[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47590-47611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18334]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0081; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY95
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Graham's Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River
Beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list
Graham's beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River beardtongue
(Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) as threatened species throughout
their ranges under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add Graham's and
White River beardtongues to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants under the Act and extend the Act's protections to these species
throughout their ranges.
DATES: We will accept all comments received or postmarked on or before
October 7, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by September 20, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0081, which
is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on
the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!'' If your comments will fit in
the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet
in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2013-0081; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop
for this rulemaking will be available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/2utahbeardtongues/, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0081, and at the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119; by telephone
at 801-975-3330; or by facsimile at 801-975-3331. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), if a species is determined to be an endangered
or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on our proposal within one year.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. In the case of Graham's beardtongue, a
June 9, 2011, court decision reinstated our January 19, 2006, proposed
rule (71 FR 3158) to list Graham's beardtongue as a threatened species
and ordered us to reconsider, with all deliberate speed, a new final
rule with respect to whether this species should be listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. We have determined that
enough new information exists to warrant a new proposed rule for the
Graham's beardtongue.
This rule consists of a proposed rule to list the Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue as threatened species under the
Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have determined that energy exploration and development are
threats to both Graham's and White River beardtongues. In addition, the
cumulative impacts of increased energy development, livestock grazing,
invasive weeds, small population sizes, and climate change are threats
to these species. Therefore, these species qualify for listing under
the Act, which can only be done by issuing a rule.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information we
receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ
from this proposal.
[[Page 47591]]
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
and
(d) Historical, current, and projected population levels and
trends.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their
habitats or both.
(6) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
(7) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species and ongoing conservation measures for these species and
their habitats.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold personal identifying information
from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information
you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background--Graham's beardtongue
Previous Federal Actions
For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning Graham's
beardtongue, please refer to the January 19, 2006, proposed rule to
list the species with critical habitat (71 FR 3158) and the December
19, 2006, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the species with
critical habitat (71 FR 76024).
The document we published on December 19, 2006 (71 FR 76024),
withdrew the proposed listing and critical habitat rule for Graham's
beardtongue that we published on January 19, 2006 (71 FR 3158). The
December 19, 2006, withdrawal also addressed comments we received on
the proposed rule to list Graham's beardtongue and summarized threats
affecting the species. The withdrawal of the proposed rule was based on
information provided during the public comment period. This information
led us to conclude that the threats to Graham's beardtongue identified
in the proposed rule, particularly energy development, were not as
significant as previously believed and that currently available data
did not indicate that threats to the species and its habitat, as
analyzed under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, were likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
On December 16, 2008, the Center for Native Ecosystems, Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Native Plant Society, and Colorado
Native Plant Society filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado challenging the withdrawal of our
proposal to list Graham's beardtongue. The court ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs on June 9, 2011, vacating our December 2006 withdrawal and
reinstating our January 2006 proposed rule.
The best available information for Graham's beardtongue has changed
considerably since 2006, when the proposed rule was published and then
withdrawn. We believe it is appropriate to publish a revised proposed
listing rule to better reflect new information regarding Graham's
beardtongue. A revised proposed critical habitat rule for the Graham's
beardtongue is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
Graham's beardtongue was described as a species in 1937 as an
herbaceous perennial plant in the plantain family (Plantaginaceae). For
most of the year when the plant is dormant, it exists as a small,
unremarkable basal rosette of leaves. During flowering the plant
becomes a ``gorgeous, large-flowered penstemon'' (Welsh et al. 2003, p.
625). Similar to other species in the beardtongue (Penstemon) genus,
Graham's beardtongue has a strongly bilabiate (two-lipped) flower with
a prominent infertile staminode (sterile male flower part)--the
``beardtongue'' that typifies the genus. The combination of its large,
vivid pink flower and densely bearded staminode with short, stiff,
golden-orange hairs makes Graham's beardtongue quite distinctive. Each
year an individual plant can produce one to a few flowering stems that
can grow up to 18 centimeters (cm) (7.0 inches (in)) tall (with some
exceptions), with one to 20 or more flowers on each flowering stem.
Distribution
When we published the proposed listing rule in 2006, there were 109
plant records, or ``points,'' across Graham's beardtongue's known
range,
[[Page 47592]]
and the total species' population size was estimated at 6,200
individuals. Point data represent a physical location where one or more
plants were observed on the ground. Point data are usually collected by
GPS and stored as a ``record'' in a geographic information system
database.
Since 2006, we have completed many surveys for this species. The
range of Graham's beardtongue is essentially the same as it was in
2006: a horseshoe-shaped band about 80 miles long and 6 miles wide
extending from the extreme southeastern edge of Duchesne County in Utah
to the northwestern edge of Rio Blanco County in Colorado (Figure 1).
However, we have identified larger numbers of plants and a greater
distribution of the species across its range. Data we compiled from the
Vernal and Meeker Field Offices of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and Utah and Colorado Natural Heritage Programs (UNHP and CNHP) include
4,460 points representing 31,702 plants. Most of these locations were
documented after 2006. Although the overall number of plants has
increased with additional surveys, this does not mean the total
population is increasing. Rather, we now have a more complete picture
of how many total Graham's beardtongue individuals exist, and this
number likely has not changed substantially since the species was named
in 1937. We assume that the current known range of this species has not
change substantially from what it was historically.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Figure 1. Graham's beardtongue's range.
[[Page 47593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU13.016
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
We mapped all plant points and grouped them into populations
(Figure 1). First, we followed standardized methods used by the
national network of Natural Heritage Programs, and identified the
species' element occurrences (EO). EOs are plant points that are
grouped together based on geographic proximity (NatureServe 2004, p.
6). Natural Heritage Program criteria (NatureServe 2004, p. 6)
classifies points into discrete EOs if they are within 2 kilometers
(km) (1.2 miles (mi)) of each other and separated by suitable habitat.
We did not always have specific habitat suitability information and in
these cases relied on the 2-km (1.2-mi) distance as our primary
classification factor. Next, we included updated survey information
collected from 2006 to the present and determined the number of
distinct EOs. Overall, we documented 24 EOs: 20 in Utah and 4 in
Colorado. For the purpose
[[Page 47594]]
of this proposed listing rule, we consider EOs to be synonymous with
populations and hereafter will use the term ``populations'' when
describing the distribution of the species (Figure 1).
New sites of Graham's beardtongue were found in May of 2013.
Approximately 350 plants were counted, about 1 percent of the known
population. Because the number counted was only about 1 percent of the
total population, including these additional plants does not
perceptibly change our threats analysis. We included the new points in
our map (Figure 1). However, information from surveys during the 2013
field season continues to be submitted. Once the field season is
completed and we have finalized data, we will update the threats
analysis using those data.
The biggest change in the population size and distribution of
Graham's beardtongue from the 2006 proposed rule to this proposed rule
is that many additional surveys were conducted in the middle of the
species' range (populations 10 through 20, see Figure 1), increasing
the total population estimate for Graham's beardtongue fivefold. In
particular, we now estimate that one population (referred to as
population 20) comprises about 23 percent of the species' total
population, compared to our estimate of only 2 percent in 2006. In
2006, we noted that population 20 was an important connectivity link
between the Utah and Colorado populations of this species, and we still
consider this to be true, especially given the large number of plants
found in this population.
Approximately 59 percent of the total known population of Graham's
beardtongue is on BLM-managed lands, with the remainder on non-Federal
lands with State and private ownership (Table 1). This distribution is
essentially unchanged from our 2006 finding. A land exchange between
the BLM and the State of Utah planned for 2013 will decrease the number
of known plants on Federal lands and increase the plants on State lands
by 1 percent (see X. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms below
for more details).
Table 1. Number of individuals of Graham's beardtongue by land
owner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of
individuals total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal................................. 18,678 59
Private................................. 8,137 26
State................................... 4,887 15
Tribal.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total................................. 31,702 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two sites of Graham's beardtongue within population 13 (see Figure
1) were monitored from 2004 to 2012, and two additional sites within
population 13 were monitored from 2010 to 2012. These sites were stable
or slightly declining over the period of study (McCaffery 2013, p. 9).
Recruitment for these sites of Graham's beardtongue was low and
sporadic (McCaffery 2013, p. 11). In addition, Graham's beardtongue
flowered sporadically, indicating that conditions were not always
suitable for flowering to occur (McCaffery 2013, p. 9). Small
population sizes and low recruitment make this species more vulnerable
to stochastic events, and changes in stressors or habitat conditions
may negatively impact the long-term growth of these sites (McCaffery
2013, p. 9). No link was found between reproduction and precipitation
on a regional level, but it is likely the correct environmental factors
driving reproduction and survival have not been measured (McCaffery
2013, p. 10). A combination of several factors could be driving
population dynamics of Graham's beardtongue; for example, herbivory and
climate could be interacting to influence reproduction. Plants at one
of the study sites were negatively impacted by herbivory from tiger
moth caterpillars (possibly Arctia caja utahensis) (see II. Grazing and
Trampling, below), but a cool, wet spring in 2011 reduced herbivory on
reproductive plants (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 7-8). Further studies
are necessary to determine if herbivory or other factors are driving
population dynamics of this species.
Habitat
Graham's beardtongue is an endemic plant found mostly in exposed
oil shale strata of the Parachute Creek Member and other unclassified
members of the Green River geologic formation. Most populations are
associated with the surface exposure of the petroleum-bearing oil shale
Mahogany ledge (Shultz and Mutz 1979, p. 40; Neese and Smith 1982, p.
64). Soils at these sites are shallow with virtually no soil horizon
development, and the surface is usually covered with broken shale chips
or light clay derived from the thinly bedded shale. About a third of
all known point locations of plants in our files grow on slopes that
are 10 degrees or less, with an average slope across all known points
of 17.6 degrees (Service 2013, p. 2). The species' average elevation is
1,870 meters (m) (6,134 feet (ft)), with a range in elevation from
1,426 to 2,128 m (4,677 to 6,982 ft) (Service 2013, p. 4). Individuals
of Graham's beardtongue usually grow on southwest-facing exposures
(Service 2013, p. 1).
Graham's beardtongue is associated with a suite of species
similarly adapted to xeric growing conditions on highly basic
calcareous shale soils, including (but not limited to) saline wildrye
(Leymus salinus), mountain thistle (Cirsium eatonii var. eriocephalum),
spiny greasebush (Glossopetalon spinescens var. meionandra), Utah
juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), twoneedle pi[ntilde]on (Pinus edulis),
and shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia) (UNHP 2013, entire).
Graham's beardtongue co-occurs with eight other rare species that are
similarly endemic and restricted to the Green River Formation,
including White River beardtongue.
Biology
Graham's beardtongue individuals may live 20 to 30 years; however,
we do not know the plant's average lifespan (Service 2012a, p. 2).
Graham's beardtongue is not as genetically diverse as other common,
widespread beardtongues from the same region (Arft 2002, p. 5).
However, populations 1 through 9 (see Figure 1) have minor
morphological differences from the rest of the Graham's beardtongue
population (Shultz and Mutz 1979, p. 41) and may, due to geographic
isolation, be genetically divergent from the remainder of the species'
population, although this hypothesis has never been tested.
Graham's beardtongue usually flowers for a short period of time in
late May through early July. Pollinators and flower visitors of
Graham's beardtongue include the bees Anthophora lesquerellae, Osmia
sanrafaelae, Osmia rawlinsi; the sweat bees Lasioglossum sisymbrii and
Dialictus sp.; and the masarid wasp Pseudomasaris vespoides, which is
thought to be the primary pollinator for Graham's beardtongue
(Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 245; Dodge and Yates 2008, p. 30). At
least one large pollinator, Bombus huntii (Hunt's bumblebee), is known
to visit Graham's beardtongue (71 FR 3158, January 19, 2006), which is
not unexpected due to the relatively large size of Graham's
beardtongue's flowers compared to other beardtongues.
Graham's beardtongue has a mixed mating system, meaning individuals
of this species can self-fertilize, but they produce more seed when
they are cross-pollinated (Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 18). Thus,
pollinators are important to this species for maximum seed and fruit
production. Based on the size of the largest Graham's beardtongue
pollinators (i.e., Hunt's bumblebee), we
[[Page 47595]]
expect they are capable of travelling and transporting pollen for
distances of at least 700 m (2,297 ft) (Service 2012b, pp. 8, 12).
Therefore, maintaining sufficiently large numbers and population
distribution of Graham's beardtongue ensures cross-pollination can
occur and prevents inbreeding depression (Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 18).
Pollinators generally need a diversity of native plants for foraging
throughout the seasons, nesting and egg-laying sites, and undisturbed
places for overwintering (Shepherd et al. 2003, pp. 49-50). Thus, it is
important to protect vegetation diversity within and around Graham's
beardtongue populations to maintain a diversity of pollinators.
Background--White River beardtongue
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 1983, White River beardtongue (as Penstemon
albifluvis) was designated as a category 1 candidate under the Act (48
FR 53640). Category 1 candidate species were defined as ``taxa for
which the Service currently has on file substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support the appropriateness
of proposing to list the taxa as Endangered or Threatened species. . .
. Development and publication of proposed rules on these taxa are
anticipated, but because of the large number of such taxa, could take
some years'' (48 FR 53641, November 28, 1983). In the February 28,
1996, candidate notice of review (CNOR) (61 FR 7596), we abandoned the
use of numerical category designations and changed the status of White
River beardtongue to a candidate under the current definition. We
maintained White River beardtongue as a candidate species in subsequent
updated notices of review between 1996 and 2012, including the most
recent CNOR published on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994).
On September 9, 2011, we reached an agreement with plaintiffs in
Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., Misc. Action No. 10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. DC), to systematically review and
address the needs of all species listed in the 2010 CNOR, which
included White River beardtongue.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
White River beardtongue is an herbaceous perennial plant in the
plantain family (Plantaginaceae). White River beardtongue is a shrubby
plant with showy lavender flowers. It grows up to 50 cm (20 in) tall,
with multiple clusters of upright stems. It has long, narrow, green
leaves. Like other members of the beardtongue genus and like Graham's
beardtongue, it has a strongly bilabiate (two-lipped) flower with a
prominent infertile staminode (sterile male flower part), or
``beardtongue.'' Blooming occurs from May into early June, with seeds
produced by late June (Lewinsohn 2005, p. 9).
White River beardtongue was first described as a new species,
Penstemon albifluvis, in 1982 (England 1982, entire). In 1984, the
taxon was described as variety P. scariosus var. albifluvis (Cronquist
et al. 1984, p. 442). P. s. var. albifluvis has a shorter corolla and
shorter anther hairs than typical P. scariosus. White River beardtongue
is also unique from P. scariosus because it is endemic to low-elevation
oil shale barrens near the White River along the Utah-Colorado border
(see ``Habitat'' below for more information), while typical P.
scariosus habitat occurs at higher elevations on the West Tavaputs and
Wasatch Plateaus of central Utah (Cronquist et al. 1984, p. 442).
Distribution
The historical range of White River beardtongue has not changed
since the species was first described in 1982 (England 1982, pp. 367-
368). White River beardtongue was first discovered along the north bank
of the White River one mile upstream from the Ignacio Bridge (England
1982, pp. 367). The historical range was described as occurring from
east central Uintah County, Utah, to Rio Blanco County, Colorado
(England 1982, pp. 367).
White River beardtongue's current range extends from Raven Ridge
west of Rangely in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to the vicinity of
Willow Creek in Uintah County, Utah. The bulk of the species' range
occurs between Raven Ridge and Evacuation Creek in eastern Utah, a
distance of about 30 km (20 miles) (Figure 2) (CNHP 2012, entire; UNHP
2012, entire). We acknowledge that herbarium collections from 1977 to
1998 (UNHP 2012, entire) indicate that the species' range might extend
farther west to Willow Creek, Buck Canyon, and Kings Well Road.
However, we have not revisited these herbarium collection locations to
confirm the species' presence; it is possible that the herbarium
collections represent individuals of the closely related and nearly
indistinguishable Garrett's beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var.
garettii). Therefore, we consider these to be unverified locations and
exclude these records from further analysis of threats (Figure 2).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 47596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU13.017
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
We do not have complete surveys for White River beardtongue and
thus do not know the total population for this species. The best total
population estimate is approximately 11,423 individuals, excluding the
unverified locations. It is quite likely that the total population is
higher, and it may be as high as 25,000 plants (Service 2012; Franklin
1994), but we do not have survey data to confirm this higher population
level. Therefore, we use the 11,423 population figure throughout our
analysis in this proposed rule.
Utah Natural Heritage Program and Colorado Natural Heritage Program
data include 20 populations of White River beardtongue in Utah and 1
population in Colorado (Figure 2; see our previous explanation of
populations and EOs, or element occurrences, in the ``Distribution''
section for Graham's beardtongue, above). Based on updated survey
information from the past few years, we conducted our own analysis in
which we combined several of the existing EOs because of close
proximity (see Species Information for Graham's
[[Page 47597]]
beardtongue, above, for more information). Overall, we delineated seven
populations in the main portion of White River beardtongue's range.
Approximately 62 percent of the known population of White River
beardtongue occurs on BLM land, with the remainder occurring on State
and private lands (Table 2).
Table 2. Number of individuals of White River beardtongue by land
owner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of
individuals total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal................................. 7,054 62
Private................................. 3,093 27
State................................... 1,276 11
Tribal.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total 11,423 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two sites of White River beardtongue were monitored from 2004 to
2012 (populations 1 and 6, see Figure 2), and one site was monitored
from 2010 to 2012 (population 3, see Figure 2). At one site, plants
declined over this time, and the other two sites increased slightly
(McCaffery 2013, p. 8). White River beardtongue tended to flower each
year regardless of new seedling recruitment, in contrast to Graham's
beardtongue (McCaffery 2013, p. 9). Like Graham's beardtongue, White
River beardtongue is vulnerable to stochastic events as well as
increases in stressors or declining habitat conditions (McCaffery 2013,
p. 9). Also like Graham's beardtongue, no link was found between
reproduction and precipitation on a regional level (McCaffery 2013, p.
10), but this should be studied on a more local scale. In 2009, a
significant recruitment event occurred in two of the study populations
(Dodge and Yates 2010, pp. 11-12). Many of these seedlings died between
2009 and 2010, but the net result was an increase in population size by
the end of the study (Dodge and Yates 2011, p. 6), and this pulse of
recruitment had a strong influence on the estimate of population growth
(McCaffery 2013, p. 10). Continued monitoring is necessary to determine
how frequent recruitment occurs and how this influences the long-term
trends of this species. In addition, like Graham's beardtongue, we need
further studies to determine what factors are driving population
dynamics of White River beardtongue.
Habitat
White River beardtongue is restricted to calcareous (containing
calcium carbonate) soils derived from oil shale barrens of the Green
River Formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah and adjacent
Colorado. It overlaps with Graham's beardtongue at sites in the eastern
portion of Graham's beardtongue's range.
White River beardtongue is associated with the Mahogany ledge. The
habitat of White River beardtongue is a series of knolls and slopes of
raw oil shale derived from the Green River geologic formation (Franklin
1995, p. 5). These soils are often white or infrequently red, fine-
textured, shallow, and usually mixed with fragmented shale. These very
dry substrates occur in lower elevations of the Uinta Basin, between
1,500 and 2,040 m (5,000 and 6,700 ft). About one-fifth of all known
point locations of White River beardtongue are on slopes of 10 degrees
or less, with an average slope for all known points of 19.2 degrees
(Service 2013, p. 3). The species grows at an average elevation of
1,847 m (6,060 ft), with a range in elevation from 1,523 to 2,044 m
(4,998 to 6,706 ft) (Service 2013, p. 4). White River beardtongue
individuals usually grow on southwest-facing exposures (Service 2013,
p. 1).
Other species found growing with White River beardtongue include
(but are not limited to) saline wildrye (Leymus salinus), mountain
thistle (Cirsium eatonii var. eriocephalum), spiny greasebush
(Glossopetalon spinescens var. meionandra), Utah juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma), twoneedle pi[ntilde]on (Pinus edulis), and shadscale
saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia) (UNHP 2013, entire), and many of the
other oil shale endemics also found growing with Graham's beardtongue
(Neese and Smith 1982, p. 58; Goodrich and Neese 1986, p. 283).
Biology
This species is probably long-lived due to the presence of a
substantial and multi-branched woody stem (Lewinsohn 2005, p. 3), and
individual plants living for 30 years are known to occur (Service
2012c, p. 3). Most plants begin to flower when the woody stem reaches 3
to 4 cm (1 to 1.5 in.) in height (Lewinsohn 2005, p. 4), usually in May
and June.
The species is pollinated by a wasp, Pseudomasaris vespoides, and
several native, solitary bee species in the genera Osmia, Ceratina,
Anthophora, Lasioglossum, Dialictus, and Halictus (Sibul and Yates
2006, p. 14; Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 235). We consider these
pollinators to be medium in size as compared to the larger pollinators
generally associated with Graham's beardtongue (see Background-Graham's
beardtongue, ``Biology'', above). White River beardtongue has a mixed
mating system, meaning it can self-fertilize but produces more seed
when it is cross-pollinated (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 234).
Thus, pollinators are important to this species for maximum seed and
fruit production.
Based on the medium size of White River beardtongue pollinators, we
expect the pollinators are capable of travelling at least 500 meters
(1,640 ft) and thus are likely to move pollen across this distance
(Service 2012b, pp. 8, 13). Although White River beardtongue has low
flower visitation rates by pollinators, there is no evidence that
pollinators are limiting for this species (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007,
p. 235). It is important to maintain the diversity of pollinators by
maintaining vegetation diversity for White River beardtongue because it
stabilizes the effects of fluctuations in pollinator populations
(Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, p. 236).
We have very little information regarding the genetic diversity of
White River beardtongue. This species, like Graham's beardtongue, is
likely not as genetically diverse as other common, sympatric
beardtongues (Arft 2002, p. 5).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Stressors that fall under each of these factors are
discussed below individually. We then summarize where each of these
stressors or potential threats falls within the five factors.
We consider a species viable if it can persist over the long term,
thus avoiding extinction. A species can be conserved (and is thus
viable) if it has the three Rs: Representation, resiliency, and
redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Representation, or preserving some
of everything, means conserving not just a species but its associated
plant communities, pollinators, and pollinator habitats. Resiliency and
redundancy ensure there is enough of a species so
[[Page 47598]]
that it can survive into the future. Resiliency means ensuring that the
habitat is adequate for a species and its representative components.
Redundancy ensures an adequate number of sites and individuals. This
methodology has been widely accepted as a reasonable conservation
methodology (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841).
We participated in expert workshops--including experts from The
Nature Conservancy, Red Butte Garden, UNHP, CNHP, the Service, the BLM,
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service--in 2008 and 2012, to
evaluate the best available scientific information for Graham's and
White River beardtongues (The Nature Conservancy 2008, entire; Service
2012c, entire). We used the information from these workshops to
complete a species status assessment for both Graham's and White River
beardtongues. We determined that both species need the following
resources for viability:
Suitable soils and geology
Sufficient number of pollinators
Intact associated and adjacent plant community (both
within and outside of suitable or occupied habitat)
Minimum reproductive effort or reproductive success
Suitable microclimate conditions for germination and
establishment
Sufficient rain and temperatures suitable for breaking
seed dormancy and successful reproduction (natural climate)
Minimum habitat patch or population size
Genetic diversity or heterozygosity
Habitat connectivity and integrity
Viable, long-lived seedbank
Minimum number of individuals
Minimum number of viable populations
The list is the same for both Graham's and White River beardtongues
because they grow in similar habitat in the same geographic area, even
overlapping in places. However, specifics for each resource can differ
between the two species.
To determine the current and future status of Graham's and White
River beardtongues, through our species status assessment we evaluated
if these resource needs are currently met and how these resources are
likely to change in the future. If the resources are not currently met
or are predicted to be unmet in the future, we determined the cause of
the resource insufficiency. The underlying stressor causing the
resource insufficiency is then considered a threat to Graham's and
White River beardtongues. We discuss these stressors in the following
section.
I. Energy Exploration and Development
Graham's and White River beardtongues are particularly vulnerable
to the effects of energy development because their ranges overlap
almost entirely with oil shale and tar sands development areas, as well
as ongoing traditional oil and gas drilling.
Impacts from energy exploration and development include the removal
of soil and vegetation when unpaved roads, well pads, evaporation
ponds, disposal pits, and pipelines are constructed (BLM 2008a, pp.
448-449). Increased disturbance from these developments, coupled with
climate change (see IX. Climate Change, below), will facilitate the
invasion and spread of nonnative species such as cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) and Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus) (Brooks and Pyke 2001, entire; Grace et al. 2001,
entire; Brooks 2003, p. 432; Friggens et al. 2012, entire), which can
outcompete native plants and increase the risk of catastrophic
wildfires (see VI. Wildfire and VII. Invasive Weeds, below).
Energy developments also result in increased road traffic and
consequent increases in dust emissions; for every vehicle travelling
one mile (1.6 km) of unpaved roadway once a day, every day for a year,
approximately 2.5 tons of dust are deposited along a 305-m (1,000-ft)
wide corridor centered on the road (Sanders 2008, p. 20). Excessive
dust can clog plant pores, increase leaf temperature, alter
photosynthesis, and affect gas and water exchange (Sharifi et al. 1997,
p. 842; BLM 2012a; Ferguson et al. 1999, p. 2), negatively affecting
plant growth and reproduction.
Roads may act as a barrier to bee movement by influencing bees to
forage on only one side of the road (Bhattacharya et al. 2003, pp. 42-
43) or within isolated habitat patches (Goverde et al. 2002, entire).
Although bees and other pollinators are quite capable of crossing roads
or other human-disturbed areas, the high site fidelity of bumblebees
makes them more apt to remain on one side of a disturbed area
(Bhattacharya et al. 2003, p. 42). The implication of this type of
pollinator behavior for rare plants is that the probability for
outcrossing is reduced (Cane 2001, entire), thereby reducing genetic
variability and reproductive success.
Habitat loss or fragmentation from energy development can result in
higher extinction probabilities for plants because remaining plant
populations are confined to smaller patches of habitat that are
isolated from neighboring populations (Jules 1998, p. 1; Soons 2003, p.
115). Habitat fragmentation and low population numbers pose a threat to
rare plant species' genetic potential to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (Mathies et al. 2004, pp. 484-486). Smaller
and more isolated populations produce fewer seeds and pollen, and thus
attract fewer and a lower diversity of pollinators (Paschke et al.
2003, p. 1,258; Lienert 2004, p. 62); for a more complete discussion,
see section VIII. Small Population Size, below).
Oil Shale and Tar Sands
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.) establishes
that oil shale, tar sands, and other strategic unconventional fuels
should be developed to reduce the nation's dependence on imported oil.
At 42 U.S.C. 15927(m)(1)(B), the Energy Policy Act identifies the Green
River Region, including the entire range of Graham's and White River
beardtongues, as a priority for oil shale and tar sand development.
Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provide economic incentives
for oil shale development. For example, previous Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) restrictions limited oil shale lease sizes
to 2,072 hectares (ha) (5,120 acres (ac)), and restricted leasing
opportunities to just one lease tract per individual or corporation.
Lease size restrictions effectively limited development because of a
lack of available acreage to accommodate necessary infrastructure and
facilities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 now allows an individual or
corporation to acquire multiple lease tracts up to 20,234 ha (50,000
ac) in any one State, removing the restrictions of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 (Bartis et al. 2005, p. 48).
As we discussed in our January 19, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR
3158), Graham's beardtongue is closely associated with the richest oil
shale-bearing strata in the Mahogany ledge, which makes the species
highly vulnerable to extirpation from potential oil shale or tar sands
mining (Shultz and Mutz 1979, p. 42; Neese and Smith 1982, p. 64;
Service 2005, p. 5). This association is particularly true for the
easternmost populations of Graham's beardtongue (populations 10-24, see
Figure 1), where approximately 63 percent of all known Graham's
beardtongue plants are directly associated with the Mahogany ledge
where it outcrops or is less than 152 m (500 ft) below the surface
(Service 2013, p. 5). White River beardtongue is also associated with
the Mahogany ledge's oil shale-bearing strata. Approximately 69 percent
of the known White River
[[Page 47599]]
beardtongue plants are directly associated with the Mahogany ledge
where it outcrops or is less than 152 m (500 ft) below the surface
(Service 2013, p. 5). This shallow overburden (the soil and other
material that lies over a geologic deposit) becomes important when
evaluating the type of mining (e.g., surface or subsurface) that will
be used to extract the oil shale resource. As discussed below, surface
mining, in which all surface vegetation and soils are removed, is
likely the preferred extraction method in these areas.
The feasibility of oil shale and tar sands development was
uncertain when the original proposed listing rule was withdrawn in 2006
(71 FR 76024, December 19, 2006). Our January 19, 2006, proposed rule
(71 FR 3158) concluded that Graham's beardtongue was at risk due to the
increased potential of energy development, both traditional and oil
shale and tar sands. Our December 19, 2006, withdrawal of the proposed
rule (71 FR 76024) concluded that oil shale and tar sands development
was likely to occur first in the Piceance Basin in Colorado or in other
areas that do not overlap with the range of Graham's beardtongue, and
to use underground mining technologies that reduce surface disturbance.
We further concluded that development of oil shale and tar sands
resources in Graham's beardtongue habitat was not likely to occur, if
at all, until at least 20 years into the future, and was uncertain due
to technological and economic uncertainty. But as discussed below, it
is now highly likely that oil shale and tar sands mining will occur
across the ranges of both of these species in the near future.
In 2012, the BLM issued an Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzing the
impacts of designating public lands as available for commercial leasing
for oil shale and tar sands development in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
The PEIS opens approximately 144,473 ha (357,000 ac) in Utah and 10,522
ha (26,000 ac) in Colorado for oil shale leasing, and approximately
52,609 ha (130,000 ac) in Utah for tar sands leasing (BLM 2012b, p. ES-
10). Although leasing has not yet occurred, it is highly likely to
happen in the near future.
In Utah, 40 and 56 percent, respectively, of Graham's and White
River beardtongues' total populations overlap the designated oil shale
and tar sands leasing areas on BLM lands (Service 2013, p. 6). Existing
regulatory mechanisms only provide limited protection to the
beardtongues on Federal lands (see X. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms, below). We know of 18,678 Graham's beardtongue plants on
BLM lands, and 12,831 of these (or 69 percent) overlap designated oil
shale and tar sands leasing areas. Our data also show that of 7,054
White River beardtongue plants known to occur on BLM lands, 6,389 (or
91 percent) overlap with designated oil shale and tar sands leasing
areas. Designated oil shale leasing areas in Colorado do not overlap
any known populations for either Graham's beardtongue or White River
beardtongue--in fact, designated oil shale areas in Colorado are at
least 32 km (20 mi) away from the closest known populations (Service
2013, p. 7).
Oil shale and tar sands development on Federal lands is likely to
indirectly impact Graham's and White River beardtongues by increasing
habitat fragmentation, fugitive dust, and weed encroachment. A majority
of all known Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue plants on
BLM land occurs where the overburden over the richest oil-shale-bearing
geologic stratum is shallow--either outcropping or less than 152 m (500
ft) subsurface (Service 2013, p. 5). Surface strip mining in these
areas is likely to be the preferred extraction method (BLM 2012b, p. A-
22), which would result in the complete loss of all surface vegetation.
Although direct impacts to Graham's and White River beardtongues on
Federal lands will be minimized because existing conservation measures
protect plants by 91 m (300 ft), the existing conservation measures are
inadequate to minimize impacts from the indirect effects listed above
or to protect from accidental loss that may occur (see X. Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below). These indirect effects are
likely to impact 40 and 56 percent of all known plants of Graham's and
White River beardtongues, respectively. Neither species is likely to be
able to sustain this amount of impact and still be able to persist into
the future. Protection of Graham's and White River beardtongues will
need to happen on a landscape level to be effective at protecting these
species from indirect and cumulative impacts (see XI. Cumulative
Effects from All Factors, below) of oil shale and tar sands
development, and this type of protection is not currently afforded to
either species.
Furthermore, about 41 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of
Graham's and White River beardtongues occur on State and private lands
where they are afforded no protection. Oil shale and tar sands
development here is highly likely to directly remove all individuals of
these two species, in particular where these species overlap with the
oil-rich Mahogany layer. We estimate that most known Graham's and White
River beardtongues on State and private lands occur where the Mahogany
layer outcrops or is less than 152 m (500 ft) below the surface (or
approximately 26 and 28 percent of the total known populations of
Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively), making these
areas more likely to be surface mined. As a result, these areas are the
most vulnerable to direct loss if oil shale and tar sands development
expands across the region. The remainder of all known plants on State
and private lands is likely to be impacted by increased disturbance
from oil shale and tar sands development, but at worst may be lost as
well. In addition, land ownership throughout the Uinta Basin is a
checkerboard of private, State, and Federal ownership. Total losses of
Graham's and White River beardtongues on private and State lands will
have additional, indirect impacts through habitat fragmentation on
those individuals occurring on Federal lands.
In the past, we concluded that oil shale and tar sands development
was economically uncertain due to the highly volatile energy market (71
FR 76024, December 19, 2006). Indeed, oil shale and tar sands are more
expensive to produce than conventional oil (BLM 2011, entire). In
addition, the amount of water required to process these oil sources was
considered a technological limitation (BLM 2011, entire). Despite these
difficulties, three oil shale projects or explorations are planned on
private, State, and BLM lands in Uintah County, Utah. The first project
is proposed by Enefit American Oil, which is wholly owned by the
Estonian government. In 2011, Enefit acquired all of the assets owned
by Oil Shale Exploration Company (BLM 2012b, p. A-76). This includes an
oil shale research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) lease
property on BLM land in the Uinta Basin, Utah. Enefit's planned
operations include completing the RD&D project and expanding operations
to the surrounding lands that they privately own. Enefit expects to
begin construction of an industrial development complex in 2017, with
commercial production online by 2020 (Bernard and Hughes 2012, p. 18;
Bernard 2013, p. A-11).
The Enefit project will develop oil shale operations on up to
10,117 ha (25,800 ac) of private and State property using surface and
subsurface mining techniques (Enefit 2012, p. 6). Surface mining will
occur where the oil shale formation is outcropped or covered by
[[Page 47600]]
a minimal amount of overburden (Enefit 2012, p. 6), resulting in the
removal of all soils and vegetation in the area. The project area
overlaps 19 percent of all known Graham's beardtongue plants and 26
percent of all known White River beardtongue plants (Service 2013, p.
9). At worst, all of the Graham's and White River beardtongues plants
growing in this project area will be lost. At best, the Enefit project
will fragment habitat and reduce connectivity for both species.
Populations 19 and 20 of Graham's beardtongue will be impacted,
reducing gene flow between the Utah and Colorado populations of
Graham's beardtongue. The Enefit project occurs in the heart of White
River beardtongue's distribution, and all Utah populations (excluding
the Colorado population, 7, see Figure 2) will become more highly
fragmented with more isolated populations that are vulnerable to
extinction.
A second project will be conducted by Red Leaf Resources on Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) land,
within population 13 (see Figure 1) and overlapping 627 known Graham's
beardtongue plants (about 2 percent of all known plants). Oil shale
will be surface mined at the site, removing all soils and vegetation in
the area. This project was initially planned to begin in 2013 (Bernard
and Hughes 2012, entire), but is postponed awaiting the results of
preliminary water monitoring (Loomis 2012, entire; Baker 2013, entire).
The third project is an application by Ambre Energy to drill oil shale
test wells on BLM land in the Vernal Field Office area, planned to
begin in 2013. The applicant for this project proposes to drill 6 test
wells, 3 of which occur in known Graham's beardtongue habitat, although
individual plants will be avoided by 91 m (300 ft). Neither of these
projects overlaps with White River beardtongue.
Tar sands lease areas overlap 24 and 3 percent of the total known
populations of Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively. The
impacts of tar sands mining will be similar to those from oil shale
mining. However, we are aware of only one approved proposed tar sands
project in the State of Utah (Loomis 2012, p. 1), and the project does
not overlap with any known populations of Graham's beardtongue or White
River beardtongue.
In summary, the total impact of the currently planned oil shale
development projects alone (Enefit, Red Leaf) is substantial. The
likely loss of up to 21 percent (19 percent from Enefit and 2 percent
from Red Leaf) of Graham's beardtongue and 26 percent (all from the
Enefit project) of White River beardtongue will decrease the viability
of both species by reducing total numbers and increasing habitat
fragmentation, which will lead to smaller and more isolated populations
that are prone to extinction (see VIII. Small Population Size, below).
Moreover, the initiation of these projects (including the drilling of
test wells on BLM lands) and the recent BLM leasing decisions indicate
the renewed interest in oil shale and tar sands mining and the
increased likelihood of development across the ranges of these two
species. As described above, we estimate that 26 and 28 percent of all
known Graham's and White River beardtongues occur on non-federal lands
where the Mahogany layer outcrops or is less than 152 m (500 ft) below
the surface (the number of Graham's beardtongue on non-federal lands
will increase by 1 percent within the next year through a land
exchange; see X. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below)
and are vulnerable to total loss if oil shale and tar sands development
proceeds, which appears likely.
On BLM lands, 40 and 56 percent of all known Graham's and White
River beardtongues are located within potential oil shale and tar sands
lease areas. Most also occur on Mahogany oil-shale ledge outcroppings
or where the overburden is shallow, meaning that surface mining would
be the preferable extraction methodology, with the resulting loss of
all surface vegetation. By adding the number of plants likely to be
impacted by oil shale and tar sands development across all landowners
(Table 3), we estimate that as much as 82 and 94 percent of the total
known populations of Graham's and White River beardtongues will be
vulnerable to both direct loss and indirect negative impacts such as
habitat fragmentation from oil shale and tar sands development. These
levels of impact are likely to lead to severe declines in both species
across their ranges.
Table 3. Total percent of populations likely to be impacted by oil
shale and tar sands development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham's beardtongue White River beardtongue
---------------------------------------------------------------
plants % total plants % total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Lease Areas......... 12,831 40 6,389 56
Private and State Lands......................... 13,024 41 4,369 38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 25,855 82 10,758 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Traditional Oil and Gas Drilling
Historically, impacts to both beardtongue species from traditional
oil and gas development were largely avoided because development within
the species' habitat was minimal. However, the previously described
Energy Policy Act of 2005 enables leasing of oil and gas and tar sands
separately, even when the two are found in the same area. Previously,
the law required a combined tar sands/oil and gas lease, effectively
delaying leasing and extraction of oil and gas in tar sand areas
because of concerns about conflicts between tar sands and traditional
oil and gas development. Overall, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
effectively opened the entire range of both species to leasing for oil
and gas development and made that leasing more efficient and effective.
The impacts of traditional oil and gas development on Graham's and
White River beardtongues are expected to be high (BLM 2008b, p. 457).
Although a high level of development within these species' habitats is
not yet realized, we expect it to increase in the future. Most of the
ranges of Graham's and White River beardtongues are underlain with
deposits of traditional hydrocarbon resources, primarily natural gas
(Service 2013, p. 8). In the past two decades, oil and gas production
in Uintah County, Utah, has increased substantially. For example, oil
production in Uintah County increased about 60 percent from 2002 to
2012, and gas production increased about 25 percent over this same time
period (Utah Division of Oil 2012, entire). Drilling activities in
Uintah County continue to increase: The number of new wells drilled in
Uintah
[[Page 47601]]
County was 316 in 2009, and 631 in 2012 (Utah Division of Oil 2012,
entire).
To quantify how much drilling has occurred within Graham's and
White River beardtongues' habitat, we used the following methods to
identify an analysis area for impacts to the species based upon the
currently known plant locations and adjacent essential pollinator
habitat. For Graham's beardtongue, we created an analysis area using
known locations plus a distance of 700 m (2,297 ft) for pollinators.
For White River beardtongue, we created an analysis area using known
locations plus a distance of 500 m (1,640 ft) for pollinators. These
distances (700 m and 500 m) were based on pollinator travel distance
for important pollinators for each species (see Species Information,
``Biology'' for each plant, above). We then calculated the number of
wells currently drilled within these areas.
Within the Graham's beardtongue analysis area, well drilling has
occurred at a comparatively slow pace thus far: As of January 2013, 45
well pads were developed or approved within the analysis area for
Graham's beardtongue, and 35 of these are in Utah (Service 2013, p. 8).
We do not know actual surface disturbance associated with each well, so
we estimate 5 acres of surface disturbance per well pad (based on
assumptions made in the Vernal BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM
2008b, p. 4-3)), including disturbance from associated roads and
pipelines. Accordingly, we estimate that 103 ha (255 ac) of Graham's
beardtongue habitat are disturbed from energy development, which is
less than 1 percent of the total area included within the analysis area
across the Graham's beardtongue's range.
Development within the White River beardtongue analysis area is
similar; as of January 2013, 13 well pads were developed or approved in
the White River beardtongue analysis area, 8 of which are in Utah
(Service 2013, p. 8). Using the methods described above, less than 1
percent (26 ha (65 ac)) of the total area included within the White
River beardtongue analysis area is likely disturbed by existing oil and
gas activities.
Approximately 33 percent of the analysis areas for Graham's
beardtongue and 20 percent for White River beardtongue, respectively,
on State and Federal land are leased for traditional oil and gas
development (Service 2013, p. 11). At the time of this analysis, one
planned seismic exploration project overlaps with habitat for both
beardtongue species. The initiation of this project indicates that
traditional oil and gas development will very likely increase in the
habitat of both of these species. Our estimate of impacts is likely an
underestimate because we do not have information about how much private
land is planned for development.
Although some oil and gas drilling to date has certainly impacted
individuals of Graham's and White River beardtongues, development has
not been at a high enough level to negatively impact the whole species.
Additionally, neither Graham's beardtongue nor White River beardtongue
currently appears to suffer from pollinator limitation (Lewinsohn and
Tepedino 2007, entire; Dodge and Yates 2009, p. 12). Furthermore,
populations monitored for 9 years are stable (Dodge and Yates 2011,
entire). However, substantial numbers of Graham's and White River
beardtongue individuals (and their habitat) occur in areas that are
leased for oil and gas development (Table 4), and thus it is reasonable
to conclude that the impacts of oil and gas activity will increase in
the future as additional areas are developed.
Table 4. Graham's and White River beardtongue known plants
(rangewide) within leased oil and gas areas on both BLM and State lands
(Service 2013, p. 11). These were calculated based on oil and gas
leases alone and may include overlap with oil shale and tar sands.
Percentages may not add due to rounding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham's beardtongue White River beardtongue
---------------------------------------------------------------
plants % total plants % total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Leases...................................... 8,829 14 2,547 11
State Leases.................................... 4,269 13 1,278 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 13,098 27 3,825 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of All Energy Development
Several new oil shale projects are planned for the future (by 2020)
within Graham's and White River beardtongue habitat. For the two
projects occurring on private or State lands (Enefit and Redleaf) for
which we have enough information to estimate impacts, substantial
impacts are likely to occur for both species: Approximately 21 and 26
percent of the total known populations of Graham's and White River
beardtongues in the center of their ranges are vulnerable to direct
loss and the effects of increased disturbance. These direct impacts
will reduce the redundancy and representation of both species. Although
the market for oil shale and tar sands may still be uncertain, the
commencement of these projects indicates progress toward imminent
future development of oil shale and tar sands resources within the
range of these species.
On BLM lands, approximately 40 and 56 percent of all known Graham's
and White River beardtongue plants fall within areas that are open for
oil shale and tar sands leasing, although these areas have not yet been
leased. Twenty-seven and 22 percent of all known Graham's and White
River beardtongue plants, respectively, fall within areas that are
leased by the BLM and the State of Utah for traditional oil and gas
development. Many, but not all, of these lease areas overlap with each
other so that combined, we estimate that 50 and 66 percent of Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue, respectively, are on BLM lands
within areas that are either leased for oil and gas development or open
to leasing for oil shale and tar sands (Table 5).
Table 5. Areas identified for energy development for Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue across all landowner types.
Numbers are not additive because many of these areas overlap.
[[Page 47602]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham's beardtongue White River beardtongue
---------------------------------------------------------------
plants % of total plants % of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing BLM oil and gas leases................. 4,389 14 1,260 11
Vernal BLM Field Office 2013 proposed leases.... 2,458 8 130 1
Meeker BLM Field Office 2013 proposed leases.... 1 0 2 0
BLM oil shale and tar sands lease areas......... 12,831 40 6,389 56
Total Number of Plants that Overlap with All 15,750 50 7,531 66
Energy Types on BLM Lands or Leases............
Existing State of Utah oil and gas leases....... 4,269 13 1,278 11
Private and State lands (we assume all of these 13,024 41 4,369 38
lands are open to energy development of any
kind)..........................................
Total Number of Plants that Overlap with All 28,733 91 11,395 100
Energy Types Across All Landowners.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though individuals of these species on BLM lands will be
mostly protected from direct loss through the 91-m (300-ft) setback
conservation measure, a majority of both species will still be
susceptible to the indirect effects of energy development (with an
additional 1 percent of Graham's beardtongue likely to experience
direct impacts when the land exchange is finalized; see X. Inadequacy
of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below). In total, we estimate that
91 and 100 percent of Graham's and White River beardtongues are
vulnerable to the impacts of all types of energy development across all
landowners (Table 5). The indirect impacts from oil and gas
development, such as habitat fragmentation and loss, are likely to
reduce the resiliency of both species so that they cannot recover from
most stressors. In conclusion, we consider energy exploration and
development a future threat that will have a significant impact on both
species.
II. Grazing and Trampling
Invertebrates, wildlife, and livestock all graze directly on
individuals of Graham's and White River beardtongues (Sibul and Yates
2006, p. 9; Dodge and Yates 2010, p. 9; 2011, pp. 9, 12; UNHP 2012,
entire). Grazers feed on all parts of the plant, including the seeds,
damaging or destroying individual plants and effectively reducing their
reproductive success.
It is likely that livestock are not the primary grazers of Graham's
or White River beardtongues. High rates of herbivory on both
beardtongue species was reported in every year of a 9-year monitoring
study (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 7, 9). The impact of this herbivory
was to reduce fruit and seed production (Dodge and Yates 2011, pp. 7,
9). The herbivory was attributed to rabbits, cattle, large mammals,
deer, and invertebrates (Dodge and Yates 2011). In particular, tiger
moth caterpillars (possibly Arctia caja utahensis, although this
identification has not been positively confirmed) were noted on
Graham's beardtongue plants at one site in 2009 and 2010 (Dodge and
Yates 2011; Tepedino 2012). In these years, herbivory rates (measured
by the number of plants browsed) were as high as 59 and 68 percent,
respectively (Dodge and Yates 2011, p. 4). The grazing pressure
fluctuates, however, as lower herbivory (28.6 percent) was noted in
2011, and plants at this site rebounded in size and reproduction to
match other sites that experienced little to no grazing (Dodge and
Yates 2011, p. 4).
The level of herbivory within all of the long-term monitoring plots
for both beardtongue species fluctuated greatly over the course of the
study. For Graham's beardtongue, across all monitoring sites and years,
herbivory ranged from 4.7 to 84 percent; for White River beardtongue,
herbivory ranged from 1.3 to 91 percent (Dodge and Yates 2011, entire).
Herbivory appeared to decrease at times due to delayed plant
development from the cool, wet springs of 2010 and 2011 (Dodge and
Yates 2011, pp. 10-11). Despite high levels of herbivory, the
populations were mostly stable over 9 years of monitoring (McCaffery
2013a, p. 4). Presumably, beardtongues would be adapted to herbivory by
native grazers, which may explain why populations continue to remain
stable despite high levels of herbivory.
Everywhere Graham's and White River beardtongues grow on BLM lands,
they fall within a grazing allotment. This accounts for approximately
59 percent of all known Graham's beardtongue plants and 62 percent of
all White River beardtongue plants. Most Graham's beardtongue plants
occur within approximately 19 allotments with both sheep and cattle
use. Seasons of use vary considerably, with most allotments grazed over
the winter (from November or December to April), although some
allotments are grazed in the spring and summer (BLM 2008c, pp. J1-4).
Most White River beardtongue plants occur within six allotments: four
sheep allotments with a season of use from October to May, one sheep
allotment (Raven Ridge in Colorado) grazed from November to February,
and one cattle allotment with season of use from April to June and
October to February (BLM 2008c, pp. J1-4). Grazing in the spring and
summer are more likely to directly impact beardtongue individuals than
grazing in the winter. In addition, sheep are more likely to graze on
forbs than cattle (Cutler 2011, entire); thus beardtongue individuals
within sheep allotments are more likely to be grazed than those in
cattle allotments. On the other hand, grazing pressure may have less of
an impact on the beardtongues than it has in the past--in the past
decade, BLM has reduced the number of grazing sheep by half on many of
the allotments (Cutler 2011, entire). Grazing also likely occurs across
other landowners, although we do not have data on these other lands.
Besides impacts from grazing, which we do not believe is negatively
impacting Graham's or White River beardtongue at the species level,
domestic livestock can impact rare and native plants by trampling them.
As discussed in our 2006 proposed rule for Graham's beardtongue (71 FR
3158, January 19, 2006), trampling from domestic livestock may have
localized effects on this species. We believe one population of
Graham's beardtongue was eradicated by livestock trampling (Neese and
Smith 1982, p. 66). Winter sheep grazing is the principal use across
the range of White River beardtongue habitat, where sheep trailing
(walking) likely results in damage or loss of plants (Franklin 1995, p.
6; UNHP 2012, entire). It is likely that some individuals of both
beardtongue species, and particularly White River beardtongue as it
tends to grow on slightly steeper slopes (see Species Information,
``Habitat'' for both beardtongues above), are afforded some protection
from
[[Page 47603]]
trampling by cattle where they grow on steep slopes, as cattle
generally avoid steep slopes and primarily graze on gentle slopes.
However, this would not prevent trampling by sheep, which are not
deterred by steep slopes.
Livestock grazing can negatively impact native plants indirectly
through habitat degradation or by influencing plant community
composition. Across the Colorado Plateau, livestock trampling and
trailing breaks and damages biological soil crusts (Belnap and Gillette
1997, entire); alters plant community composition (Cole et al. 1997,
entire); spreads and encourages weed seed establishment (Davies and
Sheley 2007, p. 179); increases dust emissions (Neff et al. 2008,
entire); and compacts soils, affecting water infiltration, soil
porosity, and root development (Castellano and Valone 2007, entire).
Crusts are not known to be a major component of the soils that Graham's
and White River beardtongues inhabit, but livestock likely have altered
the physical features of the plants' habitats. Although we do not have
data indicating how livestock grazing has indirectly impacted Graham's
beardtongue or White River beardtongue habitat, the invasive species
cheatgrass, purple mustard, halogeton, and prickly Russian thistle have
been documented growing with both beardtongues (see VII. Invasive
Weeds, below) (Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 23; CNHP 2012, entire; Service
2012a, entire; UNHP 2012, entire). We assume that grazing has caused
ecological changes, including nonnative weed invasion and other
physical changes, within beardtongue habitats. We make this assumption
because of landscape-level ecological changes--such as annual weed
invasion, plant community changes, and loss of biological soil crusts--
known to have occurred across the Colorado Plateau due to introduced
grazers such as cattle, horses, and sheep (Mack and Thompson 1982,
entire; Cole et al. 1997, entire). We do not know the extent and
severity of these changes.
In summary, herbivory and trampling from grazing on some locations
of Graham's and White River beardtongues appear to be severe during
some years, and it is likely that similar impacts occur across the
ranges of the species. The documented effects of herbivory and
trampling on Graham's and White River beardtongues to date are limited
to a reduction in reproductive output in some years at specific sites
and the possible loss of a historical population, rather than
widespread impacts on habitat or population-level impacts on the
species. Despite high levels of herbivory, populations appear to be
stable. At present, we find that both species have sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to recover from existing
grazing and trampling impacts. Thus, we do not consider grazing to be a
threat to these species. This factor should continue to be monitored,
as the cumulative effects of livestock grazing, particularly habitat
alteration, coupled with other disturbances may have a more severe
negative effect on beardtongue species (see section XI. Cumulative
Effects from All Factors, below, for more details). In particular,
changing climate patterns may change the effects associated with
herbivory from native grazers (see IX. Climate Change, below).
III. Unauthorized Collection
In our 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 3158, January 19, 2006), we
determined that unauthorized collection of Graham's beardtongue may
occur, but we never explicitly stated whether we believed it posed a
threat to the species. Indeed, Graham's beardtongue is a unique and
charismatic species that is prized by collectors and, at least at one
point in time, was available commercially online (71 FR 3158, January
19, 2006). We know of no recent attempts to collect this species
without proper authorizations. We are not aware of any instances where
White River beardtongue was collected without proper authorizations
that ensure species conservation. Although unauthorized collection may
destroy some individuals, it is not likely to extirpate entire
populations or lead to species-level impacts. Therefore, we do not
consider unauthorized collection a threat to either beardtongue
species.
IV. Off-Highway Vehicle Use
The use of off-highway or off-road vehicles (OHVs) may result in
direct loss or damage to plants and their habitat through soil
compaction, increased erosion, invasion of noxious weeds, and
disturbance to pollinators and their habitat (Eckert et al. 1979,
entire; Lovich and Bainbridge 1999, p. 316; Ouren et al. 2007, entire;
BLM 2008b, pp. 4-94; Wilson et al. 2009, p. 1). To date, little OHV use
has occurred within the ranges of Graham's beardtongue and White River
beardtongue. For example, unauthorized OHV use was observed at four
locations within White River beardtongue occupied habitat 10 to 20
years ago (UNHP 2012, entire). Federal and industry personnel were
increasingly using OHVs in oil and gas field surveys and site location
developments prior to 2008. However, since 2008, the revised Vernal
Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) limits all vehicles to
designated routes (BLM 2008c, p. 46). This protective measure provides
conservation benefits within the habitat of Graham's and White River
beardtongues. Given the low levels of documented unauthorized OHV use
and the protections provided by the BLM Vernal RMP, we do not consider
OHV use a threat to either beardtongue species.
V. Road Maintenance and Construction
Roads that cross through rare plant habitat can destroy habitat and
populations, increase road dust, and disturb pollinators (Trombulak and
Frissell 2000, entire). We consider this issue separately from roads
created for oil and gas development, discussed above (see I. Energy
Exploration and Development, above), although the effects are the same.
Many unpaved county roads cross through Graham's and White River
beardtongue habitat, and most of these roads have existed for decades.
Plants located near unpaved roads are prone to the effects of dust,
fragmentation, and pollinator disturbance (see I. Energy Exploration
and Development, above, for a thorough discussion of road effects).
Conflicts can also arise from new paved roads or road upgrades, as
described below.
In 2012, Seep Ridge Road, a formerly unpaved county road crossing
through occupied Graham's beardtongue habitat, was re-aligned and
paved. At least 322 individuals were within 300 feet of the proposed
right-of-way. This project resulted in direct impacts to at least 31
Graham's beardtongue individuals that were transplanted out of the
widened road right-of-way. The transplants will be revisited in 2013,
but we do not expect any of them to have survived due to the drought
conditions during the transplant (Dodge 2013, entire). The paving of
Seep Ridge Road reduces the impacts of fugitive dust on the population
of Graham's beardtongue bisected by the road. However, the widened road
corridor directly decreased the number of plants on the east side of
the road and may impede pollinator movement, leading to this population
of Graham's beardtongue becoming more isolated. This patch may be more
susceptible to extinction, although further study of this population
and its genetic diversity should be undertaken.
Two of the long-term monitoring plots for Graham's and White River
beardtongues are immediately adjacent to unpaved roads, and these
populations were stable over the 9 years of the study (Dodge and Yates
2011, pp. 9, 12;
[[Page 47604]]
McCaffery 2013a, p. 4). However, one monitoring plot of White River
beardtongue produces fewer flowers and fruits than other sites of White
River beardtongue, potentially because of increased disturbance due to
the nearby road (Dodge and Yates 2011, p. 12).
In summary, road maintenance and construction can destroy habitat
and fragment populations, but this impact is site-specific and does not
occur across the entire range of the species. Besides the Seep Ridge
Road project, these types of projects occur infrequently, and we are
not aware of other road construction or maintenance projects that have
occurred, or are proposed to occur, in areas where they would impact
Graham's beardtongue or White River beardtongue. Therefore, we do not
consider road maintenance and construction to be a threat to either
beardtongue species.
VI. Wildfire
In 2012, the Wolf Den Fire, believed to be started by dry
lightning, burned 8,112 ha (20,046 ac) in Uintah County, including 394
ha (974 ac), approximately 1.5 percent, of the area within 700 m (2,297
ft) of known points of Graham's beardtongue and approximately 563 known
plants (1.8 percent of the total known number of plants). No
individuals of White River beardtongue were affected by this fire.
Fires do not occur frequently in Graham's beardtongue or White River
beardtongue habitat, but fire frequency and intensity is likely to
increase with increased invasive weeds and climate change (see sections
VII. Invasive Weeds, IX. Climate Change, and XI. Cumulative Effects
from All Factors, below, for more information). At present, we do not
expect wildfires at a large enough scale to pose a threat to either
species. In addition, we do not yet know how these species respond to
fire. It is likely that with patchy, low-intensity burns they would be
able to re-sprout from their roots, which we have documented in the
field for Graham's beardtongue (Brunson 2012, entire). We do not
consider wildfire alone a threat to either species.
VII. Invasive Weeds
We noted the presence of the invasive, nonnative weeds cheatgrass
and halogeton in Graham's beardtongue habitat in our 2006 proposed rule
(71 FR 3158, January 19, 2006). Prickly Russian thistle and purple
mustard also occur in Graham's and White River beardtongue habitat
(Service 2012c, entire). The weeds have not been noted as highly
prevalent in the barren oil shale soils where the beardtongue species
grow, although this has never been directly studied. However, these
invasive weeds are numerous in the habitat and plant communities
immediately adjacent to beardtongue species habitat, most notably along
disturbances (for example, roads and well pads) (Service 2012c,
entire).
The spread of nonnative, invasive species is considered the second
largest threat to imperiled plants in the United States (Wilcove et al.
1998, p. 2). Invasive plants--specifically exotic annuals--negatively
affect native vegetation, including rare plants. One of the most
substantial effects is the change in vegetation fuel properties that,
in turn, alters fire frequency, intensity, extent, type, and
seasonality (Menakis et al. 2003, p. 282; Brooks et al. 2004, entire;
McKenzie et al. 2004, entire). Shortened fire return intervals make it
difficult for native plants to reestablish or compete with invasive
plants (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 68-77). Invasive weeds can
exclude native plants and alter pollinator behaviors (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, pp. 68-77; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257; Mooney and Cleland
2001, pp. 74-75; Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. 211-213). For
example, cheatgrass outcompetes native species for soil, nutrients, and
water (Melgoza et al. 1990, pp. 9-10; Aguirre and Johnson 1991, pp.
352-353).
Cheatgrass is a particularly problematic nonnative, invasive annual
grass in the Intermountain West and, as discussed above, has been
documented in Graham's and White River beardtongue habitat. If already
present in the vegetative community, cheatgrass increases in abundance
after a wildfire, increasing the chance for more frequent fires
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75). In addition, cheatgrass
invades areas in response to surface disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 389-
398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 381-383; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, pp. 324-330;
Evans et al. 2001, p. 1,308). Cheatgrass is likely to increase due to
climate change because invasive annuals increase biomass and seed
production at elevated levels of carbon dioxide (Mayeaux et al. 1994,
p. 98; Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80-81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1,328).
We have limited information on how much invasive weeds have
impacted Graham's and White River beardtongues across their ranges,
although it is likely that this is a factor that will increase in the
future due to increased disturbance from oil and gas development,
grazing (see II. Grazing and Trampling, above), and climate change. We
do not currently consider invasive weeds alone to be a threat to either
beardtongue species. However, with the amount of energy development
that is likely to occur across the ranges of both species in the future
(see I. Energy Exploration and Development, above), and given the
likelihood that invasive species will increase with climate change (see
XI. Cumulative Effects from All Factors, below), we conclude that
invasive weeds are a future threat to these species.
VIII. Small Population Size
We lack complete information on the population genetics of Graham's
and White River beardtongues. Preliminary genetic analysis shows that
both beardtongues have less diversity than more common beardtongue
species that have overlapping ranges (Arft unpublished report 2002). As
previously described (see Background, ``Biology'' for both plants,
above), both species have mixed mating systems and are thus capable of
producing seed through self-fertilization or cross-pollination.
However, the highest number of seeds and fruits are produced when
flowers are cross-pollinated (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007, pp. 233-
234). Increased disturbance and habitat fragmentation resulting in
smaller population sizes could negatively impact both species because
there would be fewer plants available for cross-pollination.
Small populations and species with limited distributions are
vulnerable to relatively minor environmental disturbances (Given 1994,
pp. 66-67). Small populations also are at an increased risk of
extinction due to the potential for inbreeding depression, loss of
genetic diversity, and lower sexual reproduction rates (Ellstrand and
Elam 1993, entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 275). Lower genetic
diversity may, in turn, lead to even smaller populations by decreasing
the species' ability to adapt, thereby increasing the probability of
population extinction (S.C.H. and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 360).
Populations of either species with fewer than 150 individuals are
more prone to extinction from stochastic events (McCaffery 2013b, p.
1). Overall, it appears that Graham's beardtongue has many small
populations scattered across its range, although the largest population
(population 19, which will be impacted should the Enefit project
continue as planned) contains more than 10,000 plants. Of the 24
populations of Graham's beardtongue, approximately 15 contain fewer
than 150 known plants. That means more than half the known populations
are more prone to extinction from stochastic events due to small
population size.
[[Page 47605]]
However, these populations account for 1 percent of the total known
number of plants of Graham's beardtongue. Additionally, the numbers in
our files do not necessarily represent complete population counts; some
populations likely contain more plants and some fewer. On the other
hand, its scattered distribution may contribute to Graham's
beardtongue's overall viability and potential resilience. For example,
small-scale stochastic events, such as the erosion of a hillside during
a flood event, will likely impact only a single population or a portion
of that population. Even larger, landscape-level events such as
wildfires are not likely to impact the species as a whole (see section
VI. Wildfire, above). We do not find that small population size is
currently a species-level concern for Graham's beardtongue, although
this is likely to change after oil shale development occurs (see XI.
Cumulative Effects from All Factors, below).
White River beardtongue has only seven populations, and two of
these have fewer than 150 individual plants. These two smaller
populations account for less than 1 percent of the total species'
population. As with Graham's beardtongue, these counts are based on
incomplete surveys and are not necessarily representative of actual
conditions on the ground. In addition, large areas of suitable habitat
remain unsurveyed, so this species may be more widely distributed and
populations are likely to have different numbers of plants than
presented here. However, this species' range is much smaller than that
of Graham's beardtongue, and thus we conclude that White River
beardtongue may be more prone to extinction from landscape-level
events.
In the absence of information identifying threats to the species
and linking those threats to the rarity of the species, we do not
consider small population size alone to be a threat. A species that has
always been rare, yet continues to survive, could be well equipped to
continue to exist into the future. This may be particularly true for
Graham's and White River beardtongues. Many naturally rare species have
persisted for long periods within small geographic areas, and many
naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist,
despite their small population sizes. Consequently, the fact that a
species is rare does not necessarily indicate that it may be in danger
of extinction in the future.
Based on Graham's and White River beardtongues' current population
numbers and preliminary demographic analyses showing populations are,
for the most part, stable, we conclude that small population size is
not currently a threat to these species. However, this may change in
the future as energy development in these species' habitat increases
and the populations become smaller and more fragmented (see section XI.
Cumulative Effects from All Factors, below).
IX. Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-19). In
our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
Climate change is potentially impacting Graham's and White River
beardtongues now, and could continue to impact these species into the
future. Over the last 50 years, average temperatures have increased in
the Northern Hemisphere and extreme weather events have changed in
frequency or intensity, including fewer cold days and nights, fewer
frosts, more heat waves, and more hot days and nights (IPCC 2007, p.
30). In the southwestern United States, average temperatures increased
approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) compared to a 1960 to
1979 baseline (Karl 2009, p. 129). Climate modeling is not currently to
the level of detail at which we can predict the amount of temperature
and precipitation change precisely within the limited ranges of these
two beardtongue species. Therefore, we generally address what could
happen under current climate projections based upon what we know about
the biology of these two species.
Climate changes will continue as hot extremes, heat waves, and
heavy precipitation will increase in frequency, with the Southwest
experiencing the greatest temperature increase in the continental
United States (Karl 2009, p. 129). Annual mean precipitation levels are
expected to decrease in western North America and especially the
southwestern States by mid-century (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al.
2007, p. 1,181), with a predicted 10- to 30-percent decrease in
precipitation in mid-latitude western North America by the year 2050
(Milly et al. 2005, p. 1). These changes are likely to increase drought
in the areas where Graham's and White River beardtongues grow.
We do not have a clear understanding of how Graham's and White
River beardtongues respond to precipitation, although generally plant
numbers decrease during drought years and recover in subsequent seasons
that are less dry. Graham's beardtongue may not respond as quickly as
White River beardtongue to increased winter and spring moisture
immediately preceding the growing season (Lewinsohn and Tepedino 2007,
pp. 12-13). In addition, Graham's beardtongue flowering is sporadic and
may be responding to environmental factors that we have not been able
to measure in the field, such as precipitation. Graham's beardtongue
may need more than one year of normal precipitation to recover from
prolonged drought (Lewinsohn 2005, p. 13), although this hypothesis has
not been tested. Conversely, current analyses indicate that there is no
association between regional precipitation patterns and population
demographics (McCaffery 2013a, p. 4), although regional weather
stations used in the analysis are not likely to pick up site-specific
precipitation that is more likely to influence these species' vital
rates.
That these beardtongues are adapted to living on such hot and dry
patches of soils (even more so than other native species in the same
area) may mean they are better adapted to withstand stochastic events
such as drought. However, increased intensity and frequency of droughts
may offer Graham's and White River beardtongues populations fewer
chances to recover and may lead to a decline in both species. Some
estimate that approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal
species are at increased risk of extinction if increases in global
average temperature exceed 2.7 to 4.5[emsp14][deg]F (1.5 to 2.5 [deg]C)
(IPCC 2007, p. 48). By the end of this century, temperatures are
expected to exceed this range by
[[Page 47606]]
warming a total of 4 to 10[emsp14][deg]F (2 to 5 [deg]C) in the
Southwest (Karl 2009, p. 129).
Accelerating rates of climate change of the past 2 or 3 decades
indicate that the extension of species' geographic range boundaries
toward the poles or to higher elevations by progressive establishment
of new local populations will become increasingly apparent in the
relatively short term (Hughes 2005, p. 60). The limited range of oil
shale substrate that Graham's and White River beardtongues inhabit
could limit the ability of these species to adapt to changes in
climactic conditions by progressive establishment of new populations.
However, some experts believe that it may be possible for these species
to move to other aspects within their habitat in order to adapt to a
changing climate (Service 2012c, entire). For example, Graham's
beardtongue is typically observed on west or southwest-facing slopes
(see Species Information, ``Habitat'' for Graham's beardtongue, above).
White River beardtongue exhibits a similar characteristic, although
this species is more evenly distributed on different slope aspects (see
Species Information, ``Habitat'' for White River beardtongue, above).
It may be possible for these species to gradually move to cooler and
wetter slope aspects (for example, north-facing hillsides) within oil
shale soils in response to a hotter drier climate (Service 2012c,
entire), but only if these types of habitat are within reasonable seed-
dispersal distances and only if these habitats remain intact with
increasing oil and gas development.
In summary, climate change is affecting and will affect temperature
and precipitation events in the future. We expect that Graham's and
White River beardtongues, like other narrow endemics, may be negatively
affected by climate change-related drought. Current data are not
reliable enough at the local level for us to draw conclusions regarding
the impacts of climate change threats to Graham's and White River
beardtongues. It is likely that the impacts of climate change will be
more severe if oil and gas development destroy and fragment the habitat
both species will need for refuge from an increasingly dry, hot
climate, thus decreasing both species' resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (see XI. Cumulative Effects from All Factors, below).
X. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal
Within Colorado, the Raven Ridge Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) was established, in part, to protect listed and
candidate species, including Graham's and White River beardtongues (BLM
1986, p. 2, BLM 1997, p. 2-17). The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) directs BLM, as part of the land
use planning process, to give priority to the designation and
protection of ACECs. FLPMA defines ACECs as ``areas within the public
lands where special management attention is required . . . to protect
and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or
scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or
processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards'' (Sec.
103(a)). Designation as an ACEC recognizes an area as possessing
relevant and important values that would be at risk without special
management attention (BLM 2008b, p. 4-426).
Following an evaluation of the relevance and importance of the
values found in potential ACECs, the BLM determines whether special
management is required to protect those values and, if so, to specify
what management prescriptions would provide that special management
(BLM 2008b, p. 4-426--4-436). To protect listed and candidate species
including the beardtongues, the Raven Ridge ACEC restricts motorized
travel to existing roads and trails and includes a no surface occupancy
(NSO) stipulation for new oil and gas leases within the ACEC (BLM 1997,
p. 2-19, 2-44). The NSO designation prohibits long-term use or
occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or
development to protect special resource values (BLM 2008c, p. 38).
However, NSO stipulations do not apply to valid existing rights (BLM
1997, pp. 2-31), which account for 14 and 11 percent of the total known
populations for Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively.
For example, an area that was leased for mineral development before the
ACEC was established would not be subject to the NSO stipulation and
could potentially develop well pads and associated infrastructure
within an ACEC.
Eighty-seven percent (33 of 38) of all known Graham's beardtongue
plants in Colorado occur within the Raven Ridge ACEC. About 2 percent
(28 of 1,187) of the known White River beardtongue plants in Colorado
also occur within the Raven Ridge ACEC. We expect the NSO stipulation
will continue to provide sufficient protection to the plants in the
ACEC. Twenty-one percent of the Raven Ridge ACEC is currently leased,
and the NSO stipulations are in effect for this entire area. An
additional 30 percent of the Raven Ridge ACEC was proposed for leasing
in 2013, but the lease sale is now deferred for further analysis (BLM
2013, entire). To date, no wells have been drilled or approved within
the Raven Ridge ACEC (Service 2013, p. 12). There are no ACECs
established for either Graham's beardtongue or White River beardtongue
in Utah.
Both species are listed as BLM sensitive plants in Colorado and
Utah, which affords them limited policy-level protection through the
Special Status Species Management Policy Manual 6840, which
forms the basis for special status species management on BLM lands (BLM
2008a, entire). The BLM currently gives candidate species the same
protection as listed species, and for both beardtongue species,
conservation measures incorporated by the Vernal Field Office include a
91-m (300-ft) setback from surface-disturbing activities (BLM 2008c, p.
L-16).
If these species were not candidates or listed under the Act,
Graham's and White River beardtongues would likely remain BLM-sensitive
plant species. The BLM currently requires 46 m (150 ft) between surface
disturbance and BLM-sensitive plant species (Roe 2011, pers. comm.). If
kept in place, these conservation measures will provide some level of
protection to these species. However, we do not consider this distance
sufficient to effectively prevent negative impacts associated with
surface-disturbing activities or to protect unoccupied habitat to serve
as a refuge for either species with climate change (see, I. Energy
Exploration and Development for a discussion of fugitive dust travel
distances). Additionally, the 46-m (150-ft) buffer for sensitive plant
species is not official policy for the Vernal Field Office and could
potentially change with new management or under specific project
scenarios.
In 2007, a voluntary 5-year conservation agreement for Graham's
beardtongue was signed by the Service, the BLM, and the Utah Department
of Natural Resources (DNR). The agreement intended to create a program
of conservation measures to address potential threats to Graham's
beardtongue at the Federal, State, and local levels. The agreement
includes the following conservation measures:
Identify all occupied habitat of Graham's beardtongue.
Census all occurrences of the species.
Identify at least six permanent population monitoring
sites throughout the species' range and conduct
[[Page 47607]]
population monitoring studies for Graham's beardtongue in each of those
sites.
Maintain Federal ownership of all occupied habitat.
Avoid or minimize impacts to the species and its habitat
from permitted surface disturbances, subject to valid existing lease
rights and other valid existing rights.
Since the conservation agreement was signed, the BLM has funded
surveys for both species, adding 4,000 new Graham's beardtongue points
and 400 new White River beardtongue points to our files. In addition, a
monitoring program on several populations of both species was initiated
in 2004, and was funded partially with BLM money, through 2012.
However, BLM will not be able to retain Federal ownership of all
occupied habitat, as recommended in the conservation agreement. The
Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-53, signed
August 19, 2009) directed the exchange of lands within Grand, San Juan,
and Uintah Counties, Utah, between the BLM and SITLA. The Act directs
the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Utah all
rights, title, and interests to the Federal lands identified on the
associated Grand County and Uintah County maps. Several of the parcels
that will be transferred to SITLA include 346 known individual Graham's
beardtongue plants within populations 13 and 16. We expect that more
plants occur in these parcels than have been counted to date, so actual
losses are likely to be higher. SITLA has not expressed an interest in
protecting Graham's beardtongue on lands they manage (see discussion
under ``State'' below) so any Graham's beardtongue individuals on
parcels transferred to the State will be unprotected from energy
development. These new SITLA lands occur in areas of high potential
energy development (see I. Energy Exploration and Development, above).
Although the land exchange is not yet final, we expect it to move
forward as planned.
FLPMA requires the BLM to develop and revise land-use plans when
appropriate (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)). The BLM developed a new resource
management plan (RMP) for the Vernal Field Office to consolidate
existing land-use plans and balance use and protection of resources
(BLM 2008c, pp. 1-2). Through the Vernal Field Office RMP, the BLM
commits to conserve and recover all special status species, including
candidate species (BLM 2008c, p. 129). However, the RMP special status
species goals and objectives do not legally ensure that all Federal
actions avoid impacts to Graham's beardtongue or White River
beardtongue. Conservation measures implemented by the BLM have not
fully prevented impacts (for example, well pad development or road
maintenance and construction in occupied habitat as discussed
previously in I. Energy Exploration and Development, and V. Road
Maintenance and Construction) to Graham's beardtongue or White River
beardtongue. Therefore, we conclude that increased energy development
in Graham's and White River beardtongue habitat will increase the
direct loss of habitat and decrease the long-term ability to implement
more effective conservation measures (see I. Energy Exploration and
Development, above).
During oil and gas development activities that have occurred to
date, the BLM minimized some impacts to Graham's beardtongue and its
habitat through incorporation of conservation measures through section
7 consultation under the Act. Under the Act, Federal agencies are
required to conference on species that are proposed for listing,
including Graham's beardtongue, if their actions are likely to
jeopardize the species. In practice, the BLM has conferenced on
Graham's beardtongue for any proposed projects within its habitat.
Conservation measures include moving well pad and pipeline locations to
avoid direct impacts to the species. These measures minimize direct
impacts to the species, particularly at the current low rates of
development that have occurred in the habitat.
At current minimal levels of energy development (at the time of
this analysis, 45 wells in Graham's beardtongue analysis area and 13
wells in White River beardtongue analysis area), we conclude that
existing conservation measures, such as a 91-m (300-ft) setback are
sufficient to protect these species. However, additional energy
development is very likely to occur across the ranges of these two
species at a high level. Existing conservation measures are not
sufficient to protect these species from the increased indirect
effects, such as habitat fragmentation and pollinator disturbance, that
will result from more energy development.
State
No State laws or regulations protect rare plant species in either
Utah or Colorado. Approximately 15 and 11 percent of all known plants
of Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively, occur on State
land. After the land exchange, about 16 percent of all known Graham's
beardtongue plants will be located on State lands.
The 2007 Graham's beardtongue conservation agreement was signed by
the Utah DNR, the Service, and the BLM (see the section above,
``Federal,'' for a more thorough description of the conservation
agreement). However, the agreement was not signed by local-level
officials with Uintah County, or by SITLA, which manages most of the
State lands where Graham's beardtongue is found. To date, SITLA has not
required project proponents to protect Graham's beardtongue, White
River beardtongue, or other rare or listed plant species on SITLA-
managed lands in the Uinta Basin where oil and gas development
(traditional or oil shale and tar sands) exists.
Local
As stated above, approximately 26 and 27 percent of all known
plants of Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively, occur on
private lands. We are not aware of any city or county ordinances or
zoning that provide for protection or conservation of Graham's and
White River beardtongues and their habitats.
Summary of All Regulatory Levels
In summary, we find that existing conservation measures instituted
by the BLM do not sufficiently address the identified threats to
Graham's and White River beardtongues. Both species are afforded some
protection on BLM lands as candidate and proposed species; however, the
minimal protection provided to date would be reduced if we find that
Graham's and White River beardtongues do not meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. For example, if both species were
removed from the candidate species list, the BLM would likely reduce
the 91-m (300-ft) distance between disturbance and known plant
locations to 46 m (150 feet), which we do not believe would
sufficiently protect the plants or their pollinators. Additionally, as
a species without listing status, the BLM would not conference with the
Service on projects impacting Graham's beardtongue or White River
beardtongue. At current low levels of energy development, a 91-m (300-
ft) setback is sufficient to protect these species from negative
impacts, but at full field development (one wellpad every 40 acres) or
complete removal of vegetation and top soil (as would occur with oil
shale or tar sands development), a 91-m (300-ft) setback distance is
not sufficient to protect against landscape-level habitat
fragmentation, loss of pollinator habitat and population connectivity,
increased dust, and invasive weeds.
[[Page 47608]]
There are no existing regulations at the State or local levels to
protect either species from the identified threat of energy
development. Neither Graham's nor White River beardtongues has
regulatory protection for approximately 41 and 38 percent,
respectively, of the total number of known plants, where they occur on
State or private lands. As such, the plants will receive no regulatory
protection from the future threat of energy development (and this will
increase by 1 percent for Graham's beardtongue after the land exchange
takes place) on State or private lands.
Because of these issues, existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the species from the threats we anticipate in the
future, specifically energy development.
XI. Cumulative Effects From All Factors
The stressors discussed above pertain to the 5 listing factors
described in the Act:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range (energy exploration and development,
off-highway vehicle use, grazing, road maintenance and construction,
wildfire, invasive weeds);
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (unauthorized collection);
C. Disease or predation (grazing and trampling);
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence (climate change, small population size).
The combination of many of the factors described above is likely to
increase the vulnerability of these species.
We conclude that the future development of oil shale (and to a
lesser extent, tar sands) alone is a threat to both Graham's and White
River beardtongues. The impacts of this development include a reduction
in population numbers, increased fragmentation, and habitat loss,
impacting as much as 82 and 94 percent of the total known populations
of Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively. If we include
potential impacts from traditional oil and gas development, then 91 and
100 percent of Graham's and White River beardtongues, respectively,
will be impacted by all types of energy development.
Both species will experience a reduction in total population sizes,
and may lose entire populations from oil shale development. Smaller
populations, as discussed above (see VIII. Small Population Size) are
more prone to extinction, and these smaller populations will also
experience more severe effects of other factors. For example,
incremental increases in habitat alteration and fragmentation from
increased energy development (including oil shale, tar sands, and
traditional oil and gas) will increase weed invasion and fugitive dust,
as well as increase the severity of impacts from other factors such as
grazing, as grazers become more concentrated into undisturbed areas,
and road maintenance, as more roads are constructed.
Climate change is likely to augment the ability of invasive,
nonnative species to out-compete native plant species and also reduce
the ability of native plant species to recover in response to
perturbations. Climate change may also change the effects of grazing
events from native grazers to the extent that reproduction of either
beardtongue species is hindered so that populations are no longer
resilient. This underscores the need to protect not only the associated
plant communities within Graham's and White River beardtongue habitat,
but those immediately adjacent to beardtongue habitat (Service 2012c,
entire).
Without cohesive, landscape-level regulatory mechanisms in place to
protect Graham's and White River beardtongues from development on
public lands, as development increases, habitat fragmentation and
negative effects associated with it are likely to increase, despite
site-specific conservation measures to protect these species. In
conclusion, we find that energy development alone, especially oil shale
and tar sands development, is a threat to these species. Additionally,
the synergistic effects of increased energy development, livestock
grazing, invasive weeds, small population sizes, and climate change are
threats to these species.
Proposed Determination
Standard Under the Act
Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened
determinations required by section 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available to her after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account
conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The standards for
determining whether a species is endangered or threatened are provided
in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.'' A threatened species is any species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it meets
the definition of endangered or threatened, we determine whether any
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any
of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Proposed Listing Status Determination
After a review of the best available scientific information as it
relates to the status of the species and the five listing factors
described above, we have determined that Graham's and White River
beardtongues meet the definition of threatened species (i.e., are
likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges within the foreseeable future).
Graham's and White River beardtongues are currently stable species
with relatively restricted ranges limited to a specific soil type. The
existing numbers of individuals and populations are sufficient for
these species to remain viable into the future. Population viability
analyses show that monitored populations of both species are, for the
most part, currently stable. However, we conclude that habitat loss and
fragmentation from energy development, particularly oil shale and tar
sands, are a future threat to Graham's and White River beardtongues
(Factor A). Oil shale and tar sands overlap most of the known habitat
of these species. As oil shale and tar sands projects proceed across
the ranges of both species, up to 82 and 94 percent of the total known
populations of Graham's and White River beardtongues could be impacted.
Two proposed oil shale projects on State and private lands are likely
to result in the direct loss of 21 and 26 percent of the total known
populations of Graham's and White River beardtongues, and this
development is likely to begin within the next few years. These
projects will
[[Page 47609]]
increase habitat fragmentation and isolate populations of both species.
The combined impacts of traditional oil and gas and oil shale and tar
sands development is likely to be high because approximately 91 and 100
percent of the total known populations for Graham's and White River
beardtongues, respectively, overlap with all planned or potential
energy development. In addition, there are no existing regulatory
mechanisms that protect these species on State or private lands (Factor
D), and the existing conservation measures on public lands will not
afford sufficient protection from the indirect impacts of energy
development. Cumulative impacts, such as increased development
resulting in smaller, more fragmented populations that are more prone
to extinction and increased invasion by nonnative weeds, are likely to
be exacerbated by climate change (Factor E). As a result of these
future threats, the viability of these species is likely to be severely
diminished.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the present
and future threats to these species, and have determined that Graham's
and White River beardtongues meet the definition of threatened species
under the Act. Substantial threats are not currently occurring.
However, threats are likely to occur in the future, within the next 20
years, at a high intensity and across both species' entire ranges.
Because these threats place these species in danger of extinction at
some point in the future and they are not in immediate danger of
extinction, we find these species meet the definition of threatened
species, not endangered species. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing
Graham's and White River beardtongues as threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions an infinite number
of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the
range that are not reasonably likely to be both (1) significant and (2)
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of
this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the species' range that are not significant, such
portions will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then
determine whether the species is threatened or endangered in these
portions of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its
range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address either the
significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the
Service considers significance first and determines that a portion of
the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether
the species is threatened or endangered there. Likewise, if the Service
considers status first and determines that the species is not
threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need
not determine if that portion is significant. However, if the Service
determines that both a portion of the range of a species is significant
and the species is threatened or endangered there, the Service will
specify that portion of the range as threatened or endangered under
section 4(c)(1) of the Act.
We evaluated the current range of Graham's and White River
beardtongues to determine if there is any apparent geographic
concentration of potential threats for either species. Both species are
highly restricted in their ranges and the threats occur throughout
their ranges. Having determined that both species are threatened
throughout their entire ranges, we must next consider whether there are
any significant portions of the ranges where the Graham's and White
River beardtongues are in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
We found no portion of the Graham's and White River beardtongues'
range where potential threats are significantly concentrated or
substantially greater than in other portions of their range. Therefore,
we find that factors affecting these species are essentially uniform
throughout their range, indicating no portion of the range of either
species warrants further consideration of possible endangered or
threatened status under the Act. Therefore, we find there is no
significant portion of the Graham's and White River beardtongues' range
that may warrant a different status.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery
[[Page 47610]]
progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to
coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Utah and Colorado would
be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of Graham's and White River
beardtongues. Information on our grant programs that are available to
aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although Graham's and White River beardtongues are only proposed
for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include: Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and permitting;
oil shale research; authorization of transmission towers, pipelines,
and power lines; reclamation actions; travel management; and
authorization of road maintenance by the BLM. Other types of actions
that may require consultation include construction and management of
gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission or provision of Federal funds to State and
private entities through Federal programs, such as the Service's
Landowner Incentive Program, State Wildlife Grant Program, and Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration program.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and
threatened plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 and 50 CFR 17.71, apply. These
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and
reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction.
In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the
malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and
the removal, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying of such
plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including
State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. Utah
does not have any law protecting listed species, and Colorado's
Endangered Species law does not currently cover plants. Therefore,
listing under the Act will offer additional protection to these
species.
The Act, 50 CFR 17.62, and 50 CFR 17.72 also provide for the
issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened plants under certain circumstances.
Such permits are available for scientific purposes and to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species. We anticipate that the only
permits that would be sought or issued for Graham's beardtongue or
White River beardtongue would be in association with research and
recovery efforts. Requests for copies of the regulations regarding
listed species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, P.O.
Box 25486--DFC, Denver, CO 80225-0486 (telephone 303-236-4256;
facsimile 303-236-0027).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determinations for these species are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite
these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests
must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearing on this proposal, if
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and
[[Page 47611]]
participate in a public hearing should contact the Utah Ecological
Service Field Office at (801) 975-3330 as soon as possible. To allow
sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week
before the hearing date. Information regarding this proposed rule is
available in alternative formats upon request.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the emergency rule? What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You also may email the comments to this address: [email protected].
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2013-0081 or upon request from Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), add entries for ``Penstemon grahamii'' and
``Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis'' in alphabetical order under
FLOWERING PLANTS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Penstemon grahamii............... Graham's beardtongue U.S.A. (UT, CO).... Plantaginaceae..... T ........... NA NA
* * * * * * *
Penstemon scariosus var. White River U.S.A. (UT, CO).... Plantaginaceae..... T ........... NA NA
albifluvis. beardtongue.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: July 15, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18334 Filed 8-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P