 06/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Em- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 35746–35751. erald Hummingbird as Endangered. stantial. 06/23/2010 ...... Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Proposed Listing Endangered Proposed 75 FR 35721–35746. Endangered Throughout Its Range, & Listing Listing Threatened. Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) & Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threat- ened Throughout Their Range. 06/24/2010 ...... Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly & Pacific Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 35990–36012. Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. 06/24/2010 ...... Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 36035–36057. Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, & Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. 06/29/2010 ...... Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened ...... Reinstatement of Proposed Listing 75 FR 37353–37358. Threatened. 07/20/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 42033–42040. (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or Threatened with stantial. Critical Habitat. 07/20/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 42040–42054. Toad as Threatened or Endangered. warranted. 07/20/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 42059–42066. Earthworm (Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened stantial. or Endangered. 07/27/2010 ...... Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 43844–43853. Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule. 07/27/2010 ...... Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 43853–43864. (Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range. 08/03/2010 ...... Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Final Listing Threatened ...... 75 FR 45497–45527. Species. 08/04/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 46894–46898. Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies With Critical stantial. Habitat. 08/10/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Arctostaphylos Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 48294–48298. franciscana as Endangered with Critical Habitat. stantial. 08/17/2010 ...... Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 50813–50842. & the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range. 08/17/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 50739–50742. Mountainsnail as Endangered or Threatened with substantial. Critical Habitat. 08/24/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Sub- 75 FR 51969–51974. Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened. stantial. 09/01/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 53615–53629. Jackrabbit as Threatened or Endangered. warranted. 09/08/2010 ...... Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Sala- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 54561–54579. mander as Endangered. 09/08/2010 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 54707–54753. River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling ranted but precluded. as Endangered or Threatened. 09/09/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 54822–54845. Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) ranted but precluded. as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. 09/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 56028–56050. as Endangered or Threatened Throughout Its ranted but precluded. Range. 09/22/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Agave Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 57720–57734. eggersiana (no common name) as Endangered. ranted but precluded.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33963

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

09/28/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for the African Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 59645–59656. Penguin. 09/28/2010 ...... Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 59803–59863. Threatened or Endangered Species. ranted but precluded. 09/30/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pygmy Rab- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 60515–60561. bit as Endangered or Threatened. warranted. 10/06/2010 ...... Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel & Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 61664–61690. Designation of Critical Habitat. 10/7/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not 75 FR 62070–62095. Splittail as Endangered or Threatened. warranted. 10/28/2010 ...... Endangered Status & Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) 75 FR 66481–66552. for Spikedace & Loach Minnow. 11/2/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 67341–67343. Salamander as Endangered. substantial. 11/2/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 67511–67550. Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, & Rough Hornsnail & Designation of Critical Habitat. 11/2/2010 ...... Listing the Rayed Bean & Snuffbox as Endangered .... Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 67551–67583. 11/4/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii Notice of 12-month petition finding, War- 75 FR 67925–67944. (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threat- ranted but precluded. ened.

Our expeditious progress also statutory timelines, that is, timelines a lower priority if they overlap includes work on listing actions that we required under the Act. Actions in the geographically or have the same threats funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but bottom section of the table are high- as the species with the high priority. have not yet been completed to date. priority listing actions. These actions Including these species together in the These actions are listed below. Actions include work primarily on species with same proposed rule results in in the top section of the table are being an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, considerable savings in time and conducted under a deadline set by a selection of these species is partially funding, as compared to preparing court. Actions in the middle section of based on available staff resources, and separate proposed rules for each of them the table are being conducted to meet when appropriate, include species with in the future.

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

6 Birds from Eurasia ...... Final listing determination. Flat-tailed horned lizard ...... Final listing determination. Mountain plover 4 ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Peru ...... Proposed listing determination. Pacific walrus ...... 12-month petition finding. Wolverine ...... 12-month petition finding. Solanum conocarpum ...... 12-month petition finding. Desert tortoise—Sonoran population ...... 12-month petition finding. Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ...... 90-day petition finding.

Actions With Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s june beetle ...... Final listing determination. 7 Bird species from Brazil ...... Final listing determination. Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ...... Final listing determination. 5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ...... Final listing determination. Queen Charlotte goshawk ...... Final listing determination. 5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky Final listing determination. madtom, and laurel dace) 4. Ozark hellbender 4 ...... Final listing determination. Altamaha spinymussel 3 ...... Final listing determination. 3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Final listing determination. Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4. Salmon crested cockatoo ...... Final listing determination. Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ...... Final listing determination. 2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ...... Final listing determination. Mt Charleston blue 5 ...... Proposed listing determination. CA golden trout 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 12-month petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 33964 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Mount Charleston blue butterfly ...... 12-month petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 12-month petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 12-month petition finding. Coqui Llanero ...... 12-month petition finding/Proposed listing. Dusky tree vole ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 12-month petition finding. 206 species petition. 5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon 12-month petition finding. flowersii, Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition. 2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 species petition ...... 12-month petition finding. 5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere 12-month petition finding. (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition. Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Gopher tortoise—eastern population ...... 12-month petition finding. Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 spe- 12-month petition finding. cies petition). 2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) 12-month petition finding. (from 475 species petition). 5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 14 parrots (foreign species) ...... 12-month petition finding. Berry Cave salamander 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Striped Newt 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Western gull-billed tern ...... 12-month petition finding. Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. HI yellow-faced bees ...... 12-month petition finding. Giant Palouse earthworm ...... 12-month petition finding. Whitebark pine ...... 12-month petition finding. OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Ashy storm-petrel 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle Lake trout 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth-billed ani 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ...... 90-day petition finding. Red knot roselaari subspecies ...... 90-day petition finding. Peary caribou ...... 90-day petition finding. Plains bison ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring pygmy sunfish ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay skipper ...... 90-day petition finding. Unsilvered fritillary ...... 90-day petition finding. Texas kangaroo rat ...... 90-day petition finding. Spot-tailed earless lizard ...... 90-day petition finding. Eastern small-footed bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern long-eared bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Prairie chub ...... 90-day petition finding. 10 species of Great Basin butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. 6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ...... 90-day petition finding. Golden-winged warbler 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Sand-verbena moth ...... 90-day petition finding. 404 Southeast species ...... 90-day petition finding. Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. American eel 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Arapahoe snowfly 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Leona’s little blue 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Aztec gilia 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ...... 90-day petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33965

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Bicknell’s thrush 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Sonoran talussnail 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. I’iwi 5 ...... 90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 Proposed listing. with LPN =9). 19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, Proposed listing. 3 with LPN = 8). Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard) 4 (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) .... Proposed listing. New Mexico springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 2 mussels 2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) ...... Proposed listing. 8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Ala- Proposed listing. bama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choc- taw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4. Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. 2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN =2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN =2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ...... Proposed listing. 4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Proposed listing. Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3. 5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN =2), Phan- Proposed listing. tom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3. 2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River Proposed listing. rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3. FL bonneted bat (LPN =2) 3 ...... Proposed listing. Kittlitz’s murrelet (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 3 ...... Proposed listing. 21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN Proposed listing. = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8). Oregon spotted frog (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. 2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 4 Funded with FY 2010 funds. 5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.

We have endeavored to make our available. Continuing review will www.regulations.gov and upon request listing actions as efficient and timely as determine if a change in status is from the Wyoming Ecological Services possible, given the requirements of the warranted, including the need to make Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). relevant law and regulations, and prompt use of emergency listing constraints relating to workload and procedures. Author(s) personnel. We are continually We intend that any proposed listing The primary authors of this notice are determination for Boechera pusilla will considering ways to streamline the staff members of the Wyoming processes or achieve economies of scale, be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we Ecological Services Field Office. such as by batching related actions will continue to accept additional together. Given our limited budget for information and comments from all Authority: The authority for this section implementing section 4 of the Act, these concerned governmental agencies, the is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of actions described above collectively scientific community, industry, or any 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). constitute expeditious progress. other interested party concerning this Dated: May 16, 2011. Boechera pusilla will be added to the finding. Rowan W. Gould, list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. References Cited Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. We will continue to evaluate this A complete list of references cited is [FR Doc. 2011–13910 Filed 6–8–11; 8:45 am] species as new information becomes available on the Internet at http:// BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09JNP4.SGM 09JNP4 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4