Vol. 79 Wednesday, No. 151 August 6, 2014

Part V

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rules To List Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River Beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West to ensure that our proposed rules were Valley City, Utah 84119; telephone 801– based on scientifically sound data, Fish and Wildlife Service 975–3330. assumptions, and analyses. We invited FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: these peer reviewers to comment on our 50 CFR Part 17 Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish listing and critical habitat proposals. We [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0081; and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological also considered all comments and Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0082; Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton information received during the 4500030113] Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT comment periods. RIN 1018–AY95; 1018–AZ61 84119; by telephone at 801–975–3330. Background—Graham’s Beardtongue Persons who use a telecommunications Endangered and Threatened Wildlife device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Previous Federal Actions and Plants; Withdrawal of the Federal Information Relay Service For a detailed description of Federal Proposed Rules To List Graham’s (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. actions concerning Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: beardtongue, please refer to our January and White River Beardtongue 19, 2006, proposed rule to list the Executive Summary (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) species and designate critical habitat (71 and Designate Critical Habitat Why we need to publish this FR 3158); our December 19, 2006, document. Under the Endangered withdrawal of the proposed rule to list AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Act (Act), if a species is the species and designate critical habitat Interior. determined to be an endangered or (71 FR 76024); and our August 6, 2013 ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawal. threatened species throughout all or a proposed rules to list the species and significant portion of its range, we are designate critical habitat (78 FR 47590; SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and required to promptly publish a proposal 78 FR 47832). In the document we Wildlife Service, withdraw the in the Federal Register and make a published on December 19, 2006 (71 FR proposed rule to list Graham’s determination on our proposal within 1 76024), we addressed public comments, beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and year. On August 6, 2013, we issued analyzed available data, and withdrew White River beardtongue (Penstemon proposed rules to list Graham’s the proposed listing and critical habitat scariosus var. albifluvis) as threatened beardtongue and White River rule for Graham’s beardtongue that we species throughout their ranges under beardtongue as threatened species and published on January 19, 2006 (71 FR the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as to designate critical habitat because we 3158), concluding that threats to amended. This withdrawal is based on determined there were threats from Graham’s beardtongue, particularly our conclusion that the threats to the energy development, and cumulative energy development, were not as species as identified in the proposed threats from livestock grazing, invasive significant as previously believed and rule no longer are as significant as we weeds, small population sizes, and were not likely to endanger the species previously determined. We base this climate change (78 FR 47590 and 78 FR in the foreseeable future throughout all conclusion on our analysis of new 47832). However, this document or a significant portion of its range. information concerning current and withdraws our proposed rules to list the On December 16, 2008, the Center for future threats and conservation efforts. Graham’s beardtongue and White River Native Ecosystems, Southern Utah We find the best scientific and beardtongue as threatened species under Wilderness Alliance, Utah Native Plant commercial data available indicate that the Act and designate critical habitat for Society (UNPS), and Colorado Native the threats to the species and their these species because we have now Plant Society filed a complaint in the habitats have been reduced so that the determined that the threats to the two United States District Court for the two species no longer meet the statutory species have been reduced such that District of Colorado challenging the definition of threatened or endangered listing is not warranted. withdrawal of our proposal to list species. Therefore, we are withdrawing The basis for our action. Under the Graham’s beardtongue. The court ruled both our proposed rule to list these Act, we can determine that a species is in favor of the plaintiffs on June 9, 2011, species as threatened species and our an endangered or threatened species vacating our December 2006 withdrawal proposed rule to designate critical based on any of five factors: (A) The and reinstating our January 2006 habitat for these species. present or threatened destruction, proposed rule. DATES: The proposed rules published on modification, or curtailment of its In 2007, the Service, Bureau of Land August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47590 and 78 FR habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for Management (BLM), Uintah County, 47832), are withdrawn as of August 6, commercial, recreational, scientific, or Utah Department of Natural Resources 2014. educational purposes; (C) Disease or (DNR) and Utah School and ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our predation; (D) The inadequacy of Institutional Trust Lands proposed rules and supplementary existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Administration (SITLA) drafted a documents are available on the Internet Other natural or manmade factors Conservation Agreement (CA) for the at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket affecting its continued existence. We conservation of Graham’s beardtongue Nos. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0081 and have determined that the threats to the and its ecosystem. Although this FWS–R6–ES–2013–0082, and at http:// two species have been reduced such agreement was not signed by all parties www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ that listing is not warranted. Therefore, and only partially implemented, several plants/2utahbeardtongues/. Comments this document withdraws our proposed of the parties contributed to the and materials received, as well as rules to list the Graham’s beardtongue conservation of the species in the spirit supporting documentation used in the and White River beardtongue as of the agreement. In particular, BLM preparation of these withdrawals, are threatened species under the Act and signed the agreement and fulfilled their also available for public inspection, by designate critical habitat. commitments by funding surveys, appointment, during normal business Peer review and public comment. We monitoring for plant demographics, hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sought expert opinion from several funding a population viability analysis, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, appropriate and independent specialists and avoiding and minimizing impacts to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46043

the species and its habitat from surface comment period on our August 6, 2013, Duchesne County in Utah to the disturbances (Service 2007, pp. 11–12). proposed listing and proposed northwestern edge of Rio Blanco County Uintah County and Utah DNR also designation of critical habitat rules. At in Colorado (Figure 1). However, over funded surveys for the species from that time we also announced the the last 7 years we have identified larger 2008 to 2010. availability of a draft economic analysis numbers of plants and a greater The best available information for (DEA), a draft environmental assessment distribution of the species across its Graham’s beardtongue has changed (EA), the draft 2014 CA, and an range. We now know of 5,076 points considerably since our January 2006 amended required determinations representing 40,333 plants—over six proposed rule was written and section of the proposal (78 FR 47590). times the number of plants known at the withdrawn. On August 6, 2013, we We also announced the availability of time of our 2006 proposed rule and published a revised proposed listing 2013 survey results for the plants and 8,631 more plants than known at the rule (78 FR 47590) and a proposed our intent to hold a public information time of our 2013 proposed rule (BLM critical habitat rule to reflect new meeting and public hearing on May 28, 2013d, UNHP 2013b, CNHP 2014). information regarding Graham’s 2014, in Vernal, Utah (79 FR 25806). Although the overall number of known beardtongue (78 FR 47832). In these plants has increased with additional same rules we also proposed to list and Species Information surveys, this does not mean the total designate critical habitat for White River Taxonomy and Species Description beardtongue. Upon publication of our population is increasing. Rather, many Graham’s beardtongue was described parties have surveyed a greater area and proposed rules, we opened a 60-day as a species in 1937 as an herbaceous comment period that closed on October now have a more complete picture of perennial plant in the plantain family how many total Graham’s beardtongue 7, 2013. (Plantaginaceae). For most of the year Following publication of our individuals exist. We assume that the when the plant is dormant, it exists as proposed rules, the same parties that current known range of this species has a small, unremarkable basal rosette of drafted the 2007 CA for Graham’s not changed substantially from what it leaves. During flowering, the plant beardtongue reconvened to evaluate was historically, because even though becomes a ‘‘gorgeous, large-flowered species’ surveys and distribution we have found more plants, the penstemon’’ (Welsh et al. 2003, p. 625). information and reassess the boundaries of the known range of the Similar to other species in the conservation needs of both the White species have not changed. beardtongue (Penstemon) genus, River and Graham’s beardtongues. Graham’s beardtongue has a strongly We mapped all plant points, Based on this evaluation, the parties bilabiate (two-lipped) flower with a including those from new 2013 survey completed a new conservation prominent infertile staminode (sterile data, and grouped them into agreement (2014 CA, entire) that male flower part)—the ‘‘beardtongue’’ populations (Figure 1). First, we specifically addresses the threats that typifies the genus. The combination followed standardized methods used by identified in our 2013 proposed rule to of its large, vivid pink flower and the national network of Natural Heritage list the two species (78 FR 47590, densely bearded staminode with short, Programs to identify the species’ August 6, 2013). In the 2014 CA, the stiff, golden-orange hairs makes element occurrences (EO). EOs are plant parties committed to conservation Graham’s beardtongue quite distinctive. points that are grouped together based actions including establishing 17,957 Each year an individual plant can on geographic proximity (NatureServe hectares (ha) (44,373 acres (ac)) of produce one to a few flowering stems 2004, p. 6). Natural Heritage Program occupied and unoccupied suitable that can grow up to 18 centimeters (cm) criteria (NatureServe 2004, p. 6) classify habitat as protected conservation areas (7.0 inches (in)) tall (with some with limited surface disturbance and points into discrete EOs if they are exceptions), with 1 to 20 or more within 2 km (1.2 mi) of each other and avoidance of plants by 91.4 m (300 ft). flowers on each flowering stem. Additionally, the BLM agreed to avoid separated by suitable habitat. We did surface disturbances within 91.4 m (300 Distribution and Trends not always have specific habitat ft) of Graham’s and White River suitability information and in these When we published the proposed cases relied on the 2 km (1.2 mi) beardtongue plants within and outside listing rule in 2006, there were 109 distance as our primary classification of conservation areas on BLM land (see plant records, or ‘‘points,’’ across factor. Next, we included updated Summary of Factors Affecting the Graham’s beardtongue’s known range, survey information collected from 2006 Species, Energy Exploration and and the total species’ population size to the present and determined the Development and Ongoing and Future was estimated at 6,200 individuals. Conservation Efforts). The parties also Point data represent a physical location number of distinct EOs. At the time of developed conservation measures to where one or more plants were observed our 2013 proposed rule, we had address the cumulative impacts from on the ground. Point data are usually documented 24 EOs: 20 in Utah and 4 livestock grazing, invasive weeds, small collected by GPS and stored as a in Colorado. An additional 8,631 plants population sizes, and climate change by ‘‘record’’ in a geographic information found in the 2013 field season were continuing species monitoring, system database. added to our EO mapping in 2014, monitoring climate, reducing impacts Since 2006, BLM, Uintah County, the which added five new populations and from grazing when and where detected, Utah and Colorado Natural Heritage merged several other populations and controlling invasive weeds (see Programs and several private parties together, resulting in no change to the Summary of Factors Affecting the have completed many surveys for this total number of populations (Figure 1). Species, Cumulative Effects from All species. The range of Graham’s For the purpose of this document, we Factors and Ongoing and Future beardtongue is essentially the same as it consider EOs to be synonymous with Conservation Efforts). The 2014 CA is was in 2006: A horseshoe-shaped band populations and hereafter will use the discussed in detail below. about 129 kilometers (80 miles) long term ‘‘populations’’ when describing the On May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25806), we and 9.6 km (6 mi) wide extending from distribution of the species. announced the reopening of the public the extreme southeastern edge of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

C.;\RBON . ../ ;:,

G.;\RFIELD

GRA?:-%11

Range Map

Utah Colorado

0 5 20 1vliles 5 20 Kilometers I I

Figure 1. Graham's beardtongue's range.

Our understanding of the distribution population, compared to our estimate of important connectivity link between the of plants among populations has 23 percent in 2012. Population 19 Utah and Colorado populations of this changed slightly since our 2013 contains the most plants with 27.8 species, and we still consider this to be proposed rule, reflecting the additional percent of the entire population. true, especially given the large number plants found during the 2013 surveys. Populations 19, 17, 13 and 20 combined of plants found in this population. We now estimate that one population comprise 91 percent of the known Approximately 52 percent of the total (referred to as population 20) comprises number of plants. In 2006 and 2013, we known population of Graham’s about 18.3 percent of the species’ total noted that population 20 was an beardtongue occurs on BLM-managed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP06AU14.001 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46045

lands, with the remainder on non- planned for 2014 will decrease the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Federal lands with State and private number of known plants on Federal below). ownership (Table 1). A land exchange lands and increase the plants on State between the BLM and the State of Utah lands by 2.2 percent (see Inadequacy of

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS OF GRAHAM’S BEARDTONGUE BY LANDOWNER [* Data as presented in the 2013 proposed rule includes surveys through 2012; ** Data as presented in this 2014 withdrawal includes surveys through 2013.]

Number of Percent of individuals total (2013 Number of Percent of (2013 pro- proposed individuals total (2014)** posed rule)* rule)* (2014)**

Federal ...... 18,678 59 19,986 49.6 Private ...... 8,137 26 8,525 21.1 State ...... 4,887 15 11,822 29.3 Tribal ...... 0 0 0 0 Total ...... 31, 702 100 40,333 100

Population monitoring for Graham’s interact to influence reproduction. eatonii var. eriocephalum), spiny beardtongue has been restricted to a Plants at the Blue Knoll study site were greasebush (Glossopetalon spinescens handful of sites, thus limiting our negatively impacted by herbivory from var. meionandra), Utah juniper knowledge of the population trend tiger moth caterpillars (possibly Arctia (Juniperus osteosperma), two-needle throughout its range. Our long-term caja utahensis) (see Grazing, below), but pin˜ on (Pinus edulis), and shadscale monitoring information comes from two a cool, wet spring in 2011 may have saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia) (UNHP Graham’s beardtongue sites in Utah reduced herbivory on reproductive 2013a, entire). Graham’s beardtongue within population 13 (see Figure 1) from plants (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 7–8). co-occurs with eight other rare species 2004 to 2012, two additional sites Further studies are necessary to that are similarly endemic and restricted within population 13 from 2010 to 2012, determine if herbivory or other factors to the Green River Formation, including and one site in Colorado. The are driving population dynamics of this White River beardtongue. Other population 13 sites were stable and species. beardtongue species growing in the perhaps slowly increasing with a Habitat vicinity of Graham’s beardtongue stochastic population growth rate just include thickleaf beardtongue above one (McCaffery 2013a, p. 15). Graham’s beardtongue is an endemic (Penstemon pachyphyllus) and Recruitment and flowering for these plant found mostly in exposed oil shale Fremont’s beardtongue (Penstemon Utah sites was low and sporadic, strata of the Parachute Creek Member fremontii) (Fitts and Fitts 2008, pp. 13– indicating that conditions were not and other unclassified members of the 28; Fitts and Fitts 2009, pp. 11–26; Fitts always suitable for flowering to occur Green River geologic formation 2010, pp. 15–21; Fitts 2014, entire.), and (McCaffery 2013a, p. 9). Although these including the Douglas Creek Member. these are likely important for supporting two sites were stable, we do not know Most populations are associated with pollinators. if this represents the trend of every the surface exposure of the petroleum- At higher elevations, Graham’s population of the species across its bearing oil shale Mahogany ledge beardtongue is found within sparse range. The Colorado monitoring site (Shultz and Mutz 1979, p. 40; Neese and pinon-juniper woodland plant showed that plant density remained Smith 1982, p. 64). Soils at these sites communities and on canyon rims. At similar between the 1986 to 1990 are shallow with virtually no soil lower elevations Graham’s beardtongue monitoring effort, and a renewed horizon development, and the surface is monitoring effort in 2005. In addition, usually covered with broken shale chips is associated with a sparse desert the number of plants increased between or light clay derived from the thinly shrubland dominated by shadscale 2009 to 2011 (BLM 2011, p. 6–7) but bedded shale. Based on data up to 2012, saltbush. was lower in both years than the about a third of all known point Biology number counted in 2005. Small locations of plants in our files grow on population sizes and low recruitment slopes that are 10 degrees or less, with Graham’s beardtongue individuals make this species more vulnerable to an average slope across all known live at least 10 years and likely longer; stochastic events, and without points of 17.6 degrees (Service 2013, p. however, we do not know the plant’s concerted conservation efforts, changes 2). The species occurs at an average average life span (Service 2012a, p. 2). in stressors or habitat conditions may elevation of 1,870 meters (m) (6,134 feet Graham’s beardtongue is not as negatively impact the long-term growth (ft)), with a range in elevation from genetically diverse as other common, of these sites (McCaffery 2013a, p. 19). 1,426 to 2,128 m (4,677 to 6,982 ft) widespread beardtongues from the same No link was found between (Service 2013, p. 4). Individuals of region (Arft 2002, p. 5). However, reproduction and precipitation on a Graham’s beardtongue usually grow on populations 1 through 9 (see Figure 1) regional level, but it is likely that we do southwest-facing exposures (Service have minor morphological differences not completely understand the 2013, p. 1). from the rest of the Graham’s environmental factors affecting Graham’s beardtongue is associated beardtongue populations (Shultz and reproduction and survival (McCaffery with a suite of species similarly adapted Mutz 1979, p. 41) and may, due to 2013a, p. 16). A combination of several to xeric (very dry) growing conditions geographic isolation, be genetically factors could be affecting population on highly basic calcareous shale soils, divergent from the remainder of the dynamics of Graham’s beardtongue. For including saline wildrye (Leymus species’ population, although this example, herbivory and climate could salinus), mountain thistle (Cirsium hypothesis has never been tested.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Graham’s beardtongue usually flowers Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (20 in) tall, with multiple clusters of for a short period of time in late April amended (Act) (48 FR 53640). Category upright stems. It has long, narrow, green through late June. Pollinators and flower 1 candidate species were defined as leaves. Like other members of the visitors of Graham’s beardtongue ‘‘those species for which the Service has beardtongue genus, including Graham’s include the bees Anthophora on file sufficient information on beardtongue, White River beardtongue lesquerellae, Osmia sanrafaelae, Osmia biological vulnerability and threat(s) to has a strongly bilabiate (two-lipped) rawlinsi, the sweat bees Lasioglossum support issuance of a proposed rule to flower with a prominent infertile sisymbrii and Dialictus sp., and the list but issuance of the proposed rule is staminode (sterile male flower part), or masarid wasp Pseudomasaris vespoides, precluded’’ (61 FR 7597, February 28, ‘‘beardtongue.’’ Blooming occurs from which is thought to be the primary 1996). In the February 1996 candidate May into early June, with seeds pollinator for Graham’s beardtongue notice of review (CNOR) (61 FR 7596), produced by late June (Lewinsohn 2005, (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 245; we abandoned the use of numerical p. 9). Dodge and Yates 2008, p. 30). At least category designations and changed the White River beardtongue was first one large pollinator, Hunt’s bumblebee status of White River beardtongue to a described as a new species, Penstemon (Bombus huntii), is known to visit candidate under the current definition. albifluvis, in 1982 (England 1982, Graham’s beardtongue (71 FR 3158, We maintained White River entire). In 1984, the taxon was described January 19, 2006), which is not beardtongue as a candidate species in as variety P. scariosus var. albifluvis unexpected due to the relatively large subsequent updated CNORs up through (Cronquist et al. 1984, p. 442). P. s. var size of Graham’s beardtongue’s flowers the publication of the 2013 proposed albifluvis has a shorter corolla and compared to other beardtongues. rule to list the species. Graham’s beardtongue has a mixed On September 9, 2011, we reached an shorter anther hairs than typical P. mating system, meaning individuals of agreement with plaintiffs in Endangered scariosus. White River beardtongue is this species can self-fertilize, but they Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., also unique from P. scariosus because it produce more seed when they are cross- Misc. Action No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL is endemic to low-elevation oil shale pollinated (Dodge and Yates 2009, p. Docket No. 2165 (D. DC) to barrens near the White River along the 18). Thus, pollinators are important for systematically review and address the Utah–Colorado border (see Habitat maximum seed and fruit production. needs of all species listed in our 2010 below for more information), while Based on the size of the largest CNOR, which included White River typical P. scariosus habitat occurs at Graham’s beardtongue pollinators (i.e., beardtongue. On August 6, 2013, we higher elevations on the West Tavaputs Hunt’s bumblebee), we expect published a proposed rule to list and Wasatch Plateaus of central Utah pollinators are capable of travelling and Graham’s and White River beardtongues (Cronquist et al. 1984, p. 442). transporting pollen for distances of at and a proposed rule to designate critical Distribution and Trends least 700 m (2,297 ft) (Service 2012b, habitat for both species (78 FR 47590; 78 pp. 8, 12). Therefore, maintaining FR 47832). As explained above in The historical range of White River sufficiently large numbers of Background—Graham’s beardtongue, beardtongue has likely not changed reproducing plants with sufficient Previous Federal Actions, a new since the species was first described in connectivity across the species’ conservation agreement was completed 1982 (England 1982, pp. 367–368). population distribution ensures cross- (2014 CA, entire) to specifically address White River beardtongue was first pollination, preserves genetic diversity, the threats identified in our 2013 discovered along the north bank of the and prevents inbreeding depression proposed rule. This conservation White River 1 mile upstream from the (Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 18). agreement along with the economic Ignacio Bridge (England 1982, p. 367). Pollinators need a diversity of native analysis of our 2013 proposed critical The historical range was described as plants for foraging, nesting, and egg- habitat designation and other occurring from east central Uintah laying sites, and undisturbed places for supporting documents were made County, Utah, to Rio Blanco County, overwintering (Shepherd et al. 2003, pp. available for public review and Colorado (England 1982, p. 367). 49–50). Thus, it is important to protect comment as described above in White River beardtongue’s current vegetation diversity within and around Background—Graham’s beardtongue, range extends from Raven Ridge west of Graham’s beardtongue populations to Previous Federal Actions. Rangely in Rio Blanco County, maintain a diversity of pollinators. Species Information Colorado, to the vicinity of Willow Background—White River Beardtongue Creek in Uintah County, Utah. The bulk Taxonomy and Species Description of the species’ range occurs between Previous Federal Actions White River beardtongue is in the Raven Ridge and Evacuation Creek in On November 28, 1983, White River plantain family (Plantaginaceae). It is an eastern Utah, a distance of about 30 km beardtongue was designated as a herbaceous, shrubby plant with showy (20 mi). category 1 candidate under the lavender flowers. It grows up to 50 cm BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46047

(Figure 2) (CNHP 2012, entire; UNHP However, we have not revisited the Garrett’s beardtongue (Penstemon 2012, entire). Herbarium collections herbarium collection locations to scariosus var. garettii). Therefore, we from 1977 to 1998 indicate that the confirm the species’ presence—it is consider these to be unverified locations species’ range might extend further west possible that the herbarium collections and excluded these records from further to Willow Creek, Buck Canyon, and represent individuals of the closely analysis (Figure 2). Kings Well Road (UNHP 2012, entire). related and nearly indistinguishable BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP06AU14.002 46048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

RlOBLANCO

co

IJT

GARF!El!J

Range.\'v!:ap

Gtah Cahxado

0 3 6 0 2.5 5 Kilometers I I I I I I I

Figure 2. White River beardtongue's range.

We do not have complete surveys for In our 2013 proposed rule, we Graham’s beardtongue—Species White River beardtongue and thus do delineated seven populations in the Information. We now know of 8 not know the total population size for main portion of White River populations; 5 populations in Utah and this species. Our best population beardtongue’s range using data collected 3 populations in Colorado (Figure 2). estimate is 12,215 individuals through 2012. Based on new 2013 Approximately 61 percent of the known (including 792 new plants that were survey information, we have now population of White River beardtongue found during surveys in 2013) (Service reanalyzed the data using the occurs on BLM land, with the remainder 2014b). methodology explained above under

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP06AU14.003 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46049

occurring on State and private lands (Table 2).

TABLE 2—NUMBER OF KNOWN INDIVIDUALS OF WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE BY LANDOWNER [* Data as Presented in the 2013 Proposed Rule Includes Surveys Through 2012; ** Data as Presented in This 2014 Final Rule Includes Surveys Through 2013.]

Number of Percent of individuals total in Number of Percent of (2013 pro- (2013 pro- individuals total in posed rule) * posed rule) * (2014) ** (2014) **

Federal ...... 7,054 62 7,481 61.2 Private ...... 3,093 27 3,458 28.3 State ...... 1,276 11 1,276 10.5 Tribal ...... 0 0 0 0

Total ...... 11,423 100 12,215 100

All of our long-term monitoring carbonate) soils derived from oil shale 2005, p. 3), and individual plants can information for the species comes from barrens of the Green River Formation in live for 30 years (Service 2012c, p. 3). two sites that were monitored from 2004 the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah Most plants begin to flower when the to 2012 (populations 1 and 6, see Figure and adjacent Colorado. The species woody stem reaches 3 to 4 cm (1 to 1.5 2), and one site that was monitored from overlaps with Graham’s beardtongue at in.) in height (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2010 to 2012 (population 3, see Figure sites in the eastern portion of Graham’s 2005, p. 4), usually in May and June. 2). At one site, plants declined over this beardtongue’s range. The species is pollinated by a wasp, time and the other two sites increased White River beardtongue is associated Pseudomasaris vespoides, and several slightly (McCaffery 2013a, p. 8). with the Mahogany ledge and Parachute native, solitary bee species in the genera Although two of three sites were found Creek formation. The habitat of White Osmia, Ceratina, Anthophora, to be stable, we do not know if this River beardtongue is a series of knolls finding represents the trend for all and slopes of raw oil shale derived from Lasioglossum, Dialictus, and Halictus populations of the species across its the Green River geologic formation (Sibul and Yates 2006, p. 14; Lewinsohn range, but it represents the best (Franklin 1995, p. 5). These soils are and Tepedino 2007, p. 235). These available information on population often white or infrequently red, fine- pollinators are medium in size trends for the species. textured, shallow, and usually mixed compared to the larger pollinators White River beardtongue flowers each with fragmented shale. These very dry generally associated with Graham’s year regardless of new seedling substrates occur in lower elevations of beardtongue (see Background— recruitment, in contrast to Graham’s the Uinta Basin, between 1,500 and Graham’s beardtongue, Biology, above). beardtongue (McCaffery 2013a, p. 9). 2,040 m (5,000 and 6,700 ft), and the White River beardtongue has a mixed Like Graham’s beardtongue, White River species occurs at an average elevation of mating system, meaning it can self- beardtongue is vulnerable to stochastic 1,847 m (6,060 ft). About one-fifth of all fertilize but produces more seed when events as well as increases in stressors known point locations of White River it is cross-pollinated (Lewinsohn and or declining habitat conditions beardtongue are on slopes of 10 degrees Tepedino 2007, p. 234). Thus, (McCaffery 2013a, p. 19). Also like or less, with an average slope for all pollinators are important for maximum Graham’s beardtongue, no link was known points of 19.2 degrees (Service seed and fruit production. found between reproduction and 2013, pp. 3–4). White River beardtongue Based on their medium size, the precipitation on a regional level individuals usually grow on southwest- pollinators of White River beardtongue (McCaffery 2013a, p. 16), but this issue facing exposures (Service 2013, p. 1). are capable of travelling and moving should be studied on a more local scale. Species growing with White River pollen across at least 500-m (1,640-ft) In 2009, a significant recruitment event beardtongue include saline wildrye, distances (Service 2012b, pp. 8, 13). occurred in two of the study mountain thistle, spiny greasebush, Although White River beardtongue has populations (Dodge and Yates 2010, pp. Utah juniper, two-needle pin˜ on, and low flower visitation rates by 11–12). Many of these seedlings died shadscale saltbush (UNHP 2013, entire), pollinators, there is no evidence that between 2009 and 2010, but the net and many oil shale endemic plant pollinators are limiting for this species result was an increase in population species (Neese and Smith 1982, p. 58; (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 235). size by the end of the study (Dodge and Goodrich and Neese 1986, p. 283). Other It is important to maintain the diversity Yates 2011, pp. 6, 10). Continued beardtongue species growing in the of pollinators by maintaining vegetation monitoring is necessary to determine vicinity of White River beardtongue diversity for White River beardtongue the frequency of recruitment and how include thickleaf beardtongue and because it stabilizes the effects of this influences the long-term population Fremont’s beardtongue (Fitts and Fitts fluctuations in pollinator populations trends of this species. In addition, like 2008, pp. 13–28; Fitts and Fitts 2009, (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 236). Graham’s beardtongue, we need further pp. 11–26; Fitts 2010, pp. 15–21; Fitts studies to determine what factors are 2014, pers.comm.) and these are likely We have very little information driving population dynamics of White important for supporting pollinators. regarding the genetic diversity of White River beardtongue. River beardtongue. This species, like Biology Graham’s beardtongue, is likely not as Habitat White River beardtongue is long-lived genetically diverse as other common, White River beardtongue is restricted due to the presence of a substantial and sympatric beardtongues (Arft 2002, p. to calcareous (containing calcium multi-branched woody stem (Lewinsohn 5).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Summary of Comments and into this withdrawal document as beardtongue from one monitoring plot Recommendations appropriate. eliminating all reproduction at the site We also received and considered for the year. In the proposed rules published on many comments relating to critical Our Response: We included this August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47590), we habitat and the associated observation under Summary of Factors requested that all interested parties environmental assessment and Affecting the Species, Grazing and submit written comments on the economic analysis of critical habitat, but Trampling. In our proposal and this proposals by October 7, 2013. We also responses to these comments are not document we acknowledge that contacted appropriate Federal and State included here because we are herbivory and trampling can be severe agencies, scientific experts and withdrawing the proposed listing and at some locations, but despite such organizations, and other interested critical habitat rules for the Graham’s intense impacts from sheep, this parties and invited them to comment on beardtongue and White River monitoring site still had a stochastic the proposals. Newspaper notices beardtongue. Where comments on our population growth rate slightly above inviting general public comment and proposed critical habitat are also one (MacCaffrey 2013a, p. 15); therefore, announcing our informational meeting relevant to the species’ biology or we do not consider grazing to be a threat and public hearing were published in distribution, or relevant to our to the species. the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, withdrawal decision, we have addressed Comment (4): One peer reviewer and Uintah Basin Standard. We received these issues in this document as provided updated information about the requests for a public hearing, which was appropriate. results of transplantation of Graham’s held in Vernal, Utah, on May 28, 2014. Peer Review Comments beardtongue in 2012. None of the plants We reopened the comment period on survived transplantation. Comment (1): One peer reviewer May 6, 2014, for 60 days (79 FR 25806), Our Response: We included this urged us to protect Graham’s and White to accept comments on the proposed additional information under Summary rules and several related documents (see River beardtongues by designating an Area of Critical Environmental Concern of Factors Affecting the Species, Road Previous Federal Actions). Maintenance and Construction. During the 2 comment periods for the (ACEC). Our Response: An Area of Critical Comment (5): One peer reviewer proposed rules, we received 4,889 Environmental Concern may only be asked us to update our citation of Dodge comment letters supporting or opposing designated by the BLM. An ACEC that 2013 to Reisor 2013, because the the proposed listing of Graham’s and overlaps a portion of Graham’s and author’s name has changed. White river beardtongues with White River beardtongues has been Our Response: We did not cite this designated critical habitat. During the designated in Colorado by the BLM. No document correctly in the 2013 May 28, 2014, public hearing, one ACEC was designated by BLM in Utah. proposal, so we have updated this organization commented on the Comment (2): Several peer reviewers citation. proposed rules. All substantive provided corrections, clarifications, or Comment (6): One peer reviewer information provided during the suggested additions to the biological found that our description of the slopes comment periods is either incorporated background information for Graham’s where the species are found was directly into this document or addressed beardtongue. One peer reviewer accurate but may represent a survey bias below. clarified that a cool, wet spring may because some slopes are too steep to In accordance with our peer review have reduced herbivory on Graham’s safely survey, so the proportion of policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR beardtongue, but effects on reproduction plants on steeper slopes may be higher 34270), we solicited expert opinion are not definitive. One peer reviewer than we represent. from seven appropriate and pointed out that the flowering period is Our Response: We agree with the independent specialists with scientific late April to late June with seeds comment, but our analysis of the expertise that included familiarity with ripening between mid-June and mid- relationship between slopes and Graham’s and White River beardtongues August. One peer reviewer suggested species’ presence is based on best and their habitat, biological needs, and that we add that, ‘‘maintaining both a available information, which shows that threats. We received responses from sufficient number of reproducing plants the average slope where the species four of the peer reviewers. We reviewed per population, a sufficient number of occurs is 17.6 degrees. Since there are all comments received from the peer those populations and connectivity little data showing that the species reviewers for substantive issues and between those populations is needed to occurs on steeper slopes, we used the new information regarding the listing of ensure cross-pollination and genetic best information available. Graham’s and White River diversity of the species.’’ Two peer Comment (7): One peer reviewer beardtongues. One peer reviewer said reviewers suggested that we change our questioned the importance of ‘‘cushion- that our description and analysis of the description of the average lifespan of the like’’ herbs we described in our biology, habitat, geology, soils, plant species—the average lifespan is proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR community associates, climatic unknown, but plants have been 47832) to the natural community where conditions, population trends, and documented surviving for at least 10 Graham’s and White River beardtongue historic and current distribution of the years in monitoring plots over a 10-year grows and wondered what other species are accurate. Two peer period. cushion-like plants besides Arenaria reviewers found that the proposed rule Our Response: We included this hookeri occur in the same natural provided an accurate and adequate information under Background— community. review and analysis of the factors Graham’s beardtongue, Species Our Response: Cushion-like plants in affecting the species. Two peer Information. Graham’s beardtongue habitat include reviewers also stated that we reached Comment (3): One peer reviewer Chamaechaenactis scaposa (fullstem), logical conclusions and included stated that sheep grazing can have Parthenium ligulatum (Colorado pertinent literature. Other peer reviewer significant impacts to Graham’s feverfew), Townsendia mensana (table comments are addressed in the beardtongue. Sheep were observed townsend daisy), the Hymenoxys following summary and incorporated browsing all inflorescenses of Graham’s species (rubberweeds) and some of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46051

Cryptantha species (Cryptantha) (Neese fruits is produced when flowers are not fully understand the relationship and Smith 1982). cross-pollinated. between the precipitation regime and Comment (8): One peer reviewer said Our Response: We reviewed the the response of Graham’s beardtongue. that Graham’s beardtongue overlaps the Dodge and Yates 2009 paper and have We welcome any further information on Douglas Creek and Parachute Creek included the citation under Summary of this relationship. members of the Green River Formation Factors Affecting the Species, Road Comment (18): One peer reviewer but agreed that the description of the Construction and Maintenance and noted that surveys for the Graham’s and soils and geology of White River Small Population Size. White River beardtongues were also beardtongue in our proposed rule to Comment (14): One peer reviewer conducted by the Utah Natural Heritage designate critical habitat (78 FR 47832) informed us that additional occurrences Program and funded by the Utah was accurate. of Graham’s beardtongue were found in Endangered Species Mitigation Fund Our Response: We found that 2,654 2013. and Uintah County. Graham’s beardtongue plants overlap Our Response: We have incorporated Our Response: We recognize and are with the Douglas Creek member of the the additional data from the 2013 survey appreciative of the contributions to Green River formation, which represents season into our analysis. surveying for both beardtongue species a small percentage of the total Comment (15): One peer reviewer by the State of Utah and Uintah County. population. We have updated the suggested that we review herbarium We explain the role of the State and Background—Graham’s beardtongue, specimens to verify the range of White County under Background—Graham’s Species Information, Habitat section to River beardtongue. beardtongue, Previous Federal Action. reflect this overlap. Our Response: The peer reviewer did These surveys have contributed to our Comment (9): One peer reviewer not provide any additional information improved understanding of the noted that photographs show Graham’s or documentation that verifies the distribution of both species. beardtongue growing on open slopes, correct identification of herbarium Comment (19): One peer reviewer canyon rims, and occasionally in pinon- specimens or the accuracy of locations believed that our plant data were juniper openings. where the herbarium specimens were inadequate to determine population Our Response: We include these found. Until both of these are verified abundances and trends because we habitat types in this document (see by a qualified botanist, we will continue analyzed the population data as a whole Background—Graham’s beardtongue, to consider these herbarium specimens instead of analyzing the data separately Species Information, Habitat). as unverified. We identified the range of for each individual population. Further, Comment (10): One peer reviewer White River beardtongue by using the the peer reviewer stated that noted the importance of pollinators. best available information, which metapopulation dynamics are important They cited an example of a plant species consists of locations that were verified for understanding population trends that lost its pollinator and stopped both to the correct subspecies and and that we should evaluate these producing seed. location. This documented information relationships. Our Response: We agree with the came from many sources including the Our Response: This document importance of pollinators and retain this UNHP (2012 and 2013b), CNHP (2014), discusses the available monitoring discussion in our withdrawal. BLM (2013b) and private parties (see information, our assumptions, and the Comment (11): One peer reviewer Background—White River Beardtongue, lack of abundance data (see found that our description of the Species Information, Distribution and Background—Graham’s beardtongue, importance of intact soils to Graham’s Trends). We will consider additional Species Information, Distribution and and White River beardtongues is correct information as it becomes available. Background—White River beardtongue, although he described finding Graham’s Comment (16): One peer reviewer Species Information, Distribution). We and White River beardtongues in stated that he has observed deer grazing did not lump species data to determine disturbed soils adjacent to a pipeline on Graham’s beardtongue. trends but instead used the best and road. Our Response: Deer are listed as one available information on population Our Response: We are aware of of the grazers of Graham’s beardtongue trends, which comes from two sites for isolated instances where the species under Summary of Factors Affecting the each species. We recognize that may persist adjacent to soil disturbance. Species, Grazing and Trampling. individual population trends for other However, these locations do not provide However, we do not have information populations may differ from the the full complement of associated plants suggesting that deer herbivory is a threat monitored populations, and to that end or pollinator species and thus would not to the species. As discussed in the two new monitoring sites were added provide suitable habitat for the species’ section listed above, we do not consider for Graham’s beardtongue in 2010, and long-term viability. grazing by deer a threat to the species one additional monitoring site was Comment (12): One commenter because demographic data show the added in 2010 for White River provided information that thickleaf monitoring sites for Graham’s beardtongue. In addition, rangewide beardtongue and Fremont’s beardtongue beardtongue are stable despite the monitoring will be initiated under the occur in the vicinity of Graham’s and current level of observed herbivory 2014 Conservation Agreement. The two White River beardtongue and might be (MacCaffrey 2013a, p. 15). sites that were monitored for 9 years important for supporting pollinators. Comment (17): While building a show that those individual populations Our Response: We agree with the species’ distribution model for Graham’s of Graham’s beardtongue were stable comment and included this information beardtongue, one peer reviewer found and that the two monitored populations in our description of the habitat (see that late-season moisture was important of White River beardtongue were stable Background—Graham’s beardtongue in determining the distribution of the and close to stable. Further work is and White River beardtongue, Species species. needed to determine if the trends at Information, Habitat). Our Response: We requested more these sites are representative of the Comment (13): One peer reviewer information on this topic, but the peer entire population. asked us to add the citation of Dodge reviewer did not provide data that We acknowledge that there are gaps in and Yates 2009 to support our supports this assumption, and we do our understanding of the species’ discussion that the highest number of not have additional information. We do abundance based on the available

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

abundance data. We reported only community including pollinators, soils, meet the definition of a threatened known abundances in the proposed rule and hydrology. species and that they should be and in this document, and acknowledge Our Response: We do not fully protected under the Act. that the actual abundance of both understand how Graham’s and White Our Response: At the time of species may be higher. River beardtongues respond to livestock publication of the 2013 proposed listing Comment (20): One peer reviewer grazing pressure, including trampling. rule, we concluded that threats to identified an additional population of However, monitored populations that Graham’s and White River beardtongues White River beardtongue that was overlap active grazing allotments show included negative effects from energy located in Colorado in 2013. a stable trend over a 9-year monitoring exploration and development and Our Response: We have included the period. Therefore, we did not find cumulative impacts from increased additional population of White River livestock trampling to be a threat, as energy development, livestock grazing, beardtongue found in Colorado into our discussed under Summary of Factors invasive weeds, small population sizes, dataset (see Figure 2). Affecting the Species, Grazing and and climate change. These threats have Comment (21): One peer reviewer Trampling. since been addressed in the 2014 CA, in asserted that we did not support our Comment (24): One peer reviewer part by creating conservation areas that conclusions regarding the historical found that we did not sufficiently will protect the species from ground- distribution and abundance of the consider small population size as a disturbing activities. factor affecting the species, citing that Graham’s and White River Tribal Comments beardtongues, as grazing may have small populations are more likely to go (27) Comment: The Ute Indian Tribe extirpated additional populations of extinct than large populations, and that isolated small populations become even (Tribe) asked us to comply with our both species. Widespread, heavy, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the unregulated historical grazing may have more vulnerable to extinction. Our Response: Although we found Tribe, the Executive Order on reduced the distribution and abundance that small population size contributed Government-to-Government of the species. More recently, livestock to other factors that were a cumulative Consultation, the Department of the grazing was reported as a threat to threat to the species without Interior’s Policy on Consultation with Graham’s beardtongue by several protections, we no longer consider small Indian Tribal Governments, and the biologists (Neese 1982; Frates 2014). population size a threat to the species Secretarial Order on American Indian Our Response: The historical because we have reduced threats that Tribal Rights, Federal—Tribal Trust distribution and abundance of Graham’s may isolate populations through the Responsibilities, and the Act. The Tribe beardtongue is unknown, and the conservation measures in the 2014 CA. stated that listing actions will directly reviewer did not provide information on Sufficient numbers of large and small affect the Tribe and that proposed the potential extent of the historical populations of both beardtongue species critical habitat borders trust lands and range. Historical heavy grazing and will be conserved to provide resiliency are within the Tribe’s Uintah and Ouray trampling may have extirpated some and redundancy to each species Reservation. Since the Tribe is a major individuals or populations of both throughout their ranges. The 2014 CA energy producer, they are concerned species; however, this most likely did provides for the establishment of that the proposed actions will affect the not reduce the range of either species conservation areas that protect these economy and interests of the Tribe by because current monitored populations populations and provide connectivity. significantly impacting oil and gas are still stable or close to stable despite The protection of populations within development on their Reservation. observations of livestock grazing and conservation areas will provide for the Our Response: In the proposed rule, trampling at monitoring sites. continued persistence of both species. we determined that no tribal lands were Comment (22): One peer reviewer Comment (25): One peer reviewer known to be occupied by the found that we did not sufficiently noted that during surveys in 2013 an beardtongues. Therefore, we did not analyze the naturalness of the extensive and moderately dense cover of propose to designate critical habitat for hydrologic regime as a factor affecting purple mustard (Chorispora tenella), an either species on tribal lands. It is the species. invasive weed, was found occurring possible that one or both species occurs Our Response: We agree that the with Graham’s beardtongue in the on tribal lands in potential habitat that hydrologic regime may be important for Raven Ridge ACEC. This reviewer has not been surveyed. At the time of these beardtongues, especially since concluded that weed invasion is a threat publication of our May 6, 2014, subsurface mining may produce fissures to Graham’s beardtongue. document reopening the comment that alter surface hydrologic regimes Our Response: We have updated the period (79 FR 25806), we contacted the (Hotchkiss et al. 1980. p. 46). We do not Summary of Factors Affecting the Tribal chair and Tribal attorney by have nor did the peer reviewer provide Species, Invasive Weeds section of this phone and email regarding the proposed specific information on the hydrologic document with this new information. rules and the document, and updated regime for these species. However, However, we do not agree that this them on the reopening of the public because both plant species occur across instance of an invasive weed invasion comment period and the availability of a wide range and in sufficient numbers, constitutes a threat to the species the draft 2014 CA, economic analysis, we find that the current hydrologic because there are sufficient numbers of and environmental assessment for regime is sufficient to sustain the populations of Graham’s beardtongue review and comment. Also, at that time species for the future with the that are unaffected by invasive weeds. we offered to discuss the proposed rules establishment of conservation areas. In addition, further evidence that purple with the Tribe. Comment (23): One peer reviewer mustard is negatively impacting the suggested that we consider livestock population of Graham’s beardtongue State and County Comments trampling as a significant threat because would be needed for it to be considered (28) Comment: The Utah Governor’s it can affect the species at multiple a threat to the species. Office, Utah Public Lands Policy scales including direct impacts to the Comment (26): One peer reviewer Coordination Office (PLPCO), Duchesne species, degradation of habitat, and even agreed with our conclusion that both County, Carbon County, and other large landscape effects to the Graham’s and White River beardtongues commenters stated that the listing of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46053

Graham’s and White River beardtongues high level of development within these restriction to 50,000 acres per should be withdrawn because there is species’ habitats is not yet realized, we individual or corporation. While the no basis for concluding that either expect it to increase in the future, growth of the industry may be slow, this species is threatened as defined in the although we acknowledge some does not remove the likelihood of the Act. The State finds the proposal to list uncertainties regarding when oil shale threat from energy development in is unsupported by sufficient scientific and tar sands development will occur. beardtongue habitat where energy information, data, and analysis and is A number of factors may limit the resources exist. The Consolidated based on inaccurate interpretations growth rate of the oil shale and Appropriations Act of 2008 did not concerning regulatory actions such as traditional oil and gas industry, but place a moratorium on oil shale leasing; energy development and mining these factors do not remove the however, it did specify that oil shale proposals. Additionally, the State has likelihood of energy development in the regulation development and leasing was expertise in the conservation of species future. We included the University of not funded that year. However, the 2014 and in the responsible development of Utah (Institute for Clean and Secure CA reduces the threat to Graham’s and oil shale and oil and gas resources. Such Energy 2013, entire) study projections of White River beardtongues on BLM lands expertise must be considered in the likely industrial growth in our by establishing conservation areas evaluation of data, the regulatory discussion of oil shale and tar sands in where surface disturbance will be mechanisms available, and in the ability this document (see Summary of Factors limited, and where plants will be to generate and enforce a conservation Affecting the Species, Energy buffered from surface disturbances by agreement for both beardtongues. Exploration and Development). distances of 91.4 m (300 ft). Outside Our Response: We used the best However, the 2014 CA provides conservation areas on BLM lands, any scientific and commercial information significant conservation actions for the surface disturbance will avoid plants by available for the purpose of making a beardtongues on State, private, and 91.4 m (300 ft). These measures final listing determination for Graham’s Federal lands across their range (see sufficiently address the threats to both and White River beardtongues, Ongoing and Future Conservation species from oil shale development. including the newly created 2014 CA, Efforts). We determined that the (31) Comment: The PLPCO and other and we concluded that the species no conservation agreement measures will commenters believe we overstated longer meet the definitions of be effective at reducing threats to the impacts from potential oil shale threatened or endangered species under beardtongues. development on State and private lands. the Act. We agree that Graham’s and (30) Comment: The PLPCO, Duchesne The commenters stated that these White River beardtongue conservation County, and other commenters stated projects are designed to minimize can be accomplished through the 2014 that we made erroneous factual surface impacts and impairment of plant CA (see Ongoing and Future assumptions about likely energy species and thus would limit Conservation Efforts). development on BLM lands and its disturbance to only a few thousand (29) Comment: The PLPCO and impact on the beardtongues. The acres maximum at any one time. several commenters stated impacts to commenters stated that the BLM Additionally, the projects will transition the species from oil shale and determined no commercially viable from surface mining to underground traditional oil and gas development in technologies for oil shale extraction in mining depending upon the depth of the the future will be limited. The PLPCO Utah exist, and that BLM lands will not resource. Another commenter stated cites a University of Utah study (2013) be available to leasing except in 160- that the economic reality is that surface to support the growth projections of the acre increments under research, mining would not occur in areas with industry, and concluded that development, and demonstration an average overburden greater than 30.5 development would remain minimal (RD&D) leases. Only upon compliance m (100 ft), and the most commercially due to low natural gas prices; however, with lease provisions would additional attractive areas for oil shale mining the study did not specify a timeframe lands become available for commercial would be candidates for underground for this projection. Even if development lease. Currently, there is only one active mining. Commenters further stated that were to occur, the commenters believe RD&D lease in Utah. Another the land occupied by surface mining at we overstated its impact. Any projected commenter stated there are no actual any one time would be a small fraction drilling in beardtongue habitat will be proposals to develop oil shale from the of the habitat area, and mining areas for natural gas rather than oil. The vast majority of these parcels. Another would be rapidly reclaimed. PLPCO and another commenter stated commenter stated the Consolidated Our Response: In our 2013 proposal, promising new production techniques Appropriations Act of 2008 placed a we assumed surface mining would for oil shale and tar sands will likely Congressional moratorium on all occur where the overburden is less than further reduce forecasted environmental Federal oil shale leasing. 152 m (500 ft) deep. This is consistent impacts. Other commenters cited Our Response: The BLM lands with the Record of Decision for the economic and technical uncertainties identified in the proposed rule and this OSTEIS, which stated surface mining of that call into question large-scale, rapid withdrawal are based upon acreages oil shale in Utah is allowed where the oil shale development on public and potentially available for leasing as overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. While private lands. identified in the BLM Programmatic Oil a high level of development within Our Response: We used the best Shale and Tar Sands Environmental these species’ habitats is not yet scientific and commercially available Impact Statement (OSTEIS). While a realized, we expect it to increase in the information for our analysis. Our high level of development within these future because the Record of Decision analysis of energy development species’ habitats is not yet realized, we for the OSTEIS identifies a large included the locations of traditional expect it to increase in the future percentage of the range of the hydrocarbon resource deposits and oil because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 beardtongues for oil shale and tar sands shale and tar sands resources, plant identifies the entire range of the development. In addition, we do not abundance and habitat overlapping beardtongues as a priority for oil shale have documentation that reclaimed these areas, and the regulatory and tar sands development, requires the mined areas can support either mechanisms in place to protect the establishment of a commercial leasing beardtongue species. However, the 2014 beardtongues in these areas. While a program, and increases the lease acreage CA provides significant conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

actions for both beardtongues on State, (34) Comment: Several commenters reclaimed soils (see Ongoing and Future private, and Federal lands across their stated there are sufficient regulatory Conservation Efforts). ranges (see Ongoing and Future mechanisms on BLM lands to protect (36) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA Conservation Efforts). We determined the beardtongues, including protections stated that we failed to show that that the 2014 CA measures will reduce through the OSTEIS and those applied pristine, natural environments are threats to the beardtongues. as a BLM special status species. The necessary for the species’ conservation, (32) Comment: The PLPCO and one PLPCO and SITLA stated that we and it is speculative to conclude other commenter stated we incorrectly provide no support for why we believe disturbance is detrimental to these indicated that no regulatory spatial buffers are not sufficient to species. mechanisms exist with regard to Red minimize impacts to the beardtongues. Our Response: Although individual Leaf’s project on SITLA lands. The State Another commenter stated the BLM plants may occupy some disturbed permit for Red Leaf’s project specifically Vernal Field Office Resource habitats, it is unlikely that these includes protection for Graham’s Management Plan (RMP) creates a disturbed areas can support the species beardtongue. setback zone from the Mahogany Ledge on an ecosystem level and support Our Response: We appreciate the outcrop so this area believed to be of viable populations for the long-term. information regarding the permit for the greatest concern is not available for With very few exceptions, all sites Red Leaf project. Although the permit leasing. The commenter stated that where both beardtongue species occur may provide some conservation Graham’s beardtongue survival can be are located in undisturbed soils. benefits, we also note that Red Leaf’s adequately ensured through avoidance Additional studies are planned through mining permit allows that most of the and revegetation. Another commenter the 2014 CA to better assess the ability land surface will be disturbed by and Duchesne County stated the Raven of the beardtongue species to establish mining. Therefore, the long-term Ridge ACEC protects 87 percent of all and persist on disturbed or reclaimed effectiveness of the measures described known Graham’s beardtongue plants in soils (see Ongoing and Future in the permit is uncertain. Although the Colorado and is sufficient to protect the Conservation Efforts). (37) Comment: The PLPCO, SITLA, 2014 CA does not provide protections species. In the ACEC, motorized travel and another commenter stated that our for Graham’s beardtongue on the is restricted to existing roads and there evidence for indirect effects and habitat property leased by Red Leaf, a sufficient is no surface occupancy restriction for fragmentation effects on the number of plants are protected by the new oil and gas leases. Additionally, beardtongues is speculative. One 2014 CA on BLM lands within that same commenters stated that we discounted commenter stated that there is no clear population. existing efforts to protect the species by (33) Comment: The PLPCO and one evidence the environment is as energy companies. Another commenter other commenter concluded that we fragmented as is implied. They stated stated the majority of oil shale resources grossly overstated the footprint of the that Graham’s beardtongue colonies are and the majority of known plants are on Enefit project and the number of plants already widely dispersed, which Federal land and thus the Federal contained therein by failing to use implies the species tolerates a high accurate mine plan data that are leasing restrictions and imposed plant degree of fragmentation. publicly available. Commenters stated protections will be inherently limiting Our Response: We used information that surveys in 2013 of the Enefit South and protective. on the effects of habitat fragmentation Project found 117 and 413 individuals Our Response: The protections in the on other similar plant species to infer of Graham’s and White River OSTEIS apply only to plant species what the effects would be to the beardtongue, respectively. These listed under the Act. The Vernal RMP beardtongues, because this represented numbers represent 0.3 percent and 3 does not create a setback zone from the the best available information. Some percent of known Graham’s and White Mahogany Ledge outcrop. However, effects of habitat fragmentation include River beardtongue plants, respectively, landscape-level protections are included smaller and more isolated populations rangewide rather than the 19 percent in the 2014 CA through the that have an increased risk of extinction, and 26 percent identified in the identification of conservation areas for the potential for inbreeding depression, proposed rule. Enefit stated that their the species rangewide (see Ongoing and loss of genetic diversity, and lower South Project will develop 2,833 ha to Future Conservation Efforts) and by the sexual reproduction (see Summary of 3,642 ha (7,000 to 9,000 ac) rather than Raven Ridge ACEC protections in Factors Affecting the Species, Small the 10,117 ha (25,000 ac) identified in Colorado. Population Size). Although habitat the proposed rule. (35) Comment: The PLPCO stated fragmentation may not be currently Our Response: We used the best that, since the oil shale industry will high, we expect that, without the 2014 scientific and commercially available develop gradually, we should consider CA conservation actions, habitat information for our analysis. Our a research program to determine the fragmentation would increase in the analysis of the Enefit project was based beardtongues’ ability to be propagated future as large-scale surface mining and upon total acreage that was either and moved into reclaimed areas. oil and gas development accelerates. owned, leased, or optioned for lease by Another commenter stated the (38) Comment: The PLPCO, SITLA, the company; the amount of plant beardtongues are robust and would and another commenter stated that we abundance and habitat overlapping likely succeed in reseeding or assume both species are tightly these areas; and the regulatory transplanting efforts on reclaimed soils. associated with the Mahogany Ledge mechanisms to protect the beardtongues Our Response: We agree that within the Parachute Creek Member of on these areas. We updated the additional research on this topic would the Green River formation, but plants information in this document to be beneficial because restoration of occur far above and below this ledge differentiate impacts from Enefit’s South plants of arid ecosystems remains and on various soil types. Project from the entire area owned, largely unsuccessful and unproven. Our Response: We acknowledge that leased or optioned for lease by Enefit Additional studies are being planned not all individuals are found within the (see Summary of Factors Affecting the through the 2014 CA to better assess the Mahogany Ledge feature. However, the Species, Energy Exploration and ability of the beardtongue species to majority of individuals, or Development). establish and persist on disturbed or approximately 63 percent and 69

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46055

percent of the total population of map the populations realistically for an of pollinator limitation, dust, invasive Graham’s and White River accurate threat analysis. weeds, grazing, small population size, beardtongues, respectively, are Our Response: We used EOs to and climate change pose a threat associated with the Mahogany Ledge characterize the number of populations cumulatively. They contend that we feature. for the beardtongues because it is a have not demonstrated any impacts (39) Comment: The PLPCO, SITLA, standard protocol for delineating from any of these factors because Duchesne County, and other populations used by the State of Utah neither species appears to suffer from commenters stated that we Heritage Program as well as other States’ pollinator limitations, dust, or invasive characterized the magnitude of the native plant programs (see weeds. potential threats in terms of number of Background—Graham’s beardtongue, Our Response: We stated in the 2013 known populations or individuals while Distribution), and we find this an proposed rule that the two beardtongues acknowledging the surveys for both acceptable, biologically-based method to have stable populations and that species are incomplete. They further define populations. Much of the substantial threats are currently not asserted that our understanding of the location data we received as point occurring. As such, we determined that amount of potential habitat may be a locations do not reflect the actual plant livestock grazing, invasive weeds, small substantial underestimation of the distribution across the landscape population sizes and climate change actual amount. Commenters stated that because in many cases one point were not a threat in themselves, but the predictive models for both species represents many plants distributed over when combined with energy are pending and the model results will varying areas. Thus, we rely on EOs development were a cumulative threat be based upon occurrences and data not because of the discrepancy in the data to the species. However, we concluded considered in the proposed rule. One and its standard use to delineate that barring additional conservation commenter stated that only a small populations. measures, threats would be likely to portion of Graham’s beardtongue (41) Comment: The PLPCO and occur in the future, at a high intensity, habitat, perhaps less than 1 percent, another commenter disagreed with our and across both species’ entire ranges. conclusion that the proposed Enefit oil across its range has been surveyed and Our conclusions were based on future shale project will reduce connectivity thus it is fair to assume the species can impacts to the species that would occur between Utah and Colorado Graham’s be in areas that have not been surveyed. in concert with energy development. beardtongue populations. They argue The commenter asserted that these Furthermore, we discussed pollinator the current distance between errors and omissions emphasize our limitation as a negative effect of habitat populations 19 and 20 is 6.8 km (4.2 m), limited understanding of the species’ fragmentation due to the threat of which is nearly 10 times the pollinator distributions. energy development. distance needed to maintain gene flow (43) Comment: The PLPCO, SITLA, Our Response: We are required to use and connectivity between populations. Duchesne County, and other the best available information when The current pollinator distances of 700 evaluating a species’ status and making m for Graham’s beardtongue and 500 m commenters stated the proposed a listing determination. We considered for White River beardtongues are less pollinator buffers are too large and not the predictive models during this than 6.8 km (4.2 m), so therefore any supported by science. They stated that analysis and agree there is additional disturbance between these populations we did not demonstrate that smaller potential habitat for both species. will not fragment populations that are pollination buffers would be However, we based our determination not connected by pollinators. insufficient. on known information about the Our Response: We can infer that gene Our Response: We used the best species, which includes survey data flow must be occurring between these scientific and commercial information showing the extent and abundance of populations, because otherwise they available to identify the pollinators of the species. Unsurveyed suitable habitat would be different species, or diverging both beardtongues, identify the habitat may increase both the known from the species. Graham’s beardtongue requirements necessary to support these distribution and total population pollinators are capable of travelling at pollinators, and quantify their foraging numbers for both species in the future. least 700 meters (see Background— distances to inform the pollinator buffer (40) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA Graham’s beardtongue, Biology) during distance for both beardtongues (see questioned our methods to determine foraging. However, pollinator dispersal Background—Graham’s beardtongue, Element Occurrences (EOs) to delineate distances can occur over a greater Biology, and Background—White River populations for the beardtongues when distance than foraging distance; beardtongue, Biology). the pollinator travel distances differ dispersal distances for pollinator’s of (44) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA from the EO delineation distance. The Graham’s beardtongue pollinators are stated the literature to support our PLPCO stated the EO construct muddles not known but long-distance dispersal is assumption that pollinators will not a realistic discussion of the important for pollinators to ensure cross roads or other disturbed areas is discontinuous distribution of the two access to adequate resources (Tepedino speculative. They stated that the species, does not allow the effects of 2014, entire). In addition, unsurveyed pollinator studies cited have no activities to be weighed against actual areas between populations 19 and 20 relevance to species, ecological plant locations, and thereby overstates may contain occurrences of Graham’s communities, or conditions in the Uinta the alleged fragmentation of habitat, and White River beardtongue plants that Basin. establishes a completely false sense of are important for providing Our Response: We used the best accuracy, and does not use the best connectivity. We used genetic studies scientific and commercial information available data. Furthermore, from other plant species, comprising the available to identify the behavior of commenters stated we do not provide best information available, to infer the beardtongue pollinators in disturbed information regarding the ecological effects of habitat fragmentation on gene areas (see Summary of Factors Affecting significance of EOs, and PLPCO flow between beardtongue populations the Species I. Energy Exploration and questioned why we did not use EOs in (see Small Population Size, below). Development). The best available the threat analysis but rather individual (42) Comment: The PLPCO disagreed information includes studies from plant numbers. The PLPCO urged us to with our conclusion that indirect factors outside of the Uinta Basin that were

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46056 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

used to infer the effects to beardtongue Our Response: In our 2013 proposed problems exist with the scientific pollinators. rule, we documented that weeds alter conclusions and logic concerning the (45) Comment: The PLPCO, SITLA the frequency, intensity, extent, type, effects of climate change. They contend and other commenters stated that we and seasonality of fires (see Summary of that, because we acknowledged the did not indicate whether the higher Factors Affecting the Species, Invasive correct environmental factors driving level of reproduction resulting from Weeds). While weeds are not abundant reproduction and survival of the cross-pollination is necessary to in beardtongue habitat, they are present, beardtongues have not been measured, maintain viable populations. They and are abundant in adjacent habitat we have inaccurately characterized the noted that our proposed rule concluded and where soil disturbance occurs. We species’ population status and trends. that low pollinator visitation for White considered weeds a future threat in our Another commenter stated our argument River beardtongue was not considered a 2013 proposed rule because the amount that climate change impacts will be limiting factor. of energy development, and associated more severe if energy development Our Response: Cross-pollinated soil disturbance, expected to occur destroys and fragments the habitat is flowers produce more seeds and fruits across these species’ ranges is likely to speculation and not a basis for finding than self-pollinated flowers in these increase weed prevalence within a cumulative threat to the species. They species (Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 18; beardtongue habitat, as well as the further stated we provided no factual Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 234). likelihood that weeds will increase with support that climate change is likely to Since both beardtongues benefit from climate change. However, in this final augment the ability of invasive plants to cross-pollination, it is important to rule we determined that the 2014 CA outcompete native plants. maintain pollinator populations so that actions will be effective at eliminating Our Response: Climate change is beardtongue seed production and or reducing threats to the beardtongues, occurring, and there is strong scientific genetic diversity are maximized. including the potential threat from support for projections that warming However, the establishment of weeds. will continue through the 21st century conservation areas for both species will (48) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA (see Climate Change under Factor E.). provide pollinator habitat and corridors stated that we concluded dust can While down-scaled climate models of between populations. negatively affect plants, but we did not the Uinta Basin are not available, annual provide information on: (1) The amount mean precipitation levels are projected (46) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA of dust deposited at what distance; (2) to decrease, and air temperatures and stated we did not indicate what the extent to which dust deposition may periods of drought are expected to ‘‘sufficiently large numbers or adversely affect beardtongue growth and increase in western North America. population distribution’’ means in the reproduction; and (3) whether those Because the scientific literature, context of preventing inbreeding adverse effects are likely to reduce the including the citations PLPCO provided depression in Graham’s beardtongue. viability of the species. They further in their comments, indicate the Our Response: We assessed the effects stated that stability of two beardtongue importance of precipitation for plant from inbreeding depression based upon research plots adjacent to unpaved recruitment, we considered future studies from other plant species because roads suggests the effects of fugitive precipitation patterns in our analysis of they comprised the best information dust may not be significantly adverse to climate change and the likely reduction available at the time. However, we did individual plants even on a cumulative of plant recruitment under reduced not attempt to apply the population size basis. Thus, it is speculative to conclude precipitation and increased incidence of or distribution recommendations from the disturbance from dust is detrimental drought. Additionally, soils are these other studies to the beardtongues to these species. expected to dry more rapidly because of because those values are species Our Response: Based on existing increased temperatures and this is likely specific. Therefore, we provided a studies that examined the effects of dust to result in reduced soil moisture levels general discussion regarding inbreeding on plants, including those in the Uinta in beardtongue habitat (see Summary of depression. However, we do not believe Basin, we found that dust can affect Factors Affecting the Species, Climate that inbreeding depression is a threat plants up to 1,000 m (3280 ft) away with Change). Climate change impacts likely because there are sufficient large greater effects closer to the disturbance will be more severe if oil and gas populations of Graham’s beardtongue (Service 2014a, entire). Effects of development destroys and fragments the protected within conservation areas that fugitive dust include changes in species habitat. Development activities in allow for a large reservoir of genetic composition, altered soil properties, currently unoccupied but suitable diversity. blocked stomata, reduced foraging habitat for the species could limit the (47) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA capacity of pollinators, dehydration, potential range expansion or shifts and another commenter stated that we reduced reproductive output, and a necessary for both species to adapt to did not demonstrate that weeds are a decline in reproductive fitness (see climate change. The 2014 CA creates threat or increase the risk of Summary of Factors Affecting the conservation areas that limit surface catastrophic wildfire. The PLPCO, Species, Energy Exploration). However, disturbance and create spatial buffers so SITLA, and another commenter stated the establishment of conservation areas that the cumulative effects of energy the presence of weeds in adjacent that limit disturbance, and the use of development, livestock grazing, small habitat does not suggest they will spatial disturbance buffers of 91.4 m population sizes, invasive weeds, and encroach in actual beardtongue habitat. (300 ft) from plants within conservation climate change are reduced. They further stated that weeds are areas and on all BLM lands, reduce dust (50) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA unlikely to out-compete the generation near both species thus stated that demographic studies beardtongues or increase the wildfire reducing the threat from dust. The 91.4 (McCaffery 2013a; Reisor and Yates risk. One commenter stated that m (300-ft) buffer from disturbance will 2011) do not incorporate acceptable Graham’s beardtongue habitat is open ensure that the greatest impacts from sample sizes and analyses as defined by and generally devoid of other plant dust, which occur closest to the Morris and Doak (2002). Both species, suggesting the habitat provides disturbance, will be reduced. commenters provided additional some immunity to crowding from (49) Comment: The PLPCO and other citations relevant to population models. invasive weeds. commenters stated that substantial They raise several concerns, including:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46057

(1) Limited study locations that do not Our Response: We used information were likely to occur in the future, at a represent the species’ ranges and, from scientists with expertise in botany high intensity and across both species’ therefore, the potential range of and specific knowledge of one or both entire ranges. We have worked demographic variability and species, in addition to published cooperatively with various stakeholders, environmental stochasticity; (2) the literature and data, where available, to including the BLM, to finalize the 2014 sample contains large detection errors evaluate the best available scientific CA to address these identified threats that limit the applicability and information for both beardtongues in (see Ongoing and Future Conservation statistical rigor of the analyses and are order to complete a status assessment Efforts). We determined that the 2014 not accounted for in the Population and determine the resource needs for CA measures will be effective at Viability Analysis (McLoughlin and species viability. eliminating or reducing threats to the Messier 2004); and (3) the population (53) Comment: The PLPCO stated that beardtongues. trend and condition cannot be we misapplied an existing conservation (56) Comment: Rio Blanco and Carbon accurately derived from the study data. agreement for the species and did not counties stated that grazing permittees Therefore, they contend that a minimum consider recent efforts to develop a new will be negatively impacted by the population size for these species cannot agreement. The County, State, BLM, and proposed rule. They contend that the accurately be determined. affected industries have been working potential impact and trampling damage Our Response: We acknowledge the together to build a comprehensive from large deer and elk populations limitations inherent in the demographic conservation plan for the two species. were only briefly mentioned, but many studies on both beardtongue species. We Our Response: We agree that beardtongue populations overlap with used the best scientific and commercial Graham’s and White River beardtongue summer and winter range for mule deer information available to assess conservation should be pursued by and elk. Additionally, they contend that population status and trends for the State, local, private, and Federal this area has a huge population of wild beardtongues. The demographic studies agencies, and actions to achieve this horses and it was a flaw not to include we cited provide the only long-term objective are detailed in the 2014 CA this information in the proposed rule. population information for both species, (see Ongoing and Future Conservation Our Response: In the 2013 proposed and we considered and included those Efforts). The 2014 CA provides rule, we stated that livestock were likely significant conservation actions to not the primary grazers of Graham’s and study results in our analysis. We did not benefit Graham’s and White River White River beardtongue. We updated establish a minimum population size for beardtongue. Conservation measures in the section in this document to clarify either species in our proposed rule or the 2007 Conservation Agreement were that wild horses use the habitat areas. this document; rather, we stated that considered in the proposal, but did not We mention some herbivory was populations of either species with fewer contain sufficient conservation actions attributed to deer (see Summary of than 150 individuals are more prone to to address threats to the species. Factors Affecting the Species, Grazing extinction from stochastic events (see (54) Comment: The SITLA provided and Trampling). We do not have data Summary of Factors Affecting the citations of scientific literature that they showing the presence or impacts from Species, Small Population Size). believe were relevant to our analysis in elk in beardtongue habitat. (51) Comment: The PLPCO and the 2013 proposed rule, but were not (57) Comment: One commenter stated another commenter stated that our included in the proposed rule. that we failed to discuss obvious assertion that future development will Our Response: We appreciate the management measures to address contribute to genetic isolation and additional citations to support the fragmentation and gene flow. They cited reduced adaptive capacity of small analysis in the 2013 proposed rule. We a court case (CBD v. Norton, 411F. populations is not supported. They have reviewed the information in these Supp. 2d 1271, 1290 (D.N.M. 2005)) contend that it is reasonable to assume studies, but were not able to apply them where the district court rejected that both species, as edaphic (soil- to this document as they were general arguments that a cutthroat trout species related) endemics, are naturally rare and in nature and did not specifically was threatened with extinction from have always occurred in small, isolated address the Graham’s and White River habitat fragmentation and inbreeding populations, and thus genetic effects beardtongue species or the threats they because the threat could be ‘‘alleviated from isolation may be minimal. may face. by management activities’’ including Our Response: We agree that both (55) Comment: Rio Blanco County transplantation. beardtongues are edaphic endemics that stated that listing is unnecessary, the Our Response: Transplanting and were historically rare. We used genetic proposed rule failed to demonstrate propagation as management activities to studies from other plant species, these beardtongue species are being address fragmentation and gene flow of comprising the best information impacted, and our analysis was either beardtongue species have not available at the time, to infer the effects speculative with respect to impacts been proven to be effective in of habitat fragmentation on gene flow identified to occur in the future. The conserving either species. However, we within and between beardtongue County believed we were attempting to worked cooperatively with various populations. We determined it is exclude energy development from the stakeholders to finalize the 2014 CA, incorrect to assume no gene flow is area rather than cooperatively seeking which is considered in this document. occurring between populations without effective mitigation measures for This agreement identifies significant genetic studies. developers to demonstrate they can conservation actions for both (52) Comment: The PLPCO and SITLA avoid or mitigate such impacts. The beardtongues on State, private, and stated that, according to the Service, the County strongly recommended that we Federal lands across their ranges, conservation needs of the species were consult with the BLM on the including the mediation of habitat based upon ‘‘expert workshops’’ rather conservation of the beardtongues. fragmentation and reduced population than actual, available data; and so they Our Response: In our 2013 proposed connectivity (see Table 1 and Ongoing suggest that the Service should rule, we stated that the beardtongues and Future Conservation Efforts). acknowledge that the best available were stable species and that substantial (58) Comment: Several commenters information may not be sufficient to threats were currently not occurring. stated that we provided insufficient support the proposed determination. However, we further stated that threats evidence that grazing is a threat to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46058 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

beardtongues in the proposed rule. One population size, led to our proposed Our Response: Under the Act, we commenter stated that we provided no determination of threatened status for must list a species if the best available scientific or field evidence that disease the species. In the 2013 proposed rule, scientific and commercial information or predation (Factor C) is a threat. we concluded that, while current threats indicates that it meets the definition of Commenters contend that the grazing of from energy development are low, these a threatened or endangered species. grasses is believed to have enhanced the threats are expected to increase in (63) Comment: One commenter stated habitat for Graham’s beardtongue. intensity, magnitude, and severity the penstemon expert meeting notes did Our Response: We considered across the range of both species so that not support the Service’s conclusion of predation from many sources in our they are likely to become endangered in threatened status. Additionally, they proposed rule, including grazing by the foreseeable future. The 2014 CA was were concerned that the comment livestock. We concluded in our developed to reduce these and other period for the proposed rule did not proposed rule that livestock grazing threats to both beardtongue species. coincide with the flowering period of only impacts the beardtongues when (60) Comment: One commenter stated either plant, so it was not possible to considered cumulatively with increased they are concerned that we proposed to confirm or refute population data. energy development, invasive weeds, list a plant variety, rather than a species Our Response: We did not solicit the small population sizes, and climate or subspecies. The commenter requested experts’ opinions regarding whether change. We did not consider disease to that we perform a more thorough listing under the Act was warranted. be a threat to either species, as the best analysis of the uniqueness of White The purpose of the meeting was to available information does not suggest River beardtongue before we conclude evaluate the best available scientific that disease is impacting Graham’s or this status review. information for the beardtongues. We White River beardtongues. In this listing Our Response: White River reopened the comment period from May withdrawal, we have determined that beardtongue is one of four varieties of 6–July 7, 2014, to accommodate the 2014 CA measures will be effective Plateau beardtongue (Penstemon additional time for the public to make at reducing threats to the beardtongues. scariosus). White River beardtongue is comments. This second comment period (59) Comment: SITLA and several differentiated from the other three overlapped flowering for both other commenters stated that we varieties of Plateau beardtongue beardtongue species, which occurs from demonstrated population numbers and primarily by morphological and May through June. increases sufficient for these species to geologic substrate differences. The use (64) Comment: Two commenters remain viable into the future. The of the term variety in this instance is stated their support for the listing of commenters stated that the Service and equivalent to the definition of a both beardtongues. One commenter experts agree that both species are subspecies, which is a taxonomic stated that the ecosystem is not resilient stable, thus a listing under the Act is subunit of a species. Under the Act enough to withstand a decline in premature, as we should not base a there are three listable entities: Species, biodiversity, and the beardtongues listing on either insufficient data subspecies, and distinct population fulfill a very specific niche. The limited regarding the species’ population or segments. Because White River range of both beardtongues is a concern, populations that are not declining. The beardtongue is a subspecies, it is a and their low recruitment makes them commenters stated that as more surveys listable entity under the Act. naturally vulnerable. There is likely no are conducted, more plants are found, (61) Comment: Two commenters protection on State and private lands and this demonstrates that the stated there is no evidence the Graham’s from energy development, and impacts population trends are increasing. The beardtongue population has suffered on these lands would increase commenters noted that these population from gathering or overutilization (Factor fragmentation of remaining habitat at a increases occurred while the plants B). The commenters noted that seeds landscape scale. Habitat impacts can faced the same threats that were and propagation information are have a systemic impact on the entire analyzed in the proposed rules. The available online, and that the species is ecosystem beginning with the bee commenters stated we must consider highly responsive to cultivation in pollinators. Climate change would these population increases in our listing alpine gardens, which indicates the likely serve as an added stressor. One of determination. species will respond successfully to the commenters supports the protection Our Response: As survey effort and revegetation and reclamation measures. of ecologically meaningful core areas to area has increased, so has the number of Our Response: We did not consider maintain pollinator and plant diversity. plants that have been found. However, unauthorized collection to be a threat to They conclude that the argument to an increase in the population due to either beardtongue species (see protect biological diversity of the oil increased survey area and effort does Unauthorized Collection). We know of shale barrens is a strong one and should not indicate that the population is no successful ecological restoration be considered. increasing, and we do not have any efforts involving either species or of Our Response: Our 2013 proposed information to suggest that populations their habitat. Other more common critical habitat rule (78 FR 47832) for of either species are increasing. beardtongue species are easily the beardtongues recognized the Population trends such as increases and cultivated, but we know of no work that importance of preserving plant diversity decreases are determined by monitoring has been conducted on the propagation and pollinators in beardtongue habitat. known occurrences over a period of and restoration of Graham’s and White In the 2014 CA, we identified time. The monitoring data that we River beardtongues. landscape-level protections necessary to evaluated shows that populations for (62) Comment: One commenter stated protect the beardtongue species and Graham’s beardtongue are stable and that anytime there is a listing under the their pollinators from indirect and populations of White River beardtongue Act, we are stifling the wise use of cumulative impacts (see Ongoing and are stable or close to stable (McCaffery natural resources. Another commenter Future Conservation Efforts) by 2013a, entire; BLM 2011, pp. 6–7). stated the listing under the Act may not establishing conservation areas, surface In the 2013 proposed rule, we stated be the best way to ensure survival of the disturbance limits, avoidance buffers, the beardtongues have stable species. Survival would be better and measures to address livestock populations, but faced many threats. assured through well-considered grazing, invasive weeds, small Our analysis of the threats, not just the mitigation and reclamation design. population size, and climate change.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46059

The conservation areas provide allow time for more surveys so that we of Conservation Efforts When Making connectivity between occurrences and will better understand the species Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100, protect large populations that will serve population, habitat, and distribution, March 28, 2003) process, we determined as a core area for the conservation of and allow for conducting transplant and that these protections were adequate to both species. Other incremental restoration studies on disturbed lands. reduce the threats to the species such stressors will also be addressed Also, the commenters concluded that that they no longer warrant listing as individually in order to reduce the the 2014 CA affords the species threatened or endangered. cumulative threats that may be acting on landscape-level protection, by including (68) Comment: The SITLA and one both species. state and private lands in conservation other commenter noted that technical (65) Comment: One commenter stated areas. experts concluded that current plant the existing protections on BLM lands 2. Conservation on non-federal lands: populations of both beardtongue species are not adequate to assure the The commenters concluded that the are stable and likely to persist into the persistence of the beardtongues. A 150- 2014 CA affords more protection for future. foot buffer is inadequate, and the Vernal both beardtongue species than a listing Our Response: We agree that the best RMP does not require avoidance of under the Act, with less economic available information shows that the plants. impact. Under the Act, listed plants are monitored sites of Graham’s and White Our Response: Conservation areas not protected on non-federal lands River beardtongue appear to be stable established in the 2014 CA include without a federal nexus; whereas, the (McCaffery 2013a, entire; BLM 2011, p. adequate buffers (91.4 m [300 ft]) and commenters state that the 2014 CA 6–7). We also concluded that both surface disturbance limits (see Ongoing provides legally binding protection on species of beardtongue are likely to and Future Conservation Efforts). approximately 10,000 acres for both persist into the future when considering (66) Comment: Carbon County asked species on state and private lands. the protections of the 2014 CA that us to consider the economic impacts to Additionally, they conclude that the reduce the threats to the species. people and local economies from the 2014 CA promotes cooperation among (69) Comment: The County delay or prevention of energy resource landowners and managers. Commission of Duchesne County stated development as a result of a listing of 3. Implementation and funding: that they object to the proposed rules to either species. One commenter stated Uintah County, SITLA, and PLPCO list Graham’s and White River that restricting development is in direct stated that they are committed to beardtongues and designate critical conflict with our Nation’s energy policy. implementing the 2014 CA, and the habitat because the proposed listing The commenter was concerned that he/ State of Utah Endangered Species rules are not consistent with Duchesne she would need to obtain a Federal air Mitigation Fund has enough funding to County General Plan policies; the quality permit, which may include ensure success of the 2014 CA. proposed rules are not consistent with restrictions associated with these 4. Timeframe: The commenters state State of Utah plans for the subject lands; listings. This outcome would potentially that the 2014 CA can be reassessed at and the proposed rules will stop oil and gas and oil shale mining the end of the duration of the agreement economically adversely affect small activities on their land and impact their and renewed if necessary, or the species businesses and governments. family income in excess of $1 million can then be listed under Act. Our Response: The Act does not allow annually. The commenter indicated Our Response: The Act does not allow us to consider economic impacts in that, given the incomplete status of data us to consider economic impacts in decisions on whether to list species. Our and understanding, perhaps a decisions on whether to list a species proposed listing rules were based on an threatened species status at this time is under the Act. However, we agree that analysis of the threats to Grahams and premature. the 2014 CA provides significant White River beardtongues in accordance Our Response: An economic conservation benefits to Graham’s and with the Act. However, since screening analysis was completed for White River beardtongues, including publication of our proposed rules, we our proposed critical habitat providing landscape-level protections have developed a 2014 CA which designation; however, the Act does not through the inclusion of conservation reduces the threats to the species, and allow us to consider economic impacts area protections on non-federal lands; we have concluded that neither species in our decision on whether to list a promoting cooperation with federal and warrants listing under the Act. species. Because we are withdrawing non-federal partners; providing non- (70) Comment: Duchesne County the proposed listing and critical habitat federal funding and commitments for asked to be included in the rules, the impacts that the commenters the conservation of the species; and development of recovery plans. are concerned about will not occur. allowing for more time to better Our Response: We welcome (67) Comment: Several commenters understand the species habitat, participation by any stakeholder in the including Duchesne County, Uintah abundance, and demography. In development of conservation and County and SITLA stated that they addition, the 2014 CA protects 64 recovery efforts for Graham’s and White support the 2014 CA over a decision to percent of the known occurrences of River beardtongues. However, recovery list the two species under the Act, and Graham’s beardtongue and 76 percent of plans pursuant to the Act will not be stated that we should take the known occurrences of White River necessary because we have determined conservation measures in the 2014 CA beardtongue throughout the species’ that neither species warrants listing into account in our determination of the ranges by establishing conservation under the Act. status of the species. The reasons for areas where surface disturbance will be (71) Comment: Duchesne County their support are sorted into the limited and plants will be avoided by stated that they expect the Service to following categories and explained in 91.4 m (300 ft), or unavoidable impacts recognize valid, existing rights greater detail below: mitigated. The 2014 CA specifies that, including access within critical habitat, 1. Threats: The commenters stated on federal lands, both species will be such as access to mineral rights. that we do not fully know the range and protected by buffers of 91.4 m (300 ft) Our response: We are withdrawing habitat of the two beardtongue species. from surface disturbing activities both our proposed rules to list Graham’s and They concluded that enacting the 2014 within and outside of conservation White River beardtongues and designate CA (instead of listing the species) would areas. Through our Policy for Evaluation critical habitat. Instead we have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

determined that the protections of the the 700 m (2,297 ft) proposed critical preventing extinction; the State of Utah 2014 CA conserve the species through habitat area surrounding known has not committed adequate resources the designation of conservation areas to occurrences is more appropriate because or authority for implementing the 2014 the point that these species no longer it would protect pollinator habitat and CA; and listing under the Act would be meet the definition of threatened or genetic movement; buffers of at least better because it requires recovery endangered. Landowners and managers 200 m (650 ft) are needed; the 2014 CA planning and Federal funding. where these conservation areas will be allows disturbance of 5 percent for 6. Conservation team: The established are participating in the Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent commenters expressed concern that the conservation agreement either directly for White River beardtongue conservation team does not include or indirectly. Within these conservation conservation areas, without a biological representatives from all stakeholders, areas valid, existing landowner rights, basis for allowing surface disturbance including those from the Utah and including access, will be allowed, but caps in the conservation areas; and the Colorado Natural Heritage Programs, controlled such that new surface 2014 CA does not say how the Uinta Basin Rare Plant Forum, Red disturbance does not occur within 91.4 conservation team will track surface Butte Garden, Utah Division of Oil Gas m (300 ft) of plants, and surface disturbance levels. and Mining, Utah State Lands and disturbing activities are limited to 5 3. Conservation Areas and critical Forestry, Utah Division of Wildlife, percent where Graham’s beardtongue habitat: The commenters are concerned beardtongue experts, and environmental occurs and 2.5 percent where White that the conservation areas in the 2014 advocacy groups; the conservation team River beardtongue occurs. CA protect less acreage than the amount lacks the expertise to carry out the 2014 (72) Comment: Many commenters of area that was proposed for critical CA; the state as a signatory to the (including 4,890 form letters) supported habitat; the larger area proposed for agreement does not apply a scientific the listing of Graham’s and White River critical habitat was determined in our approach to other natural resource beardtongues because they believe the proposed rule to be ‘‘essential to the matters; the duties of the conservation 2014 CA is not adequate to prevent conservation of the species’’ and team are not adequate to implement all extinction of both beardtongue species. protects the species on a landscape the tasks outlined; the conservation Their reasons for supporting a listing are level, including protecting pollinator team has not been identified or funded; sorted into the following categories with nesting sites and secondary floral and the County and State have not further explanation: resources; the 2014 CA protects only 76 previously participated or cooperated in 1. Threats: The commenters stated percent of the population of White River ongoing efforts to conserve rare plant that the conservation agreement does beardtongue and 64 percent of the species across the state or in Uintah not prevent or reduce the threats to the population of Graham’s beardtongue, County. species including those from energy which the commenters believed was 7. Other: The commenters noted that development, road construction and insufficient; the 2014 CA does not the 2014 CA was developed without maintenance, OHVs, and climate provide for the redundancy, resiliency, public input and all interested change; the 2014 CA will allow an and representation of either species; and stakeholders; the 2014 CA sets a bad increase of identified threats to the the 2014 CA does not include suitable precedent; and pursuing a conservation species in comparison to a listing of the habitat to address the threat of climate agreement wastes taxpayer’s money species; the measures addressing change. since this is the third time the species grazing are vague and not adequate to 4. Timeframe: The commenters has been proposed for listing under the conserve the species; the 2014 CA expressed concern that the interim Act. should enact mandatory buffers to conservation areas are not protected Our Response: We used our Policy for protect the species and their habitat; over a long enough term and may be Evaluation of Conservation Efforts conservation agreements are not as developed at any time; additional When Making Listing Decisions to protective as a listing under the Act, habitat loss and fragmentation can evaluate the certainty that the especially compared to the protections negatively affect small populations; the conservation measures in the 2014 CA under Section 9 of the Act; the 2014 CA 15-year term of the agreement is too will be implemented and effective at has no benefits and possible negative short to recover the species whereas a reducing threats to Graham’s and White impacts to the species on Federal lands; listing under the Act provides River beardtongues. We concluded that threats such as invasive species are not protections until the species is the conservation measures in the 2014 addressed and measures for these recovered; and the agreement terminates CA have a high certainty of being threats are unclear; neither species has if either species is listed. implemented and effective. Our detailed protections on state and Federal lands; 5. Implementation and funding: The PECE analysis is available for review at therefore, more protection is required on commenters stated that the 2014 CA http://www.regulations.gov and http:// Federal lands; the 2014 CA does not relies on future, voluntary, and www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ provide assurances that impacts to the unfunded conservation measures that plants/2utahbeardtongues/. See the species will be reduced or mitigated; have not been implemented, shown to Ongoing and Future Conservation both beardtongue species are ranked by be effective, and have no certainty of Efforts and PECE Analysis sections the UNPS as species of extremely high implementation; private landowners below for more information. Our concern, the highest priority category have not authorized conservation response to the comments in each for conservation; and because both measures on their lands; the 2014 CA category listed above is as follows: species are considered candidate does not include an implementation 1. Threats: The 2014 CA reduces the species, they already meet the criteria plan; conservation measures such as threats to the species by providing for listing under the Act. transplanting and habitat restoration are protections from energy development, 2. Buffers and disturbance thresholds: unproven; there is no funding identified invasive weeds, climate change, and The commenters state that the 91.4 m for all the tasks; voluntary conservation small population sizes through the (300 ft) buffer from surface disturbing agreements are not proven to adequately establishment of 44,373 acres of activities as outlined in the 2014 CA is protect species from extinction whereas conservation areas where surface discretionary and inadequate to protect protections under the Act, including disturbance is limited, and where the plant and its pollinators, whereas listing, have a 99 percent success rate of disturbance occurs, it will avoid plants

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46061

by 91.4 m (300 ft). In addition, the 2014 calculate surface disturbing activities as automatically to avoid a situation where CA provides for protections of both explained in the 2014 CA (Table 4, the parties are bound to both the species on non-federal lands in key conservation action 1) by tracking commitments in this agreement and the units (conservation areas) that would activities that require a permit, include potentially additive requirements of the otherwise not be protected unless a permanent structures, or construction or Act. This conservation framework federal nexus occurred. Under Section 9 expansion of new or existing roads. provides a consistent regulatory of the Act, listed plants do not receive 3. The acreage included in the framework for landowners or managers protections on non-federal lands unless conservation areas is less than the who may be affected, while still a federal nexus applies. Therefore, even acreage that we proposed as critical protecting the beardtongue species if listed, many plants occurring on non- habitat; the proposed critical habitat for under either scenario. federal lands may still be vulnerable to the two beardtongue species overlap, 5. Implementation and funding: the identified threats. In the 2014 CA, and total 75,846 acres. However, critical Through our PECE analysis process we threats from grazing are addressed habitat protections for plants do not found that the 2014 CA has a high through a monitoring and adaptive apply on non-federal lands without a certainty of being implemented and management process where BLM will federal action; therefore, proposed effective. Our detailed PECE analysis is assess and reduce livestock impacts critical habitat on federal lands alone available for review at http:// where they occur. Additional threats would typically apply to only 49 www.regulations.gov and http:// from invasive species are reduced percent of the population of Graham’s www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ through the development and beardtongue and 60 percent of the plants/2utahbeardtongues/. implementation of a weed management population for White River beardtongue. 6. Although the signatories to the plan. OHV use was not considered a The 2014 CA protects a greater number conservation agreement include federal, threat to the species in our proposed of plants by protecting 64 percent of state, and county governments, we rule; however, establishment of Graham’s beardtongue plants and 76 welcome participation by any conservation areas and BLM percent of White River beardtongue stakeholder or beardtongue expert to management of their lands for the plants on both federal and non-federal provide relevant information and beardtongue species will minimize the lands. In addition, the conservation express their viewpoint in the process of effects of OHVs through consideration areas are strategically placed to provide administering the 2014 CA. We will of the needs for protection of both habitat connectivity, thereby conserving reach out to others with knowledge species during the development of the the resiliency, redundancy, and about the two beardtongue species and representation of the species across their BLM travel management plan. landowners to ensure they have an ranges (Figure 3; Table 3). The 2014 CA opportunity to participate in the 2. Buffers and Disturbance Caps: We conservation areas include unoccupied conservation of the species as we have revised the language in the 2014 habitat on slopes of various aspects that implement the 2014 CA. Funding for the CA to ensure that adherence to the 91.4 may allow the species to adapt to implementation of the agreement, such m (300 ft) avoidance buffers is chosen microhabitats as the climate as for establishing conservation areas, mandatory, rather than discretionary, changes. There are many ways to will be supplied by the various and exceptions will only be allowed achieve conservation of these two signatories through in-kind services and when it is beneficial for the species or species. The proposed critical habitat each land owner or manager will its habitat and approved by the designation identified all populations, conservation team on non-federal lands, with the understanding that critical provide funding for conservation or after conference with the USFWS on habitat would not convey or guarantee measures on their lands, such as surveys federal lands (Table 4). The 91.4 m (300 conservation. The 2014 CA conserves a prior to surface disturbing activities. ft) avoidance buffers were selected to smaller amount of habitat, but provides The conservation team includes protect the species from the effects of greater protection because it actually botanists from the BLM and USFWS surface-disturbing activities because this conserves a greater percentage of the who are well qualified to provide is the buffer distance that is currently population. botanical expertise. being used under Section 7 4. Timeframe: We did not rely on the 7. The 2014 CA was developed by consultations under the Act in the Uinta interim conservation areas for our PECE county, state and federal entities that Basin in Utah to avoid direct and analysis and final determination have the authority to regulate and indirect effects that are likely to because the interim conservation areas permit activities on lands within their adversely impact listed plant species. are subject to development at any time jurisdiction that overlap with Graham’s This buffer distance is based on a and do not provide certainty of and White River beardtongue habitat. review of literature that shows that, protection for either species. The The protections in the 2014 CA were although the effects of dust can extend timeframe of the 2014 CA is 15 years. analyzed through our PECE process and out to 1,000 m (3,281 ft), and ground During this time we hope to better found to have a high certainty of disturbance may have additional effects understand the intensity, magnitude, implementation and effectiveness. out to 2,000 m (6,562 ft), the greatest and scale of the threats to both (73) Comment: A couple of impacts occur closer to the disturbance. beardtongue species including those commenters asked us to identify which Thus, 91.4 m (300 ft) was selected to from energy and oil shale development. areas were subject to the 5 percent balance the protection of the species At any time during or near the end of disturbance limit cap and which areas with energy development (Service the 15 years, parties to the agreement are subject to the 2.5 percent 2014a, entire). Surface disturbance caps can choose to continue with and renew disturbance limits cap and to make this of 2.5 percent for White River the conservation agreement. If during or information public. In addition, one beardtongue and 5 percent for Graham’s after this timeframe, either species commenter asked for clarification about beardtongue were selected to minimize meets the definition of threatened or whether the disturbance caps applied habitat fragmentation that can occur endangered, we can act to protect the per unit or per landowner. One from full field (40-acre spacing) species through the listing process. If commenter stated that this information development, which results in 13 the beardtongue species are listed under must be available for public comment percent surface disturbance. We will the Act, the 2014 CA expires before the agreement can be finalized.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46062 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Our response: We provided a map of These peer review comments are beardtongue species over multiple the conservation areas (Figure 3; also included in our administrative record years. included in the 2014 CA) showing the and are available at (78) Comment: One commenter areas where the different disturbance www.regulations.gov. We reviewed the questioned whether the populations we caps apply. The disturbance caps apply documentation provided by the report in the 2014 CA for both Graham’s per landowner per unit (units are shown commenter regarding the objectivity of and White River beardtongues are on Figure 3). The conservation one of the peer reviewers and did not genets (i.e., colonies of clones sharing agreement is a voluntary agreement and find a conflict. That peer reviewer, as a identical genes reproduced vegetatively may be finalized without public citizen, submitted a letter to the from the same individual) or ramets comment, although we made the 2014 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation (i.e., individual stems or clones from the CA available for comment during our Commission in support of a larger same genet). The commenter proposes public comment period on the proposed setback for oil and gas drilling from that the population size may be about rules and associated draft economic residential homes. We do not view this half of the number we report because analysis and draft environmental action as compromising the objectivity ramets may have been counted instead assessment of critical habitat. of a peer review of our proposed rules. of genets. The commenter acknowledges (74) Comment: One commenter does (76) Comment: One commenter asked that others do not agree that the plants not agree that the designation of us to state the value of the conservation are clonal. conservation areas or the surface areas to the conservation of the two Our Response: During transplanting of disturbance cap of 5 percent for species: specifically, whether the Graham’s beardtongue in 2012, plants Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent conservation areas protect known were excavated and inspected but clonal for White River beardtongue included in occurrences or only suitable habitat. reproduction was not observed the 2014 CA is necessary for the Our Response: The conservation areas (Brunson 2012a, entire; Reisor 2014a, protection of either beardtongue species protect both known occurrences and entire). Graham’s beardtongue may because they do not agree with the unoccupied suitable habitat. Of the produce multiple rosettes from one science used to support these known occurrences, the conservation branching caudex (stem), but these protections. areas encompass and protect 64 percent might represent only 5–10 percent of the Our response: In our proposed rule, of Graham’s beardtongue plants and 76 population (Brunson 2012a, entire), and we used the best available information percent of White River beardtongue these are not thought to contribute to support our conclusions that both plants. greatly to inflated population counts Graham’s and White River beardtongue (Reisor 2014a, entire). Based on this (77) Comment: One commenter need landscape-level conservation and information, we conclude that surveys questions the ability of the conservation protections, particularly from full-field represent accurate counts and that our team to accomplish all the tasks energy development. The establishment population estimates are correct based identified in the 2014 CA, given the lack of conservation areas provides the on the best available information. necessary landscape-level conservation, of knowledge and experience of the (79) Comment: One commenter stated and the surface disturbance caps protect conservation team members and lack of that several citations in the 2014 CA both beardtongue species from full-field funding. The commenter requested that should be corrected including Kramer development. we determine minimum qualifications et. al 2011, which is not relevant to (75) Comment: One commenter stated for conservation team members as well pollination of penstemon species. that the Service did not follow its own as identified funding. Our Response: We have reviewed the guidance and policy regarding the peer Our Response: We conclude that the 2014 CA, and made the suggested review process for the proposed rules, conservation team has the knowledge citation changes except for Kramer et. al citing the Service’s Information Quality and ability to carry out the conservation 2011, which is used in the context of and Peer Review Guidelines (revised measures in the conservation agreement. genetic relationships between June 2012) implementing the Office of The main protection in the 2014 CA is penstemon species. Management and Budget’s December 16, the establishment of conservation areas, (80) Comment: One commenter 2004 Final Information Quality Bulletin which the signatories to the agreement recommended that we include for Peer Review. The commenter have the authority and ability to pollinator scarcity as a threat. concluded that the peer review that was implement. The BLM has sufficient Our Response: We included pollinator conducted by the Service for these expertise in controlling invasive weeds scarcity as an impact under energy proposed rules is not adequate because and monitoring and managing livestock development and exploration in the the peer reviewers did not fully analyze impacts to the species because they 2014 CA (see Table 4. Threats to the scientific information presented in have been managing grazing allotments Graham’s and White River Beardtongues the proposed rules nor did they point since the passage of the Taylor Grazing and Associated Conservation Actions). out important flaws in the Service’s Act of 1934, and now manage under the This threat is being reduced by analysis. At least one peer reviewer was Federal Land Management and Policy establishing conservation areas and not objective in their review because Act of 1976. We have developed limiting disturbance, which will allow they are negative toward the oil and gas guidelines for surveying and monitoring pollinators adequate habitat and industry. Federally listed and candidate plant secondary floral resources. Our Response: As outlined in the species (Service 2011, entire), and these (81) Comment: One commenter was proposed rule, we followed our peer guidelines will be used to monitor concerned that we used a lower review guidance and process for the Graham’s and White River beardtongues population number of 11,423 to proposed rules (59 FR 34270; July 1, as committed to in the 2014 CA. The characterize the population of White 1994). We requested peer review from BLM has funded and continues to fund River beardtongue compared to the seven peer reviewers, all of whom are demographic monitoring of both species 25,000 as estimated by other sources. knowledgeable about the two and management of energy development Our Response: Our population beardtongue species. We received and sensitive plant species protection number of 11,423 plants of White River completed peer reviews of the proposed on their lands. Uintah County and Utah beardtongue in the proposed rule was rules from four of these peer reviewers. DNR have funded surveys for both determined from the best scientific and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46063

commercial data available, based on surface-disturbing activities can extend on BLM lands during the NEPA process more recent data than the higher to 2,000 m (6562 ft) (Service 2014a, on those projects, and will thus not population estimate the commenter entire). The greatest impacts occur require an RMP amendment in order to suggest using. Since the publication of closest to the disturbance, and the 91.4 implement them. In the 2014 CA, the the proposed rule, we received m (300 ft) buffer balances energy BLM agreed to incorporate the terms of additional survey information that development with protection of listed this agreement into its planning process increased our estimate of the population plant species. during the next RMP revision, but in the of White River beardtongue to 12,215 (85) Comment: One commenter stated interim the agency will proceed through plants. that the 2014 CA should revise the the NEPA planning and public review (82) Comment: A couple of timeframe when surveys should be process on a project-specific basis. commenters stated that we made conducted in relation to surface- (88) Comment: One commenter stated contradictory conclusions regarding the disturbing activities, so that surveys that mitigation for impacts to both certainty of oil shale development. The must be conducted at least one year beardtongue species should be clearly commenters gave examples, such as the prior to surface disturbing activities, spelled out in the 2014 CA when Draft Economic Screening and that we should extend the length of avoidance by 91.4 m (300 ft) is not Memorandum, which acknowledges the time that surveys are valid (currently possible. In addition, mitigation should uncertainty of the viability of oil shale one year) so that surveys are not be considered for impacts over the 5 development, whereas the proposed outdated prior to the commencement of percent and 2.5 percent disturbance rule states that oil shale development is surface-disturbing activities. caps. These mitigation measures should ‘‘highly likely.’’ In addition, the Our Response: The Service has be developed with the involvement of proposed rule concluded that oil shale developed guidelines for surveys of all stakeholders. development will occur sooner, and to listed plant species in Utah (Service Our Response: Surface disturbing a greater extent than concluded by the 2011, entire). Our guidelines state that activities may only occur within 91.4 m Draft Economic Screening surveys for listed plant species are good (300 ft) of plants if they benefit or Memorandum. The commenters for one year because seeds may disperse reduce impacts to the species or habitat concluded that we should revise the and colonize new areas, or remain in the and, on non-federal lands, if they are estimates of the magnitude of threats seed bank until conditions are favorable. approved by the conservation team, or from energy development. We believe this conclusion and our on federal lands, if BLM has Our Response: Based on our analysis guidelines are still valid. conferenced with the Service. as discussed under Summary of Factors (86) Comment: One commenter asked Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will Affecting the Species, Energy us to clarify when plant salvage and be determined on a project-specific Exploration and Development, we found mandatory avoidance measures would basis. Successful ecological restoration that without protections, oil shale apply under the implementation of the may be used in conservation areas on development is a threat to the species in 2014 CA. private lands to offset effects over the the foreseeable future. Our Draft Our Response: Under the terms of the disturbance limits set by the 2014 CA. Economic Screening Memorandum 2014 CA, plant salvage will occur (89) Comment: One commenter stated assessed only the economic impacts voluntarily when plants are directly that the May 5, 2014 press release, from designating critical habitat, and impacted by surface-disturbing notice of availability (79 FR 25806), and thus some of the conclusions of the activities outside of designated supporting documents were confusing memorandum differ from our conservation areas on non-federal lands. to the public because they did not assessment of threats to the species, as We did not consider plant salvage in our clearly present the options to protect the they are evaluating different questions. analysis of the effectiveness of the 2014 beardtongue species including either (83) Comment: One commenter stated CA to conserve the species, because signing and enacting the 2014 CA, or that the 2014 CA restricts and prohibits these measures are voluntary and listing the species as threatened and the ability of leasees to develop their cannot be relied upon to protect the designating critical habitat under the mineral rights adequately. The species from threats. However, Act. In addition we did not provide a commenter stated that the BLM cannot mandatory avoidance measures were PECE analysis. restrict additional surface disturbance evaluated in our PECE process. Our Response: Our document stated on existing leases once the disturbance Mandatory avoidance measures occur that: ‘‘We intend to consider this caps as defined in the 2014 CA are within all conservation areas, and conservation agreement once it has been reached. within and outside of conservation areas signed in our final decisions on whether Our Response: Surface disturbance on BLM lands; in these areas surface- to list Graham’s beardtongue and White caps within conservation areas are disturbing activities will avoid plants by River beardtongue under the Act, and sufficient to allow reasonable access to a 91.4 m (300 ft) buffer. Surface- invite the public to comment on the existing leases with current technology. disturbing activities may only occur agreement and its impact on the BLM has committed to limiting surface within 91.4 m (300 ft) of plants if they conservation of these species, and disturbance within conservation areas. benefit or reduce impacts to the species whether the draft agreement sufficiently (84) Comment: One commenter stated or habitat, and, on non-federal lands, ameliorates the threats to Graham’s that the 91.4 m (300 ft) buffer around may only occur if they are approved by beardtongue and White River plant occurrences in the draft the conservation team, or on federal beardtongue. We intend to evaluate this conservation agreement is too large, and land, after BLM has conferenced with agreement under our Policy for there is no demonstrated need for such the Service. Evaluation of Conservation Efforts a large buffer. Instead, the commenter (87) Comment: One commenter stated When Making Listing Decisions (PECE recommends a 30.5 m (100 ft) buffer that the BLM cannot incorporate the policy) (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003; with dust suppressant measures. provisions of the 2014 CA into permits 79 FR 25806, p. 25811).’’ Our detailed Our Response: Our review of available and its RMP without analyzing the PECE analysis is now available for literature shows that impacts to plants impacts through NEPA analysis. review at http://www.regulations.gov from dust can extend out to 1,000 m Our Response: The terms of the 2014 and http://www.fws.gov/mountain- (3,281 ft), and additional impacts from CA will be applied to proposed projects prairie/species/plants/

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46064 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

2utahbeardtongues/. See the Ongoing Our Response: We used the best climate change, and thus the and Future Conservation Efforts and available information to determine the commenters did not support our finding PECE Analysis sections below for more known population size of each species that the beardtongues are in danger of information. (see Background-Graham’s beardtongue, extinction. The commenters furthered (90) Comment: One commenter stated Species Information, Distribution and concluded that if we find that these that Graham’s and White River Trends). We acknowledge that the best factors are not threats to the species beardtongues are different species with available information may contain individually, then they do not constitute different geographical ranges and counts of plants that no longer occur, a cumulative threat to the species. population demography and should not but it also may include underestimates Our Response: We have determined be lumped together for listing and of some populations where plant that the 2014 CA adequately addresses analysis. occupancy was documented but counts threats to the species that were Our Responses: We agree that were not provided, in which case we identified in our proposed rule, and the Graham’s and White River beardtongues assumed a count of only 1 plant. All species is no longer considered are different species with different survey information was provided by warranted for listing under the Act. geographical ranges and population trained botanists, so it is not likely that (97) Comment: One commenter demography, and they were considered plants were misidentified. We agree that concluded that we overstated the threats separately for our listing determination. as we increase our survey effort the to the species from future energy However, they appear in the same number of plants we find also increases, development. The commenter stated listing document because their ranges and that this is not indicative of an that energy development is not a threat overlap and threats to both species are increasing population trend. to the species because populations are similar. (94) Comment: One commenter stated stable, predictions of future energy (91) Comment: One commenter that increasing temperatures, less development are not supported, there is encouraged us to list the species rainfall, and increased herbivory, in no commercial oil shale development in without designating critical habitat if we addition to increased disturbance from the Uinta Basin, the two beardtongues decide to enter into the 2014 CA. roads, dust, and livestock grazing, may species are found on steep slopes where Our Response: We have concluded push Graham’s beardtongue to energy development is more costly, the that the 2014 CA adequately reduces the extinction over the next 25 years. The density of well pads and size of threats to the species, and we no longer commenter concluded that the 2014 CA disturbance from drilling projects are consider either species to be warranted term of 15 years is not sufficient in light decreasing, and the BLM already for listing under the Act. of the Enefit mining plan which extends provides protection for the species as a (92) Comment: One commenter for a period of 30 years. candidate species. questioned the participation of State of Our Response: The term of the 2014 Our Response: Our analysis of the Utah employees, the Director of SITLA, CA is 15 years, but can be renewed by threats to the species shows that and Uintah County officials in the 2014 any or all parties at that time to although populations are currently CA because he doubted their continue to conserve both beardtongue stable, without the 2014 CA protections commitment to the species’ species. We will re-evaluate the need for they are subject to landscape-level conservation based on their track record protections under the Act if during or threats from future energy development. with conservation of rare plant species after the period of the 2014 CA either See our analysis and discussion of the in the past. species is warranted for listing as threats to both beardtongue species from Our Response: Through our PECE threatened or endangered. See further energy development under Summary of process we evaluated the conservation discussion in the Determination section Factors Affecting the Species, Energy measures of the 2014 CA, past of this document regarding the Exploration and Development. conservation actions, and the foreseeable future of the threats. (98) Comment: One commenter commitments made by state and local (95) Comment: One commenter stated supports the conclusions of the organizations. We determined that the that the 2014 CA could be considered proposed rules that energy development conservation effort, the parties to the sufficient to reduce threats to the including oil shale development and agreement that will implement the effort species if the termination clause was traditional oil and gas drilling poses a and the staffing, the funding level, the removed and more permanent threat to the species. funding source and other resources protections were committed to, Our Response: We agree that energy necessary to implement the effort are including designating ACECs on BLM development is a threat to the species; identified. Through our PECE analysis lands and conservation easements on however, we have determined that the we concluded that the conservation private lands. 2014 CA adequately addresses these measures in the 2014 CA have a high Our Response: We concluded that the threats by establishing conservation certainty of being implemented and conservation measures in the 2014 CA areas throughout the range of the effective. have a high certainty of being species. (93) Comment: One commenter stated implemented and effective. Our detailed (99) Comment: One commenter stated that increased population estimates for PECE analysis is available for review at that the 2014 CA does not address the species may be the result of http://www.regulations.gov and http:// threats where habitat is leased for both increased surveys and not indicative of www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ oil and gas development and oil shale an increasing population trend. The plants/2utahbeardtongues/. See the development and does not provide commenter noted that the population Ongoing and Future Conservation information on existing surface estimate of approximately 40,000 Efforts and PECE Analysis sections disturbance. Graham’s beardtongue plants is more below for more information. Our Response: We have concluded likely to be 20,000 plants because the (96) Comment: A few commenters that the 2014 CA addresses the threats survey data incorporates surveys over a concluded that we overestimated the of oil shale and traditional oil and gas 35-year period and some of the sites threats to the beardtongue species, development by establishing may now be extirpated or reduced in specifically fugitive dust, grazing, OHV conservation areas, restricting surface size, or some of the plant may have been use, unauthorized collection, invasive disturbance within these conservation misidentified. weeds, small population size, and areas, and keeping surface disturbing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46065

activities at least 91.4 m (300 ft) from CA addresses climate change with the 2014 CA protects 64 percent of Graham’s and White River installation of a weather station and by Graham’s beardtongue, and 8 of the beardtongues. Calculations of existing studying the response of the two species occurrences protected in conservation surface disturbance are ongoing and will to weather patterns. Once we can better areas have a 7 percent or lesser chance be incorporated into the 2014 CA once predict the two species’ response to of extinction, and 4 occurrences have they are available. climate changes, we can then take less than a 2 percent chance of (100) Comment: One commenter measures to address the species’ future extinction over the next 50 years stated that we should provide needs from the threat of climate change. (McCaffery 2013a, entire; Service 2014d, information regarding the seismic In addition, the 2014 CA provides for entire). The 2014 CA protects 76 percent project discussed in the proposed rule. the resiliency, redundancy and of White River beardtongue, and 4 of the Our Response: The proposed seismic representation of both species by occurrences protected in conservation project is still being evaluated under the protecting adequate habitat and an areas have a less than 1 percent chance NEPA process by the BLM Vernal Field adequate percent of the population in of extinction over the next 50 years Office. This seismic project multiple sites that include various slope (McCaffery 2013a, entire; Service 2014d, encompasses 9 sections in Utah and 5 aspects and important natural entire). sections in Colorado. The purpose of the community associates and attributes, (104) Comment: One commenter project is to assess the potential for oil such as pollinators, pollinator nesting stated that Graham’s beardtongue has and gas development by acquiring sites, and secondary floral resources. been surveyed sufficiently and both information on potential resources (102) Comment: One commenter Graham’s and White River beardtongues present from four parallel seismic lines asked us to reconsider the effects of are some of the most surveyed species totaling 7.3 miles. Additional livestock grazing on both species, in Utah. Baseline surveys from 1978 and information about the project can be because there is documentation of the 1979 show that Graham’s beardtongue found on the Vernal BLM projects Web effects of herbivory to reproduction and have declined since that time period. page once it is ready for public review effects from other herbivores that Our Response: The best available at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/ contribute to lost reproduction, information based on continuous and vernal/planning/nepa_.html. As trampling effects on pollinators, consistent monitoring of Graham’s and discussed below (see Summary of declining habitat conditions with White River beardtongue from 2004 to Factors Affecting the Species, Energy several allotments within the range of 2012 does not indicate that the Exploration and Development, both species needing improvement, and populations of either species are Traditional Oil and Gas Drilling), we low and sporadic reproduction making declining (BLM 2011, pp. 6–7; view this project as an indication that it vulnerable to stochastic events and McCaffery 2013a, entire). traditional oil and gas development will habitat changes. (105) Comment: One commenter very likely increase in the habitat of Our Response: We agree that without stated that at 12,215 plants, the both of these species. However, the 2014 conservation protections, livestock population of White River beardtongue CA provides protections to avoid, grazing poses a threat to both species in is low enough to be considered for minimize, and mitigate the impacts of conjunction with other threats including listing as endangered. The commenter oil and gas development, effectively energy development. We have noted that about one-third of the reducing this threat to the species. addressed these threats in the 2014 CA, population occurs on BLM lands. The (101) Comment: One commenter which states that BLM will monitor commenter noted that the population of stated that climate change alone poses a impacts from grazing and will adjust this species is precarious. Another threat to the species. The Colorado grazing regimes accordingly to reduce commenter indicated that populations Natural Heritage Program’s Colorado associated impacts. of both beardtongue species in Colorado Wildlife Action Plan assessed the (103) Comment: A commenter stated are small, and thus warranted for vulnerability of rare plants to climate that small population size poses a threat protection under the Act. change and found that both Graham’s to the species because small populations Our Response: As discussed below and White River beardtongues were that are fragmented are more vulnerable under Summary of Factors Affecting the extremely vulnerable (June 2011). The to habitat changes and disturbances. Species, Small Population size, some Utah Heritage Program model for The commenter cited a demography species exhibit rarity but are not Graham’s beardtongue found that the study (McCaffery 2013a, entire) that warranted for listing under the Act. A timing and amount of moisture was shows that neither species is stable, and species that has always been rare, yet important in the distribution of the both species are threatened by small continues to survive, could be well species. The commenter concluded that population sizes and habitat equipped to continue to exist into the we must designate critical habitat to fragmentation. future. Many naturally rare species have conserve the species instead of relying Our Response: We agree that, without persisted for long periods within small on the conservation areas delineated in protections, small population size is a geographic areas, and many naturally the 2014 CA. threat to the two beardtongue species rare species exhibit traits that allow Our Response: We agree that without when considered cumulatively with them to persist despite their small protections climate change poses a other threats. However, we reviewed the population sizes. Consequently, the fact threat to the species when considered same study cited by the commenter and that a species is rare does not cumulatively with other threats. We came to a different conclusion about the necessarily indicate that it may be in have concluded that the 2014 CA stability of these populations. Available danger of extinction in the foreseeable adequately reduces the threat of energy studies indicate the monitored sites for future. Rarity is a characteristic that may development by establishing Graham’s beardtongue are stable increase a species’ vulnerability to conservation areas that protect 64 (McCaffery 2013a, p. 15; BLM 2011, p. factors such as demographic percent of the population of Graham’s 6–7). For White River beardtongue, one stochasticity, environmental beardtongue and 76 percent of White site was found to be stable and a second stochasticity, genetic stochasticity, and River beardtongue and that span the site was close to stable with a very low natural catastrophes. However, whether range of environmental variation within chance of extinction over the next 50 a given rare species is affected by any the species’ range. In addition, the 2014 years (McCaffery 2013a, p. 15). The of these factors, and the magnitude of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the effect of these factors on the species’ become a threat in the future (see have a high certainty of being ability to persist into the foreseeable Summary of Factors Affecting the implemented and effective. Our detailed future, is species- and context-specific. Species, Off-highway Vehicle Use). PECE analysis is available for review at Consequently, in general the Service (107) Comment: One commenter http://www.regulations.gov and http:// does not consider rarity alone to be a stated that our proposed rules did not www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ threat, unless there is information adequately address representation, plants/2utahbeardtongues/. See the identifying threats to the species and redundancy, or resiliency as was Ongoing and Future Conservation linking those threats to the rarity of the defined and considered in the listing of Efforts and PECE Analysis sections species. the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse below for more information. In this case, the current population (73 FR 39790). (110) Comment: One commenter size of White River beardtongue in and Our Response: We adequately address stated that conservation areas that were of itself does not mean that it is resiliency, redundancy and established in 2014 CA but not endangered or threatened. The best representation of the species in this evaluated in our proposed critical information that we have about the document and in the 2014 CA habitat rule should not be considered population indicates that White River conservation measures. We address until they can be determined to be beardtongue is stable (McCaffery 2013a, resiliency of the species by conserving suitable for the species. Another entire; BLM 2011, p. 6–7), and we have an adequate amount of the species commenter requested clarification on concluded that the 2014 CA sufficiently habitat and populations through the what information was used to establish protects the species from threats. The establishment of conservation areas and the conservation area boundaries. large occurrence of White River limiting surface disturbance within Our Response: The conservation area beardtongue that occurs on BLM lands these areas. We address the redundancy boundaries were drawn based on plant is protected in a conservation area. of the species by ensuring there are occurrences, densities, and population (106) Comment: One commenter enough occurrences of the species sizes over the range for each species. We stated that we must consider that the throughout its range by establishing used a kernel density analysis in ArcGIS BLM conservation measures, such as the conservation areas in each conservation (Brunson 2013, entire) of known 91.4 m (300 ft) buffer to protect the unit throughout the range of the species. occurrences to identify areas of high species, are not enforceable, have not We provide for the representation of the density occurrences which have a lower been adhered to in at least one Section species by conserving its community probability of extinction over the next 7 consultation, and the BLM travel associates through establishing 50 years (McCaffery 2013a; entire). management plan will not be sufficient conservation areas that encompass these Conservation areas include the to protect the species from OHV associates. Our analyses of beardtongue species, insect and impacts. representation, resiliency and community associates, corridors Our Response: The Secretary of the redundancy are specific to the species between occurrences, and additional Interior (Secretary) has the authority to we are evaluating. Therefore, the details buffers and habitat for pollinators. manage oil and gas operations on of our analysis for Graham’s and White Summary of Changes From the Federal lands. The Secretary has River beardtongues differ from the Proposed Rule delegated this authority to the Bureau of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Land Management (BLM), which has analysis. Based upon our review of the public issued onshore oil and gas operating (108) Comment: One commenter comments, comments from other regulations codified at 43 CFR part stated that our proposed rules did not Federal and State agencies, peer review 3160. The operating regulations at 43 provide sufficient resiliency for either comments, issues raised at the public CFR 3164.1 authorize the BLM’s species as they should protect suitable hearing, and new relevant information Director to issue Onshore Oil and Gas unoccupied habitat on other slopes to that has become available since the Orders when necessary to implement allow for species’ movement as a result publication of the proposal, we have and supplement the operating of climate change. reevaluated our proposed listing rule regulations. In addition 43 CFR 3162.5– Our Response: We do not have and made changes as appropriate. Other 1 that deals with environmental predictive information detailing how than minor clarifications and obligations provides that, ‘‘the operator Graham’s and White River will respond incorporation of additional information shall comply with the pertinent orders to climate change in terms of what areas on the species’ biology and populations, of the authorized officer and other they may need as refugia. However, both this determination differs from the standards and procedures as set forth in the proposed critical habitat and the proposal in the following ways: the applicable laws, regulations, lease 2014 CA conservation areas include (1) Based on our analyses of the terms and conditions, and the approved unoccupied habitat on slopes of various potential threats to the two species and drilling plan or subsequent operations aspects that should allow the species to the protections provided by the 2014 plan.’’ BLM also has the authority to adapt to chosen microhabitats as the CA, we have determined that neither determine whether planned activities climate changes. As we are able to better Graham’s nor White River beardtongue adhere to their policies and if they will understand both species responses to meets the definition of a threatened or adversely impact sensitive species. climate change, we can work with the endangered species. This document Therefore, BLM conservation measures conservation team to modify withdraws our proposed rule as are enforceable. We have determined in conservation areas to accommodate the published on August 6, 2013 (78 FR our PECE analysis that the conservation species needs. 47590). Subsequently, this document measures are likely to be implemented (109) Comment: One commenter also withdraws our proposed rule to and effective. See the Ongoing and concluded that any analysis under our designate critical habitat for these Future Conservation Efforts and PECE PECE policy should find that the 2014 species (78 FR 47832, August 6, 2013). Analysis sections below for more CA is not adequate because it is not (2) We have added a discussion of information. Off-highway Vehicle use certain to be implemented and not Ongoing and Future Conservation was not considered a threat to the certain to be effective. Efforts, below. The conservation species, but the 2014 CA includes Our response: We concluded that the measures in the 2014 CA are included provisions to ensure that it does not conservation measures in the 2014 CA in this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46067

Ongoing and Future Conservation exploration and development; and (2) ranges. A species can be conserved (and Efforts cumulative impacts of increased energy is thus viable) if it has adequate Below we review conservation efforts development, livestock grazing, invasive representation, resiliency, and for Graham’s and White River weeds, small population sizes, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000). beardtongues, including those in the climate change. We also determined that Representation, or preserving some of 2014 CA. We describe the significant existing regulatory mechanisms were everything, means conserving not just a conservation efforts that are already not adequately addressing the future species but its associated plant occurring and those that are expected to threats from energy development (78 FR communities, pollinators, and pollinator occur in the future. We have also 47590, August 6, 2013). habitats. Resiliency and redundancy completed an analysis of the newly Based on information provided in our ensure there is enough of a species so initiated and future conservation efforts proposed rule, land managers, Uintah that it can survive into the future. pursuant to our Policy for Evaluation of and Rio Blanco Counties, and State Resiliency means ensuring that the Conservation Efforts When Making agencies established a 2014 CA and habitat is adequate for a species and its Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100, conservation actions to address the representative components, and March 28, 2003). identified threats. The 2014 CA includes populations are of sufficient size to After our withdrawal of the listing for the most recent Graham’s and White withstand stochastic events. Graham’s beardtongue in 2006 (71 FR River beardtongue survey information Redundancy ensures an adequate 3158, January 19, 2006; 71 FR 76024, and establishes conservation areas that number of sites. This methodology has December 19, 2006) several stakeholders will be managed with limited surface been widely accepted as an appropriate initiated conservation measures for the disturbance and avoidance buffers for conservation methodology (Tear et al. species as outlined in a 2007 individual plants (see Table 3; Figure 3; 2005, p. 841). Conservation Agreement and Strategy 2014 CA, entire), as further described The boundaries of the conservation (2007 CAS) for Graham’s beardtongue; below. The 2014 CA also includes these conservation measures included measures to address the cumulative areas in the 2014 CA were selected to plant surveys, 91.4-m (300-ft) avoidance impacts from energy development, encompass large populations to ensure buffers on BLM lands, and a livestock grazing, invasive weeds, small species’ viability and smaller demography study that has been population sizes, and climate change, in populations to provide connectivity and ongoing since 2004. In our 2013 addition to the inadequacy of regulatory represent the range of the species. The proposed rule, we determined that these mechanisms identified in our proposed designated conservation areas include conservation measures were no longer rule (78 FR 47590, August 6, 2013). The approximately 17,957 ha (44,373 ac) sufficient to address the threats to the term of the conservation agreement is (Figure 3; Table 3). Graham’s Graham’s beardtongue and did not for 15 years, but can be renewed beardtongue is divided into five units, specifically address threats to White depending on the success of the and White River beardtongue is divided River beardtongue. Since 2007, Utah conservation agreement and if into three units, similar to the units that DNR, BLM, and Uintah County have signatories are willing. After the 15-year were identified in the proposed rule to implemented many of the conservation period, we hope to better understand designate critical habitat (78 FR 47832). measures as described in the 2007 the intensity and timeframe of oil shale We are using units because the Conservation Agreement. development, the species distribution boundaries of element occurrences or Despite the positive accomplishments within its range, as well as responses to populations continue to change rapidly of the 2007 Conservation Agreement, livestock grazing so that any future as previously unsurveyed suitable our 2013 proposed rule identified conservation agreement can address habitat is surveyed and more plants are several threats that would negatively act those factors appropriately. found causing population boundaries to on Graham’s and White River The conservation areas designated in expand and/or merge. Total number of beardtongues and their habitat in the the 2014 CA are designed to ensure plants for each species within each unit future. Threats identified in the 2013 redundancy, resiliency, and of the conservation areas is shown in proposed rule included: (1) Energy representation of the species across their Table 3.

TABLE 3—NUMBERS OF GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE PLANTS BY UNIT IN CONSERVATION AREAS

Total number of Number of plants Total number of Number of plants Unit Graham’s (and %) in White River (and %) in beardtongue plants conservation area beardtongue plants conservation area

1. Sand Wash ...... 2,488 1,842 (74%) N/A N/A 2. Seep Ridge ...... 8,760 6,693 (76%) N/A N/A 3. Evacuation Creek ...... 21,665 12,238 (56%) 2,070 1,620 (78%) 4. White River ...... 7,383 4,966 (67%) 9,705 7,171 (74%) 5. Raven Ridge ...... 37 37 (100%) 440 439 (99%)

Total ...... 40,333 25,776 (64%) 12,215 9,230 (76%)

Within designated conservation areas limited to an additional 2.5 percent of also receive the protection of 91.4-m for Graham’s beardtongue, surface new surface disturbance. Where surface (300-ft) avoidance buffers at all disturbance will be limited to an disturbance occurs in designated locations where the plants are found additional 5 percent new surface conservation areas, the disturbance will (i.e., including areas outside of disturbance, and within designated avoid plants by at least 91.4 m (300 ft). designated conservation areas). Where conservation areas for White River On BLM-managed lands, Graham’s and disturbance must occur within 91.4 m beardtongue surface, disturbance will be White River beardtongue plants will (300 ft) of plants, mitigation measures

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

must be included in project actions Mitigation will be designed to offset mitigation is as beneficial or better than (Table 4; Conservation Action 6). impacts so that the entire effect of a 91.4 m (300-ft) avoidance.

TABLE 4—CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE (2014, CA ENTIRE)

Threat and associated impacts Conservation action

Energy Exploration and Development Habitat loss/fragmentation ...... 1. Conservation areas totaling 17,957 ha (44,373.4 ac) will be established by the Agreement. These conservation areas include 2,382 ha (5,886.9 ac) on private and state lands. Within these con- servation areas, development and surface disturbance will be minimized and consolidated to re- duce habitat fragmentation, and new surface disturbance minimized in conservation areas by the following actions: • Limiting new surface disturbance to 5 percent per unit on federal lands and by landowner on non- federal lands for Graham’s beardtongue, and 2.5 percent per unit on federal lands and by land- owner on non-federal lands for White River beardtongue. Units are shown in Figure 3. • Avoiding plants by 91.4 m (300 ft). Surface disturbing activities may only occur within 91.4 m (300 ft) of plants only if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or habitat. On non-federal lands surface disturbance within 300 ft of either species will need to be approved by the conservation team. On federal lands if surface disturbance is within 300 ft of either species BLM will first con- ference with USFWS. • Calculating new surface disturbance from those activities that include a permanent structure, activi- ties that require a permit, or new roads or improvements to existing roads in order to track new surface disturbance and ensure disturbance does not exceed thresholds in this agreement 3. Successful ecological restoration may be used in conservation areas on private lands to offset dis- turbance limits. Direct mortality from surface disturbance 4. On federal lands, ground-disturbing activities including oil and gas exploration and development will conform with BLM special-status plants species policies, and these species will be treated as a BLM sensitive species. Within designated conservation areas, the BLM will do the following: • Limit new surface disturbance to 5 percent per unit for Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent per unit for White River beardtongue • Survey for plants within 91.4 m (300 ft) of proposed disturbance • Avoid disturbance within 91.4 m (300 ft) of plants. Surface disturbing activities may occur within 91.4 (300 ft) of plants only if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or habitat. When this oc- curs BLM will first conference with USFWS. • Minimize and consolidate development to reduce habitat fragmentation Outside conservation areas on federal lands, ground-disturbing activities will be sited to avoid Gra- ham’s and White River beardtongue plants by 91.4 m (300 ft). 5. On non-federal lands in a conservation area or interim conservation area, new ground-disturbing activities including oil and gas exploration and development proponents will follow these proce- dures: • Pre-site surveys will be conducted to determine presence and locations of plants (see Survey and Monitoring requirements in table notes) • Exploration and development will be limited to 5 percent new surface disturbance for Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent new surface disturbance for White River beardtongue (high-density core population areas on non-federal lands are shown in Maps 20–26 of Appendix A) • Avoid plants by 91.4 m (300 ft). Surface disturbing activities may occur within 91.4 m (300 ft) of plants only if it benefits or reduces impacts to the species or habitat and is approved by the con- servation team. 6. On federal and non-federal lands where new surface disturbance will occur in a conservation area within 91.4 m (300 ft) of plants, the project proponent will mitigate for impacts. Within 1 year of signing the Agreement, the conservation team will develop a standardized procedure to address how mitigation is to occur depending on level of impacts. Examples of mitigation could include pay- ments into a mitigation fund for minor impacts, protection of other occupied areas at a ratio speci- fied by the conservation team, or site-specific mitigation appropriate to each project as determined by the conservation team. 7. On non-federal land outside conservation areas and interim conservation areas with approved ex- ploration or plan of operations permits, conservation actions are encouraged but voluntary. Good faith, voluntary actions could include avoidance, minimizing impacts to individual plants, seed col- lection, plant salvage and transplant, and experimental reclamation and restoration treatments. Indirect disturbance from surface disturb- See conservation actions 1–3 described in ‘‘Habitat loss/fragmentation’’ above. ance, including increased dust; intro- duction and spread of invasive, non- native plant species; and habitat frag- mentation. Community and habitat loss and disturb- See conservation actions 1–3. ance from surface disturbance, includ- ing soil and vegetation removal. Restricted pollinator movement, mortality See conservation actions 1–3. and disturbance from roads and asso- ciated traffic, and energy emissions. Increased sedimentation and erosion ..... See conservation actions 1–3. Pollinator scarcity ...... See conservation actions 1–6.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46069

TABLE 4—CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE (2014, CA ENTIRE)—Continued

Threat and associated impacts Conservation action

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mech- anisms Lack of range-wide protection ...... See conservation actions 1–7. 8. The BLM will ensure that ongoing and future BLM actions support or do not preclude the species’ conservation. All projects in designated conservation areas and their potential to impact the species will be reported in the conservation team’s annual report. 9. The BLM will retain Graham’s and White River beardtongues on the BLM special-status species list as a sensitive species with new ground-disturbing activities avoiding plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) (inside and outside conservation areas), and ensure that the effects of proposed projects are ana- lyzed for the species. 10. The BLM will consider land exchanges with state and private landowners to expand or otherwise enhance the value of conservation areas on federal lands and facilitate the long-term persistence and recovery of the species, while protecting the long-term economic sustainability of the area. 11. The BLM will incorporate the provisions of this Agreement or the latest amendments to this Agreement into its Resource Management Plan planning process, permitting requirements, agency planning documents and budgets. Within 3 months of the signature date of the Agreement, the BLM will incorporate the provisions of this plan into permits and budgets. During the next planning cycle, the BLM will incorporate the provisions of this Agreement into their RMP planning process. The conservation team will provide an annual report on the implementation of this Agreement. The report will also include monitoring results and adaptive management recommendations. 12. If federal land within a conservation area is transferred to the State of Utah, the state agrees to maintain the designated conservation areas and protections for the two species in the transferred parcels, or place lands of comparable or greater value to the conservation of the species in con- servation areas within the same species unit as approved by the conservation team. 13. Uintah County will enact an ordinance with associated enforcement protocols and penalties that adopts the conservation measures in this Agreement, including limiting new surface disturbance in conservation areas to 5 percent for Graham’s and 2.5 percent for White River beardtongue and avoiding impacts to plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) in designated conservation areas on non-federal and non-state lands, within 3 months after the signing of this Agreement. 14. SITLA will enact a regulation, order, or lease stipulation, as applicable, within 3 months of signing the Agreement that will limit new surface disturbance to 5 percent for Graham’s and 2.5 percent for White River beardtongue, and avoid impacts to plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) in designated conserva- tion areas or interim conservation areas on SITLA lands. 15. The conservation team will develop and implement a scientifically valid monitoring plan (approved by consensus) to determine trends in plant populations across the range of the species. The plan should include continued monitoring at the current sites established by Red Butte Gardens, and es- tablish additional monitoring sites to capture range-wide variation in habitat, climate, and population processes. 16. The conservation team will coordinate annual seed collections in all areas where the species are present (with landowner approval), in accordance with USFWS and Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) guidelines, for placement in storage at Red Butte Garden and the National Center for Ge- netic Resources Preservation. A seed collection plan will be developed and implemented with ap- proval from the USFWS. Loss of plants/habitat under federal land- See conservation actions 8–11 and 15–16. ownership/management. Loss of plants/habitat under non-federal In conservation areas on non-federal lands, conservation actions 5–7 and 12–16 will minimize and ownership/management. mitigate any loss of individual plants and habitat. 17. On SITLA interim areas (Class A: 682 ha [1,686.6 ac], Class B: 724 ha [1,789.8 ac]) and private interim areas (140 ha [345.5 ac]) prior to approval of any exploration or plan of operations, these areas will also have a limit of 5 percent new disturbance for Graham’s and 2.5 percent for White River beardtongue from baseline as set forth in conservation action 14. In the event there are sur- face-mine plan filings that would necessitate the destruction or removal of habitat, SITLA or the landowner, upon election to convert all or part of an interim conservation area to a non-conserva- tion area, will require pre-disturbance surveys, and to the extent feasible in its reasonable judg- ment, after consultation with the conservation team, salvage a minimum of 50 plants or 25 percent of the total population size, whichever is greater, and collect seed from 50 plants or 25 percent of the total population size for long-term conservation at Red Butte Garden of identifiable plants from the disturbance area. To the extent feasible, pre-disturbance surveys should be initiated a minimum of 1 year prior to surface-disturbing activities. To the extent feasible, plants should be salvaged in late fall to maximize survival and likelihood of transplant success. Transplant and monitoring of salvaged plants will be overseen by the conservation team.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE (2014, CA ENTIRE)—Continued

Threat and associated impacts Conservation action

18. On private lands, conservation actions on occupied habitats outside of designated conservation areas will be entirely voluntary. Plant and seed salvage and other good faith efforts to protect plants and restore habitat will be considered, but will not be mandatory. The conservation team is expected to work with private entities to promote and provide support for conservation actions on private lands, and will consider creation of a conservation credit system for plant salvage, habitat banking, support of conservation initiatives, and other voluntary activities that promote the persist- ence and recovery of the species. The conservation team should also promote voluntary restora- tion and habitat banking or exchanges by private landowners, where landowners would restore oc- cupied habitat or dispersal corridors in anticipation of the need for future revisions of conservation areas on their property or by other private landowners. Allocation or allowances for landowner credits for conservation banks or exchanges would be subject to the authority of the conservation team. The conservation team would also determine how restored populations and habitats would be utilized. Habitat loss and fragmentation ...... See conservation actions 1–3. Livestock Grazing on BLM-Managed Lands Herbivory of all or part of aboveground 19. On federal lands where the species co-occur with livestock grazing during the growing season portion of vegetative portion of plant. (April through September), the BLM will develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan for each allotment within 1 year of signing this Agreement. If monitoring identifies that livestock grazing is negatively affecting the species, the BLM will immediately adjust livestock management in the allotment to ameliorate those impacts. Short-term adjustments may include construction of temporary drift fences to keep livestock away from occupied habitat, and long-term adjustments may include permanent fencing or modifying the grazing schedule. In any adjustment made to allot- ments, the authorized officer will include consultation, cooperation and coordination with affected permittees, as stipulated in 43 CFR 4130.3–3. The conservation team will be consulted as nec- essary. The conservation team will be apprised of changes and modifications to management of al- lotments through annual reporting to the conservation team. Herbivory of all or part of the inflores- See conservation action 19. cence. Trampling of plant and habitat ...... See conservation action 19. Change in community composition ...... See conservation action 19. Invasive species invasion, spread, and See conservation actions 19 and 20–24. competition. Alteration of soil characteristics ...... See conservation action 19. Road Construction and Maintenance Direct mortality from surface disturbance See conservation actions 1–3. Invasive species invasion, spread, and See conservation actions 20–24. competition. Increased dust emissions ...... See conservation actions 1–3. Restricted pollinator movement from See conservation actions 1–3. roads. Habitat loss/fragmentation ...... See conservation actions 1–3. Invasive Weeds Invasion and establishment of non-native 20. Within 1 year of signing the Agreement, the conservation team will develop, fund, and implement plants. a weed management plan (approved by consensus) in conservation areas that includes repeated annual targeted surveys to detect invasions and treatment of invasive species as soon as detected. This plan can be incorporated as part of a range-wide monitoring plan. 21. The weed management plan will identify treatment options for each known invasive species in the habitat of the species, with the goal of selecting the most appropriate option that controls weeds and minimizes adverse effects to Graham’s or White River beardtongues and their native plant community. 22. The conservation team will develop and implement a monitoring protocol in the weed manage- ment plan to determine the effectiveness of their actions. 23. The conservation team will review and update the weed management plan annually based on surveys, monitoring, and other information sources, and create an annual schedule of work tar- geting priority areas. 24. The weed management plan will develop and adopt best management practices for preventing the spread of invasive and/or exotic plants in the designated conservation areas on federal and non-federal lands. Competition ...... See conservation actions 20–24. Community alteration ...... See conservation actions 20–24. Small Population Size Stochastic events ...... See conservation actions 1–7 and 15–16. 25. Historical locations of Penstemon scarious var. albifluvis near the western end the species’ range should be revisited for collection of new voucher specimens and samples for genetic testing. The conservation team will plan and implement a distribution/genetics study to determine overlap and/or division between Penstemon scarious var. garettii and Penstemon scarious var. albifluvis geo- graphic ranges as part of this Agreement. Inbreeding depression ...... See conservation actions 1–7, 15–16, and 25. Lower sexual reproduction ...... See conservation actions 1–7, 15–16, and 25.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46071

TABLE 4—CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE (2014, CA ENTIRE)—Continued

Threat and associated impacts Conservation action

Loss of genetic diversity ...... See conservation actions 1–7, 15–16, and 25. Climate Change. Mortality caused by drought ...... 26. As part of demographic monitoring of the species, a component will be included to study the rela- tionship between precipitation patterns and species’ growth, reproduction and recruitment, and mor- tality. This may be accomplished by establishing weather-monitoring equipment at existing long- term demographic sites currently monitored by Red Butte Garden. Stress, lack of reproduction and recruit- See conservation action 26. ment, and mortality caused by shifting rainfall patterns. Habitat degradation ...... See conservation actions 1–3. Wildfire Mortality ...... 27. Any wildfire planning, suppression activities, and post-wildfire actions on federal and non-federal lands in occupied habitat will include mitigation consistent with the Agreement and include pre- season input from the conservation team. Community composition alteration ...... See conservation actions 20–24 and 27. Post-fire response ground disturbance ... See conservation action 27. Increased invasion and competition from See conservation actions 20–24 and 27. invasive species. Off-Road Vehicles Direct mortality ...... 28. On BLM lands, traffic will be limited to designated routes, and routes will be considered for clo- sure, limited use, or re-routing as appropriate to gain compliance and protect designated conserva- tion areas. This will not include any routes claimed by Uintah County as public roads. 29. On non-federal lands where off-highway vehicle (OHV) use occurs, wherever possible, land- owners and managers will attempt to re-route OHV use away from designated conservation areas and keep traffic on existing roads and trails. Increased dust load ...... See conservation actions 1–3. Fragmentation of habitat ...... See conservation actions 1–3. 1 Survey/Monitoring/Best Management Practices: Prior to any surface disturbance in federal and non-federal conservation areas, surveys will be conducted within the area of disturbance and out to 91.4 m (300 ft) from the edge of the disturbance to determine species presence, population, and distribution. Surveys will follow standard survey protocol as detailed in the USFWS Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2011). On all federal and non-federal lands, the landowner/manager will collect seeds and/or salvage a portion of plants from areas to be disturbed to ensure genetic representation of the species. Seeds can be used for restoration but at least a portion of these seeds should be given to Red Butte and Denver botanic Gardens for long-term storage.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46072 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Stream

-Roads

Figure 3: Designated conservation areas for Graham's and White River beardtongues delineated by units, with notation of the areas where the different disturbance caps apply.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C the range of both species on Federal, spatial buffer (all known White River The 2014 Conservation Agreement State, and private lands (Table 5). The beardtongue plants on BLM lands are will result in the protection of 64 remaining Graham’s beardtongue plants within conservation areas). This percent of Graham’s beardtongue and 76 on BLM lands outside of the designated conservation measure is consistent with percent of White River beardtongues conservation areas (representing an BLM protections for the species since within designated conservation areas. additional 4% of the total population) 2007. For our analysis of whether the These totals include protections across will be protected by a 91-m (300-ft) 2014 Conservation Agreement

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP06AU14.004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46073

sufficiently protects both species, we areas provide only short-term permanently designated conservation did not consider plants in conservation protections. Although these areas may areas, they do not provide assurances areas designated as interim, as these in the future be converted to for the long-term benefit of the species.

TABLE 5—CONSERVATION AREAS BY LANDOWNER FOR GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUES

Size of conservation area in Species Land owner- hectares Number of plants Percent of population ship (acres) *

Graham’s ...... BLM ...... 15,579 (38,497) 18,702 46.4 State ...... 1,254 (3,099) 2,319 5.75 Private ...... 1,128 (2,787) 4,755 11.8

Total ...... 17,957 (44,373) 25,776 63.9

White River ...... BLM ...... 8,678 (21,444) 7,482 61.2 State ...... 343 (847) 177 1.5 Private ...... 1,170 (2,890) 1,571 12.9

Total ...... 10,213 (25,238) 9,230 75.6

Both species combined ...... Total ...... 17,957 (44,373)

PECE Analysis threatened or endangered, or is and climate change, by instituting on- The purpose of PECE is to ensure threatened rather than endangered. the-ground protections to better manage consistent and adequate evaluation of An agreement or plan may contain and regulate disturbance in occupied recently formalized conservation efforts numerous conservation efforts, not all of habitat and habitats likely used by when making listing decisions. The which are sufficiently certain to be pollinators. We have a high degree of policy provides guidance on how to implemented and effective. Those certainty that the measures will be evaluate conservation efforts that have conservation efforts that are not implemented because the conservation not yet been implemented or have not sufficiently certain to be implemented team partners have a track record of yet demonstrated effectiveness. The and effective cannot contribute to a implementing conservation measures evaluation focuses on the certainty that determination that listing is for these species since 2007. Over the conservation efforts will be unnecessary, or a determination to list approximately the past 6 years of implemented and the certainty that the as threatened rather than endangered. implementation, BLM, the Utah conservation efforts will be effective. Regardless of the adoption of a Department of Natural Resources, and The policy presents nine criteria for conservation agreement or plan, Uintah County have effectively evaluating the certainty of however, if the best available scientific implemented conservation measures implementation and six criteria for and commercial data indicate that the from the 2007 Conservation Agreement evaluating the certainty of effectiveness species meets the definition of for Graham’s beardtongue including for conservation efforts. These criteria ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened surveying and monitoring the are not considered comprehensive species’’ on the day of the listing populations of both species, and evaluation criteria. The certainty of decision, then we must proceed with implementing avoidance buffers from implementation and the effectiveness of appropriate rulemaking activity under ground-disturbing activities on BLM a formalized conservation effort may section 4 of the Act. Further, it is lands. also depend on species-specific, habitat- important to note that a conservation New conservation measures are specific, location-specific, and effort- plan is not required to have absolute prescribed by the 2014 CA and are specific factors. We consider all certainty of implementation and already being implemented (see Table appropriate factors in evaluating effectiveness in order to contribute to a 3), including additional surveys and formalized conservation efforts. The listing determination. Rather, we need genetic studies. The 2014 CA has specific circumstances will also to be certain that the conservation sufficient annual monitoring and determine the amount of information efforts will be implemented and reporting requirements to ensure that all necessary to satisfy these criteria. effective such that the threats to the of the conservation measures are To consider that a formalized species are reduced or eliminated. implemented as planned, and are conservation effort contributes to Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR effective at removing threats to forming a basis for not listing a species, 15100, March 28, 2003), we evaluated Graham’s and White River beardtongues or listing a species as threatened rather the certainty of implementation (for and their habitat. The collaboration than endangered, we must find that the those measures not already between the Service, Uintah County, Rio conservation effort is sufficiently certain implemented) and effectiveness of Blanco County, the Utah Division of to be (1) implemented, and (2) effective, conservation measures in the 2014 CA Wildlife Resources (UDWR), SITLA, so as to have contributed to the pertaining to Graham’s and White River PLPCO, and BLM requires regular elimination or adequate reduction of beardtongues. We determined that the conservation team meetings and one or more threats to the species measures will be effective at eliminating involvement of all parties in order to identified through the section 4(a)(1) or reducing threats to the species fully implement the conservation analysis. The elimination or adequate because they protect occupied and agreement. Based on the reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may suitable habitat from the effects of implementation of previous actions of lead to a determination that the species energy development, livestock grazing, members of the conservation team, we does not meet the definition of invasive weeds, small population size have a high level of certainty that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

conservation measures in the 2014 CA successful reproduction (natural (US Forest Service 1983, entire). will be implemented and effective, and climate). Excessive dust can clog plant pores, thus they can be considered as part of • Minimum habitat patch or increase leaf temperature, alter the basis for our final listing population size. photosynthesis, and affect gas and water determination for Graham’s and White • Genetic diversity or heterozygosity. exchange (Sharifi et al. 1997, p. 842; River beardtongues. • Habitat connectivity and integrity. Ferguson et al. 1999, p. 2, Lewis 2013, • Viable, long-lived seedbank. entire), negatively affecting plant growth Our detailed PECE analysis is • Minimum number of individuals. and reproduction. Dust can affect plants available for review at http:// • www.regulations.gov and http:// Minimum number of viable up to 1,000 m (3,280 ft) away from the www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ populations. source (Service 2014a, entire). Effects of The general list is the same for both plants/2utahbeardtongues/. fugitive dust include species Graham’s and White River beardtongues composition changes, altered soil Summary of Factors Affecting the because they grow in similar habitats in properties, blocked stomata, reduced Species the same geographic area, even foraging capacity of pollinators, overlapping in places. However, Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), dehydration, reduced reproductive specifics for each resource can differ and its implementing regulations at 50 output, and a decline in reproductive between the two species. CFR part 424, set forth the procedures fitness (Service 2014a, entire). A 300-ft To determine the current and future for adding species to the Federal Lists buffer is the minimum distance needed status of Graham’s and White River of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in order to protect sensitive plant beardtongues, through our species status and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the species (Service 2014a, p. 9). assessment we evaluated if these Act, we may list a species based on any Roads may act as a barrier to resource needs are currently met and of the following five factors: (A) The pollinator movement, for example by how these resources are likely to change present or threatened destruction, influencing bees to forage on only one in the future. If the resources are not modification, or curtailment of its side of the road (Bhattacharya et al. currently met or are predicted to be habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 2003, pp. 42–43) or within isolated unmet in the future, we determined the commercial, recreational, scientific, or habitat patches (Goverde et al. 2002, cause of the resource insufficiency. The educational purposes; (C) disease or entire). Although bees and other underlying stressor causing the resource predation; (D) the inadequacy of pollinators are quite capable of crossing insufficiency is then considered as a existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) roads or other human-disturbed areas, potential threat to Graham’s and White other natural or manmade factors the high site fidelity of bumblebees River beardtongues. We discuss these affecting its continued existence. Listing makes them more apt to remain on one stressors in the following section. actions may be warranted based on any side of a disturbed area (Bhattacharya et of the above threat factors, singly or in Energy Exploration and Development al. 2003, p. 42). The implications of this combination. Stressors that fall under type of pollinator behavior for rare In our 2013 proposed rule, we plants is that the probability for each of these factors are discussed concluded that energy development was below individually. We then summarize outcrossing is reduced (Cane 2001, a threat to Graham’s and White River entire), thereby reducing genetic where each of these stressors or beardtongues because the species’ potential threats falls within the five variability and reproductive success. ranges overlap almost entirely with oil Habitat loss or fragmentation from factors. shale and tar sands development areas, energy development can result in higher In 2008 and 2012, we participated in and traditional oil and gas drilling. extinction probabilities for plants expert workshops—including experts Potential impacts from energy because remaining plant populations are from The Nature Conservancy, Red exploration and development include confined to smaller patches of habitat Butte Garden, the Utah Natural Heritage the removal of soil and vegetation when that are isolated from neighboring Program (UNHP), the Colorado Natural unpaved roads, well pads, evaporation populations (Jules 1998, p. 1; Soons Heritage Program (CNHP), BLM, and the ponds, disposal pits, and pipelines are 2003, p. 115). Habitat fragmentation and Natural Resources Conservation Service constructed (BLM 2008a, pp. 448–449). low population numbers pose a threat to to evaluate the best available scientific Increased disturbance from these rare plant species’ genetic potential to information for Graham’s and White developments, coupled with climate adapt to changing environmental River beardtongues (The Nature change (see Climate Change, below), conditions (Mathies et al. 2004, pp. Conservancy 2008, entire; Service would facilitate the invasion and spread 484–486). Smaller and more isolated 2012c, entire). We used the information of nonnative species such as cheatgrass populations produce fewer seeds and from these workshops to complete a (Bromus tectorum), halogeton pollen, and thus attract fewer and a species status assessment for both (Halogeton glomeratus), purple mustard, lower diversity of pollinators (Paschke Graham’s and White River and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) et al. 2003, p. 1,258; Lienert 2004, p. beardtongues. We determined that both (Brooks and Pyke 2001, entire; Grace et 62); for a more complete discussion, see species need the following resources for al. 2001, entire; Brooks 2003, p. 432; Small Population Size, below. viability: Friggens et al. 2012, entire), which can 2014 CA protections—The 2014 CA • Suitable soils and geology. outcompete native plants and increase establishes 17,957 ha (44,373 ac) of • Sufficient number of pollinators. the risk of catastrophic wildfires (see conservation areas on private, State, and • Intact associated and adjacent plant Wildfire and Invasive Weeds, below). public lands across the range of both community (both within and outside of Energy development also results in beardtongue species—encompassing 64 suitable or occupied habitat). increased road traffic and subsequent percent of the known Graham’s • Minimum reproductive effort or increases in dust emissions; for every beardtongue individuals and 76 percent reproductive success. vehicle travelling 1 mile (1.6 km) of of the known White River beardtongue • Suitable microclimate conditions unpaved roadway once a day, every day individuals. New surface disturbance for germination and establishment. for a year, approximately 2.5 tons of acreage will be limited in designated • Sufficient rain and temperatures dust are deposited along a 305-m (1,000- conservation areas to 5 percent for suitable for breaking seed dormancy and ft) wide corridor centered on the road Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46075

for White River beardtongue by pollinator) habitat and populations December 19, 2006). However, in 2013, landowner within each unit. The (Table 3 and Table 5), limiting surface the BLM issued the OSTEIS for allowed new surface disturbance of 5 disturbance, and maintaining buffer commercial leasing for oil shale and tar percent of the current baseline for distances from known and future sands development in Colorado, Utah, Graham’s beardtongue is higher than the locations of plants on BLM lands. and Wyoming. The 2013 OSTEIS Record 2.5 percent of the current baseline Limited surface disturbance within of Decision (ROD) opens 145,848 ha allowed for White River beardtongues, conservation areas will reduce potential (360,400 ac) in Utah and 10,522 ha due to the larger range of the Graham’s fugitive dust and pollinator barriers (26,000 ac) in Colorado for oil shale beardtongue. This is less disturbance impacts that otherwise may occur with leasing (BLM 2013a, p. 27), and 52,609 than the Utah standards for traditional full field development of oil and gas. ha (130,000 ac) in Utah for tar sands oil and gas well pad spacing, which is Although we expect oil and gas leasing (BLM 2013a, p. 48). roughly equivalent to 13 percent surface development to continue with negative Leasing for oil shale development on disturbance per section when effects to a small percent of both BLM lands has not yet occurred except considering one well per 40 acres and populations, a large percent of the for eight Research Development and an average surface disturbance of 5.2 population of both species will be Demonstration (RD&D) leases (1 in Utah acres for each and associated protected by implementing the and 7 in Colorado) (BLM 2013a, p. 15), infrastructure (Utah Administrative measures in the conservation agreement. but the area open for oil shale leasing Code R649–3–2. Location and Siting of Therefore, we no longer consider energy and steps needed to gain access to leases Vertical Wells and Statewide Spacing development to be a threat to the on these lands is authorized through the for Horizontal Wells). In addition, any species. OSTEIS ROD (BLM 2013a, entire). Tar limited surface disturbance within sands leasing on BLM lands is not Oil Shale and Tar Sands designated conservation areas will avoid restricted by the RD&D process, and plants by 91.4 m (300 ft). This The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 leases may be obtained through an avoidance distance will provide habitat U.S.C. 13201 et seq.) establishes that oil expression of interest and the BLM and connectivity for pollinators and shale, tar sands, and other strategic mineral leasing process. minimizes the effects of disturbance, unconventional fuels should be In Utah, 33 and 52 percent, which are greatest closest to the source. developed to reduce the nation’s respectively, of Graham’s and White In addition, 300 ft is the standard dependence on imported oil. The River beardtongues’ total populations of avoidance buffer distance recommended Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. known individuals overlap the BLM- to Federal agencies in the Service’s 15927(m)(1)(B)) identifies the Green designated oil shale and tar sands Section 7 consultations on nontribal River Region, including the entire range leasing areas (Service 2014b, entire; lands for listed plants within the Uinta of Graham’s and White River Table 7 and Table 8). Designated oil Basin based on a review of relevant beardtongues, as a priority for oil shale shale leasing areas in Colorado do not literature (Service 2014a). and tar sands development. Provisions overlap known populations for either The BLM will institute additional of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provide beardtongue species and are at least 32 protections on lands it manages outside economic incentives for oil shale km (20 mi) away from the closest known of designated Conservation Areas by development. For example, the populations (Service 2013, p. 7). requiring surveys and avoidance of restrictions in the Mineral Leasing Act A majority of all known Graham’s plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) from surface- of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) limited beardtongue and White River disturbing activities. This measure oil shale lease sizes to 2,072 hectares beardtongue plants are directly protects an additional 1,631 plants of (ha) (5,120 acres (ac)), and restricted associated with the Mahogany ledge Graham’s beardtongue or 4.0 percent of leasing opportunities to just one lease where it outcrops or is less than 152 m the total population so that a total of 68 tract per individual or corporation. (500 ft) below the surface (Service 2013, percent is protected by spatial buffers Lease size restrictions effectively p. 5). Surface strip mining is likely to be both within and outside of conservation limited development because of a lack the preferred extraction method in areas areas. All but one White River of available acreage to accommodate with shallow overburdens (BLM 2012, beardtongue plant on BLM lands are necessary infrastructure and facilities. p. A–22; Institute for Clean and Secure incorporated into the conservation The Energy Policy Act of 2005 now Energy 2013, p. 6), resulting in the areas. In addition, the 91.4-m (300-ft) allows an individual or corporation to complete loss of all surface vegetation. spatial buffer protects Graham’s and acquire multiple lease tracts up to About 48 percent and 39 percent, White River beardtongue plants that 20,234 ha (50,000 ac) in any one State, respectively, of Graham’s and White may be found on BLM lands in future loosening the restrictions of the Mineral River beardtongues occur on State and surveys. Leasing Act of 1920 (Bartis et al. 2005, private lands where they were afforded Any unavoidable impacts to p. 48). little protection at the time of our individual plants will be offset by As we discussed in our January 19, proposed rule. We estimate that most mitigation, such as protecting additional 2006 (71 FR 3158), and August 6, 2013 known Graham’s and White River plants by adding new conservation areas (78 FR 47590), proposed rules, Graham’s beardtongues on State and private lands or with contributions to a conservation beardtongue is closely associated with occur where the Mahogany layer fund that will be used to support the richest oil shale-bearing strata in the outcrops or is less than 152 m (500 ft) conservation efforts for the plant Mahogany ledge, which makes the below the surface, making these areas species. Overall, the establishment and species highly vulnerable to extirpation more likely to be surface mined. As a management of conservation areas from potential oil shale or tar sands result, plants in these areas are the most reduces the threats of surface mining (Shultz and Mutz 1979, p. 42; vulnerable to direct loss as oil shale and disturbance, dust emissions, pollinator Neese and Smith 1982, p. 64; Service tar sands development expands across barriers, and habitat loss and 2005, p. 5). The economic and the region. In addition, land ownership fragmentation from energy development technological feasibility of oil shale and throughout the Uinta Basin is a to Graham’s and White River tar sands development was uncertain checkerboard of private, State, and beardtongues by protecting an adequate when the original proposed listing rule Federal ownership. Losses of Graham’s amount of the species’ (and associated was withdrawn in 2006 (71 FR 76024, and White River beardtongue

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

populations on private and State lands Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) depending on the technology, with air- would result in indirect impacts from process with BLM (BLM 2013e, p. 1). In fired technology at the lower end habitat fragmentation and the loss of our 2013 proposed rule (78 FR 47590), (Institute for Clean and Secure Energy population connectivity. we knew of three oil shale projects and 2013, pp. 140–142). Enefit Energy The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and explorations that were planned or estimates operating costs for oil shale Mining (UDOGM) has approved one ongoing on private, State, and BLM energy development to be considerably large-scale oil shale mine for Red Leaf lands in Uintah County, Utah. As of lower at $35 per barrel (Enefit 2014, Resources, Inc., and six other March 2014 we know of five planned entire). Crude oil prices for Utah have exploration mines for oil shale, which and ongoing projects for oil shale on been above $78 per barrel in 27 of the overlap the ranges of Graham’s private and State lands, including past 36 months (January 2011– beardtongue and White River commencement of commercial scale December 2013) with annual averages beardtongue on private and State lands. development (Table 6). above $82 per barrel from 2011 to 2013 In addition, two more permits for oil Private and State lands (including (US EIA 2014a, entire). Forecasts show shale development, one for a small-scale SITLA lands) do not have the multistep that prices are to remain above the mine and one for a large-scale mine, regulatory requirements that Federal threshold of $78 per barrel through the have been submitted to UDOGM for oil lands have, and they are presently shale development on private or State available for oil shale development end of the analysis period of 2015 (EIA lands. Red Leaf Resources, Inc., also (Institute for Clean and Secure Energy 2014b, p. 28). In addition, the reference announced that its field pilot test 2013, p. 5). In addition, the oil shale price for oil is expected to be above $92 conducted in 2008 to 2009 performed as resources on SITLA lands have, ‘‘the per barrel from 2015 to 2040 (US EIA predicted, and they will begin their potential to support a sizeable 2014c, p. 6). Despite the current lack of commercial operation when their commercial shale industry, and its commercial-scale oil shale operations, regulatory permits are finalized (Red resources are readily developable’’ the technology is feasible, the resource Leaf 2013a, entire; Red Leaf 2013b. (Institute for Clean and Secure Energy is available—35,701 ha (88,220 ac) of entire). Red Leaf has filed a Notice of 2013 p. 5). The SITLA has sold oil shale SITLA lands have been leased, 145,848 Intent to commence mining operations leases that overlap both species and ha (360,400 ac) of Federal lands in Utah (Red Leaf 2014; entire), which was includes 23 percent and 9 percent of the will be made available for leasing after approved by UDOGM on Feb 20, 2014, total known populations of Graham’s conducting RD&D projects, Red Leaf and a subsequent amendment was beardtongue and White River filed a Notice of Intent in 2014 to approved on May 5, 2014 (UDOGM beardtongue, respectively. commence a large scale oil shale mining 2014, entire). A third oil shale A market study of development of oil operation, and crude oil prices are development company has identified shale found that ex-situ extraction projected to remain at favorable levels. 2,833–3,642 ha (7,000–9,000 ac) for methods would break even at market All these factors lead us to conclude subsurface mining and is currently values for oil at $77.32 to $91.65 per that oil shale development is highly working through the National barrel including hurdle costs, likely to happen in the future.

TABLE 6—CURRENT AND PROPOSED OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS ON STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS AFFECTING GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUES

Maximum Maximum disturbance 1 disturbance Graham’s White River 2 Project Project status beardtongue beardtongue Protection under 2014 CA (percent of (percent of population) population)

Enefit American Oil ...... NEPA process ongoing ...... 15.2 24.4 2,900 acres in conservation area. Red Leaf Resources ...... Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 3.8 0.17 0 (UDOGM) large mine permit active. Ambre Energy ...... UDOGM small mine permit active .... 0.75 8.1 < 10 acres in interim conservation area. TOMCO Energy ...... UDOGM large mine permit in proc- 15.4 0 1,053 acres in interim conservation ess. area—likely to be developed dur- ing the 15-year 2014 conservation agreement. PetroDome North America ...... UDOGM small mine permit in proc- 3.3 0.6 0 ess. TOTAL ...... 38.25 32.87 1. Maximum disturbance assumes that all beardtongues on the entire property owned or leased are affected by oil shale development oper- ations. 2. Conservation areas will abide by the conditions of the 2014 Conservation Agreement (CA) for the 15-year term of the CA. Interim conserva- tion areas will follow the measures of the 2014 CA until such time as the lessee is ready to develop, which may be shorter than a 15-year time- frame. Interim conservation measures were not considered in our analysis as they provide only temporary protection to the species.

Tar sands extraction is also River beardtongues, respectively. The any known populations of Graham’s or technically feasible (Institute for Clean impacts of tar sands mining will be White River beardtongues. There are and Secure Energy 2013, p. 12). Tar similar to those from oil shale mining. three active exploration permits on sands lease areas on BLM lands overlap We are aware of only one approved tar record with UDOGM and one proposed 20 and 0.1 percent of the total known sands project in Utah (Service 2014, p. exploration project (Service 2014c, p. 3). populations of Graham’s and White 3), and the project does not overlap with None of these projects overlap with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46077

known locations of either beardtongue and White River beardtongues were the analysis area across the Graham’s species. expected to be high (BLM 2008b, p. beardtongue’s range. In summary, the project initiation and 457). Although a high level of Development within the White River the recent BLM leasing decisions development within these species’ beardtongue analysis area is similar; as indicate the renewed interest in oil habitats was not yet realized, we of March 2014, 21 well pads were shale and tar sands mining and the expected it to increase in the future. developed or approved in the White increased likelihood of development Most of the ranges of Graham’s and River beardtongue analysis area, 13 of across the ranges of these two species. White River beardtongues are underlain which are in Utah (Service 2014b, Over 60 percent of Graham’s with deposits of traditional hydrocarbon entire). Less than 1 percent (26 ha (65 beardtongue and White River resources, primarily natural gas (Service ac)) of the total area included within the beardtongue plants are directly 2013, p. 8). In the past two decades, oil White River beardtongue analysis area is associated with shallow outcroppings of and gas production in Uintah County, likely disturbed by existing oil and gas the Mahogany ledge, which are likely to Utah, has increased substantially. For activities. be surface mined, resulting in the example, oil production in Uintah Approximately 27 percent of the complete loss of vegetation. We estimate County increased about 60 percent from analysis areas for Graham’s beardtongue that as much as 81 and 91 percent of the 2002 to 2012, and gas production and 13 percent for White River total known populations of Graham’s increased about 25 percent over this beardtongue, respectively, on State and and White River beardtongues, same time period (UDOGM 2012, Federal land are leased for traditional respectively, would be vulnerable to entire). Drilling activities in Uintah oil and gas development (Service 2014b, direct loss and indirect negative impacts County continue to increase: The entire). At the time of this analysis, one such as habitat fragmentation from oil number of new wells drilled in Uintah planned seismic exploration project shale and tar sands development County was 316 in 2009, 631 in 2012 overlaps with habitat for both without additional protections. (UDOGM 2012, entire), and 521 in 2013 beardtongue species. The initiation of However, the 2014 CA provides (UDOGM 2014, entire). this project indicates that traditional oil protections to avoid, minimize, and To update and quantify how much and gas development will very likely mitigate the impacts of oil shale and tar drilling has occurred within Graham’s increase in the habitat of both of these sands development, including the and White River beardtongues’ habitat, species. Our estimate of impacts is establishment of conservation areas and we used the following methods to likely an underestimate because we do use of surface-disturbance avoidance identify an analysis area for impacts to not have information about how much buffers, effectively reducing threats to the species based upon the currently private land is planned for the species (see discussion of 2014 CA known plant locations and adjacent development. Protections under Energy Exploration essential pollinator habitat. For Although some oil and gas drilling and Development). The establishment of Graham’s beardtongue, we created an has impacted individuals of Graham’s conservation areas will reduce the analysis area using known locations and White River beardtongues, threats to the species from oil shale and plus a distance of 700 m (2,297 ft) for development is not at a high enough tar sands development by protecting 64 pollinators. For White River level to negatively impact the species. percent and 76 percent of Graham’s and beardtongue, we created an analysis Populations monitored for 9 years have White River respectively from large- area using known locations plus a been stable (Dodge and Yates 2011, scale surface disturbance and habitat distance of 500 m (1,640 ft) for entire), and neither beardtongue appears fragmentation. Therefore, we no longer pollinators. These distances (700 m and to suffer from pollinator limitation consider oil shale and tar sands 500 m) were based on pollinator travel (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, entire; development to be a threat to the distance for important pollinators for Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 12). However, species. each species (see Species Information, substantial numbers of Graham’s and ‘‘Biology’’ for each plant, above) and White River beardtongue individuals Traditional Oil and Gas Drilling also matched our proposed critical (and their habitat) occur in areas that are Historically, impacts to both habitat designation (78 FR 47832; Aug. leased for oil and gas development beardtongue species from traditional oil 6, 2013). We then calculated the number (Tables 5 and 6), and thus it is and gas development were largely of wells currently drilled within these reasonable to conclude that the impacts avoided because development within areas. of oil and gas activity will increase in the species’ habitat was minimal. Within the Graham’s beardtongue the future as additional areas are However, the previously described analysis area, well drilling has occurred developed. However, the 2014 CA Energy Policy Act of 2005 enables at a comparatively slow pace thus far: provides protections to avoid, minimize, leasing of oil and gas and tar sands As of March 2014, 88 well pads were and mitigate the impacts of oil and gas separately, even when the two are found developed or approved within the development, including the in the same area. Previously, the law analysis area for Graham’s beardtongue, establishment of conservation areas and required a combined tar sands/oil and and the majority (75) of these are in use of surface-disturbance avoidance gas lease, effectively delaying leasing Utah (Service 2014b, entire), which also buffers, effectively reducing threats to and extraction of oil and gas in tar sand corresponds to the majority of the range the species (see discussion under 2014 areas because of concerns about of the species. We do not know the area CA protections under Energy conflicts between tar sands and of actual surface disturbance associated Exploration and Development section traditional oil and gas development. with each well, so we estimated 2 ha (5 above). Therefore, we no longer Overall, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ac) of surface disturbance per well pad consider traditional oil and gas effectively opened the entire range of (BLM 2008b, p. 4–3)), including development to be a threat to the both species to leasing for oil and gas disturbance from associated roads and species. development and made that leasing pipelines. Accordingly, we estimate that more efficient and effective. 103 ha (255 ac) of Graham’s beardtongue Summary of All Energy Development At the time of publication of our 2013 habitat are disturbed from energy Since our proposed rule (78 FR proposed rule, the impacts of traditional development, which is less than 1 47590) we have learned of additional oil and gas development on Graham’s percent of the total area included within planned oil shale projects that overlap

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

known Graham’s or White River range of these species. Without leasing for oil shale and tar sands; beardtongue plant locations. If these protective measures (i.e., 2014 CA), approximately 86 and 100 percent of all projects are fully implemented, their approximately 86 and 100 percent of the known Graham’s and White River direct impacts would reduce the total known populations of Graham’s beardtongue plants fall within areas that redundancy and representation of both and White River beardtongues are open for oil shale and tar sands species. Although commercial (including those in the center of their leasing (see Table 7 and Table 8). Of all production of oil shale and tar sands is ranges) are vulnerable to direct loss and known Graham’s and White River in its infancy, the commencement of the effects of increased disturbance. beardtongue plants, 27 and 12.5 percent, several large projects and State Approximately 62 and 40 percent of respectively, fall within areas that are permitting of one large oil shale mining Graham’s beardtongue and White River leased by the BLM and the State of Utah operation indicates progress toward beardtongue, respectively, are on BLM for traditional oil and gas development. imminent future development of oil lands within areas that are either leased shale and tar sands resources within the for oil and gas development or open to

TABLE 7—POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE TO GRAHAM’S BEARDTONGUE ACROSS ALL LANDOWNER TYPES PRIOR TO AND AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (CA)

Percent of population vulnerable Percent of population vulner- to disturbance without 2014 CA able to disturbance with 2014 Graham’s beardtongue Protections CA Protections Number of Percent of Number of Percent of plants total plants total

Existing BLM oil and gas leases ...... 4,619 11.5 770 2 BLM oil shale and tar sands lease areas ...... 13,449 33 910 2 Total number of plants that overlap with all energy types on BLM lands or leases ...... 16,085 40 1,436 4 Existing State of Utah oil, gas, and oil shale leases ...... 11,212 29 9,458 23 Private lands (we assume all of these lands are open to energy develop- ment of any kind) ...... 8,525 21 3,761 9 Total number of plants that overlap with all energy types across all land- owners ...... 35,126 87 14,345 36

TABLE 8—POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE TO WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUE ACROSS ALL LANDOWNER TYPES PRIOR TO AND AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE 2014 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (CA). NUMBERS MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING

Percent of population vulnerable Percent of population vulner- to disturbance without 2014 CA able to disturbance with 2014 White River beardtongue protections CA protections Number of Percent of Number of Percent of plants total plants total

Existing BLM oil and gas leases ...... 1,238 10 1 <0.001 BLM oil shale and tar sands lease areas ...... 5,899 48 0 0 Total number of plants that overlap with all energy types on BLM lands or leases ...... 7,038 58 1 0 Existing State of Utah oil, gas and oil shale leases ...... 1,276 10 1,100 9 Private lands (we assume all of these lands are open to energy develop- ment of any kind) ...... 3,458 28 1,884 15 Total number of plants that overlap with all energy types across all land- owners ...... 11,772 96 2,985 24

However, as described above (Energy not a threat by itself (see Cumulative rabbits, cattle, deer, and sheep, and Exploration and Development, 2014 CA Effects from All Factors, below). herbivory results in reduced fruit and Protections) and in our PECE analysis, Invertebrates, wildlife, and livestock seed production (Dodge and Yates 2011, the 2014 CA provides additional graze directly on individuals of pp. 7, 9). In particular, tiger moth protections, including the establishment Graham’s and White River beardtongues caterpillars (possibly Arctia caja of conservation areas and use of surface (Sibul and Yates 2006, p. 9; Dodge and utahensis) have been identified foraging disturbance avoidance buffers, Yates 2010, p. 9; 2011, pp. 9, 12; UNHP on Graham’s beardtongue plants (Dodge effectively reducing threats from energy 2012, entire). Grazers feed on all parts and Yates 2011; Tepedino 2012). development to the species. Therefore, of the plant, including the seeds, we no longer consider energy At one study site, herbivory rates damaging or destroying individual (measured by the number of plants development to be a threat to either plants and effectively reducing their species. browsed) were as high as 68 percent, but reproductive success. fluctuated greatly (Dodge and Yates Grazing and Trampling It is likely that livestock are not the 2011, entire). Herbivory appeared to In our 2013 proposed rule we found primary grazers of Graham’s or White decrease at times due to delayed plant grazing to be a contributing factor to River beardtongues. High rates of development during cool, wet springs cumulative threats to the species, but herbivory occur from invertebrates, (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 10–11).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46079

Despite high levels of herbivory, the beardtongue as it tends to grow on representation to recover from existing monitored populations were mostly slightly steeper slopes (see Species grazing and trampling impacts, and we stable across 9 years (McCaffery 2013a, Information, ‘‘Habitat’’ for both do not consider grazing to be a threat to p. 4). Presumably, beardtongues would beardtongues above), are afforded some these species by itself (see Cumulative be adapted to herbivory by native protection from trampling by cattle, as Effects from All Factors, below, for more grazers, which may explain why cattle generally avoid steep slopes. information). monitored populations continue to However, this characteristic would not 2014 CA protections—The 2014 CA remain stable despite high levels of prevent trampling by sheep, which are provides conservation measures to herbivory. not deterred by steep slopes. address the effects of livestock grazing Grazing occurs throughout the range Livestock grazing can negatively on both species wherever they occur of Graham’s and White River impact native plants indirectly through locally. The conservation team will beardtongues. Approximately 52 habitat degradation or by influencing develop and implement a monitoring percent of all known Graham’s plant community composition. Across plan to detect impacts to Graham’s and beardtongue plants and 61 percent of all the Colorado Plateau, livestock White River beardtongues from White River beardtongue plants occur in trampling and trailing breaks and livestock grazing. Where impacts are 19 grazing allotments on BLM lands. damages biological soil crusts (Belnap detected, BLM will adjust grazing Seasons of use vary considerably, with and Gillette 1997, entire); alters plant regimes or take other measures to most allotments grazed over the winter community composition (Cole et al. reduce these impacts. BLM can adjust (from November or December to April), 1997, entire); spreads and encourages grazing regimes by changing the season although some allotments are grazed in weed seed establishment (Davies and of use to ensure plants are not grazed the spring and summer (BLM 2008c, pp. Sheley 2007, p. 179); increases dust during the growing period, reduce the J1–4). Grazing in the spring and summer emissions (Neff et al. 2008, entire); and number of livestock, rest and rotate are more likely to directly impact compacts soils, affecting water pastures, and avoid suitable areas beardtongue individuals than grazing in infiltration, soil porosity, and root within pastures. This conservation the winter. Most White River development (Castellano and Valone measure will not only provide us with beardtongue plants occur within six 2007, entire). Crusts are not known to be better information about the effects of allotments: four sheep allotments with a a major component of the soils that livestock grazing, but it will also employ season of use from October to May, one Graham’s and White River beardtongues conservation measures at specific sheep allotment (Raven Ridge in inhabit, but livestock likely have altered species occurrences where livestock Colorado) grazed from November to the physical features of the plants’ grazing may be affecting the species. February, and one cattle allotment with habitats. Although the best available Unauthorized Collection season of use from April to June and data do not indicate how livestock October to February (BLM 2008c, pp. grazing has indirectly impacted In our 2013 proposed listing rule (71 J1–4). Sheep are more likely to graze on Graham’s beardtongue or White River FR 3158, January 19, 2006), we forbs than cattle (Cutler 2011, entire), beardtongue habitat, the invasive determined that unauthorized collection thus beardtongue individuals within species cheatgrass, purple mustard, was not a threat to the species. Graham’s sheep allotments are more likely to be halogeton, and prickly Russian thistle beardtongue is a unique and charismatic grazed than those in cattle allotments. have been documented growing with species that is prized by collectors and, Sheep grazing can result in the removal both beardtongues (see Invasive Weeds, at least at one point in time, was of inflorescences of Graham’s below) (Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 23; available commercially online (71 FR beardtongue, thereby preventing CNHP 2012, entire; Service 2012a, 3158, January 19, 2006). However, we reproduction from occurring (Reisor entire; UNHP 2012, entire). We assume are not aware of any recent attempts to 2014b; p. 2). Overall, grazing pressure that grazing has caused ecological collect this species without proper may have less of an impact on the changes, including nonnative weed authorizations. Since our 2013 proposed beardtongues now than it has in the invasion and other physical changes rule (78 FR 47590), we have no new past—in the past decade, BLM has (e.g., loss of biological soil crusts), information about the potential threat of reduced the number of grazing sheep by within beardtongue habitats (Mack and unauthorized collection. Therefore, we half on many of the allotments (Cutler Thompson 1982, entire; Cole et al. 1997, do not consider unauthorized collection 2011, entire). Grazing also likely occurs entire). We do not know the extent and a threat to either beardtongue species. across areas owned by other severity of these changes. Off-Highway Vehicle Use landowners, although we do not have In summary, herbivory and trampling data on grazing on these other lands. from grazing on some locations of In our 2013 proposed listing rule, we Besides impacts from grazing, which Graham’s and White River beardtongues found that the use of off-highway or off- we do not find is negatively impacting appear to be severe during some years, road vehicles (OHVs) was not a threat to Graham’s or White River beardtongue at and it is likely that similar impacts either beardtongue species. The use of the species level, domestic livestock can occur across the ranges of the species. OHVs may result in direct loss or impact rare and native plants by The documented effects of herbivory damage to plants and their habitat trampling them (71 FR 3158, January 19, and trampling on Graham’s and White through soil compaction, increased 2006). We believe one population of River beardtongues to date are limited to erosion, invasion of noxious weeds, and Graham’s beardtongue was eradicated a reduction in reproductive output in disturbance to pollinators and their by livestock trampling (Neese and Smith some years at specific sites and the habitat (Eckert et al. 1979, entire; Lovich 1982, p. 66). Winter sheep grazing is the possible loss of one historical and Bainbridge 1999, p. 316; Ouren et principal use across the range of White population, rather than widespread al. 2007, entire; BLM 2008b, pp. 4–94; River beardtongue habitat, where sheep impacts on habitat or population-level Wilson et al. 2009, p. 1). However, to trailing (walking) likely results in impacts on the species. Despite high date, little OHV use has occurred within damage or loss of plants (Franklin 1995, levels of herbivory, monitored the ranges of Graham’s beardtongue and p. 6; UNHP 2012, entire). It is likely that populations appear to be stable. At White River beardtongue. For example, some individuals of both beardtongue present, we find that both species have unauthorized OHV use was observed at species, and particularly White River sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and only four locations within White River

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

beardtongue occupied habitat 10 to 20 beardtongue, potentially because of approximately 563 known plants (1.4 years ago (UNHP 2012, entire). Federal increased disturbance due to the nearby percent of the total known number of and industry personnel were road (Dodge and Yates 2011, p. 12) plants). No individuals of White River increasingly using OHVs in oil and gas Conflicts can also arise from new beardtongue were affected by this fire. field surveys and site location paved roads or road upgrades, as Fires do not occur frequently in developments prior to 2008. However, described below. For example, in 2012, Graham’s beardtongue or White River since 2008, the revised Vernal Field Seep Ridge Road, a formerly unpaved beardtongue habitat, but fire frequency Office RMP limits all vehicles to county road crossing through occupied and intensity is likely to increase with designated routes (BLM 2008c, p. 46). Graham’s beardtongue habitat, was increased invasive weeds and climate This protective measure provides realigned and paved. At least 322 change (see Invasive Weeds, Climate conservation benefits within the habitat individuals were within 91.4 m (300 ft) Change, and Cumulative Effects from of Graham’s and White River of the proposed right-of-way, and the All Factors, below, for more beardtongues. We do not have any project resulted in direct impacts to at information). In addition, we do not yet additional information regarding least 31 Graham’s beardtongue know how these species respond to fire. impacts to the species from off-highway individuals that were transplanted out It is likely that with patchy, low- vehicle use since our 2013 proposal (78 of the widened road right-of-way, but intensity burns they would be able to FR 47590). Given the low levels of did not survive (Reisor 2013, entire; Roe resprout from their roots, which we documented unauthorized OHV use and 2014, pers. comm.). The paving of Seep have documented in the field for the protections provided by the BLM Ridge Road reduced the impacts of Graham’s beardtongue (Brunson 2012, Vernal RMP, we do not consider OHV fugitive dust, but the widened road entire). Overall, we do not consider use a threat to either beardtongue corridor directly decreased the number wildfire alone to be a threat to either species. of plants on the east side of the road and species. 2014 CA protections—In addition to may impede pollinator movement, 2014 CA protections—The the protective measures (i.e., limited to leading to this population of Graham’s conservation team will provide input designated routes) provided in the beardtongue becoming more isolated. into wildfire planning and post-wildfire Vernal RMP, the 2014 CA specifies that In summary, road maintenance and actions in designated conservation BLM will identify areas for closure or construction can destroy habitat and areas. This measure will help to prevent limited use as needed to protect the fragment populations, but this impact is unnecessary impacts to the species from species through their travel management site-specific and does not occur across pre- and post-planning and mitigation of process. On non-Federal lands, the entire range of either species. We are wildfire activities. landowners will attempt to keep OHV not aware of other road construction or Invasive Weeds traffic away from designated maintenance projects that have conservation areas. These measures will occurred, or are proposed to occur, in In our 2013 proposed listing rule we help to prevent OHV use from becoming areas where they would impact found invasive weeds to be a a threat to the species in the future. Graham’s beardtongue or White River contributor to cumulative threats to the beardtongue. Therefore, we do not species, but not to be a threat by itself Road Maintenance and Construction consider road maintenance and (Cumulative Effects from All Factors, In our 2013 proposed listing rule we construction to be a threat to either below). Cheatgrass, halogeton, prickly found that road maintenance and beardtongue species. Russian thistle, and purple mustard construction was not a threat to 2014 CA protections—The 2014 CA occur in Graham’s beardtongue habitat Graham’s or White River beardtongues. designated conservation areas for both (71 FR 3158, January 19, 2006; Service Roads that cross through rare plant beardtongue species. Within designated 2012c, entire), and may be extensive at habitat can destroy habitat and conservation areas, surface disturbance site-specific locations (Malone 2014, p. populations, increase road dust, and will be limited to 5 percent new 2.). In addition, invasive weeds are disturb pollinators (Trombulak and disturbance where Graham’s numerous in the habitat and plant Frissell 2000, entire). We consider this beardtongue occurs and 2.5 percent new communities immediately adjacent to issue separately from roads created for disturbance in areas occupied by White beardtongue species habitat, most oil and gas development (see Energy River beardtongue. In addition, notably in disturbed areas (for example, Exploration and Development, above), disturbance such as road construction along roads and well pads) (Service although the effects are the same. will avoid plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) 2012c, entire). Many unpaved county roads cross within conservation areas and on BLM The spread of nonnative, invasive through Graham’s and White River lands. These measures will help prevent species is considered the second largest beardtongue habitat, and most of these road construction and maintenance threat to imperiled plants in the United roads have existed for decades. Plants from becoming threats to the species in States (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 2). located near unpaved roads are prone to the future. Invasive plants—specifically exotic the effects of dust, fragmentation, and annuals—negatively affect native pollinator disturbance (see Energy Wildfire vegetation, including rare plants. One of Exploration and Development, above, In our 2013 proposed listing rule we the most substantial effects is the for a thorough discussion of road found wildfire to be a contributor to change in vegetation fuel properties effects). Two long-term monitoring plots cumulative threats to the species, but that, in turn, alters fire frequency, for Graham’s and White River not to be a threat by itself (see intensity, extent, type, and seasonality beardtongues are immediately adjacent Cumulative Effects from All Factors, (Menakis et al. 2003, p. 282; Brooks et to unpaved roads, and these populations below). In 2012, the Wolf Den Fire, al. 2004, entire; McKenzie et al. 2004, were stable over nine years of the study believed to be started by dry lightning, entire). Shortened fire return intervals (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 9, 12; burned 8,112 ha (20,046 ac) in Uintah make it difficult for native plants to McCaffery 2013a, pp. 18–19). However, County, including 394 ha (974 ac), or reestablish or compete with invasive one monitoring plot of White River approximately 1.5 percent, of the area plants (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, beardtongue produces fewer flowers and within 700 m (2,297 ft) of known points pp. 68–77). Invasive weeds can exclude fruits than other sites of White River of Graham’s beardtongue and native plants and alter pollinator

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46081

behaviors (D’Antonio and Vitousek than more common beardtongue species Cumulative Effects from All Factors, 1992, pp. 68–77; DiTomaso 2000, p. that have overlapping ranges (Arft below, for additional information). 257; Mooney and Cleland 2001, pp. 74– unpublished report 2002). As previously White River beardtongue has only 8 75; Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. described (see Background, ‘‘Biology’’ populations, and 2 of these have fewer 211–213). For example, cheatgrass for both plants, above), both species than 150 individual plants. These two outcompetes native species for soil, have mixed mating systems and are thus smaller populations account for less nutrients, and water (Melgoza et al. capable of producing seed through self- than 1 percent of the total species’ 1990, pp. 9–10; Aguirre and Johnson fertilization or cross-pollination. population. However, large areas of 1991, pp. 352–353). However, the highest number of seeds suitable habitat remain unsurveyed, so Cheatgrass is a particularly and fruits are produced when flowers this species may be more widely problematic nonnative, invasive annual are cross-pollinated (Lewinsohn and distributed, and populations are likely grass in the Intermountain West and, as Tepedino 2007, pp. 233–234; Dodge and to have different numbers of plants than discussed above, has been documented Yates 2009, pp. 9–11). Increased presented here. Overall, this species’ in Graham’s and White River disturbance and habitat fragmentation range is much smaller than that of beardtongue habitat. If already present resulting in smaller population sizes Graham’s beardtongue, and thus we in the vegetative community, cheatgrass could negatively impact both species conclude that White River beardtongue increases in abundance after a wildfire, because there would be fewer plants may be more prone to extinction from increasing the chance for more frequent available for cross-pollination. landscape-level events. However, in the fires (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. Small populations and species with absence of information identifying 74–75). In addition, cheatgrass invades limited distributions are vulnerable to threats to the species and linking those areas in response to surface relatively minor environmental threats to the rarity of the species, we do disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 389–398; disturbances (Given 1994, pp. 66–67). not consider small population size alone Rejmanek 1989, pp. 381–383; Hobbs and Small populations also are at an to be a threat. A species that has always Huenneke 1992, pp. 324–330; Evans et increased risk of extinction due to the been rare, yet continues to survive, al. 2001, p. 1,308). Cheatgrass is likely potential for inbreeding depression, loss could be well equipped to continue to to increase due to climate change of genetic diversity, and lower sexual exist into the future. White River because invasive annuals increase reproduction rates (Ellstrand and Elam beardtongue likely fits this category, so biomass and seed production at elevated 1993, entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, persistence may be likely despite its small population size. Many naturally levels of carbon dioxide (Mayeaux et al. p. 275). Lower genetic diversity may, in 1994, p. 98; Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80– rare species have persisted for long turn, lead to even smaller populations 81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1,328). periods within small geographic areas, by decreasing the species’ ability to Overall, invasive species are present and many naturally rare species exhibit adapt, thereby increasing the probability but not extensive across most of the traits that allow them to persist, despite of population extinction (Barrett and beardtongues’ occupied habitats. their small population sizes. Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and Therefore, we do not currently consider Consequently, the fact that a species is Pilson 1997, p. 360). invasive weeds alone to be a threat to rare does not necessarily indicate that it either beardtongue species, but we later Populations of either species with may be in danger of extinction in the evaluate cumulative effects with energy fewer than 150 individuals are more future. development and climate change (see prone to extinction from stochastic Based on Graham’s and White River Cumulative Effects from All Factors, events than larger populations beardtongues’ current population below for more information. (McCaffery 2013b, p. 1). Overall, it numbers and preliminary demographic 2014 CA protections—The appears that Graham’s beardtongue has analyses showing that monitored sites conservation team committed to many small populations scattered across are, for the most part, stable (McCaffery developing, funding, and implementing its range, although the largest 2013a, entire), we conclude that small a weed management plan in designated population (population 19,) contains population size is not currently a threat conservation areas; the plan will more than 11,000 plants. Of the 24 to these species. In addition, a include prevention measures, surveys to populations of Graham’s beardtongue, population viability analysis for both detect invasion, treatment options, and approximately 13 contain fewer than species indicates a high likelihood of monitoring plans. The conservation 150 known plants. That means more persistence over the next 50 years for team will develop annual work plans than half the known populations are populations with more than 116 plants adapted to best prevent, detect, and more prone to extinction from stochastic for Graham’s beardtongue and 259 manage invasive weeds. When enacted, events due to small population size. plants for White River beardtongue. this conservation measure will reduce However, these populations account for However, we further evaluated the threats posed by invasive weeds to only 1.4 percent of the total known cumulative effects associated with both beardtongue species when number of plants of Graham’s energy development, grazing, invasive considered cumulatively with other beardtongue. In addition, the species’ species, and climate change (see impacts. widespread distribution may contribute Cumulative Effects from All Factors, to Graham’s beardtongue’s overall below). Small Population Size viability and potential resilience. For 2014 CA protections—The In our 2013 proposed listing rule we example, small-scale stochastic events, designation of conservation areas found small population size to be a such as the erosion of a hillside during protect 64 and 76 percent of the contributor to cumulative threats to the a flood event, will likely impact only a populations of Graham’s and White species, but not to be a threat by itself single population or a portion of that River beardtongues respectively. An (Cumulative Effects from All Factors, population. Even larger, landscape-level additional 4% of Graham’s beardtongue below). We lack complete information events such as wildfires are not likely to population will be protected by spatial on the population genetics of Graham’s impact the species as a whole (see buffers outside of conservation areas on and White River beardtongues. Wildfire, above). We do not find that BLM lands. This conservation measure Preliminary genetic analysis shows that small population size is a species-level is consistent with BLM protections for both beardtongues have less diversity concern for Graham’s beardtongue (see the species since 2007. Conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46082 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

areas include subpopulations that are nights (IPCC 2007, p. 30). In the stochastic events such as drought. large enough (>116 Graham’s southwestern United States, average However, increased intensity and beardtongue and >259 White River temperatures increased approximately frequency of droughts may offer beardtongue) that they have a low 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) compared to Graham’s and White River beardtongues chance of extinction over the next 50 a 1960 to 1979 baseline (Karl 2009, p. populations fewer chances to recover years (McCaffrey 2013a). The 129). Climate modeling is not currently and may lead to a decline in both conservation areas also protect many of forecasting at a level of detail at which species. Some estimate that the smaller populations, ensuring we can predict the amount of approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant population connectivity. In addition, temperature and precipitation change and animal species are at increased risk the conservation team will plan and precisely within the limited ranges of of extinction if increases in global implement a study to better understand these two beardtongue species. average temperature exceed 2.7 to 4.5 °F the genetic representation of White Therefore, we generally address what (1.5 to 2.5 °C) (IPCC 2007, p. 48). By the River beardtongue and how it is related could happen under current climate end of this century, temperatures are with other closely related beardtongue projections based upon what we know expected to exceed this range by species. The protections in the 2014 CA about the biology of these two species. warming a total of 4 to 10 °F (2 to 5 °C) prevent small population size from Climate changes will continue as hot in the Southwest (Karl 2009, p. 129). becoming a threat to either beardtongue extremes, heat waves, and heavy Accelerating rates of climate change species. precipitation will increase in frequency, of the past two or three decades indicate with the Southwest experiencing the that the extension of species’ geographic Climate Change greatest temperature increase in the range boundaries toward the poles or to In our 2013 proposed rule we found continental United States (Karl 2009, p. higher elevations by progressive climate change to be a contributor to 129). Annual mean precipitation levels establishment of new local populations cumulative threats to the species, but are expected to decrease in western will become increasingly apparent in not to be a threat by itself (Cumulative North America and especially the the relatively short term (Hughes 2005, Effects from All Factors, below). Our southwestern States by mid-century p. 60). The limited range of oil shale analyses under the Act include (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al. 2007 p. substrate that Graham’s and White River consideration of ongoing and projected 1,181), with a predicted 10- to 30- beardtongues inhabit could limit the changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ percent decrease in precipitation in ability of these species to adapt to and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the mid-latitude western North America by changes in climactic conditions by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate the year 2050 (Milly et al. 2005, p. 1). progressive establishment of new Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the These changes are likely to increase populations. However, some experts mean and variability of different types drought in the areas where Graham’s believe that it may be possible for these of weather conditions over time, with 30 and White River beardtongues grow. species to move to other aspects within years being a typical period for such We do not have a clear understanding their habitat in order to adapt to a measurements, although shorter or of how Graham’s and White River changing climate (Service 2012c, entire). longer periods also may be used (IPCC beardtongues respond to precipitation For example, Graham’s beardtongue is 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ changes, although generally plant typically observed on west- or thus refers to a change in the mean or numbers decrease during drought years southwest-facing slopes (see Species variability of one or more measures of and recover in subsequent seasons that Information, ‘‘Habitat’’ for Graham’s climate (e.g., temperature or are less dry. Graham’s beardtongue may beardtongue, above). White River precipitation) that persists for an not respond as quickly as White River beardtongue exhibits a similar extended period, typically decades or beardtongue to increased winter and characteristic, although this species is longer, whether the change is due to spring moisture immediately preceding more evenly distributed on different natural variability, human activity, or the growing season (Lewinsohn and slope aspects (see Species Information, both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types Tepedino 2007, pp. 12–13). In addition, ‘‘Habitat’’ for White River beardtongue, of changes in climate can have direct or Graham’s beardtongue flowering is above). It may be possible for these indirect effects on species. These effects sporadic and may be responding to species to gradually move to cooler and may be positive, neutral, or negative and environmental factors that we have not wetter slope aspects (for example, north- they may change over time, depending been able to measure in the field, such facing hillsides) within oil shale soils in on the species and other relevant as precipitation. Graham’s beardtongue response to a hotter drier climate considerations, such as the effects of may need more than one year of normal (Service 2012c, entire), but only if these interactions of climate with other precipitation to recover from prolonged types of habitat are within reasonable variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) drought (Lewinsohn 2005, p. 13), seed-dispersal distances and only if (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–19). In our analyses, although this hypothesis has not been these habitats remain intact with we use our expert judgment to weigh tested. Conversely, current analyses increasing oil and gas development. relevant information, including indicate that there is no association In summary, climate change is uncertainty, in our consideration of between regional precipitation patterns affecting and will affect temperature and various aspects of climate change. and population demographics precipitation events in the future. We Climate change is potentially (McCaffrey 2013a p. 16), although expect that Graham’s and White River impacting Graham’s and White River regional weather stations used in the beardtongues, like other narrow beardtongues now, and could continue analyses are not likely to pick up the endemics, may be negatively affected by to impact these species into the future. site-specific precipitation that is more climate change-related drought. Over the last 50 years, average likely to influence these species’ vital However, the scope of any negative temperatures have increased in the rates. effects (i.e., whether they would rise to Northern Hemisphere, and extreme That these beardtongues are adapted a level that threatens the species) is weather events have changed in to living on such hot and dry patches of unknown and mostly speculative at this frequency or intensity, including fewer soils (even more so than other native time. Current data are not reliable cold days and nights, fewer frosts, more species in the same area) may mean they enough at the local level for us to draw heat waves, and more hot days and are better adapted to withstand conclusions regarding the impacts of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46083

climate change as a threat to Graham’s long-term use or occupancy of the land River beardtongue points to our files. In and White River beardtongues. surface for fluid mineral exploration or addition, a long-term monitoring However, we further evaluate the development to protect special resource program on both species has been potential cumulative effects associated values (BLM 2008c, p. 38). However, ongoing since 2004. However, BLM will with energy development, invasive NSO stipulations do not apply to valid not be able to retain Federal ownership species, and small population size (see existing rights (BLM 1997, p. 2–31), of all occupied habitat, as recommended Cumulative Effects from All Factors, which account for 14 and 11 percent of in the 2007 CA. The Utah Recreational below). the total known populations for Land Exchange Act of 2009 (Public Law 2014 CA protections—Since we do Graham’s and White River 111–53, signed August 19, 2009) not fully understand either Graham’s or beardtongues, respectively. directed the exchange of lands within White River beardtongues’ responses to Not quite half of all known Graham’s Grand, San Juan, and Uintah Counties, climate change, the conservation team, beardtongue plants in Colorado occur Utah, between the BLM and SITLA. depending on funding, will install within the Raven Ridge ACEC (37 of 81 Several of the parcels that were weather monitoring equipment adjacent or 46 percent). About 28 percent (439 of transferred to SITLA include 883 (2 to long-term monitoring sites to collect 1,579) of the known White River percent) known individual Graham’s much needed climate data. The data beardtongue plants in Colorado also beardtongue plants within populations collected from weather monitoring will occur within the Raven Ridge ACEC. We 13 and 16, and the lands occur in areas be correlated with demography data to expect the NSO stipulation will of high potential energy development determine basic species responses to continue to provide sufficient protection (see Energy Exploration and climate patterns. This information will to the plants in the ACEC. Twenty-one Development, above). The land help the conservation team understand percent of the Raven Ridge ACEC is exchange was finalized on May 8, 2014 how to better craft conservation currently leased, and the NSO (SITLA 2014). measures to address impacts from stipulations for future leasing are in The FLPMA requires the BLM to climate change. In the interim, effect for this entire area; however, develop and revise land-use plans when designated conservation areas provide conditions of approval such as appropriate (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)). The 21,106 ha (44,373 ac) of protected avoidance of plants by 300 ft can be BLM developed a new resource habitats for Graham’s and White River identified and incorporated though the management plan (RMP) for the Vernal beardtongues (see Ongoing and Future NEPA process. An additional 30 percent Field Office in 2008 to consolidate Conservation Efforts). of the Raven Ridge ACEC was proposed existing land-use plans and balance use for leasing in 2013, but the lease sale is and protection of resources (BLM 2008c, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory now deferred for further analysis (BLM pp. 1–2). Through the Vernal Field Mechanisms 2013b, entire). To date, no wells have Office RMP, the BLM commits to In our 2013 proposed rule, we found been drilled or approved within the conserve and recover all special status existing regulatory mechanisms to be Raven Ridge ACEC (Service 2013, p. 12). species, including candidate species inadequate to protect Graham’s and There are no ACECs established for (BLM 2008c, p. 129). However, the RMP White River beardtongues from the either Graham’s beardtongue or White special status species goals and threats we had identified. River beardtongue in Utah. objectives as previously drafted were Federal Both species are listed as BLM not adequate to ensure that all Federal sensitive plants in Colorado and Utah, actions avoid impacts to Graham’s Within Colorado, the Raven Ridge which affords them limited policy-level beardtongue or White River Area of Critical Environmental Concern protection through the Special Status beardtongue. Conservation measures (ACEC) was established in 1997, in part, Species Management Policy Manual previously implemented by the BLM to protect candidate and BLM sensitive #6840, which forms the basis for special have not fully prevented impacts (for plant species, including Graham’s and status species management on BLM example, well pad development or road White River beardtongues (BLM 1985, p. lands (BLM 2008a, entire). Because both maintenance and construction in 2, BLM 1997, p. 2–17). The Federal beardtongue species are considered occupied habitat as discussed Land Policy and Management Act BLM sensitive and candidate species previously in Energy Exploration and (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) under the Act, the BLM currently Development, and Road Maintenance defines ACECs as ‘‘areas within the protects them as they would listed and Construction) to Graham’s public lands where special management species. In addition, conservation beardtongue or White River attention is required . . . to protect and measures for Graham’s beardtongue beardtongue. prevent irreparable damage to important from the 2007 CA incorporated by the 2014 CA protections—The 2014 CA historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish Vernal Field Office include a 91-m (300- provides for additional protection of the and wildlife resources or other natural ft) setback from surface-disturbing species because BLM will establish systems or processes, or to protect life activities (BLM 2008c, p. L–16). conservation areas where new surface- and safety from natural hazards’’ (Sec. As previously described (see Ongoing disturbing activities will be limited to 5 103(a)). Designation as an ACEC and Future Conservation Efforts), in percent for Graham’s beardtongue and recognizes an area as possessing 2007, a voluntary 5-year conservation 2.5 percent for White River beardtongue; relevant and important values that agreement for Graham’s beardtongue avoid Graham’s and White River would be at risk without special was signed by the Service, the BLM, and beardtongues from surface-disturbing management attention (BLM 2008b, p. the Utah DNR. The agreement intended activities by 91.4 m (300 ft); and 4–426). To protect listed and candidate to create a program of conservation mitigate impacts when plants cannot be species including the beardtongues, the measures to address potential threats to avoided by 91.4 m (300 ft). The BLM Raven Ridge ACEC restricts motorized Graham’s beardtongue at the Federal, will implement the measures of the travel to existing roads and trails and State, and local levels. Since the 2014 CA through incorporation of the includes a no surface occupancy (NSO) conservation agreement was signed, the conservation measures in permitting stipulation for new oil and gas leases BLM has funded surveys for both processes and policy. BLM will within the ACEC (BLM 1997, pp. 2–19, species, adding 4,000 new Graham’s incorporate the conservation measures 2–44). The NSO designation prohibits beardtongue points and 400 new White during its next RMP planning process.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46084 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

During oil and gas development Local increase weed invasion and fugitive activities that have occurred to date, the As stated above, approximately 21 dust, as well as increase the severity of BLM minimized some impacts to and 28 percent of all known plants of impacts from other factors such as Graham’s beardtongue and its habitat Graham’s and White River grazing, as grazers become more through incorporation of conservation beardtongues, respectively, occur on concentrated into undisturbed areas, and road maintenance, as more roads measures from the 2007 Conservation private lands, and the majority of these are constructed. Agreement. Conservation measures are in Uintah County, Utah. include moving well pad and pipeline Climate change is likely to augment 2014 CA protections—Through the the ability of invasive, nonnative locations to avoid direct impacts to the 2014 CA, Uintah County, Utah, will species. These measures minimize species to outcompete native plant enact a zoning ordinance that would species and also reduce the ability of direct impacts to the species, designate 2,787 acres of conservation particularly at the current low rates of native plant species to recover in areas that protect 12 percent (4,764 response to perturbations. Climate development that have occurred in the plants) of Graham’s beardtongue and 13 habitat. change may also change the effects of percent (1,574) of White River grazing events from native grazers to the We conclude that existing and future beardtongue on private lands. The extent that reproduction of either conservation measures achieved ordinance would establish conservation beardtongue species is hindered so that through the 2014 CA, including the areas and would adopt the surface- populations are no longer resilient. This creation of conservation areas, limiting disturbance limits and buffers on scenario underscores the need to protect new surface disturbances, and applying private lands as described in Table 4. not only the associated plant a 91-m (300-ft) avoidance measure, are The enactment of a zoning ordinance by communities within Graham’s and sufficient to protect these species. Uintah County provides additional White River beardtongue habitat, but regulatory protections to a significant State those immediately adjacent to portion of both beardtongue populations beardtongue habitat (Service 2012c, No State laws or regulations on private lands. entire). Measures such as implementing specifically protect rare plant species in Summary of Inadequacy of Existing a 300-ft buffer from disturbance, Utah or Colorado. Utah law prevents Regulatory Mechanisms connecting populations by protecting only the harvest or transport of native areas between occurrences, and In summary, we find that both species ensuring protection measures are spread vegetation without proof of ownership will be afforded protection through the or written permission of the landowner across the range of the species will help implementation of the 2014 CA and its to ensure resiliency of both species. or managing State or Federal agency establishment and management of (Utah Code 78B chapter 8 Section 602). 2014 CA protections—The 2014 CA conservation areas that protect 64 addresses the threat from energy Approximately 27 and 10 percent of all percent of the population of Graham’s known plants of Graham’s and White development, as well as each of the and 76 percent of the population of individual factors that contribute to the River beardtongues, respectively, occur White River beardtongues. The BLM on State land. After the land exchange cumulative threats to the species from will apply necessary regulatory energy development (see Energy as described above, about 29 percent of provisions through permitting and all known Graham’s beardtongue plants Exploration and Development), conditions of approval. Uintah County livestock grazing (see Grazing and will be located on State lands. We do and SITLA will utilize zoning not know of any White River Trampling), invasive weeds (see ordinances and regulations, Invasive Weeds), small population size beardtongues occurring on lands respectively, to implement the identified for exchange. (see Small Population Size), and climate conservation commitments of the 2014 change (Climate Change). The 2014 CA 2014 CA protections—As a signatory CA. Because of these additional provides protection to Graham’s and to the 2014 CA, SITLA, and UDWR are conservation measures and White River beardtongues and their establishing 794 ha (1,961 ac) of State implementing regulations associated associated plant and pollinator lands as conservation areas for Graham’s with the 2014 CA, we conclude that communities at a landscape level and White River beardtongues. These existing regulatory mechanisms are through the establishment and conservation areas contain 4.4 percent adequate to protect both species. management of the conservation areas of the total population of Graham’s Cumulative Effects From All Factors that protect both occupied and suitable beardtongue and 1.4 percent of the total habitat. The conservation area population of White River beardtongue. In our 2013 proposed rule, we boundaries were drawn to connect As previously described, within these concluded that the cumulative effects of populations and include adjacent conservation areas additional surface increased energy development, livestock natural communities. The 300-ft buffer disturbance will be limited to 5 percent grazing, invasive weeds, small from disturbance and limited surface for conservation areas designated for population sizes, and climate change disturbance helps to ensure that the Graham’s beardtongue and 2.5 percent were a threat to the two beardtongue disturbance within conservation areas is for conservation areas for White River species. The combination of these low enough to maintain the integrity of beardtongue, and surface disturbance factors could increase the vulnerability the natural community. In addition, will avoid plants by 91.4 m (300 ft) or of these species. Smaller populations, as both species are represented within mitigate unavoidable impacts. The discussed above (see Small Population conservation areas across their ranges as SITLA will establish these conservation Size), are more prone to extinction, and shown by units in Figure 3. Thus the areas with associated conservation these smaller populations could conservation areas protect natural areas measures through a regulation, experience more severe effects of other immediately adjacent to beardtongue director’s order, or joint lease factors. For example, incremental habitat. The implementation, most stipulation. With these regulatory increases in habitat alteration and notably of surface-disturbance caps and mechanisms in place both beardtongues fragmentation from increased energy avoidance buffers, ensures the species are afforded some additional development (including oil shale, tar protection of individual plants, protection on State lands. sands, and traditional oil and gas) could populations, and population

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46085

connectivity. In addition, the 2014 CA in the foreseeable future. Our from livestock grazing. Additional provides for monitoring and adaptive conclusion was based on the extent and measures include developing and management associated with livestock magnitude of energy development that implementing a weed management plan grazing, invasive weeds, and climate is likely to happen in the foreseeable to prevent and control weed invasions change. These combined conservation future and the lack of adequate and continued population monitoring. approaches address the threats measures to protect and conserve these The conservation team will periodically identified in the proposed rule species. Oil shale and tar sands overlap review the status of Graham’s and White independently and thus will prevent most of the known habitat of these River beardtongue and make these threats from acting cumulatively. species. Up to 79 and 90 percent of the adjustments to conservation areas or total known populations of Graham’s conservation measures as appropriate to Determination and White River beardtongues could benefit and conserve the species. These As required by the Act, we considered potentially be impacted with this type measures will significantly reduce the the five factors in assessing whether the of development within the next few threats to the species from energy Graham’s or White River beardtongue years, as Redleaf has secured all permits development and the cumulative effects meets the definition of a threatened or to begin work in 2014 (Redleaf 2014), from energy development, livestock endangered species. We examined the and project construction for the Enefit grazing, invasive weeds, climate change best scientific and commercial project is planned to start in 2017 (BLM and small population size. information available regarding present 2013e). Certain conservation measures that and future threats to the species. Based However, since that time, significant are identified in the 2014 CA will be on our review of the best available ongoing and new conservation efforts implemented via regulations, ordinance, scientific and commercial information, through the 2014 CA have reduced the and permitting. The signatory agencies we find that the current and future magnitude of potential impacts in the that have implementation authority will threats are not of sufficient imminence, future such that these species no longer put the regulatory controls in place to intensity, or magnitude to indicate that meet the definition of a threatened or assure that these measures will be either the Graham’s or White River endangered species. The 2014 CA adequately implemented, e.g., BLM beardtongue is in danger of extinction establishes conservation areas for both conditions of approval, County (endangered), or likely to become species on Federal, State, and private ordinances, SITLA regulations. In endangered within the foreseeable lands where surface disturbance will be addition, the 2014 CA independently future (threatened), throughout all or a limited to an additional 5 percent from addresses and reduces the magnitude of significant portion of its range. the current baseline for Graham’s each of the threats identified in the 2013 Therefore, Graham’s and White River beardtongue and an additional 2.5 proposed rule. Addressing and reducing beardtongues do not meet the definition percent from the current baseline for impacts from each threat individually of a threatened or endangered species, White River beardtongue and an will prevent them from acting and we are withdrawing the proposed avoidance buffer of 91.4 m (300 ft) from cumulatively. rules to list Graham’s and White River plants will be maintained, which is As summarized in the Ongoing and beardtongues as threatened species and expected to protect the habitat of the Future Conservation Efforts and PECE designate critical habitat for these species and their pollinators. On BLM Analysis sections above, we have a high species. Our rationale for this finding is lands, any surface disturbance occurring degree of certainty that the 2014 CA will outlined below. inside or outside of conservation areas be implemented (see Table 3) and Graham’s and White River will avoid Graham’s beardtongue or effective. We have determined that the beardtongues have restricted ranges White River beardtongue by 91.4 m (300 measures will be effective at eliminating limited to a specific soil type, but where ft). or reducing threats to the species monitored their populations are stable. The conservation measures in the because they protect occupied and The existing numbers of individuals and 2014 CA will protect 64 percent of the suitable habitat, provide habitat and populations are sufficient for these population of Graham’s beardtongue additional management information to species to remain viable into the future. and 76 percent of the population of address the effects of energy Further, the distribution of Graham’s White River beardtongue in development, livestock grazing, invasive and White River beardtongues conservation areas, maintaining the weeds, climate change, small encompasses and is representative of resiliency of both species so that they population size, and the inadequacy of the known genetic diversity of both can better withstand cumulative regulatory mechanisms, and institute beardtongue species, helping to support impacts from invasive weeds, climate on-the-ground protections that better the species’ resiliency to stochastic change, and small population size. manage and protect habitat and address events. Another 4 percent of the Graham’s threats. In our proposed rule, we identified beardtongue population will be We have a high degree of certainty several threats that we expected to protected outside of conservation areas that the measures will be implemented significantly impact the status of these on BLM lands by spatial buffers that because several of the conservation team species into the foreseeable future, will protect plants from surface- partners have a track record of which was based on the best available disturbing activities by 300 ft. This implementing conservation measures scientific and commercial information conservation measure is consistent with for the Graham’s beardtongue since at that time. One of the threats to both BLM protections for the species since 2007. Over approximately the past 6 beardtongue species identified in the 2007. In addition, threats from livestock years of implementation, BLM, Utah 2013 proposed rule was from energy grazing are addressed in the 2014 CA by DNR, the Service, and Uintah County development. We concluded that monitoring livestock grazing to better have implemented many of the population stability of both species was understand and detect impacts to the conservation measures from the 2007 likely to deteriorate as habitat loss and species. Where impacts are detected, CA for Graham’s beardtongue, including fragmentation from energy BLM will change the grazing regime or species surveys, habitat modeling, development, particularly oil shale and take other actions as necessary to reduce avoidance of plants by surface- tar sands, was likely to be a threat to these impacts. This measure provides disturbing activities, incorporating the Graham’s and White River beardtongues protection for both beardtongue species conservation measures from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 46086 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

conservation agreement into the BLM scale disturbance. Without the threat of species which is ‘‘in danger of Vernal Field Office RMP, examining the energy development, the other threats extinction throughout all or a significant reproductive biology of the species, and do not rise to a level where they would portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened conducting a demography study of the act cumulatively, and thus these other species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely species. The 2014 CA has sufficient impacts will not threaten Graham’s and to become an endangered species within annual monitoring and reporting White River beardtongue in the the foreseeable future throughout all or requirements to ensure that all of the foreseeable future. In addition, the 2014 a significant portion of its range.’’ The conservation measures are implemented CA addresses these threats over the term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any as planned, and are effective at foreseeable future and may be renewed subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, removing threats to a substantial after 15 years if successful at conserving and any distinct population segment amount of Graham’s and Whiter River the species. [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or beardtongues and their habitat. The Overall, since we expect the species wildlife which interbreeds when collaboration between the Service, to persist in their current distribution mature.’’ We published a final policy Uintah County, Utah DWR, SITLA, and to be protected from threats within interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant PLPCO and BLM requires regular 2014 CA designated conservation areas Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR conservation team meetings and and on BLM lands, we conclude that 37578). The final policy states that (1) involvement of all parties in order to they will have sufficient resiliency, if a species is found to be an endangered fully implement the 2014 CA, and a redundancy, and representation to or a threatened species throughout a process has been agreed to among these persist now and in the foreseeable significant portion of its range, the entities to achieve this conservation future. Therefore, we are withdrawing entire species is listed as an endangered objective. Based on the implementation our proposed rule to list Graham’s and or a threatened species, respectively, of previous actions from several White River beardtongues as threatened and the Act’s protections apply to all members of the conservation team, we species. Since these two species will not individuals of the species wherever have a high level of certainty that the be listed under the Act, we are also found; (2) a portion of the range of a conservation measures in the 2014 CA withdrawing our proposed critical species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is (for those measures not already begun), habitat rule as it is no longer applicable. not currently an endangered or a will be implemented and that they will We will continue to monitor the threatened species throughout all of its be sufficiently effective. status of both species through range, but the portion’s contribution to In summary, we conclude that the monitoring requirements in the 2014 the viability of the species is so conservation efforts in the 2014 CA have CA, and to evaluate any additional important that, without the members in sufficient certainty of implementation information we receive. These that portion, the species would be in and effectiveness that they can be relied monitoring requirements will not only danger of extinction, or likely to become inform us of the amount of disturbance upon in this final listing determination. so in the foreseeable future, throughout from energy development, impacts to Further, we conclude that conservation all of its range; (3) the range of a species the species from livestock grazing, and efforts have reduced or eliminated is considered to be the general amount of habitat occupied by invasive current and future threats to Graham’s geographical area within which that weeds within Graham’s and White River and White River beardtongues to the species can be found at the time FWS beardtongues designated conservation point that the species are no longer in or NMFS makes any particular status areas, but will also help inform us of the danger of extinction now or in the determination; and (4) if a vertebrate foreseeable future. status of Graham’s and White River species is an endangered or a threatened The threat from energy development beardtongues population and stability. species throughout an SPR, and the and especially oil shale development Additional information will continue to population in that significant portion is has been reduced by the conservation be accepted on all aspects of the species. a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather measures in the 2014 CA for the We encourage interested parties, outside than the entire taxonomic species or foreseeable future as oil shale of those parties already signatories to subspecies. development is expected to proceed the 2014 CA, to become involved in the slowly and avoid plants within conservation of the Graham’s and White The SPR policy is applied to all status established conservation areas over the River beardtongues. determinations, including analyses for next 15 years. Development of oil shale If at any time data indicate that the purposes of making listing, resources over the next 10–15 years will protections under the Act may be delisting, and reclassification determine the intensity, magnitude, and warranted, for example, should we determinations. The procedure for long-term viability of this threat. become aware of declining analyzing whether any portion is an Continued expansion of oil shale implementation of or participation in SPR is similar, regardless of the type of resources will depend on the industry’s the 2014 CA, or noncompliance with the status determination we are making. success over the next 10–15 years. Since conservation measures, or if there are The first step in our analysis of the we cannot predict the demand for new threats or increasing stressors that status of a species is to determine its energy and the viability of oil shale rise to the level of a threat to either status throughout all of its range. If we development beyond 15 years, the species, we will initiate listing determine that the species is in danger foreseeable future from the threat of procedures, including, if appropriate, of extinction, or likely to become so in energy development to Graham’s and emergency listing pursuant to section the foreseeable future, throughout all of White River beardtongue from oil shale 4(b)(7) of the Act. its range, we list the species as an development is 10–15 years. The threat endangered (or threatened) species and to the species from the cumulative Significant Portion of the Range no SPR analysis will be required. If the impacts of energy development, grazing, Under the Act and our implementing species is neither an endangered nor a invasive weeds, small population sizes, regulations, a species may warrant threatened species throughout all of its and climate change is also the same 10– listing if it is an endangered or a range, we determine whether the 15-year time period because energy threatened species throughout all or a species is an endangered or a threatened development would be the leading significant portion of its range. The Act species throughout a significant portion threat to causing widespread landscape- defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any of its range. If it is, we list the species

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46087

as an endangered or a threatened an endangered or a threatened species are essentially uniform throughout their species, respectively; if it is not, we throughout its range. ranges, indicating no portion of the conclude that listing the species is not Depending on the biology of the range of the two species warrants warranted. species, its range, and the threats it further consideration of possible When we conduct an SPR analysis, faces, it may be more efficient to address endangered or threatened status under we first identify any portions of the the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the the Act. species’ range that warrant further status question first. Thus, if we consideration. The range of a species determine that a portion of the range is Conclusion can theoretically be divided into not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to Our review of the best available portions in an infinite number of ways. determine whether the species is an scientific and commercial information However, there is no purpose to endangered or a threatened species indicates that with the development and analyzing portions of the range that are there; if we determine that the species implementation of the 2014 CA, neither not reasonably likely to be significant is not an endangered or a threatened Graham’s beardtongue nor White River and either an endangered or a species in a portion of its range, we do beardtongue is in danger of extinction threatened species. To identify only not need to determine if that portion is (an endangered species), or likely to those portions that warrant further ‘‘significant.’’ become endangered within the consideration, we determine whether Our review determined that there are foreseeable future (a threatened species), there is substantial information no concentrations of threats in any part throughout all or a significant portion of indicating that (1) the portions may be of the ranges occupied by Graham’s or their ranges. Therefore, we find that significant and (2) the species may be in White River beardtongues. In our 2013 listing Graham’s beardtongue or White danger of extinction in those portions or proposed rule, we identified River beardtongue as endangered or likely to become so within the populations 19 and 20 of Graham’s threatened species under the Act is not foreseeable future. We emphasize that beardtongue (Figure 1) and the heart of warranted at this time. answering these questions in the White River beardtongue range We request that you submit any new affirmative is not a determination that (Population 3; Figure 2) as vulnerable information concerning the status of, or the species is an endangered or a due to ex-situ oil shale development. threats to, Graham’s and White River threatened species throughout a The majority of these populations beardtongues to our Utah Field Office significant portion of its range—rather, occurs on private lands, and provides an (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it it is a step in determining whether a important connectivity link between becomes available. New information more detailed analysis of the issue is populations in Utah and Colorado. The will help us monitor these two plant required. In practice, a key part of this 2014 CA addressed these concerns by species and encourage their analysis is whether the threats are providing protections for both species conservation. If an emergency situation geographically concentrated in some across their ranges, including develops for either of these species, we way. If the threats to the species are protections on private lands within will act to provide immediate affecting it uniformly throughout its populations 19 and 20 for Graham’s protection. range, no portion is likely to warrant beardtongue and population 3 for White further consideration. Moreover, if any River beardtongue. Protections include References Cited concentration of threats apply only to the establishment of conservation areas A complete list of all references cited portions of the range that clearly do not that encompass 17,957 ha (44,373 ac) of in this document is available on the meet the biologically based definition of occupied and suitable habitat, surface Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that disturbance limits, detection surveys Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0081 and portion clearly would not be expected to prior to project initiation, and avoidance Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0082, or increase the vulnerability to extinction of plants by 300 ft from surface- upon request from the Field Supervisor, of the entire species), those portions disturbing activities within conservation Utah Ecological Services Field Office areas. Conservation areas will protect 64 will not warrant further consideration. (see ADDRESSES section). If we identify any portions that may percent of the known population of be both (1) significant and (2) Graham’s beardtongue across its range Authors endangered or threatened, we engage in and 76 percent of the population of The primary authors of this document a more detailed analysis to determine White River beardtongue across its are the staff members of the Utah whether these standards are indeed met. range. In addition, on BLM lands Ecological Services Field Office (see Graham’s and White River beardtongues The identification of an SPR does not ADDRESSES). create a presumption, prejudgment, or will be avoided by 300 ft from surface- other determination as to whether the disturbing activities. These protections Authority species in that identified SPR is an reduce the threats to the species that The authority for this action is the endangered or a threatened species. We otherwise may have been considered Endangered Species Act of 1979, as must go through a separate analysis to geographically concentrated. With the amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). determine whether the species is an development and implementation of the endangered or a threatened species in 2014 CA, we find no portions of these Dated: July 22, 2014. the SPR. To determine whether a species’ ranges where potential threats Stephen Guertin, species is an endangered or a threatened are significantly concentrated or are Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife species throughout an SPR, we will use substantially greater than in other Service. the same standards and methodology portions of their ranges. Therefore, we [FR Doc. 2014–18368 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] that we use to determine if a species is find that factors affecting each species BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:06 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06AUP2.SGM 06AUP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2