10166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Docket No. [FWS–R6–ES–2010–0087; MO 

92210–0–008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, 

Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum 

soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and 

Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or 

Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

Astragalus hamiltonii (Hamilton 

milkvetch), Penstemon flowersii 

(Flowers penstemon), Eriogonum 

soredium (Frisco buckwheat), Lepidium 

ostleri (Ostler’s peppergrass), and 

Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

as amended. After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing A. 

hamiltonii and P. flowersii is not 

warranted at this time. However, we ask 

the public to submit to us new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the threats to A. hamiltonii 

and P. flowersii or their habitat at any 

time. We find that listing E. soredium, 

L. ostleri, and T. friscanum as 

threatened or endangered is warranted. 

However, currently listing E. soredium, 

L. ostleri, and T. friscanum is precluded 

by higher priority actions to amend the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 

publication of this 12-month petition 

finding, we will add E. soredium, L. 

ostleri, and T. friscanum to our 

candidate species list. We will develop 

proposed rules to list E. soredium, L. 

ostleri, and T. friscanum as our 

priorities allow. We will make 

determinations on critical habitat during 

development of the proposed listing 

rules. In the interim period, we will 

address the status of the candidate taxa 

through our annual Candidate Notice of 

Review. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 23, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R6–ES–2010–0087. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton 

Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 

84119. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above address. 

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 801–975–3331mailto:. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires that, for any petition to revise 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants that 

contains substantial scientific or 

commercial information that listing a 

species may be warranted, we make a 

finding within 12 months of the date of 

receipt of the petition. In this finding, 

we will determine that the petitioned 

action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) 

warranted, or (c) warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 30, 2007, we received a 

petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest 

Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), 

requesting that the Service: (1) Consider 

all full species in our Mountain Prairie 

Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the 

organization NatureServe, except those 

that are currently listed, proposed for 

listing, or candidates for listing; and 

(2) list each species as either 

endangered or threatened. The petition 

included the five plant species 

addressed in this finding. The petition 

incorporated all analysis, references, 

and documentation provided by 

NatureServe in its online database at 

http://www.natureserve.org/. The 

document clearly identified itself as a 

petition and included the petitioners’ 

identification information, as required 

in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a letter to 

the petitioners, dated August 24, 2007, 

acknowledging receipt of the petition 

and stating that, based on preliminary 

review, we found no compelling 

evidence to support an emergency 

listing for any of the species covered by 

the petition. 

On March 19, 2008, WildEarth 

Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– 

472–CKK) indicating that the Service 

failed to comply with its mandatory 

duty to make a preliminary 90-day 

finding on their two multiple species 

petitions—one for mountain-prairie 

species and one for southwest species. 

On June 18, 2008, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians, 

dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list 

32 species under the Administrative 

Procedure Act and the ESA. Of those 32 

species, 11 were included in the July 24, 

2007, petition to be listed on a 

nonemergency basis. Although the ESA 

does not provide for a petition process 

for an interested person to seek to have 

a species emergency listed, section 

4(b)(7) of the ESA authorizes the Service 

to issue emergency regulations to 

temporarily list a species. In a letter 

dated July 25, 2008, we stated that the 

information provided in both the 2007 

and 2008 petitions and in our files did 

not indicate that an emergency situation 

existed for any of the 11 species. 

On February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), we 

published a 90-day finding on 165 

species from the petition to list 206 

species in the mountain-prairie region 

of the United States as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA. We found 

that the petition did not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing was 

warranted for these species and, 

therefore, did not initiate further status 

reviews in response to the petition. Two 

additional species were reviewed in a 

concurrent 90-day finding and again, we 

found that the petition did not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing was 

warranted for these species. Therefore 

we did not consider these two species 

further. For the remaining 39 species, 

we deferred our findings until a later 

date. One species of the 39 remaining 

species, Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10167 

mallow), was already a candidate 

species for listing; therefore, 38 species 

remained for consideration. On March 

13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth 

Guardians filed a stipulated settlement 

in the District of Columbia Court, 

agreeing that the Service would submit 

to the Federal Register a finding as to 

whether WildEarth Guardians’ petition 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted for 38 mountainprairie species by August 9, 2009 

(WildEarth Guardians vs. Salazar 2009, 

case 1:08–CV–472–CKK). 

On August 18, 2009, we published a 

notice of 90-day finding (74 FR 41649) 

on 38 species from the petition to list 

206 species in the mountain-prairie 

region of the United States as 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. Of the 38 species, we found that 

the petition presented substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

for 29 species, indicating that listing 

may be warranted for those 29 species. 

The 5 species we address in this 12- 

month finding were included in these 

29 species. We initiated a status review 

of the 29 species to determine if listing 

was warranted. We also opened a 60- 

day public comment period to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

provide information on the status of the 

29 species. The public comment period 

closed on October 19, 2009. We received 

224 public comments. Of these, two 

specifically addressed Astragalus 

hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, 

Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, 

and Trifolium friscanum. All 

information received has been carefully 

considered in this finding. This notice 

constitutes the 12-month finding on the 

July 24, 2007, petition to list five species 

(A. hamiltonii, P. flowersii, E. soredium, 

L. ostleri, and T. friscanum) as 

endangered or threatened. 

Species Information—Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Astragalus hamiltonii is a bushy 

perennial plant in the bean family 

(Fabaceae) that can grow up to 24 inches 

(in) (60 centimeters (cm)) tall (Welsh et 

al. 2003, p. 374). It has several sparsely 

leafed stems, with three to five 

(sometimes seven) leaflets per leaf, each 

0.8 to 1.6 in (2 to 4 cm) long and 0.2 

to 0.4 in (5 to 10 millimeters (mm)) wide 

(Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 6). The 

terminal leaflet (at the tip of the leaf) is 

typically the largest leaflet (NatureServe 

2009a, p. 3). In May and June, a single 

A. hamiltonii plant will produce many 

flowering stalks, with each stalk bearing 

7 to 30 cream-colored flowers (Welsh et 

al. 2003, p. 374; NatureServe 2009a, 

p. 3). The fruits are hanging pods and 

usually mature by the end of June 

(NatureServe 2009a, p. 3). 

Astragalus hamiltonii was first 

described in 1952 (Porter 1952, pp. 159– 

160). Although it was once considered 

a variety of A. lonchocarpus (Isely 1983, 

p. 422), A. hamiltonii is currently 

accepted as a distinct species, based on 

leaflet characteristics and geographic 

segregation (Barneby 1989, p. 72; Welsh 

et al. 2003, p. 374). 

Distribution and Population Status 

Astragalus hamiltonii occurs 

generally west and southwest of Vernal, 

Utah. The species is found on Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) land, the 

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation 

(hereafter ‘‘Tribal’’) lands, State of Utah 

School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA) lands, and 

private lands across an approximate 

area 10 mile (mi) (16.1 kilometer (km)) 

by 20 mi (32.2 km) (Figure 1). We do not 

have comprehensive survey information 

for A. hamiltonii. Therefore, we do not 

know the full extent of the species’ 

distribution or if the distribution has 

changed over time. 

The Utah Natural Heritage Program 

(UNHP) designates 11 element 

occurrences for Astragalus hamiltonii 

(UNHP 2010a, entire). Element 

occurrences are the specific locations, or 

sites, where plants are documented. 

Distinct element occurrences are 

identified if there is either 0.6 mi (1 km) 

of unsuitable habitat or 1.2 mi (2 km) of 

unoccupied, suitable habitat separating 

them (NatureServe 2004, p. 14). 

Astragalus hamiltonii element 

occurrences are based on collections of 

herbarium specimens. Two of the 

element occurrences identified by the 

UNHP were from Colorado and the 

southeast corner of the Uinta Basin, but 

we believe these locations are likely 

A. lonchocarpus, based on leaf 

characteristics and geographic 

distribution (NatureServe 2009a, p. 1; 

Goodrich 2010a, entire), so they are not 

considered further in this finding. 

Hereafter, we base our analysis on the 

remaining nine element occurrences 

(Table 1; Goodrich 2010b, entire). 

To determine the currently known 

distribution of Astragalus hamiltonii, 

we mapped the nine UNHP element 

occurrences (Figure 1). The UNHP 

records element occurrences using the 

public land survey system to the nearest 

quarter-quarter of the township, range, 

and section (UNHP 2010a, entire). These 

element occurrences were the basis for 

our ‘‘population areas,’’ but the 

population areas’ boundaries were 

expanded to the nearest quarter-quarter 

of the township, range, and section, to 

encompass the location data from the 

2010 surveys (Table 1; Goodrich 2010b, 

entire). This mapping approach resulted 

in some of the newly created population 

areas’ perimeters eventually abutting 

adjacent population areas (Table 1; 

Figure 1). Large areas of potential 

habitat remain unsurveyed, so it is 

possible that the species is continuous 

across its range, or occurs outside of our 

identified population areas (Figure 1). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4ER23FE11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10169 

TABLE 1—Astragalus hamiltonii PLANTS COUNTED IN 2010 SURVEYS

Population area 

Percent land ownership Number of Astragalus 

hamiltonii plants BLM SITLA Tribal Private 

1 ...................................................................................... 11 54 0 35 Not counted. 

2 ...................................................................................... 76 13 1 11 4,863. 

3 ...................................................................................... 44 56 0 0 544. 

4 ...................................................................................... 0 0 10 90 15. 

5 ...................................................................................... 0 0 89 11 60. 

6 ...................................................................................... 57 5 0 38 10. 

7 ...................................................................................... 0 0 52 48 345. 

8 ...................................................................................... 13 62 0 25 Not counted. 

9 ...................................................................................... 0 0 81 19 Not counted. 

Total ......................................................................... 30 18 23 28 5,837. 

We do not have long-term population 

count or trend information. The total 

population of Astragalus hamiltonii was 

estimated at 10,000 to 15,000 plants in 

1995 (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 13). 

However, we do not know how this 

estimate was derived. In 2010, the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) counted over 

5,800 A. hamiltonii individuals on BLM 

lands in areas west of Vernal in the 

vicinity of six of the element 

occurrences (numbers 2 to 7) (Table 1; 

Goodrich 2010b, entire). These were 

partial surveys that included revisits to 

six element occurrences. 

Astragalus hamiltonii is distributed 

sparsely across the landscape at low 

densities, but in optimum habitat A. 

hamiltonii can grow at densities of one 

to two plants per square yard (yd2) 

(square meter (m2)) (Heil and Melton 

1995a, p. 13). Because A. hamiltonii is 

scattered across the landscape with 

unsurveyed, potential habitat between 

known sites, we believe the known 

element occurrences may be linked by 

contiguous habitat, and may either be 

one large population or a series of 

populations within a metapopulation. 

Habitat 

Astragalus hamiltonii is a narrow 

endemic that grows on soils of the 

Duchesne River formation (Heil and 

Melton 1995a, p. 10; Goodrich 2010c, 

pp. 13, 15). Less frequently, it is found 

in Mowry Shale and Dakota formations 

(Welsh et al. 2003, p. 374). A. hamiltonii 

is typically found on benches and steep 

slopes at elevations of 4,900 to 6,200 

feet (ft) (1,500 to 1,900 meters (m)). A. 

hamiltonii grows in red, erosive, sandy 

clay loam soils (Heil and Melton 1995a, 

pp. 10, 16; NatureServe 2009a, p. 3; 

Brunson 2010a, p. 1), and is associated 

with low-density desert shrub and 

juniper communities (Goodrich et al. 

1999, p. 263; NatureServe 2009a, p. 3). 

Astragalus hamiltonii grows in old 

road cuts and road beds, sometimes 

quite robustly and producing abundant 

flowers and fruit (Goodrich et al. 1999, 

p. 263). Therefore, we believe the 

species may be able to tolerate moderate 

soil disturbances (Neese and Smith 

1982, p. 36; Goodrich et al. 1999, 

p. 263). 

Life History 

Astragalus hamiltonii growth, 

seedling establishment, and juvenile 

mortality are probably correlated with 

rainfall (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 14). 

We do not know the reproductive 

system for this species, but it is assumed 

to reproduce mainly by outcrossing 

(cross-fertilization) (Heil and Melton 

1995a, p. 14). Plants that are obligate 

outcrossers are self-incompatible, 

meaning they cannot fertilize 

themselves and, therefore, rely on other 

individuals of differing genetic make-up 

to reproduce (Stebbins 1970, p. 310). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors—Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened 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; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making our 12-month finding on 

the petition, we considered and 

evaluated the best available scientific 

and commercial information pertaining 

to Astragalus hamiltonii for the five 

factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to a particular factor to evaluate whether 

the species may respond to that factor 

in a way that causes actual impacts to 

the species. If there is exposure to a 

factor and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and, during the status review, we 

attempt to determine how significant a 

threat it is. The threat is significant if it 

drives, or contributes to, the risk of 

extinction of the species such that the 

species warrants listing as endangered 

or threatened as those terms are defined 

in the ESA. However, the identification 

of factors that could impact a species 

negatively may not be sufficient to 

compel a finding that the species 

warrants listing. The information must 

include evidence sufficient to suggest 

that these factors are operative threats 

that act on the species to the point that 

the species may meet the definition of 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The following factors may affect the 

habitat or range of Astragalus 

hamiltonii: (1) Conversion to 

agricultural use, (2) livestock grazing, 

(3) recreational activities, (4) oil and gas 

exploration and development, (5) 

nonnative invasive species, and (6) tar 

sands extraction. 

(1) Conversion to Agricultural Use 

Astragalus hamiltonii grows on 

private and Tribal lands that can be 

used for agriculture. Agricultural land 

conversion is a change in land use to an 

agricultural use, including crops and 

pastures. The conversion to agricultural 

use results in the loss and fragmentation 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

of native plant habitats, including 

habitats of A. hamiltonii. 

Conversion of natural lands to 

agriculture historically impacted 

populations of Astragalus hamiltonii 

(Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 16), 

particularly in the four population areas 

where land ownership is private or 

Tribal. However, most of this 

development was limited to lower-lying 

areas outside of A. hamiltonii habitat 

(National Agriculture Imagery Program 

(NAIP) 2009, entire). It is likely that 

most of the suitable land in Uintah 

County, where irrigation water was 

available, was converted to agricultural 

use by 1970 (Hilton 2010, p. 1). Major 

changes in the amount of agricultural 

land in Uintah County are not expected 

in the future (Hilton 2010, p. 2). 

Although historical conversion to 

agricultural use may have negatively 

impacted A. hamiltonii, we have no 

evidence to indicate that this factor is a 

threat to this species now or for the 

foreseeable future. 

(2) Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing may result in the 

direct loss or damage to plants and their 

habitat through trampling, soil 

compaction, increased erosion, invasion 

of noxious weeds, and disturbance to 

pollinators (Kauffman et al. 1983, p. 

684; Fleischner 1994, entire; Kearns et 

al. 1998, p. 90; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257). 

All BLM lands where Astragalus 

hamiltonii is documented are within 

grazing allotments, including portions 

of population areas 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 (see 

Table 1). In 2010, of all A. hamiltonii 

counted, 5,417 individuals (93 percent) 

occur in existing grazing allotments. We 

have no information on the extent of 

grazing on private or Tribal lands. 

We do not have any information 

concerning how grazing may affect this 

species. However, cattle tend to spend 

more time on gentle slopes (Van Buren 

1982 in Fleischner 1994, p. 637). 

Astragalus hamiltonii grows on steep, 

erosive hillsides, and we believe this 

habitat preference offers some 

protection from livestock grazing and 

trampling. In addition, the grazing 

allotments that overlap A. hamiltonii 

sites on BLM land are fall and winter 

allotments (BLM 2008a, Appendix J); 

thus, A. hamiltonii is not actively 

growing or palatable when livestock are 

grazing these areas. 

In summary, the species occurs in 

areas that are subject to livestock 

grazing. However, the fall-winter season 

of grazing greatly reduces the chance 

that the plants are eaten by livestock. 

Astragalus hamiltonii typically grows 

on steep slopes and can occur on 

disturbed soils, which minimizes 

negative effects from livestock trampling 

within A. hamiltonii habitat. Therefore, 

we do not believe that livestock grazing 

is a threat to A. hamiltonii now or for 

the foreseeable future. 

(3) Recreational Activities 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) and 

recreational trail use (e.g., mountain 

bikes and motorized bikes) 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 

2008a, pp. 4–94; Wilson et al. 2009, p. 

1). 

The OHV and recreational trail use 

occurs across the landscape where 

Astragalus hamiltonii grows. The OHV 

use is largely limited to existing roads 

and trails on BLM lands, which account 

for approximately a third of A. 

hamiltonii’s known range (Table 1) 

(BLM 2008b, p. 46). There are no OHV 

restrictions on private or Tribal lands, 

but the species’ association with steep, 

erosive hillsides likely minimizes OHV 

use in the species’ habitat. 

Unauthorized off-road use occurs in 

Astragalus hamiltonii habitat in 

population area 2 (Brunson 2010a, p. 3). 

However, we observed plants growing 

directly next to these recreational trails 

(Brunson 2010a, p. 3). As previously 

described, A. hamiltonii grows along 

road cuts and other disturbed areas, 

suggesting it can persist with some level 

of disturbance. We do not believe that 

the observed unauthorized off-road use 

is negatively impacting A. hamiltonii. 

In summary, the species’ habitat 

preference for steep slopes, its ability to 

grow in disturbed soils, and off-road 

restrictions on BLM lands minimize the 

impacts of recreational use to Astragalus 

hamiltonii. Thus, we do not believe that 

recreational activities are a threat to A. 

hamiltonii now or for the foreseeable 

future. 

(4) Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

The effects of oil and gas exploration 

and development include increased 

vehicle traffic and removal of soil and 

vegetation when wells, roads, and 

associated infrastructure are built (BLM 

2008c, pp. 448–449). These disturbances 

can affect rare plant species through 

habitat destruction, habitat 

fragmentation, soil disturbance, spread 

of invasive weeds, and production of 

fugitive dust (particulate matter 

suspended in the air by wind and 

human activities) (BLM 2008c, pp. 448– 

449). 

Energy exploration and development 

occurs across Astragalus hamiltonii’s 

known range, but only in localized areas 

with small numbers of wells (Utah 

Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

(UDOGM) 2010, p. 1). Only one well is 

producing in A. hamiltonii habitat, and 

another well is currently being drilled. 

Seventeen wells were plugged and 

abandoned, most prior to 1976 (Gordon 

2010a, pers. comm.; UDOGM 2010, p. 

1). Plugged and abandoned wells are no 

longer in use and are usually 

recontoured and revegetated to match 

the surrounding landscape (Gordon 

2010b, pers. comm.). Plugged and 

abandoned wells also do not receive 

regular truck traffic like producing 

wells, so fugitive dust is less of an issue 

(Gordon 2010b, pers. comm.). 

Occasionally, plugged and abandoned 

wells may be reopened, disturbing areas 

that were previously reclaimed. If all the 

plugged and abandoned wells in A. 

hamiltonii habitat were reopened, this is 

still a small number of wells throughout 

the species’ range. 

Large portions of population areas 1, 

2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (Table 1) are overlapped 

by oil and gas leases on state, Tribal, 

and BLM land. Two BLM oil and gas 

leases in population area 2 overlap more 

than 4,000 known Astragalus hamiltonii 

individuals (UDOGM, 2010, p. 2). 

However, no oil or gas is being 

produced under these leases (UDOGM 

2010, p. 2). 

The lack of oil and gas development 

in Astragalus hamiltonii habitat is most 

likely because there is not enough of 

those products currently obtainable to 

be economically feasible using current 

extraction technology (Doyle 2010, pers. 

comm.; Sparger 2010, pers. comm.) 

rendering dense energy developments 

unlikely in this area for the next 20 

years (BLM 2008c, p. 486). Although 

some oil and gas development may 

occur in A. hamiltonii habitat, we 

would not expect it at densities that 

would significantly impact the species. 

Furthermore, A. hamiltonii is adapted to 

at least some disturbance and may be 

afforded additional protection by its 

tendency to grow on steep slopes that 

may be unsuitable for energy 

development. Therefore, oil and gas 

development is unlikely to occur in the 

foreseeable future at densities that 

would significantly impact the species. 

In summary, there is little oil and gas 

development within Astragalus 

hamiltonii habitat. Based on current 

technologies and low economic 

feasibility, we do not anticipate 

substantial development in the 

foreseeable future that would 

meaningfully impact the species. 

Therefore, we do not believe that oil and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10171 

gas exploration and development is a 

threat to A. hamiltonii now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

(5) Nonnative Invasive Species 

The spread of nonnative invasive 

species is considered the second largest 

threat to imperiled plants in the United 

States (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 608). 

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, alter fire frequency, 

intensity, extent, type, and seasonality 

(Menakis et al. 2003, pp. 282–283; 

Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; McKenzie et 

al. 2004, p. 898). Shortened fire return 

intervals make it difficult for native 

plants to reestablish or compete with 

invasive plants (D’Antonio and Vitousek 

1992, p. 73). 

Invasive plants can exclude native 

plants and alter pollinator behaviors 

(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74– 

75; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257; Mooney and 

Cleland 2001, p. 5449; Levine et al. 

2003, p. 776; Traveset and Richardson 

2006, pp. 211–213). For example, 

Bromus tectorum outcompetes native 

species for soil nutrients and water 

(Melgoza et al. 1990, pp. 9–10; Aguirre 

and Johnson 1991, pp. 352–353). 

Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) is a 

particularly problematic nonnative 

invasive annual grass in the 

Intermountain West. If already present 

in the vegetative community, B. 

tectorum increases in abundance after a 

wildfire, increasing the chance for more 

frequent fires (D’Antonio and Vitousek 

1992, pp. 74–75). In addition, B. 

tectorum invades areas in response to 

surface disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 

389, 393, 395, 398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 

381–383; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, 

pp. 324–325, 329, 330; Evans et al. 

2001, p. 1308). B. tectorum is likely to 

increase due to climate change (see 

Factor E) because invasive annuals 

increase biomass and seed production at 

elevated levels of carbon dioxide 

(Mayeux et al. 1994, p. 98; Smith et al. 

2000, pp. 80–81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 

1328). 

Bromus tectorum occurs in Astragalus 

hamiltonii habitat (Brunson 2010a, p. 1). 

However, B. tectorum and other 

invasive species are uncommon in many 

of the erosive red soils that A. 

hamiltonii prefers (Brunson 2010a, p. 1; 

Goodrich 2010c, p. 59). We do not 

anticipate a high degree of surface 

disturbances in A. hamiltonii habitats in 

the foreseeable future from other factors, 

such as livestock grazing or oil and gas 

development (Factor A). 

In summary, we know that invasive 

species can impact plant communities 

by increasing fire frequencies, 

outcompeting native species, and 

altering pollinator behaviors. These 

factors could be exacerbated by climate 

change patterns. However, invasive 

species do not occur in high densities in 

Astragalus hamiltonii habitat. Based on 

this fact and the limited amount of 

surface-disturbing activities within the 

species’ habitat, we do not anticipate 

that nonnative invasive species 

densities will increase significantly, 

even with climate change. Therefore, we 

do not believe nonnative invasive 

species, or associated fires, are a threat 

to A. hamiltonii now or for the 

foreseeable future. 

(6) Tar Sands Extraction 

The Duchesne River Formation, 

where most known Astragalus 

hamiltonii individuals occur, would be 

one of the formations targeted by tar 

sands extraction (BLM 2008d, p. 9). Tar 

sands extraction disturbs the soil 

surface and removes existing vegetation 

(BLM 2008d, p. 27). Impacts are similar 

to those described above in the Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development 

section. Tar sands mining could result 

in the loss of A. hamiltonii individuals 

and their habitats. 

Tar sands leases are proposed for sale 

on BLM and State Lands along Asphalt 

Ridge southwest of Vernal, Utah 

(UDOGM 2010, p. 3). These lease 

parcels do not overlap known 

Astragalus hamiltonii sites, but they 

overlap with unsurveyed potential 

habitat within portions of population 

area 1. 

Tar sands leases are still in the 

proposal phase and there are currently 

no commercial tar sands operations on 

public lands in Utah (BLM 2008d, p. 4). 

High production costs and 

environmental issues are barriers to tar 

sands development in the United States 

(Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 15, 53; Engemann 

and Owyang 2010, entire). Tar sands 

extraction may be feasible if the cost of 

crude oil becomes high enough in the 

future, but these high price projections 

are not expected to be realized until at 

least 2030 (Engemann and Owyang 

2010, p. 2), and even then the 

environmental issues will need to be 

resolved. 

In summary, tar sands leases do not 

overlap a majority of Astragalus 

hamiltonii habitat. Large-scale, 

commercially viable development is not 

anticipated in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, tar sands development is not 

considered a threat to A. hamiltonii now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

Based on the best available 

information, we have concluded that 

conversion to agricultural use, livestock 

grazing, recreational activities, 

nonnative invasive species, oil and gas 

exploration and development, or tar 

sands extraction do not threaten 

Astragalus hamiltonii now or in the 

foreseeable future. Conversion to 

agricultural use probably resulted in 

historical loss of some A. hamiltonii 

habitat, but we do not anticipate 

ongoing conversions to agricultural use 

in the future. In addition, most 

agricultural use occurs in low-lying 

areas outside of the species’ 

distribution. A. hamiltonii is protected 

from livestock grazing due to its habitat 

preference for steep hillsides and the 

fall-winter grazing season of the 

associated allotments. Recreational use 

is not a threat to A. hamiltonii because 

BLM restricts off-trail use. Where offtrail use occurs on private, State, and 

Tribal lands, the adaptation of A. 

hamiltonii to steep slopes and disturbed 

soils allows it to persist with moderate 

habitat disturbance. A. hamiltonii soils 

do not appear to support invasive plant 

species at densities needed to sustain 

wildfires. We also do not anticipate 

increased surface disturbances that 

could encourage the establishment of 

invasive species in A. hamiltonii 

habitat. Although energy development 

leases overlap A. hamiltonii habitat, it is 

unlikely that current technologies and 

economic conditions will support oil 

and gas or tar sands development in this 

area in the foreseeable future. Thus, the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range is not a threat to A. 

hamiltonii now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Astragalus hamiltonii is not a plant of 

horticultural interest. We are not aware 

of any instances where A. hamiltonii 

was collected from the wild other than 

as voucher specimens to document 

occurrences (UNHP 2010a, entire). 

Therefore, we do not consider 

overutilization a threat to the species 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

We do not have any information 

indicating that disease impacts 

Astragalus hamiltonii. We also do not 

have information on the effects of 

herbivory (eating) by livestock (see the 

Livestock Grazing section above), 

wildlife, or insects. However, we do not 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

believe herbivory from livestock is a 

concern due to the steepness of the 

terrain on which the plant is located 

and the time of year grazing occurs in 

A. hamiltonii habitat (see Factor A, 

Livestock Grazing). Based on the best 

available information, we do not believe 

A. hamiltonii is threatened by disease or 

predation now or for the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no laws protecting plants on 

private, State, or Tribal lands in Utah. 

A third of Astragalus hamiltonii 

individuals are found on BLM land. A. 

hamiltonii is listed as a bureau sensitive 

plant for the BLM. Limited policy-level 

protection by the BLM is afforded 

through the Special Status Species 

Management Policy Manual # 6840 

which forms the basis for special status 

species management on BLM lands 

(BLM 2008e, entire). 

Despite the lack of regulatory 

mechanisms to protect Astragalus 

hamiltonii, we found that there are no 

threats to the species (Factors A, B, C, 

and E) that require regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the species. 

Therefore, we do not consider the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms a 

threat to this species now or for the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Natural and manmade factors 

affecting Astragalus hamiltonii include: 

(1) Small population size and (2) 

climate change and drought. 

(1) Small Population Size 

We lack information on the 

population genetics of Astragalus 

hamiltonii, and as a probable outcrosser, 

this species could potentially be subject 

to the negative effects of small 

population size. As previously 

described (see Life History, above), 

plants that are obligate outcrossers 

cannot fertilize themselves and rely on 

other individual plants of differing 

genetic make-up to reproduce (Stebbins, 

1970, p. 310). Therefore, the fewer 

plants that are located at a site (i.e., 

small population size), the less chance 

exists for sufficient cross-fertilization. 

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 (Barrett and 

Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and 

Pilson 1997, p. 360). 

We do not believe small population 

size is a concern for Astragalus 

hamiltonii. A. hamiltonii grows robustly 

and in high densities with many flowers 

and fruits (Goodrich 2010b, entire; 

Goodrich 2010c, p. 26). Although the 

species exists in a relatively small area 

(known distribution is 200 square miles 

(mi2) (518 square kilometers (km2)), it 

occurs across its range in a scattered— 

and potentially continuous— 

distribution. There are also large areas 

of suitable habitat that remain 

unsurveyed, so the species may be more 

widely distributed. 

Astragalus hamiltonii’s scattered 

distribution may contribute to its overall 

viability and potential resilience 

(Goodrich 2010b, p. 89). For example, 

small-scale stochastic events, such as 

the erosion of a hillside during a flood 

event, would probably destroy only a 

small portion of the known individuals 

of A. hamiltonii. It is possible that a 

landscape-level event, such as a 

wildfire, could destroy most known A. 

hamiltonii individuals, but the 

sparseness of the vegetation and the lack 

of fine fuels in A. hamiltonii habitat 

makes this event unlikely (Wright and 

Bailey 1982, p. 1; Olmstead 2010, pers. 

comm.). The lack of other surfacedisturbing threats (see Factor A) also 

leads us to believe that the species’ 

current distribution and population size 

will remain intact. 

In the absence of information 

identifying threats to the species and 

linking those threats to the rarity of the 

species, we do not consider rarity 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 Astragalus 

hamiltonii, which is adapted to 

recolonize disturbed sites. 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 

foreseeable future. 

Based on Astragalus hamiltonii’s 

apparently robust reproductive effort, 

scattered distribution, and lack of other 

threats, we believe that small 

population size is not a threat to this 

species now or for the foreseeable 

future. 

(2) Climate Change and Drought 

Climate change is likely to affect the 

long-term survival and distribution of 

native species, such as Astragalus 

hamiltonii, through changes in 

temperature and precipitation. 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 et al. 

2009, pp. 28, 129). 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 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

(1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 48). In the 

southwestern United States, average 

temperatures increased approximately 

1.5 °F (0.8 °C) compared to a 1960 to 

1979 baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). 

By the end of this century, temperatures 

are expected to warm a total of 4 to 10 

°F (2 to 5 °C) in the Southwest (Karl et 

al. 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. 

1181). Throughout Astragalus 

hamiltonii’s range, precipitation is 

predicted to increase 10 to 15 percent in 

the winter, decrease 5 to 15 percent in 

spring and summer, and remain 

unchanged in the fall under the highest 

emissions scenario (Karl et al. 2009, p. 

29). The levels of aridity of recent 

drought conditions and perhaps those of 

the 1950s drought years will become the 

new climatology for the southwestern 

United States (Seager et al. 2007, p. 

1181). Much of the Southwest remains 

in a 10-year drought, ‘‘the most severe 

western drought of the last 110 years’’ 

(Karl et al. 2009, p. 130). Although 

droughts occur more frequently in areas 

with minimal precipitation, even a 

slight reduction from normal 

precipitation may lead to severe 

reductions in plant production. 

Therefore, the smallest change in 

environmental factors, especially 

precipitation, plays a decisive role in 

plant survival in arid regions (Herbel et 

al. 1972, p. 1084). 

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide 

are expected to double before the end of 

the 21st century, which may increase 

the dominance of invasive grasses 

leading to increased fire frequency and 

severity across western North America 

(Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 3; IPCC 2002, 

p. 32; Walther et al. 2002, p. 391). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10173 

Elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to 

increased invasive annual plant 

biomass, invasive seed production, and 

pest outbreaks (Smith et al. 2000, pp. 

80–81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et 

al. 2005, p. 1328) and will put 

additional stressors on rare plants 

already suffering from the effects of 

elevated temperatures and drought. 

No population trend data are available 

for Astragalus hamiltonii, but drought 

conditions led to a noticeable decline in 

survival, vigor, and reproductive output 

of other rare plants in the Southwest 

during the drought years of 2001 

through 2004 (Anderton 2002, p. 1; Van 

Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren 

and Harper 2004, entire; Hughes 2005, 

entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 

2008a, entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3–4). 

As discussed in the Life History 

section above, Astragalus hamiltonii 

seedling establishment is probably 

correlated with rainfall (Heil and 

Melton 1995a, p. 14); therefore, reduced 

precipitation may reduce seedling 

establishment. Additionally, the 

relatively localized distribution of A. 

hamiltonii may make this species more 

susceptible to landscape-level stochastic 

extinction events, such as regional 

drought. Despite these potential 

vulnerabilities, A. hamiltonii appears 

well-adapted to a dry climate and can 

quickly colonize after disturbance. 

Plants growing in high-stress landscapes 

are adapted to stress, and droughtadapted species may experience lower 

mortality during severe droughts (Gitlin 

et al. 2006, pp. 1477, 1484). 

In summary, climate change is 

affecting and will affect temperature and 

precipitation events in the future. We 

expect that Astragalus hamiltonii, like 

other narrow endemics, may be 

negatively affected by climate change 

related drought. However, we believe 

that A. hamiltonii’s adaptation to 

growing in high-stress environments 

renders this species less susceptible to 

negative effects from climate change. 

Although we believe climate change 

will impact plants in the future, the 

available information is too speculative 

to determine the likelihood of this 

potential threat to A. hamiltonii. 

Therefore, based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

we conclude that climate change is not 

a threat to A. hamiltonii now or for the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor E 

We assessed the potential risks of 

small population size, climate change, 

and drought to Astragalus hamiltonii. 

There is no evidence that the species’ 

small population size is a threat to A. 

hamiltonii. Rather, small, scattered 

populations are likely an evolutionary 

adaptation of this species. Climate 

change and resulting drought may affect 

A. hamiltonii’s growth and reproductive 

success. However, A. hamiltonii is 

adapted to a landscape where drought 

naturally occurs and is able to rapidly 

colonize after disturbance. In addition, 

as described in Factor A, there are no 

threats to the species that would result 

in significant loss or fragmentation of 

available habitat, and thus there are no 

cumulative effects to exacerbate the 

threat of climate change. We currently 

lack sufficient information that other 

natural or manmade factors rise to the 

level of a threat to A. hamiltonii now or 

for the foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the ESA, we 

conducted a review of the status of the 

species and considered the five factors 

in assessing whether Astragalus 

hamiltonii is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. We examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by A. 

hamiltonii. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, and 

other available published and 

unpublished information, and we 

consulted with recognized A. hamiltonii 

experts and other Federal, State, and 

Tribal agencies. 

The primary factor potentially 

impacting Astragalus hamiltonii is 

future energy development (oil, gas, and 

tar sands). However, energy 

development is not likely to occur on a 

broad scale throughout this species’ 

range in the foreseeable future. 

Furthermore, the best available 

information shows that A. hamiltonii 

can tolerate some habitat disturbances. 

Other factors affecting A. hamiltonii— 

including land conversion to 

agricultural use, grazing, recreation, 

nonnative invasive species, and small 

population size—are either limited in 

scope, or we do not have evidence that 

supports these factors adversely 

impacting the species as a whole. We 

have no evidence that overutilization, 

disease, and predation are affecting this 

species. Although climate change will 

likely impact plants in the future, we do 

not have enough information to 

determine that climate change will elicit 

a species-level response from A. 

hamiltonii. Finally, because none of 

these factors rises to the level of a threat, 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms does not negatively affect 

A. hamiltonii. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the five 

factors, we find that the factors analyzed 

above are not of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude to indicate that 

Astragalus hamiltonii is in danger of 

extinction (endangered), or likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout its range. Therefore, we find 

that listing A. hamiltonii as a threatened 

or endangered species throughout its 

range is not warranted. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Having determined that Astragalus 

hamiltonii does not meet the definition 

of a threatened or endangered species, 

we must next consider whether there 

are any significant portions of the range 

where A. hamiltonii is in danger of 

extinction or is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

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 significant 

and 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ESA. 

We have no evidence that any 

particular population or portion of the 

range of Astragalus hamiltonii is critical 

to the species’ survival. Although 

population area 2 appears to have a 

majority of the known Astragalus 

hamiltonii individuals, this area has 

received a majority of the search effort. 

A. hamiltonii may actually occur 

continuously across its known range, 

but range-wide surveys have not been 

done. The population areas delineated 

in this document were derived from 

existing data and information; however, 

information on the species’ distribution 

and numbers may change with more 

survey effort. Additionally, potential 

threats to the species are essentially 

uniform throughout its range. Therefore, 

we do not find that A. hamiltonii is in 

danger of extinction now, nor is it likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, listing A. hamiltonii as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA is not warranted at this time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, Astragalus hamiltonii to our 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES section) whenever such 

information becomes available. New 

information will help us monitor A. 

hamiltonii and encourage its 

conservation. If an emergency situation 

develops for A. hamiltonii, or any other 

species, we will act to provide 

immediate protection. 

Species Information—Penstemon 

flowersii 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Penstemon flowersii is an herbaceous 

plant in the figwort family 

(Scrophulariaceae) (Welsh et al. 2003, 

p. 624). This perennial plant can grow 

up to 14 in (36 cm) tall, with many 

branches that bloom dusty pink in May 

and June (Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 6– 

7). It has dry, multi-part fruits less than 

0.4 in (1 cm) long that split open when 

mature to release seeds (Neese and 

Welsh 1983, p. 429). P. flowersii has a 

poorly developed or absent basal rosette 

(a dense radiating cluster of leaves at the 

base of the plant) and smooth, thick 

leaves (Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 6– 

7). 

Penstemon flowersii was first 

described in 1983 by Neese and Welsh, 

and is an accepted taxonomic entity 

(Welsh et al. 2003, p. 624). P. flowersii 

resembles other species in the genus 

and is closest vegetatively to P. carnosus 

(Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 8), but P. 

flowersii is distinguished by its smaller 

stature and dusty pink flowers (Neese 

and Welsh 1983, pp. 429–431). P. 

flowersii is closely related to P. 

immanifestus, a species that grows 

elsewhere in Nevada and Utah but has 

a more prominently bearded staminode 

(sterile male reproductive part found in 

the flower) (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 

8). 

Distribution and Population Status 

Penstemon flowersii is found only in 

the Uinta Basin near Roosevelt, Utah. Its 

distribution straddles the DuchesneUintah County line (Figure 2). The 

species occurs across an area 

approximately 20 mi (32 km) by 4 mi 

(6.4 km) from Bridgeview to Randlett, 

Utah, in seven element occurrences 

(UNHP 2010b, entire) (see Distribution 

and Population Status section for 

Astragalus hamiltonii above for a 

complete definition of element 

occurrence). These seven element 

occurrences are not numbered 

consecutively because the UNHP 

combined previously disjunct element 

occurrences based on available 

information. As with A. hamiltonii, the 

element occurrences are recorded to the 

nearest quarter-quarter of the township, 

range, and section. This method of 

recording species locations gives the 

impression that element occurrences 

either overlap or join to form a 

continuous population. However, 

comprehensive surveys have not been 

done for all suitable habitats within an 

element occurrence, so we do not know 

if the population is continuous 

throughout the species’ range. 

Penstemon flowersii was recently 

identified north of element occurrence 9 

(Spencer 2010a, entire). We refer to this 

location as the ‘‘new site’’ because it is 

not yet assigned to an element 

occurrence. At this time, we are unsure 

as to whether or not this new site will 

be designated as a new element 

occurrence or if it will be included in 

an existing element occurrence. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10175 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Penstemon flowersii’s distribution is 

patchy, although some sites can have 

moderately dense distribution with up 

to 10 plants in 1 yd2 (1 m2) (Heil and 

Melton 1995b, pp. 12–14). We do not 

know if the distribution of P. flowersii 

has changed over time because 

comprehensive surveys were not 

conducted for this species. 

Penstemon flowersii is found almost 

completely on private and Tribal lands 

(Table 2), with the exception of element 

occurrence 19, which is on property 

managed by the Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation 

Commission for the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR) (UNHP 2010b, 

entire). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4ER23FE11.001</GPH>
10176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PENSTEMON FLOWERSII PLANTS

Element 

occurrence 

Percent land ownership 

Number of penstemon flowersii plants 

Year of 

last 

Private Tribal BOR survey 

1 ......................................................... 75 25 0 2,000–13,000 ................................................................... 2001 

5 ......................................................... 94 6 0 101–1,000 ........................................................................ 1995 

6 ......................................................... 78 22 0 No count .......................................................................... 1982 

8 ......................................................... 71 29 0 61–71 ............................................................................... 2004 

9 ......................................................... 91 9 0 51–100 ............................................................................. 2001 

16 ....................................................... 100 0 0 4 ....................................................................................... 2001 

19 ....................................................... 44 21 35 552 ................................................................................... 2001 

New site ............................................. 100 0 0 29 ..................................................................................... 2010 

Total ............................................ 79 19 2 2,798–14,756.

The total number of Penstemon 

flowersii individuals in Table 2 was 

derived from actual counts or estimates 

provided for each element occurrence. 

However, these counts do not include 

all known locations (e.g., private lands 

or BOR lands) for the species. The total 

number of P. flowersii individuals was 

previously estimated from 15,000 to 

20,000 on private lands alone, not 

including Tribal land (Heil and Melton 

1995b, p. 13; Franklin 2005, p. 131). We 

do not know how this estimate was 

derived. 

We cannot make a more accurate 

estimate for the total number of 

Penstemon flowersii because many sites 

on private and Tribal lands are 

inaccessible, and P. flowersii population 

numbers fluctuate widely from year to 

year (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 16; 

Prevedel 2001 pers. comm. in Franklin 

2005, p. 131). Therefore, we do not have 

accurate population counts or trend 

information for this species. 

Habitat 

Penstemon flowersii is a narrow 

endemic that grows in Atriplex 

confertifolia (shadscale) communities 

on semibarren, gravelly clay slopes of 

the Uinta Formation (Heil and Melton 

1995b, p. 9) at elevations ranging from 

4,890 to 5,410 ft (1,490 to 1,650 m) 

(NatureServe 2009b, p. 2). It is found on 

both disturbed and undisturbed sites 

(Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 10). 

Life History 

We know little of Penstemon 

flowersii’s life history. Plant growth, 

seedling establishment, and juvenile 

mortality for this species are probably 

correlated with rainfall (Heil and 

Melton 1995b, p. 14). Reproduction and 

recruitment were noted at multiple sites 

across all element occurrences (UNHP 

2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). One 

site had an estimated age structure of 4 

percent seedlings and 96 percent mature 

adults, indicating that recruitment is 

occurring (UNHP 2010b, entire). 

Pollinators observed visiting P. flowersii 

include species of the order 

Hymenoptera: Anthophora affabilis, A. 

bomboides, and a species in the genus 

Osmia (Tepedino 2007, pers. comm. in 

Frates 2010, p. 32). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors—Penstemon 

flowersii 

In making our 12-month finding on 

the petition, we considered and 

evaluated the best available scientific 

and commercial information pertaining 

to Penstemon flowersii in relation to the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA (see the full description of 

these five factors in the Summary of 

Information Pertaining to the Five 

Factors section for Astragalus 

hamiltonii above). 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The following factors may affect the 

habitat or range of Penstemon flowersii: 

(1) Conversion to agricultural use/ 

livestock grazing, (2) recreational 

activities, (3) oil and gas exploration 

and development, (4) nonnative 

invasive species, and (5) rural 

residential development. 

(1) Conversion to Agricultural Use/ 

Livestock Grazing 

For Penstemon flowersii, we 

combined two factors, conversion to 

agricultural use and livestock grazing, 

into one discussion because both of 

these factors occur on private lands. 

Historically, conversion of natural lands 

to agricultural use likely impacted 

Penstemon flowersii populations (Heil 

and Melton 1995b, pp. 8, 16), resulting 

in lower population numbers and 

habitat fragmentation. We believe the 

species was historically distributed in 

the low-lying areas because those areas 

that were not converted to agricultural 

use still contain P. flowersii plants 

(Franklin 2005, p. 131). 

Most of the suitable land in Duchesne 

and Uintah Counties was converted to 

agricultural use by 1970 (NAIP 2009, p. 

2; Hilton 2010, p.1). Major changes in 

the amount of agricultural land in these 

counties are not expected in the future 

(Hilton 2010, p. 2). Therefore, we would 

not expect future agricultural 

conversion in these areas at a level that 

would threaten the species as a whole. 

The upper benches on private land 

where Penstemon flowersii now grows 

appear as nonirrigated terrain in digital 

imagery (NAIP 2009, p. 2), and thus 

these areas are not likely used for 

agriculture. It is possible that most of 

these nonirrigated lands are used for 

rangeland grazing. Heavy grazing was 

noted at one site (UNHP 2010b, entire), 

and, as previously described, livestock 

can graze and trample plants (BLM 

2008c, p. 485). However, anecdotal 

observations indicate that this plant is 

not a preferred browse species by 

grazing livestock (Holmgren 2009 pers. 

comm. in Frates 2010, p. 35), and the 

species can tolerate some level of soil 

disturbances (see Habitat). P. flowersii 

was noted as thriving in pastures 

(Holmgren 2009 pers. comm. in Frates 

2010, p. 35), so it appears that livestock 

grazing does not negatively impact the 

species. In summary, we have no 

information suggesting that conversion 

of habitat to agricultural use or livestock 

grazing are threats to P. flowersii now or 

for the foreseeable future. 

(2) Recreational Activities 

Recreational activities (e.g., mountain 

bikes and motorized bikes) and OHV 

use can impact Penstemon flowersii and 

its habitat. The OHV use was 

documented within three element 

occurrences of P. flowersii to varying 

degrees (UNHP 2010b, entire). Two of 

these sites were listed in marginal 

condition, although plant vigor and 

reproduction at these sites was good 

(UNHP 2010b, entire). Disturbance 

occurred at a third site in 1995, and a 

population decline for this site was 

attributed to OHV activity (Heil and 

Melton 1995b, p. 17). However, vigorous 

plants were observed at this site with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10177 

ample flower production (UNHP 2010b, 

entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). The OHV 

use was not documented for the five 

remaining element occurrences or in the 

new P. flowersii site, but this does not 

necessarily mean OHV use does not 

occur there. Additionally, no other 

recreational uses were documented at P. 

flowersii sites. 

In summary, OHV use may be 

negatively affecting individual plants at 

some sites, but this impact is localized 

and not rangewide. We identified OHV 

use in the species’ habitat, but the 

plants are vigorous and retaining their 

ability to reproduce. Therefore, we 

believe that recreational activities are 

not threats to Penstemon flowersii now 

or for the foreseeable future. 

(3) Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Oil and gas exploration and 

development can impact Penstemon 

flowersii plants and their habitat (BLM 

2008c, pp. 448–449). Within all mapped 

element occurrences of P. flowersii, 

there are four plugged and abandoned 

wells. All existing wells were plugged 

prior to 1999. As mentioned previously, 

plugged and abandoned wells involve 

surface disturbance for roads and well 

pads when they are constructed and 

during operation, but when they are 

abandoned they are reclaimed and do 

not receive regular traffic or disturbance 

(see Astragalus hamiltonii, Factor A, Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Development). 

There are two new proposed well 

locations within the species’ mapped 

element occurrences—one well location 

that has an approved permit to drill and 

one well location that is not yet 

approved. Approved permits allow for 

well drilling, which will have 

associated negative impacts to 

vegetation, and potentially P. flowersii, 

during construction and drilling 

operations. These impacts have 

historically been localized and small in 

scale. We expect these impacts to 

continue to be minimal, considering 

that oil and gas development has 

occurred only minimally in P. flowersii 

habitat. 

The lack of oil and gas development 

in Penstemon flowersii habitat is most 

likely because there is not enough 

product to be economically feasible 

with current technology (Doyle 2010, 

pers. comm.; Sparger 2010, pers. comm.) 

rendering dense energy developments 

unlikely in this area (BLM 2008c, p. 

486). Although oil and gas development 

could potentially expand throughout P. 

flowersii habitat, substantial 

development is not likely for the next 20 

years (BLM 2008c, p. 486), nor is it 

likely to occur across the entire range of 

P. flowersii. Thus, oil and gas 

exploration and development is not a 

threat to P. flowersii now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

(4) Nonnative Invasive Species 

We have limited information 

regarding the distribution of nonnative 

invasive species in Penstemon flowersii 

habitat. We know that invasive species, 

particularly Bromus tectorum, occur 

within P. flowersii habitat (Frates 2010, 

pp. 29–30). However, we do not have 

any information indicating that B. 

tectorum or other nonnative invasive 

species impact P. flowersii. 

Soil disturbances can increase 

invasive species (see Astragalus 

hamiltonii, Factor A, Nonnative 

Invasive Species) (Evans et al. 2001, p. 

1308). As noted above, B. tectorum, a 

major invasive plant species in the 

West, invades areas in response to 

surface disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 

389, 393, 395, 398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 

381–383; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, 

pp. 324–325, 329, 330; Evans et al. 

2001, p. 1308). Therefore, we assessed 

the potential for soil disturbances to 

increase nonnative invasive species in 

the foreseeable future in Penstemon 

flowersii habitat. 

Agricultural use, livestock grazing, 

and oil and gas exploration and 

development are the predominant 

activities that disturb soils across the 

range of Penstemon flowersii. We 

determined that these activities are not 

extensive enough to threaten P. flowersii 

now or in the foreseeable future (see 

Agricultural Use/Livestock Grazing and 

Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development). Thus, we also do not 

expect that these activities will increase 

surface disturbance to the point where 

invasive species will become 

established and impact P. flowersii to a 

significant degree. At this time, we have 

no information suggesting that 

nonnative invasive species are a threat 

to P. flowersii now or for the foreseeable 

future. 

(5) Rural Residential Development 

Conversion of land for rural 

residential development can result in 

the permanent loss and fragmentation of 

habitat for many species, including 

Penstemon flowersii. Impacts include, 

but are not limited to, crushed 

vegetation, compacted soils, introduced 

exotic plant species, reduced available 

habitat, and increased habitat 

fragmentation (Hansen et al. 2005, 

entire). For the purpose of this analysis, 

we define rural residential development 

as the expansion of rural towns and 

surrounding rural areas through lowdensity housing construction and 

related business and industrial 

development. 

Duchesne and Uintah Counties, where 

Penstemon flowersii is found, had the 

highest (3.6 percent) and fourth highest 

(1.8 percent) population growth rates in 

Utah from 2008 to 2009, respectively 

(Utah Population Estimates Committee 

2009, p. 2). The average population 

increase across the state of Utah was 1.5 

percent over the same timeframe (Utah 

Population Estimates Committee 2009, 

p. 4). Roosevelt is the largest 

municipality that occurs near known P. 

flowersii habitat, and two smaller 

municipalities, Ballard and Myton, are 

nearby. The U.S. Census Bureau 

estimates that the population of 

Roosevelt increased approximately 

12 percent from 2000 to 2009, with 

Ballard and Myton increasing 34 and 17 

percent, respectively (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010a, entire). Human 

population growth can destroy and 

fragment habitat as municipalities grow 

and incorporate more of what was once 

natural land. 

Over the next 50 years, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties are projected to grow at 

a slower rate of 1.1 percent (Utah 

Governor’s Office of Planning and 

Budget (Utah GOPB) 2008, entire). At 

this growth rate, Daggett, Duchesne, and 

Uintah Counties (which are grouped 

together by the Utah Population 

Estimates Committee) are expected to 

increase from a current total population 

of 49,707 to 80,319 by 2060 (Utah GOPB 

2008, entire). The City of Roosevelt 

projects a population of 6,600 by 2030, 

but they anticipate the population could 

be higher (City of Roosevelt 2010, p. 7). 

Much of the urban and rural 

development in the Uinta Basin is 

influenced by the boom and bust cycles 

of energy development, and another 

boom cycle could increase population 

growth over predictions. 

Although municipalities are growing 

and are projected to increase near 

Penstemon flowersii habitat, they are 

not likely to impact a substantial 

amount of the known habitat of this 

species. The southern edge of 

Roosevelt’s municipal boundary is 

approximately 0.2 mi (0.3 km) north of 

the northern boundary of element 

occurrence 1 (see Figure 2). The city 

limits of Ballard and Myton are 

immediately adjacent to element 

occurrences 1 and 9, with Ballard city 

limits overlapping element occurrence 

6. None of these municipalities overlap 

with known sites of P. flowersii. 

Roosevelt will likely expand into an 

area already defined as an annexation 

area (City of Roosevelt 2010, p. 42), and 

this area is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) 

north of element occurrence 9 and the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

new site of P. flowersii on private land. 

Roosevelt and Ballard city limits are 

constrained by geography and Tribal 

boundaries, and neither are likely to 

expand substantially southward toward 

known P. flowersii sites (Eschler 2010, 

pers. comm.; Hyde 2010, pers. comm.). 

In summary, rural residential 

development is occurring now and is 

likely to increase in the future, but most 

of this development would occur 

outside of Penstemon flowersii known 

sites. Therefore, we do not believe rural 

residential development is a significant 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

Based on the best available 

information, we do not believe that 

conversion to agricultural use/livestock 

grazing, recreational activities, 

nonnative invasive species, oil and gas 

exploration and development, or rural 

residential development threaten 

Penstemon flowersii now or in the 

foreseeable future. Conversion to 

agricultural use most likely had an 

appreciable negative impact on P. 

flowersii historically, but we have no 

evidence that conversion to agricultural 

use continues today at a level that 

threatens the species. Likewise, 

livestock grazing is not widely noted 

across P. flowersii sites, and where it 

occurs it does not appear to negatively 

impact individuals. The OHV use, the 

only documented recreational activity 

in P. flowersii’s habitat, is localized, and 

we do not have evidence that P. 

flowersii is considerably compromised 

or threatened by OHV use. We do not 

have information to support that 

nonnative invasive species are currently 

threatening P. flowersii or will be likely 

to do so in the foreseeable future. It is 

unlikely that current technologies and 

economic conditions will support 

substantial oil and gas development 

across P. flowersii habitat in the 

foreseeable future. Finally, rural 

residential development is unlikely to 

expand substantially into P. flowersii 

habitat. We find that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range is not 

a threat to P. flowersii now or for the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

We are not aware of threats from 

overutilization or collection of 

Penstemon flowersii for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, nor do we expect 

overutilization in the foreseeable future. 

P. duchesnensis, which is 

geographically near P. flowersii, is used 

horticulturally (Frates 2010, p. 75). 

However, P. flowersii is more obscure, 

and we have no evidence that this 

species is sought out for horticultural 

purposes (Frates 2010, p. 75). Therefore, 

we do not consider overutilization a 

threat to P. flowersii now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease and herbivory by insects, 

wildlife, or livestock was documented 

for Penstemon flowersii on only one 

occasion: Caterpillars were feeding on P. 

flowersii plants near Midview Reservoir 

(Spencer 2010b, pers. comm.). We do 

not know how widespread this 

herbivory was or if it had detrimental 

effects on P. flowersii; caterpillars 

naturally feed on many plant species. 

The UNHP data did not note disease or 

herbivory for the species (UNHP 2010b, 

entire). With no data indicating 

otherwise, we do not consider disease or 

predation to be a threat to P. flowersii 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no Federal or State laws 

that protect Penstemon flowersii. P. 

flowersii is found mostly on nonFederal lands, where no known 

regulatory mechanisms exist. However, 

we found that there are no threats to the 

species that warrant additional 

regulatory mechanisms (see Factors A, 

B, C, and E). Therefore, we do not 

consider the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms as a threat to 

this species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Natural and manmade threats to 

Penstemon flowersii’s survival include: 

(1) Small population size and (2) 

climate change and drought. 

(1) Small Population Size 

Penstemon flowersii grows across an 

area of 80 mi2 (207 km2). P. flowersii 

individuals occur in well-defined 

populations that are geographically 

isolated from one another. Thus, this 

species may be prone to the negative 

effects of small population size, in part 

because historical fragmentation of 

habitat (e.g., agricultural use) may have 

resulted in small populations with 

limited gene flow. P. flowersii also 

appears to have episodic growth 

patterns with large fluctuations in 

numbers from year to year (Franklin 

2005, p. 131; 2010, p. 79). This 

fluctuation and patchy distribution may 

make P. flowersii more vulnerable to the 

impacts of small population size, 

limiting its ability to survive periods of 

low growth or recruitment. 

The species’ biology, distribution, and 

even our information gaps indicate that 

small population sizes may not 

significantly impact Penstemon 

flowersii. For example, P. flowersii 

grows vigorously and in moderate 

densities with evidence of good 

reproduction and recruitment (UNHP 

2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). 

Although we still consider P. flowersii a 

narrow endemic, it occurs across a 

relatively large range. In addition, there 

are relatively large amounts of 

unsurveyed potential habitat between 

known sites that could result in an 

expanded species distribution and 

range. 

Finally, we have not identified other 

surface-disturbing threats to this species 

that would cumulatively increase the 

risk of small population size. As 

previously discussed under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii (above), with no 

threats linked to a species’ rarity, we do 

not consider rarity 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. 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 foreseeable 

future. Thus, we believe that small 

population size is not a threat to P. 

flowersii. 

(2) Climate Change and Drought 

Potential impacts of climate change 

and drought to the geographic area are 

characterized in the Climate Change and 

Drought section under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii (above). 

Penstemon flowersii occurs within the 

same geographic vicinity as A. 

hamiltonii and, therefore, will be 

exposed to similar changes in climate 

and drought. 

No trend data are available for 

Penstemon flowersii that would 

elucidate the relationship between the 

species’ stability and climate variables. 

We do not know what causes 

fluctuations in P. flowersii abundance, 

but if it is due to environmental factors 

like precipitation or temperature, 

climate change could negatively affect 

this species. However, because of the 

lack of available data, any predictions 

are speculative. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10179 

We expect that Penstemon flowersii, 

like other narrow endemics, may be 

negatively affected by climate change 

and drought. However, despite climate 

changes that have occurred over the past 

30 years, we have no evidence that P. 

flowersii populations are declining, and 

we have no basis to predict how this 

species will respond in the future to 

climate change. Over the past 30 years, 

plant health remains normal to 

vigorous, and reproduction and 

recruitment continue to occur at some P. 

flowersii element occurrences (UNHP 

2010b, entire). We have not identified 

other threats to this species, such as 

mining, that would cumulatively 

exacerbate the threat of climate change. 

Based upon the best available 

information, we do not believe that 

climate change is a threat now or is 

likely to become one in the foreseeable 

future. 

Summary of Factor E 

We assessed the potential risks of 

small population size, climate change, 

and drought to Penstemon flowersii. 

There is no evidence that the species’ 

small population size is a threat to P. 

flowersii. The species is adapted to a 

landscape where drought naturally 

occurs, and we have no information 

indicating that the species is threatened 

by climate change. In addition, as 

described in Factor A, there are no 

threats to the species that would result 

in significant loss or fragmentation of 

available habitat, and thus there are no 

cumulative effects to exacerbate the 

threat of climate change or small 

population sizes. Therefore, based on 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available at this time, we 

conclude that natural or manmade 

factors are not threats to P. flowersii now 

or for the foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the ESA, we 

conducted a review of the status of the 

species and considered the five factors 

in assessing whether Penstemon 

flowersii is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. We examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by P. flowersii. 

We reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized P. flowersii experts and other 

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. 

The factor with potentially the most 

impact on Penstemon flowersii was 

historical agricultural development. Site 

visits show plants persist in pasture 

lands (Holmgren 2009 pers. comm. in 

Frates 2010, p. 35; Brunson 2010b, p. 1), 

and we have little evidence that 

conversion to agricultural use is an 

ongoing threat to this species. Livestock 

do not appear to forage on P. flowersii, 

and the species occurs in grazing 

pastures. Rural residential development 

is another factor that could potentially 

destroy and fragment this species and 

its habitat in the future, but it is 

unlikely to occur at a high level across 

P. flowersii’s known range. Other factors 

affecting P. flowersii—including 

recreational activities, nonnative 

invasive species, oil and gas 

development, and small population 

size—are either limited in scope, or we 

do not have evidence that supports 

these factors adversely impacting the 

species as a whole. We have no 

evidence that overutilization, disease, 

and predation are affecting this species. 

Although climate change will likely 

impact the species, we do not have any 

information that indicates it threatens 

the continued existence of P. flowersii. 

Finally, because none of these factors 

rises to the level of a threat that would 

warrant additional regulatory 

mechanisms, the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms does not 

negatively affect P. flowersii. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the five 

factors, we find that the factors analyzed 

above are not of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude to indicate that 

Penstemon flowersii is in danger of 

extinction (endangered), or likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened) 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Therefore, we find that listing 

P. flowersii as threatened or endangered 

species is not warranted throughout its 

range. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Having determined that Penstemon 

flowersii does not meet the definition of 

threatened or endangered species, we 

must next consider whether there are 

any significant portions of the range 

where P. flowersii is in danger of 

extinction or are likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

See the Significant Portion of the Range 

section under Astragalus hamiltonii 

(above) for a summary of our 

interpretation of the meaning of ‘‘in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

We have no evidence that any 

particular population or portion of the 

range of Penstemon flowersii is critical 

to the species’ survival. Because our 

understanding of the species’ 

distribution is incomplete and 

population counts fluctuate widely, we 

cannot determine that any one element 

occurrence is more critical to the 

species’ survival (i.e., has a significant 

portion of individuals) than another. 

Additionally, potential threats to the 

species appear to be uniform throughout 

P. flowersii’s range. Therefore, we do 

not find that P. flowersii is in danger of 

extinction now, nor is it likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, listing P. flowersii as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA is not warranted at this time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, Penstemon flowersii to our 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES section) whenever such 

information becomes available. New 

information will help us monitor P. 

flowersii and encourage its 

conservation. If an emergency situation 

develops for P. flowersii, or any other 

species, we will act to provide 

immediate protection. 

Species Information—Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri occur in the same habitat and 

have the same distribution. Therefore, 

we discuss these species together for 

purposes of this finding. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Eriogonum soredium 

Eriogonum soredium is a low moundforming perennial plant in the 

buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) that is 

0.8 to 1.6 in (2 to 4 cm) tall and 3.9 to 

19.7 in (10 to 50 cm) across (Welsh et 

al. 2008, p. 588). The leaves are 0.08 to 

0.2 in (2 to 5 mm) long, 0.03 to 0.08 in 

(0.7 to 2 mm) wide, round to oval, and 

covered on both surfaces by short, 

white, wooly hairs (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 

588). The numerous flowers are 

arranged in tight clusters resembling 

drumsticks. Individual flowers are 

white or partially pink and 0.08 to 0.12 

in (2 to 3 mm) long (Welsh et al. 2008, 

p. 588). Flowering generally occurs from 

June to August. The seeds, which are 

0.08 to 0.10 in (2 to 2.5 mm) long, 

mature from July through September 

(Welsh et al. 2008, p. 588). 

Eriogonum soredium was first 

described in 1981 by James Reveal 

based on a collection by Stan Welsh and 

Matt Chatterly (Reveal 1981, entire; Kass 

1992a, p. 1). E. soredium has not 

undergone any taxonomic revisions 

since it was originally described. 

Therefore, we accept the current 

taxonomy as an indication that the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

species constitutes a listable entity 

under the ESA. 

Lepidium ostleri 

Lepidium ostleri is a long-lived 

perennial herb in the mustard family 

(Brassicaceae). It grows in dense 

cushion-like tufts up to 2 in (5 cm) tall 

(Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328). The grayishgreen hairy leaves are 0.16 to 0.59 in (4 

to 15 mm) long, generally linear, and 

entire or with lobed basal leaves (Welsh 

et al. 2008, p. 328). Flowering stalks are 

approximately 0.39 in (1 cm) long with 

5 to 35 flowers that are white or have 

a purple tint (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328). 

Flowering generally occurs from June to 

early July, followed by fruit set from 

July to August (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 

328). 

Lepidium ostleri was first described in 

1980 by Stan Welsh and Sherel 

Goodrich based on a collection by Stan 

Welsh and Matt Chatterly (Welsh and 

Goodrich 1980, entire; Kass 1992b, p. 1). 

L. ostleri has not undergone any 

taxonomic revisions since it was 

originally described. We are accepting 

the current taxonomy and consider L. 

ostleri a listable entity under the ESA. 

Distribution and Population Status 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are each known from four 

distinct, overlapping populations on 

private lands in the southern San 

Francisco Mountains in Beaver County, 

Utah—the Grampian Hill, Cupric Mine, 

Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen 

populations (Figure 3; Miller 2010g, p. 

6; Roth 2010a, pp. 1–2). We are not 

aware of any additional populations. 

Surveys were conducted on BLM lands 

adjacent to the known populations in 

2010, and no plants or habitat were 

found (Miller 2010g, Appendix B and p. 

6; Roth 2010a, pp. 1–3); these adjacent 

areas do not contain Ordovician 

Limestone, the substrate that supports 

both E. soredium and L. ostleri (see 

Habitat section below) (Miller 2010g, p. 

6). Similarly, no additional populations 

of either species were found during 

surveys of the San Francisco Mountains 

and surrounding ranges (including the 

Wah Wah Mountains, Crystal Peak, the 

Confusion Range, and the Mountain 

Home Range) (Kass 1992a, p. 5; Kass 

1992b, p. 4; Evenden 1998, p. 5; 

Robinson 2004, p. 16; Miller 2010c, 

entire; Roth 2010a, pp. 2–3). 

There were reports of two populations 

of E. soredium in the Wah Wah 

Mountains; however, we do not believe 

these reports are accurate—one report 

appears to have incorrect location 

information (Kass 1992a, p. 5; Franklin 

2005, p. 85) and the other report appears 

to be a species misidentification 

(Robinson 2004, p. 16; Roth 2010a, p. 3). 

Therefore, reports of these two 

populations are thought to be erroneous 

and are not discussed further in this 

finding. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10181 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are distributed across a total 

range of less than 5 mi 2 (13 km 2). 

Previous estimates of the species’ total 

occupied habitat ranged from 170 acres 

(ac) (69 hectares (ha)) (Evenden 1998, 

Appendix C) to 400 ac (160 ha) (Kass 

1992a, pp. 7–8; 1992b, p. 7). However, 

we now have more accurate global 

positioning system information that 

shows the two species’ total occupied 

habitat is approximately 52 ac (21 ha) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4ER23FE11.002</GPH>
10182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(based on Miller 2010g, Appendix B). 

For both species, each of the four known 

populations are estimated to occupy 

habitat ranging between 5 ac (2 ha) and 

29 ac (12 ha), with localized high 

densities of plants (Evenden 1989, 

Appendix C; Miller 2010g, Appendix B). 

All known Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri populations are located 

on private lands (Miller 2010g, p. 6; 

Roth 2010a, pp. 1–2). Their occurrence 

on these private lands hinders our 

ability to collect accurate long-term 

population count or trend information 

because of access limitations. The 

populations were visited sporadically 

over the last couple of decades; 

however, we have no information on 

sampling methods used by individual 

surveyors. Common field techniques 

used to estimate population size tend to 

be highly subjective in the absence of 

actual population counts. Population 

estimates also may be skewed by how 

the species grow. Both species grow in 

low, mound-forming clusters, making it 

difficult to distinguish individual 

plants—some observers may assume 

each cluster is one plant and other 

observers might apply a multiplier to 

each cluster to count them as multiple 

plants; therefore, using either of these 

methods would greatly skew the 

resulting population estimate. We 

believe these biases help explain the 

seemingly large fluctuations in numbers 

of plants observed during different 

surveys (see below); E. soredium and L. 

ostleri are robust, long-lived perennial 

plants that are unlikely to exhibit such 

extreme population fluctuations (Garcia 

et al. 2008, pp. 260–261). 

Accordingly, the available population 

estimates are highly variable and 

probably not accurate. For Eriogonum 

soredium, available population 

estimates range from a low of 10 to 100 

plants in 2004 to a high of 76,000 to 

81,000 individuals in 2010 (Kass 1992a, 

p. 8; Evenden 1998, Appendix C; 

Robinson 2004, pp. 11–15; Miller 2010a, 

pers. comm.; Miller 2010b, pers. comm.; 

Miller 2010c, pp. 2–5; Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

For Lepidium ostleri, available 

population estimates range from a total 

of 700 individuals (Kass 1992b, p. 8) to 

approximately 17,000 individuals in the 

1990s (Evenden 1998, Appendix C). 

Currently, the total number of L. ostleri 

plants is estimated at approximately 

43,000 (Miller 2010a, pers. comm.; 

Miller 2010c, pp. 2–5; Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

However, due to the aforementioned 

survey inaccuracies, we are not able to 

determine accurate population estimates 

or trends for either species. In 2010, 

both species were documented at all 

four known populations (Miller 2010g, 

entire). 

We lack demographic information, 

which is measured by studying the size, 

distribution, composition, and changes 

within a specified population over time. 

Habitat 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are narrow endemics restricted to 

soils derived from Ordovician limestone 

outcrops (Evenden 1998, p. 5). There are 

approximately 845 ac (342 ha) of 

Ordovician limestone outcrops in the 

San Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g, 

Appendix F). In addition, there are 719 

ac (291 ha) of Cambrian dolomite 

substrates in the San Francisco 

Mountains; there is the potential for 

small ‘‘islands’’ of Ordovician limestone 

outcrops to occur within these 

substrates (Miller 2010g, Appendix F, 

p. 7). 

Ordovician limestone is rare within a 

50-mi (80-km) radius of the San 

Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g, 

Appendix F). Cambrian dolomite 

substrates are present in the Wah Wah 

Mountains to the west of the San 

Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g, 

Appendix F). However, as previously 

described (see Distribution and 

Population Status), there is no 

indication that additional populations 

of either species occur in these areas. 

We do not know if there are other 

limiting factors associated with the 

limestone formations that restrict the 

habitat use and distribution of these 

species—these species occupy only a 

fraction of the available habitat and are 

known to occur on only 52 ac (21 ha), 

or just 6 percent, of the available 

Ordovician limestone outcrops. 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are associated with pinionjuniper and sagebrush communities 

between 6,200 and 7,228 ft (1,890 and 

2,203 m) in elevation. They are typically 

found on sparsely vegetated exposed 

slopes with Ephedra sp. (Mormon tea), 

Gutierrezia sarothrae (snakeweed), 

Cercocarpus intricatus (dwarf 

mountain-mahogany), and Petradoria 

pumila (rock goldenrod). Associated 

rare species include Trifolium 

friscanum. 

Life History 

We do not have a clear understanding 

of the reproductive biology or life 

history of Eriogonum soredium, but 

recruitment appears to be low or 

perhaps episodic (Kass 1992a, p. 7; Roth 

2010a, p. 1). Juvenile plants and 

seedlings have been observed in only 

two of the four populations (Miller 

2010g, p. 4). In 2010, dead or partially 

dead plants were found throughout all 

populations, but we have no 

information on the cause of death or the 

approximate number of dead plants 

(Miller 2010g, p. 4). 

No information is available on the life 

history of Lepidium ostleri. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors—Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri 

In making our 12-month finding on 

the petition, we considered and 

evaluated the best available scientific 

and commercial information pertaining 

to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri in relation to the five factors 

provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 

(see the full description of these five 

factors in the Summary of Information 

Pertaining to the Five Factors— 

Astragalus hamiltonii, above). E. 

soredium and L. ostleri co-occur in the 

same habitat and, therefore, are 

addressed together in the Five Factor 

Analysis below. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Their Habitat or Range 

The following factors may affect the 

habitat or range of Eriogonum soredium 

and Lepidium ostleri: (1) Livestock 

grazing, (2) recreational activities, (3) 

mining, and (4) nonnative invasive 

species. 

(1) Livestock Grazing 

Potential impacts of livestock grazing 

to plants are discussed above in the 

Livestock Grazing section under Factor 

A for Astragalus hamiltonii. As 

previously stated, all populations of 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri occur on private lands. 

We have no information on livestock 

grazing management on private lands, 

but adjacent BLM lands belong to active 

grazing allotments (Galbraith 2010, pers. 

comm.). Adjacent private lands are 

subject to the same grazing practices as 

the allotted BLM land if they are not 

fenced (Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). 

Private lands in the San Francisco 

Mountains are only partially fenced; 

hence, livestock may have access to 

areas where E. soredium and L. ostleri 

occur. However, impacts to E. soredium 

or L. ostleri from livestock grazing have 

not been documented (Kass 1992a and 

1992b, entire; Evenden 1998, entire; 

Miller 2010g, p. 5; Roth 2010a, p. 1). 

Based on our review of the available 

information, there is no indication that 

grazing impacts the species now or will 

impact the species in the foreseeable 

future at a level that threatens E. 

soredium or L. ostleri. 

(2) Recreational Activities 

Potential impacts of recreational 

activities to plants are discussed above 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10183 

in the Recreational Activities section 

under Factor A for Astragalus 

hamiltonii. There are no known impacts 

of OHV use in Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri occupied habitats 

(Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, 

pp. 1–2). Access to the majority of the 

occupied habitat, which occurs on 

private lands, is posted as closed to all 

vehicles, including OHVs (Miller 2010g, 

p. 5). The OHV use does not appear to 

impact adjacent BLM lands in the San 

Francisco Mountains (Pontarolo 2009, 

pers. comm.). Therefore, we have no 

information indicating that recreational 

activities threaten E. soredium and L. 

ostleri now nor do we anticipate these 

activities will become a threat in the 

foreseeable future. 

(3) Mining 

Mining activities occurred historically 

throughout the range of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri and 

continue to impact these species. 

Mining activities can impact E. 

soredium and L. ostleri by removing 

habitat substrate, increasing erosion 

potential, fragmenting habitat through 

access road construction, degrading 

suitable habitat, and increasing invasive 

plant species (Brock and Green 2003, 

p. 15; BLM 2008c, pp. 448–449). Impacts 

to E. soredium and L. ostleri individuals 

include crushing and removing plants, 

reducing plant vigor, and reducing 

reproductive potential through 

increased dust deposits, reduced 

seedbank quantity and quality, and 

decreased pollinator availability and 

habitat (Brock and Green 2003, p. 15; 

BLM 2008c, pp. 448–449). 

The San Francisco Mountains have an 

extensive history of precious metal 

mining activity (Evenden 1998, p. 3). All 

four of the known populations and 

much of the species’ potential habitat 

were impacted by precious metal 

mining activities in the past, as 

evidenced by a high density of mine 

shafts, tailings, and old mining roads 

throughout the habitat of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri (Table 3; 

Kass 1992a, p. 10; Evenden 1998, p. 3; 

Roth 2010a, p. 2). 

The eastern part of the Grampian Hill 

population surrounds old mine shafts 

associated with the King David Mine, 

which is part of the historical Horn 

Silver Mine. The Horn Silver Mine was 

one of the largest silver mines in the 

country until it collapsed in 1885 

(Murphy 1996, p. 1; Evenden 1998, p. 3). 

The Cupric Mine population is located 

immediately above a mine shaft 

associated with the Cupric Mine, a 

historical copper mine. Old mine shafts 

are located within 0.3 mi (0.5 km) of the 

Copper Gulch population; these mine 

shafts are associated with the Cactus 

Mine, also a historical copper mine. 

Two mine shafts are located within the 

Indian Queen population and three 

additional mine shafts are located 

immediately adjacent to this population. 

These mine shafts also are part of the 

historical Cactus Mine. 

TABLE 3—MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HABITAT OF Eriogonum Soredium AND Lepidium Ostleri 

Population 

Mining activity 

Historical Current Future 

Grampian Hill ............... silver, lead, copper, zinc (Horn Silver Mine) ... None ........................... silver, lead, copper, zinc, landscape gravel 

quarrying. 

Cupric Mine ................. silver, lead, copper, zinc, gravel quarrying 

(Cupric Mine).

gravel quarrying ......... silver, lead, copper, zinc, landscape gravel 

quarrying. 

Copper Gulch .............. silver, lead, copper, zinc, gravel quarrying 

(Cactus Mine).

gravel quarrying ......... silver, lead, copper, zinc, landscape gravel 

quarrying. 

Indian Queen ............... silver, lead, copper, zinc, gravel quarrying 

(Cactus Mine).

gravel quarrying ......... silver, lead, copper, landscape gravel quarrying. 

Large-scale precious metal mining 

ceased decades ago. However, all 

precious metal mining claims in the 

southern San Francisco Mountains are 

patented (a claim for which the Federal 

Government has passed its title to the 

claimant, making it private land) and 

continued occasional explorations for 

silver, zinc, and copper deposits are 

reported for the area (Bon and Gloyn 

1998, p. 12; Franconia Minerals 

Corporation 2002, p. 1; Rupke 2010, 

pers. comm.). In fact, in 1998 this area 

was one of the most active precious 

metal exploration areas in the State (Bon 

and Gloyn 1998, pp. 11–12). In addition, 

exploration activities were reinitiated at 

the Horn Silver Mine in 2002, 

confirming that extensive amounts of 

sphalerite (the major ore of zinc) remain 

in the mine (Franconia Minerals 

Corporation 2002, p. 1). 

We expect the demand for silver and 

copper to increase in the future (Crigger 

2010, pp. 1–2; Murdoch 2010, pp. 1–2). 

The price for silver nearly tripled over 

the last decade (Stoker 2010, p. 2). The 

market for silver is expected to grow in 

the future due to its high demand for 

industrial uses in solar panel 

construction, wood preservatives, and 

medical supplies (Ash 2010, p. 1). Since 

2009, the value of copper increased 

more than 140 percent (Crigger 2010, 

pp. 1–2; Murdoch 2010, pp. 1–2). The 

market for copper, one of the world’s 

most widely used industrial metals, is 

expected to increase in the future due to 

demand for electrical wiring, plumbing, 

and car fabrication (Crigger 2010, pp. 1– 

2; Murdoch 2010, pp. 1–2). In Utah, 

precious metals accounted for 

approximately 14 percent of the total 

value of minerals produced in 2009 (up 

from 8 percent in 2008) (Utah GOPB 

2010, pp. 195–196). Utah’s precious 

metal gross production value increased 

$221 million (57 percent) compared to 

2008, due to increased production of 

both gold and silver (Utah GOPB 2010, 

p. 196). Because the San Francisco 

Mountains area was one of the most 

productive areas during the last largescale precious metal mining efforts, it is 

reasonable to assume that it will become 

important again, particularly given the 

ongoing exploration activities at the 

mines. 

As previously described, Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri are 

endemic to soils derived from 

Ordovician limestone. In addition to 

precious metals, this formation is mined 

for crushed limestone. The limestone is 

removed from quarry sites and sold for 

marble landscaping gravel. 

Marble landscaping gravel quarries in 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri’s range are open-pit mines that 

result in the removal of the habitat 

substrate for these species. Four active 

limestone quarry sites occur within a 

couple hundred feet of three of the 

species’ populations—Cupric Mine, 

Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen 

populations (Table 3). 

A limestone quarry is considered 

active from the time quarrying begins 

until the site is reclaimed. Generally, 

gravel pits are maintained below 5 ac 

(2 ha) of surface disturbance to avoid 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

large mine status, which requires 

permitting (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). 

Hence, an area may contain many 

quarries at or below the 5-ac (2-ha) 

threshold, all of which may be 

considered active (Munson 2010, pers. 

comm.). A mine also may stay below 5 

ac (2 ha) as long as previously disturbed 

areas at the quarry site are reclaimed 

prior to expanding quarrying operations 

(Munson 2010, pers. comm.). The 

Cupric Mine, Copper Gulch, and Indian 

Queen populations of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri all have 

small individual gravel pits—resulting 

in a lack of environmental analyses and 

potential mitigation opportunities (see 

Factor D, Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms). 

As stated in the Distribution and 

Population Status section above, 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri occur in the same overlapping 

locations, each occupying a total of 52 

ac (21 ha) in four populations. We 

estimate the quarries at the three 

population sites (Cupric Mine, Copper 

Gulch, and Indian Queen) historically 

resulted in the loss of 26 ac (11 ha) of 

suitable habitat adjacent to currently 

known plant locations (Table 4; Darnall 

et al. 2010, entire). Based on habitat 

similarities and proximity, it is likely 

that the plant occupied the entire 26 ac 

(11 ha) that are now being quarried. 

There are 23 ac (9 ha) of remaining 

occupied habitat in the three 

populations (Table 4; Darnall et al. 

2010, entire), but these areas are at risk 

of being impacted by the gravel pits. 

The only population not impacted by 

gravel pits—the Grampian Hill 

population—is 29 ac (12 ha) in size. 

Even so, the Grampian Hill population 

is only 1 mi (1.6 km) away from the 

nearest gravel pit and, as previously 

discussed, it is impacted by precious 

metal mining. 

TABLE 4—AREAS OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVEL MINING IN THE VICINITY OF Eriogonum 

Soredium AND Lepidium Ostleri POPULATIONS

Population Occupied area Adjacent surface 

disturbance 

Indian Queen .................................................................. 9 ac (3.6 ha) .................................................................. 14 ac (5.7 ha). 

Copper Gulch ................................................................. 5 ac (2.0 ha) .................................................................. 5 ac (2.0 ha). 

Cupric Mine .................................................................... 9 ac (3.6 ha) .................................................................. 7 ac (2.8 ha). 

Total ........................................................................ 23 ac (9.2 ha) ................................................................ 26 ac (10.5 ha).

Quarrying is occurring in the 

immediate vicinity of the Cupric Mine 

population (Evenden 1998, p. 5; 

Robinson 2004, p. 8; Frates 2006, pers. 

comm.; Roth 2010a, p. 2; Miller 2010e, 

pers. comm.; Munson 2010, pers. 

comm.); we anticipate this mining 

activity will continue to impact this 

population in the near future (Roth 

2010a, p. 2). The estimated area of 

occupied habitat of the Cupric Mine 

population in the vicinity of this gravel 

pit is 9 ac (4 ha) (Table 4; Darnall et al. 

2010, entire), while gravel mining has 

resulted in surface disturbance of 

approximately 7 ac (3 ha) (Table 4; 

Darnall et al. 2010, entire). No quarrying 

activity was observed in the vicinity of 

the Copper Gulch and Indian Queen 

populations in 2010; however, the 

gravel pits are still considered active 

and thus additional gravel mining could 

occur at any time. For both of these 

populations (Copper Gulch and Indian 

Queen), adjacent surface disturbance is 

equal to or greater than the remaining 

occupied habitat (Table 4; Darnall et al. 

2010, entire). 

It is important to note that all of the 

active quarries are near or above the 5- 

ac (2-ha) regulatory limit. Thus, we 

anticipate that the operators will file for 

large mine permits, partially restore the 

disturbed areas to be below the 5-ac 

(2-ha) limit, or will begin new gravel 

pits (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). Under 

any of these scenarios, it is likely that 

occupied habitats of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri will be 

impacted, particularly given the ongoing 

need for limestone gravel in nearby 

communities, as described below. 

Between 1995 and 2001, the 

production of building and landscaping 

stones in Utah jumped nearly 700 

percent (Stark 2008, p. 1). Construction 

sand, gravel, and crushed stone 

production rank as the second most 

valuable commodity produced among 

industrial minerals in Utah (Bon and 

Krahulec 2009, p. 5). The use of 

landscape gravel will likely continue to 

increase in nearby Washington County, 

which is one of the fastest growing 

counties in the United States and Utah 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, entire; Utah 

GOPB 2010, p. 48). The Washington 

County population has doubled every 

10 years since 1970. In 2009, there were 

145,466 people estimated to live in 

Washington County (Utah GOPB 2010, 

p. 49). Over 700,000 people are 

expected to live in Washington County 

by 2050 (Utah GOPB 2008, entire). 

Based on the projected population 

growth for Washington County, we 

believe that the regional demand for 

landscape gravel will continue to 

increase in southwestern Utah in the 

foreseeable future. 

Much of the rock quarried in Utah 

does not travel far because of the 

associated high cost of transport (Stark 

2008, p. 1). The quarries of the southern 

San Francisco Mountains are the closest 

quarries providing crushed limestone 

for southwestern Utah, including 

Washington County (Mine Safety and 

Health Administration 2010, p. 1). In 

addition to regional distribution, 

crushed limestone quarried from the 

vicinity of the Copper Gulch, Indian 

Queen, and Cupric Mine populations is 

transported to a distribution center for 

the Home Depot in the nearby town of 

Milford, where it is packaged and 

shipped nationwide (Munson 2010, 

pers. comm.). 

To summarize, mining throughout 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri’s range reduced available habitat 

and impacted the species’ populations 

in the past (Table 3; Table 4). All four 

populations of Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri co-occur with precious 

metal mining activities. For both 

species, three of the four populations— 

the Cupric Mine, Copper Gulch, and 

Indian Queen populations—co-occur 

with active gravel mining pits. 

Available information suggests that all 

populations are likely to be impacted by 

precious metal and gravel mining in the 

foreseeable future based on mineral 

availability and market projections. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

mining is a threat to E. soredium and L. 

ostleri now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

(4) Nonnative Invasive Species 

Potential impacts of nonnative 

invasive species to native plants and 

their habitat are discussed above in the 

Nonnative Invasive Species section 

under Factor A for Astragalus 

hamiltonii. Bromus tectorum is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10185 

considered the most ubiquitous invasive 

species in the Intermountain West due 

to its ability to rapidly invade native 

dryland ecosystems and outcompete 

native species (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack 

and Pyke, 1983, p. 88; Thill et al. 1984, 

p. 10). 

Bromus tectorum is a dominant 

species on the lower slopes of the 

Grampian Hill population and is present 

in all populations of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri (Miller 

2010g, p. 5; Roth 2010a, p. 1). Surface 

disturbances can increase the 

occurrence and densities of B. tectorum 

(see Nonnative Invasive Species section 

under Factor A for Astragalus 

hamiltonii). As previously described, 

increased mining activities and 

associated surface disturbances are 

expected to occur in the occupied 

habitat for E. soredium and L. ostleri, 

(see Mining, above), providing 

conditions allowing B. tectorum to 

expand into and increase density within 

E. soredium and L. ostleri habitat. 

Invasions of annual, nonnative 

species, such as Bromus tectorum, are 

well documented to contribute to 

increased fire frequencies (Brooks and 

Pyke 2002, p. 5; Grace et. al 2002, p. 43; 

Brooks et. al 2003, pp. 4, 13, 15). The 

disturbance caused by increased fire 

frequencies creates favorable conditions 

for increased invasion by B. tectorum. 

The end result is a downward spiral 

where an increase in invasive species 

results in more fires, more fires create 

more disturbances, and more 

disturbances lead to increased invasive 

species densities. The risk of fire is 

expected to increase from 46 to 100 

percent when the cover of B. tectorum 

increases from 12 to 45 percent or more 

(Link et al. 2006, p. 116). In the absence 

of exotic species, it is generally 

estimated that fire return intervals in 

xeric sagebrush communities range from 

100 to 350 years (Baker 2006, p. 181). 

In some areas of the Great Basin (Snake 

River Plain), fire return intervals due to 

B. tectorum invasion are now between 3 

and 5 years (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). 

Most plant species occurring within a 

sagebrush ecosystem are not expected to 

be adapted to frequent fires, as 

evidenced in the lack of evolutionary 

adaptations found in other shrubdominated fire adapted ecosystems like 

chaparral (Baker, in press, p. 17). 

In the absence of Bromus tectorum, 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri grow in sparsely vegetated 

communities unlikely to carry fires (see 

Habitat section). Thus, the species are 

unlikely to be adapted to survive fires. 

As described in the distribution section, 

the total range of these species are less 

than 5 mi2 (13 km2) and each of the four 

populations occupy relatively small 

areas ranging between 5 ac (2 ha) and 29 

ac (12 ha). A range fire could easily 

impact, or eliminate, one or all 

populations. Therefore, the potential 

expansion of invasive species and 

associated fire is a threat to the species, 

especially when considering the limited 

distribution of the species and the high 

potential of stochastic extinctions (as 

discussed in the Small Population Size 

section under Factor E below). 

In summary, nonnative invasive 

species and fire are threats to both 

species. Bromus tectorum occurs in all 

four Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri populations. Given the 

ubiquitous nature of B. tectorum in the 

Intermountain West and its ability to 

rapidly invade dryland ecosystems 

(Mack 1981, p. 145, Mack and Pyke, 

1983, p. 88, Thill et al. 1984, p. 10), we 

expect it to increase in the future in 

response to surface disturbances from 

increased mining activities and global 

climate change (see the Climate Change 

and Drought section under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii). An increase in 

B. tectorum is expected to increase the 

frequency of fires in E. soredium and L. 

ostleri’s habitat, and the species are 

unlikely to survive increased wildfires 

due to their small population sizes. 

Therefore, we determine that nonnative 

invasive species and associated 

wildfires constitute a threat to all 

populations of E. soredium and L. ostleri 

now and into the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

At this time, based on best available 

information, we do not believe that 

grazing and recreational activities 

significantly threaten Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri now or 

in the foreseeable future. However, we 

determine that mining and nonnative 

invasive species are threats to 

E. soredium and L. ostleri. 

Mining activities impacted Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri habitat 

in the past and continue to be a threat 

to the species and its habitat throughout 

its range. All of the populations and the 

majority of habitat are located on private 

lands with an extensive history and 

recent successful exploration activities 

for precious metal mining. Three of the 

four populations are located in the 

immediate vicinity of gravel mining. 

Gravel mining is expected to continue 

and expand in the near future (Munson 

2010, pers. comm.). Considering the 

small acreages of occupied habitat 

immediately adjacent to existing gravel 

pits, continued mining may result in the 

loss of these populations in the 

foreseeable future. We anticipate an 

increase in the demand for precious 

metals and landscape rock based on the 

economic outlook for these commodities 

and the lack of alternative sources for 

crushed limestone in southwestern Utah 

which will result in increased impacts 

to E. soredium and L. ostleri and their 

habitat. 

Bromus tectorum is documented to 

occur in all four populations of 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri. The threat of fire caused by 

annual nonnative species invasions is 

exacerbated by mining activities and 

global climate change (see the Climate 

Change and Drought section under 

Factor E). The small population sizes 

and extremely limited distribution make 

this species especially vulnerable to 

stochastic extinction events, including 

localized mining activities and wildfires 

caused by increased invasions of 

nonnative species (see the Small 

Population Size section under Factor E, 

below). 

Therefore, we find that Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri are 

threatened by the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range, now and in the foreseeable 

future, based on impacts from mining 

activities and nonnative invasive 

species. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are considered attractive rock 

garden plants. In particular, Eriogonum 

soredium is considered ‘‘one of the most 

fantastic of its genus’’ by a major rock 

garden seed distributor (Alplains Seed 

Catalog 2010b, pp. 2 and 12). Seeds for 

both species are available commercially 

and they are harvested from wild 

populations (Alplains Seed Catalog 

2010b, pp. 2 and 12). 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri plants are located on private 

lands, which may provide some 

protection from collectors, as access is 

restricted on these private lands. 

Despite the attractiveness of the two 

species to horticultural enthusiasts, we 

have no information indicating that 

collection in the wild is a threat to the 

species. 

In summary, overutilization for 

commercial purposes could be a 

concern to Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri due to their desirability 

to collectors; however, we do not have 

information that leads us to believe that 

overutilization for commercial purposes 

is a threat now or is likely to become 

one in the foreseeable future. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease and herbivory of the species 

are unknown. We do not have any 

information indicating that disease is 

impacting either Eriogonum soredium or 

Lepidium ostleri. We also do not have 

any information indicating herbivory is 

occurring from livestock (see the 

Livestock Grazing section under Factor 

A), wildlife, or insects (Kass 1992a, p. 

9; Evenden 1998, entire; Miller 2010a, 

entire; Miller 2010b, entire; Miller 

2010c, entire; Roth 2010a, entire). Thus, 

we do not consider disease and 

predation to be threats to these species. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no endangered species laws 

protecting plants on private, State, or 

Tribal lands in Utah. Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri are listed 

as bureau sensitive plants for the BLM. 

Should the species be located on BLM 

lands, limited policy-level protection by 

the BLM is afforded through the Special 

Status Species Management Policy 

Manual # 6840, which forms the basis 

for special status species management 

on BLM lands (BLM 2008e, entire). 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri are predominantly threatened by 

mining related activities (see Factor A). 

Over 90 percent of the species’ known 

potential habitat and all of the known 

populations are located on lands with 

private, patented mining claims (Kass 

1992a, p. 9; Evenden 1998, p. 9; Roth 

2010a, pp. 1–2). Mineral mining is 

subject to the Utah Mined Land 

Reclamation Act of 1975, which 

includes mineral mining on State and 

private lands, including lands with 

patented mining claims (Utah Code 

Title 40, Chapter 8). The ESA applies to 

all surface activities associated with the 

exploration, development, and 

extraction of mineral deposits. 

The Utah Mined Land Reclamation 

Act mandates the preparation of State 

environmental impact assessments for 

large mining operations, which are 

defined as mining operations which 

create more than 5 ac (2 ha) of surface 

disturbance (UDOGM 2010b, p. 1). The 

existing gravel mining activities within 

the range of Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri (see Factor A, Mining) 

are approaching the 5-ac (2-ha) 

regulatory threshold. Thus, we 

anticipate that the operators will file for 

large mine permits, partially restore the 

disturbed areas to be below the 5-ac 

(2-ha) limit, or will begin new gravel 

pits (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). 

State environmental impact 

assessments must address, at a 

minimum, the potential effects on State 

and federally listed species (Baker 2010, 

pers. comm.). Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri are not State listed but 

are on the BLM sensitive species list. If 

UDOGM is made aware of these rare 

species being impacted by mining 

activities, they could consider 

minimizing and mitigating impacts; 

however, there is no requirement to 

address species that are not federally 

listed in the mine permitting process 

(Baker 2010, pers. comm.). 

In summary, the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are not adequate to protect 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri from becoming threatened or 

endangered by gravel mining on private 

lands. The active gravel pits are 

approaching the 5-ac (2-ha) threshold 

that would normally incur regulatory 

environmental impact assessments; 

however, no assessments are completed 

for these mines. Even if an 

environmental impact assessment is 

completed for any of the mines, the 

existing mining laws do not necessarily 

apply to BLM sensitive species: They 

recommend, and do not mandate, 

species protection or mitigation. Thus, 

we find that the inadequacy of existing 

mechanisms to regulate mining 

activities on private lands is a threat to 

all populations of E. soredium and L. 

ostleri now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Natural and manmade threats to 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri’s survival include: (1) Small 

population size and (2) climate change 

and drought. 

(1) Small Population Size 

General potential impacts of small 

population sizes to plants are discussed 

above in the Small Population Size 

section under Factor E for Astragalus 

hamiltonii. 

As previously described (see the 

Distribution and Population Status 

section), the entire ranges of both 

species are located in an area of less 

than 5 mi2 (13 km2). Within this range, 

each of the four individual populations’ 

occupied habitat areas are very small, 

ranging from 5 ac (2 ha) to 29 ac (12 ha) 

(based on Miller 2010g, Appendix B). 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri can be dominant in small areas 

of occupied habitat, containing 

thousands of individuals. However, the 

small areas of occupation and the 

narrow overall range of the species 

make it highly susceptible to stochastic 

extinction events and the effects of 

inbreeding depression. 

Despite the overall lack of information 

on the population ecology of Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri, we 

know that small populations 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). We do not have a clear 

understanding of the reproductive 

biology of E. soredium and L. ostleri, but 

recruitment appears to be low or 

episodic for E. soredium (Kass 1992a, p. 

7; Roth 2010a, p. 1). Low levels of 

recruitment in small populations may 

be due to inbreeding depression caused 

by the lack of genetic diversity and low 

levels of genetic exchange between 

populations (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, 

entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, 

p. 275). 

Mining, or a single random event such 

as a wildfire (see Factor A), could 

extirpate an entire or substantial portion 

of a population given the small acreages 

of occupied habitat. Species with 

limited ranges and restricted habitat 

requirements also are more vulnerable 

to the effects of global climate change 

(see the Climate Change and Drought 

section below; IPCC 2002, p. 22; Jump 

and Penuelas 2005, p. 1016; Machinski 

et al. 2006, p. 226; Krause 2010, p. 79). 

Overall, we consider small population 

size an intrinsic vulnerability to 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri that may not rise to the level of 

a threat on its own. However, the small 

population sizes rise to the level of a 

threat because of the combined effects of 

small population sizes, limited 

distribution, and narrow overall range, 

compounded by the effects of global 

climate change (see below) and the 

potential for stochastic extinction events 

such as mining and invasive species 

(see Factor A). Therefore, we consider 

small localized population size, in 

combination with mining, invasive 

species, and climate change, to be a 

threat to both species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

(2) Climate Change and Drought 

Potential impacts of climate change 

and drought to the geographic area are 

characterized under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii. As discussed 

above, Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri have a limited 

distribution and populations are 

localized and small. In addition, these 

populations are restricted to very 

specific soil types. Global climate 

change exacerbates the risk of extinction 

for species that are already vulnerable 

due to low population numbers and 

restricted habitat requirements (see the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10187 

Climate Change and Drought section 

under Factor E for Astragalus 

hamiltonii). 

Predicted changes in climatic 

conditions include increases in 

temperature, decreases in rainfall, and 

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide 

in the American Southwest (Walther et 

al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Karl 

et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have 

no information on how Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri will 

respond to effects related to climate 

change, persistent or prolonged drought 

conditions are likely to reduce the 

frequency and duration of flowering and 

germination events, lower the 

recruitment of individual plants, 

compromise the viability of 

populations, and impact pollinator 

availability (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, 

p. 263; Harrison 2001, p. 78). The 

smallest change in environmental 

factors, especially precipitation, plays a 

decisive role in plant survival in arid 

regions (Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084). 

Drought conditions led to a noticeable 

decline in survival, vigor, and 

reproductive output of other rare and 

endangered plants in the Southwest 

during the drought years of 2001 

through 2004 (Anderton 2002, p. 1; Van 

Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren 

and Harper 2004, entire; Hughes 2005, 

entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 

2008a, entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3–4). 

Similar responses are anticipated to 

adversely affect the long-term 

persistence of E. soredium and L. ostleri. 

Climate change is expected to 

increase levels of carbon dioxide 

(Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, 

p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Elevated 

levels of carbon dioxide lead to 

increased invasive annual plant 

biomass, invasive seed production, and 

pest outbreaks (Smith et al. 2000, pp. 

80–81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et 

al. 2005, p. 1328) and will put 

additional stressors on rare plants 

already suffering from the effects of 

elevated temperatures and drought. 

The actual extent to which climate 

change itself will impact Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri is 

unclear, mostly because we do not have 

long-term demographic information that 

would allow us to predict the species’ 

responses to changes in environmental 

conditions, including prolonged 

drought. Any predictions at this point 

on how climate change would affect 

these species would be speculative. 

However, as previously described, the 

species are threatened by mining 

activities (see Mining, Factor A) which 

will likely result in the loss of large 

numbers of individuals and maybe even 

entire populations. Increased surface 

disturbances associated with mining 

activities also will likely increase the 

extent and densities of nonnative 

invasive species and with it the 

frequencies of fires (see Nonnative 

Invasive Species section under Factor 

A). Given the cumulative effects of the 

potential population reduction and 

habitat loss (of already small 

populations) associated with mining, 

invasive species, and fire, we are 

concerned about the impacts of future 

climate change to Eriogonum soredium 

and Lepidium ostleri. 

In summary, we find it difficult to 

analyze the potential effects of global 

climate change on Eriogonum soredium 

and Lepidium ostleri in the absence of 

demographic trend data for the species 

which would allow us to analyze how 

they respond to climate change over 

time. However, because of the threats of 

mining, nonnative species, and small 

population size, the cumulative effects 

of climate change may be of concern for 

these species in the future. At this time, 

we believe that the state of knowledge 

concerning the localized effects of 

climate change is too speculative to 

determine whether climate change is a 

threat to these species in the foreseeable 

future. However, we will continue to 

assess the potential of climate change to 

threaten the species as better scientific 

information becomes available. 

Summary of Factor E 

We assessed the potential risks of 

small population size, climate change, 

and drought to Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri populations. E. 

soredium and L. ostleri have a highly 

restricted distribution and exist in four 

populations scattered over an area that 

is less than 5 mi2 (13 km2). Individual 

populations occupy very small areas 

with large densities of plants. Even in 

the absence of information on genetic 

diversity, inbreeding depression, and 

reproductive effort, we believe a random 

stochastic event could impact a 

significant portion of a population. 

Small populations that are restricted by 

habitat requirements also are more 

vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change, such as prolonged droughts and 

increased fire frequencies. 

While naturally occurring droughts 

are not likely to impact the long-term 

persistence of the species, an increase in 

periodic prolonged droughts due to 

climate change could impact the species 

across their entire range in the future. 

Global climate change, particularly 

when assessed cumulatively with small 

population sizes and threats from 

mining activities, could increase the 

density of invasive annual plants, which 

are already present in the habitat of 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri (see Factor A). Increased 

nonnative species in the habitat of E. 

soredium and L. ostleri can increase fire 

frequency and severity. Because E. 

soredium and L. ostleri are not likely 

adapted to persist through fires, 

wildfires can have a significant impact 

on these small populations. 

Although small population size and 

climate change make the species 

intrinsically more vulnerable, we are 

uncertain whether they would rise to 

the level of threat by themselves. 

However, when combined with the 

threats listed under Factor A (mining 

and nonnative invasive species), small 

population size is likely to rise to the 

level of threat in the foreseeable future. 

At this time, we are uncertain of the 

degree to which climate change 

constitutes a threat to the species. 

Finding 

As required by the ESA, we 

conducted a review of the status of the 

species and considered the five factors 

in assessing whether Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri are 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of their range. 

We examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by E. soredium and L. 

ostleri. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, and 

other available published and 

unpublished information, and we 

consulted with E. soredium and L. 

ostleri experts and other Federal and 

State agencies. 

This status review identified threats 

to the species attributable to Factors A, 

D, and E. The primary threat to the 

species is habitat destruction from 

precious metal and gravel mining on 

private lands (Factor A). All populations 

are located in the vicinity of historical 

precious metal mining activities, at 

which ongoing exploration activities 

show the potential for continued mining 

activities in the foreseeable future. 

Three of the four populations are in the 

immediate vicinity of limestone 

quarries, all of which are considered 

active. We expect an increase in 

precious metal and limestone mining at 

these locations in the foreseeable future, 

with associated loss and fragmentation 

of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri populations. 

Bromus tectorum occurs within all 

four Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri populations. It is a highly 

invasive nonnative species that spreads 

quickly in response to surface 

disturbances such as mining. As 

previously discussed, both species 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

occur in the immediate vicinity of 

precious metal and limestone mines— 

mines inherently cause surface 

disturbances from excavation activities 

and the construction of roads and other 

infrastructure. Global climate change is 

expected to increase drought conditions 

in the Southwest and increase the 

spread of nonnative invasive species. 

The biggest concern associated with the 

increase in invasive species is the threat 

of increased wildfire (Factor A), 

particularly when considering the small 

population sizes and small occupied 

habitat area associated with these 

species. 

The magnitude of the biological 

threats posed by the species’ small 

population sizes and limited ranges are 

not well understood due to the lack of 

information available on the ecology of 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri. Future studies may provide us 

with a more thorough understanding of 

threats posed by pollinator limitation, 

inbreeding depression, and the potential 

lack of genetic diversity over the 

species’ range. However, the small areas 

of occupied habitat make the species 

highly vulnerable to habitat destruction 

through mining-related activities as well 

as random extinction events, including 

invasive species (and the inherent risk 

of increased fires) and the potential 

future effects of global climate change 

(Factor E). 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

are not adequate to protect Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri from the 

primary threat of mining, particularly 

because both species occur entirely on 

private lands. The inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) on 

private land, combined with the 

economic and commercial value of the 

limestone and precious metals, poses a 

serious threat to the continued existence 

of E. soredium and L. ostleri. Ongoing 

mining in the habitat of E. soredium and 

L. ostleri has the potential to extirpate 

one of the four populations in the near 

future; all populations have the 

potential to be extirpated by miningrelated activities in the foreseeable 

future (Factor A; Table 3). 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri as endangered or threatened is 

warranted. We will make a 

determination on the status of the 

species as endangered or threatened 

when we do a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and progress is 

being made to add or remove qualified 

species from the Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is not warranted at 

this time because there is no emergency 

posing a significant risk to the wellbeing of Eriogonum soredium or 

Lepidium ostleri. We do not believe that 

any of the potential threats are of such 

great immediacy and severity that 

would threaten all of the known 

populations with the imminent risk of 

extinction. However, if at any time we 

determine that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri is warranted, we will initiate this 

action at that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to 

establish a system for utilizing available 

resources for the highest priority species 

when adding species to the Lists of 

Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants or reclassifying species listed as 

threatened to endangered status. These 

guidelines, titled ‘‘Endangered and 

Threatened Species Listing and 

Recovery Priority Guidelines,’’ address 

the immediacy and magnitude of 

threats, as well as the level of taxonomic 

distinctiveness, by assigning priority in 

descending order to monotypic genera 

(genus with one species), full species, 

and subspecies (or equivalently, DPS of 

vertebrates). We assigned Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri each a 

Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 8, 

based on our finding that both species 

face threats of moderate magnitude that 

are imminent. These threats include the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification or curtailment of their 

habitat, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, and other 

manmade factors affecting their 

continued existence. These threats are 

ongoing and, in some cases (such as 

nonnative species), are considered 

irreversible, because, in the case of 

nonnative species invasions, large-scale 

invasions cannot be recovered to a 

native functioning ecosystem. Our 

rationale for assigning E. soredium and 

L. ostleri an LPN of 8 is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, 

the magnitude of threat is the first 

criterion we look at when establishing a 

listing priority. The guidance indicates 

that species with the highest magnitude 

of threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

threats that Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri face to be moderate in 

magnitude because the major threats 

(mining, nonnative species, small 

population size, climate change, and 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms), while serious and 

occurring rangewide, do not collectively 

rise to the level of high magnitude. For 

example, active mining is currently 

impacting only one of the four 

populations. 

The magnitude of Factor A is 

considered moderate, because, although 

we think that all populations have been 

impacted by mining in the past and 

three of the four populations occur in 

the immediate vicinity of gravel pits, 

mining activities are currently ongoing 

in one of these gravel pits. Ongoing 

mining in the habitat of E. soredium and 

L. ostleri is expected to increase the 

density of Bromus tectorum, thereby 

facilitating the spread of fire. B. 

tectorum is currently documented in all 

populations. 

We considered the magnitude of 

Factor D to be moderate. All 

populations are located on private lands 

with patented mining claims, where 

existing regulatory mechanisms are not 

adequate to protect Eriogonum soredium 

and Lepidium ostleri from the impacts 

of mining. All populations have the 

potential to be impacted by gravel and 

precious metal mining in the future; 

however, because only one population 

is currently impacted by gravel mining, 

we consider this threat to be moderate. 

We consider the magnitude of Factor 

E to be moderate, because although 

small population size and climate 

change make the species intrinsically 

more vulnerable, we are uncertain of 

whether they would rise to the level of 

threat by themselves. However, when 

collectively analyzed with the threats 

listed under Factor A, they may rise to 

the level of threat in the foreseeable 

future. Although we are uncertain about 

the direct impacts of global climate 

change on Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri, we expect the species 

to respond negatively to changed 

environmental conditions and drought, 

primarily from an increase in nonnative 

invasive species and wildfire (see Factor 

A). The threats of nonnative invasive 

species and wildfire could result in the 

extirpation of all populations, especially 

because the populations are small in 

size. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10189 

Under our LPN Guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. We 

consider all of the threats to be 

imminent because we have information 

that the threats are identifiable and that 

the species are currently facing them 

across their entire range. These actual, 

identifiable threats are covered in 

greater detail in Factors A, D, and E of 

this finding. The majority of threats are 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent, 

although gravel mining is currently 

impacting only one of the populations. 

In addition to their current existence, 

we expect these threats to continue and 

likely intensify in the foreseeable future. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri are valid 

taxa at the species level and, therefore, 

receive a higher priority than 

subspecies, but a lower priority than 

species in a monotypic genus. 

Therefore, we assigned E. soredium and 

L. ostleri an LPN of 8. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri and the species’ status 

on an annual basis, and should the 

magnitude or the imminence of the 

threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

While we conclude that listing 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri is warranted, an immediate 

proposal to list this species is precluded 

by other higher priority listings, which 

we address in the Preclusion and 

Expeditious Progress section below. 

Because we have assigned Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri an LPN 

of 8, work on a proposed listing 

determination for Eriogonum soredium 

and Lepidium ostleri is precluded by 

work on higher priority listing actions 

with absolute statutory, court-ordered, 

or court-approved deadlines and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. This 

work includes all the actions listed in 

the tables included in the section on 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 

below. 

Species Information—Trifolium 

friscanum 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Trifolium friscanum is a dwarf matforming or tufted perennial herb in the 

legume family (Fabaceae). Plants have a 

taproot and thick woody stem. T. 

friscanum is up to 1.2 in (3 cm) tall and 

has silver hairy leaves composed of 

three leaflets (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 486). 

Its flowers resemble those of other 

clover species and are arranged in heads 

of four to nine reddish-purple flowers 

with pale wings (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 

486). Flowering occurs from late May to 

June, followed by fruit set in June 

through July (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 486). 

Trifolium friscanum was originally 

described by Stanley Welsh as T. 

andersonii var. friscanum from 

specimens collected on Grampian Hill 

in the southern San Francisco 

Mountains in Beaver County, Utah 

(Welsh 1978, p. 355). The variety was 

elevated to species level in 1993 (Welsh 

1993, p. 407). We accept the current 

taxonomy and consider T. friscanum to 

be a valid species and a listable entity 

under the ESA. 

Distribution and Population Status 

Trifolium friscanum is a narrow 

endemic known from five small 

populations containing nine sites on 

private, SITLA, BLM, and USFS lands 

in Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah 

(Figure 4; Table 5; Kass 1992c, pp. 4– 

5; Evenden 1998, pp. 6–7, Appendix C; 

Evenden 1999, pp. 2–3; Miller 2010c, 

pp. 1, 4; Miller 2010e, pers. comm.; 

Roth 2010a, p. 4). Populations are 

defined as groups of sites located in the 

same geographic vicinity. Sites are 

defined as occurrence records or 

locations recorded by one or more 

researcher over time within an 

individual population. Despite 

additional searches in the San Francisco 

Mountains and surrounding areas 

(including the Wah Wah Mountains, the 

Confusion Range, the Mountain Home 

Range, and the Tunnel Springs 

Mountains), no other populations are 

known to occur (Kass 1992c, pp. 4–5; 

Evenden 1998, pp. 6–7, Appendix C; 

Evenden 1999, pp. 2–3; Miller 2010c, 

pp. 1, 4; Miller 2010e, pers. comm.; 

Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

The five populations occur within 

three mountain ranges in southwestern 

Utah (see Figure 4 and Table 5). The two 

largest populations, the Grampian Hill 

and San Francisco Populations, occur 

on the southern tip on the San Francisco 

Mountains in Beaver County. East of the 

San Francisco Mountains are the Beaver 

Lake Mountains, where the Lime 

Mountain Population occurs on Lime 

Mountain. West and south of the San 

Francisco Mountains are the Wah Wah 

Mountains. Along the southeastern edge 

of the Wah Wah Mountains is the 

southernmost population, the Blue 

Mountain population, which occurs 

along the Beaver–Iron County boundary 

line on Blue Mountain. The Tunnel 

Springs Population occurs on Tunnel 

Springs Mountains in Millard County. 

The Tunnel Springs Mountains are west 

and north of the Wah Wah Mountains. 

Two of the five Trifolium friscanum 

populations overlap to some degree 

with the previously described 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri populations. The Grampian Hill 

populations of all three species occur on 

Grampian Hill on the southern tip of the 

San Francisco Mountains in the same 

habitat. The San Francisco population 

of T. friscanum overlaps with the Indian 

Queen populations of E. soredium and 

L. ostleri. The remaining three 

populations of T. friscanum—Blue 

Mountain, Lime Mountain, and Tunnel 

Springs—are located in nearby 

mountain ranges as described above. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF Trifolium friscanum Plants 

(Evenden 1998, Appendix C; Miller 2010a, pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; 2010d, p. 1; Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

Population Land ownership/sites Estimated number of 

Trifolium friscanum plants 

Blue Mountain .................................................................... SITLA (1 site) ................................................................... 250. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4ER23FE11.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10191 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF Trifolium friscanum Plants—Continued 

(Evenden 1998, Appendix C; Miller 2010a, pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; 2010d, p. 1; Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

Population Land ownership/sites Estimated number of 

Trifolium friscanum plants 

Grampian Hill ..................................................................... Private (1 site) .................................................................. Many 1,000s. 

San Francisco .................................................................... BLM (Copper Gulch) (1 site) ............................................ 1,000. 

Private (Cactus Mine) (1 site) .......................................... 300. 

Private (Indian Queen) (1 site) ........................................ 3,000. 

Lime Mountain ................................................................... BLM (1 site) ...................................................................... at least 125. 

Tunnel Springs Mountains ................................................. BLM (1 site) ...................................................................... 500. 

USFS (2 sites)* ................................................................ 2,000. 

ESTIMATED TOTAL .................................................. ........................................................................................... 13,000. 

* Last surveyed in 1992. All other survey data from 2010. 

Trifolium friscanum populations 

extend about 40 mi (64 km) from the 

San Francisco Mountains and stretch 

across 650 mi2 (1,684 km2) (Figure 4). 

Within that area, the five populations 

are scattered in small, disjunct areas of 

occupied habitat (Figure 4; Table 5). 

The majority of plants (71 percent of 

the estimated populations) are located 

in the San Francisco and Grampian Hill 

populations (Miller 2010g, Appendix B). 

Total occupied habitat for these two 

populations (four sites) is approximately 

35 ac (14 ha), each site ranging between 

approximately 1 ac (0.4 ha) and 12 ac 

(5 ha) (Darnall et al. 2010, entire). The 

Blue Mountain population occupies an 

area of approximately 0.33 ac (0.13 ha) 

(Darnall et al. 2010, entire). We do not 

have population estimates for the areas 

of occupied habitat for the Tunnel 

Springs sites (Tunnel Springs 

population) or the Lime Mountain 

population, but we assume the area of 

occupied habitat to be similar to or 

smaller than the San Francisco, 

Grampian Hill, and Blue Mountain 

populations, because these populations 

contain fewer than or similar numbers 

of plants as those estimated for the other 

sites (Table 5). 

The total number of Trifolium 

friscanum individuals in Table 5 was 

derived from observational counts or 

estimates. For the Grampian Hill 

population, the estimate was ‘‘many 

thousands’’ (Miller 2010a, pers. comm.). 

For the purpose of this finding, ‘‘many 

thousands’’ is interpreted as 

approximately 5,000 individuals. Four 

of the 9 sites contain 500 or fewer plants 

(Table 5). 

The population estimates were not 

based on actual counts of plants but on 

cursory observations with inherent 

observer biases. Similar to Eriogonum 

sorenium and Lepidium ostleri, the 

plants grow in dense mat-forming 

clusters, making it difficult to determine 

the number of individuals within a 

cluster. Because individual plants are 

difficult to distinguish, we do not 

believe that the variation in population 

estimates reflects variation in 

population sizes, but is rather an artifact 

in survey effort and methods used. 

Many of the sites occur on private lands 

where access is restricted, so population 

counts are estimated from observations. 

Accordingly, the available population 

estimates are highly variable and 

probably not accurate. During the 1990s, 

population estimates ranged from 3,500 

individuals (Evenden 1998, Appendix 

C) to approximately 6,000 individuals 

(Kass 1992c, p. 8). In 2010, the total 

number of plants was estimated at 

roughly 13,000 (Table 5; Miller 2010a, 

pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; 

Miller 2010d, p. 1; Roth 2010a, p. 4). 

Thus, we do not have accurate 

population estimates or trends for this 

species. 

Habitat 

Trifolium friscanum is a narrow 

endemic restricted to soils derived from 

volcanic gravels, Ordovician limestone, 

and dolomite outcrops. Soils are 

shallow, with gravels, rocks, and 

boulders on the surface (Kass 1992c, 

p. 3; Miller 2010d, p. 1). 

In the southern San Francisco 

Mountains, where the majority of plants 

are located, there are 845 ac (342 ha) of 

Ordovician limestone and 719 ac (291 

ha) of dolomite outcrops (Darnall et al. 

2010, entire). Ordovician limestone is 

rare within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of 

the San Francisco Mountains, but 

dolomite outcrops are common in the 

Wah Wah Mountain Range to the west 

(Miller 2010g, Appendix F). We have no 

information on the extent of volcanic 

gravels in the area. As previously 

described (see Distribution and 

Population Status), we are not aware of 

any additional populations of the 

species, despite additional potentially 

suitable habitats. 

We do not know if there are other 

limiting factors associated with the 

limestone and dolomite formations that 

restrict the habitat use and distribution 

of the species; the species occupies only 

a fraction of the available habitat. The 

two largest populations—Grampian Hill 

and San Francisco—occupy an 

estimated 35 ac (14 ha) (2.3 percent) of 

the available limestone and dolomite 

outcrops (Darnall et al. 2010, entire). We 

do not have occupied habitat area totals 

for the remaining three populations, but 

we believe they are smaller, based on 

field evaluations and the lower number 

of individuals in these populations 

(Kass 1992c, p. 3; Miller 2010d, p. 1; 

Roth 2010a, pp. 1–2). 

Trifolium friscanum is typically 

found within sparsely vegetated pinionjuniper-sagebrush communities between 

5,640 and 8,440 ft (1,720–2,573 m) in 

elevation. Associated species include 

Ephedra spp. (Mormon tea), Gutierrezia 

sarothrae (snakeweed), Cercocarpus 

intricatus (dwarf mountain-mahogany), 

and Petradoria pumila (rock goldenrod). 

Associated rare species in the southern 

San Francisco Mountains include 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri, which generally grow on the 

same substrate in similar but more open 

habitats adjacent to T. friscanum. 

Life History 

No information is available on the life 

history of this species. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors—Trifolium 

friscanum 

In making our 12-month finding on 

the petition, we considered and 

evaluated the best available scientific 

and commercial information pertaining 

to Trifolium friscanum in relation to the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA (see the full description of 

these five factors in the Summary of 

Information Pertaining to the Five 

Factors—Astragalus hamiltonii, above). 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The following factors may affect the 

habitat or range of Trifolium friscanum: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Livestock grazing, (2) recreational 

activities, (3) mining, and (4) nonnative 

invasive species. 

(1) Livestock Grazing 

Potential impacts of livestock grazing 

to plants are discussed above in the 

Livestock Grazing section under Factor 

A for Astragalus hamiltonii. 

All Trifolium friscanum populations 

on BLM lands are located on active 

grazing allotments (Galbraith 2010, pers. 

comm.). Adjacent habitats on SITLA 

and private lands are subject to the same 

grazing practices as the allotted BLM 

land if the habitats are not fenced 

(Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). The 

SITLA and private lands are only 

partially fenced in these areas; thus we 

can assume that grazing occurs. The 

USFS sites of the Tunnel Springs 

population are not grazed (Kitchen 

2010, pers. comm.). 

The Trifolium friscanum population 

on BLM lands in the Tunnel Springs 

Mountains was likely impacted by the 

construction of an allotment boundary 

fence 10 years ago (Evenden 1999, p. 7; 

Roth 2010a, p. 2). The fence runs along 

a ridge and through approximately 500 

ft (150 m) of T. friscanum habitat (Roth 

2010b, p.1). The construction of the 

fence may have impacted approximately 

10 percent of the species’ habitat in the 

area (Roth 2010b, p.1). Livestock and 

wildlife trailing occur along the fence, 

resulting in trampling of individual 

plants and soil compaction (Roth 2010a, 

p. 2). No plants occur within 100 ft (30 

m) of either side of the fence (Roth 

2010a, p. 2). 

Although much of the species’ habitat 

is accessible to livestock, we are not 

aware of any other disturbances or loss 

of plants from grazing (Kass 1992, 

entire; Evenden 1998, entire, Evenden 

1999, entire; Pontarolo 2009, pers. 

comm.; Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 

2010a, p. 3). Available information 

suggests that livestock grazing is not 

occurring at a level that is impacting the 

species (Pontarolo 2009, pers. comm.; 

Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, 

p. 3). Therefore, we have no information 

suggesting that grazing impacts the 

species now or will impact the species 

in the foreseeable future at a level that 

threatens Trifolium friscanum. 

(2) Recreational Activities 

Potential impacts of recreational 

activities to plants are discussed above 

in the Recreational Activities Section, 

Factor A, for Astragalus hamiltonii. 

Because we know that OHV use is 

widespread across the southwestern 

landscape, we analyzed its occurrence 

in Triolium friscanum’s habitat for this 

finding. 

Access to the majority of occupied 

habitat on private lands is closed to all 

vehicles, including OHVs (Miller 2010g, 

p. 5). There are no known impacts of 

OHV use in Trifolium friscanum’s 

occupied habitat on private lands 

(Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, 

pp. 1–2). The OHV use also does not 

appear to impact T. friscanum’s habitat 

on SITLA, BLM, or USFS lands 

(Pontarolo 2009, pers. comm.; 2010, 

pers. comm.; Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; 

Roth 2010a, pp. 1–2). Therefore, we do 

not believe that recreational activities 

threaten T. friscanum now, nor do we 

anticipate that these activities will 

become a threat in the foreseeable 

future. 

(3) Mining 

As previously described (see 

Distribution and Population Status), 

Trifolium friscanum occurs in five 

population areas: Blue Mountain, 

Grampian Hill, San Francisco, Lime 

Mountain, and Tunnel Springs 

Mountains. For purposes of the 

following analysis, it is important to 

note that the Grampian Hill and San 

Francisco populations occur in the 

southern San Francisco Mountains in 

the same vicinity and habitat as 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri. The other three populations are 

located in nearby mountain ranges. 

The San Francisco Mountains have an 

extensive history of mining of precious 

metals and limestone gravel (Table 6; 

Evenden 1998, p. 3). We described this 

mining history, the likelihood of future 

mining activities, and effects to the 

species under Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri, Factor A, Mining. This 

analysis applies to the Grampian Hill 

and San Francisco populations of 

Trifolium friscanum, because the three 

species co-occur (see Distribution and 

Population Status). In addition, we 

evaluated mining activity and its 

impacts to the remaining three 

populations of T. friscanum. 

To review, precious metal mining in 

the southern San Francisco Mountains 

is likely to impact the Grampian Hill 

and San Francisco populations of 

Trifolium friscanum (Table 6). The 

Grampian Hill population is located in 

the area of the King David Mine, which 

is part of the historical Horn Silver 

Mine. The San Francisco population 

(which overlaps the Indian Queen 

population of Eriogonum soredium and 

Lepidium ostleri) is in the vicinity of 

mine shafts near the Cactus Mine, an 

historical copper mine (see E. soredium 

and L. ostleri, Factor A, Mining). 

Although large-scale precious metal 

mining in the area ceased decades ago, 

we believe mining is likely to occur 

again in the foreseeable future due to 

patent rights and ongoing exploration 

for silver, zinc, and copper deposits— 

including recent exploration activities at 

the Horn Silver Mine (see E. soredium 

and L. ostleri, Factor A, Mining). 

Precious metal mining in the vicinity of 

the Grampian Hill and San Francisco 

populations is of concern because these 

populations comprise the species’ 

largest known populations, containing 

the vast majority of known individuals 

(9,300 individuals, or 71 percent of the 

species’ estimated total population) 

(Table 5). 

The Lime Mountain population has 

experienced precious metal mining 

activity in the past (Table 6; Miller 

2010h, pp. 6–7). The last mining activity 

occurred in the early 1980s. We do not 

anticipate additional mining, due to the 

small amounts of minerals that were 

extracted (Miller 2010h, p. 7). We are 

not aware of precious metal mining 

activities in the vicinity of the Blue 

Mountain or Tunnel Springs 

populations. 

TABLE 6—MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HABITAT OF Trifolium friscanum 

Population 

Mining Activity 

Historical Current Future 

Blue Mountain ....................................... gravel quarrying .................................... active ..................... gravel quarrying. 

Grampian Hill ......................................... silver, lead, copper, zinc (Horn Silver 

Mine).

none ...................... silver, lead, copper, zinc, landscape 

gravel quarrying. 

San Francisco ....................................... silver, lead, copper, zinc, gravel quarrying (Cactus Mine).active ..................... silver, lead, copper, zinc, landscape 

gravel quarrying. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10193 

TABLE 6—MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE HABITAT OF Trifolium friscanum—Continued 

Population 

Mining Activity 

Historical Current Future 

Lime Mountain ....................................... silver, lead, copper, zinc, native gold, 

iron (Skylark, Independence & Galena Mines).

none ...................... unknown. 

Tunnel Springs Mountains .................... unknown ................................................ none ...................... unknown. 

Gravel mining is known to occur 

within the range of Trifolium friscanum, 

particularly in the San Francisco 

Mountains and Wah Wah Mountains. 

Impacts to T. friscanum from gravel 

mining in the southern San Francisco 

Mountains is similar to those analyzed 

for Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri, because of their co-occurrence 

(see E. soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A, 

Mining, above). 

Gravel mining in the southern San 

Francisco Mountains is likely to impact 

the San Francisco population of T. 

friscanum and possibly the Grampian 

Hill population (Table 6). We estimate 

that 19 ac (8 ha) of suitable habitat is 

disturbed by gravel mining activities 

near the San Francisco population of 

Trifolium friscanum. Two quarries are 

located within 1,000 ft (300 m) of two 

sites (Cactus Mine and Copper Gulch) of 

the San Francisco population of T. 

friscanum. Based on habitat similarities 

and proximity, we believe the plant may 

have occupied these areas prior to the 

mining activity. Gravel pits in this area 

are considered active because they are 

not reclaimed—given their close 

proximity to known T. friscanum 

plants, these gravel pits could impact 

the remaining occupied habitat of the 

species through additional quarrying 

activities (i.e., removal of the entire 

substrate) or when roads and other 

infrastructure are constructed. The San 

Francisco population currently occupies 

only 15 ac (6 ha) of habitat, distributed 

in three sites (Copper Gulch, Cactus 

Mine, and Indian Queen) (Table 5; 

Darnall et al. 2010, entire). 

Gravel mining also may impact the 

Grampian Hill population of Trifolium 

friscanum in the future. Although gravel 

mining is not actively occurring at 

Grampian Hill, gravel pits exist within 

1 mi (1.6 km) of this T. friscanum 

population—near the Cupric Mine (see 

E. soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A, 

Mining, above). We do not know if 

gravel mining will definitely occur at 

the Grampian Hill population. However, 

mining operations are expected to either 

expand from the vicinity of the Cupric 

Mine or be moved to a new location 

within the species’ habitat in the near 

future (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). Due 

to the limited extent of the Ordovician 

limestone deposits across the landscape 

(see Habitat), it is plausible that mining 

activities could occur at the Grampian 

Hill population. Even if gravel mining 

does not occur at the Grampian Hill 

population, we previously established 

that this population is likely to be 

impacted by precious metal mining. 

A similar overlap in habitat types and 

gravel quarrying (Table 6) occurs for this 

species in the Blue Mountain 

population. The Blue Mountain 

population, which is less than 1 ac (0.4 

ha) in size, is located on SITLA lands 

within a couple hundred feet (meters) of 

a gravel pit (Evenden 1998, p. 9; Roth 

2010a, p. 4). This mine is not reclaimed 

and, therefore, is considered active 

(Darnall et al. 2010, entire). Therefore, 

we assume that continued gravel mining 

will ultimately impact this population if 

it has not already occurred. The need for 

gravel sources is expected to increase, 

because an increasing human 

population growth (U.S. Census Bureau 

2010b, entire; Utah GOPB 2010, p. 48) 

will result in the need for increased 

road construction and maintenance in 

the future. Although the gravel in the 

Blue Mountain is mined for road 

construction projects, the effects 

analysis under E. soredium and L. 

ostleri (see Factor A, Mining) is relevant; 

i.e., mining for gravel will lead to the 

degradation and loss of suitable habitat 

for Trifolium friscanum. 

As previously discussed (see 

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri, Factor A, Mining, above), 

construction sand, gravel, and crushed 

stone together rank as the second most 

valuable commodity produced among 

industrial minerals in Utah (Bon and 

Krahulec 2009, p. 5). Gravel, stone, and 

rock are generally mined for local and 

regional distribution due to the high 

cost of transport. The quarries in the 

San Francisco Mountains are the closest 

crushed limestone quarries to 

Washington County, one of the fastest 

growing counties in Utah (see E. 

soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A). In 

general, there has been a net loss of 

local sand and gravel supply pits in the 

Washington County area due to ongoing 

urban development and the lack of 

available gravel pit operations on 

surrounding Federal lands (Blackett and 

Tripp 1999, p. 33). Thus, the Blue 

Mountain population area could become 

a primary source of gravel for 

Washington County and other nearby 

communities, especially because the 

pit’s location on SITLA lands limits the 

need for environmental regulations. 

Overall, it is likely that an increasing 

human population growth in 

Washington County (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010b, entire; Utah GOPB 2010, 

p. 48) will result in an increased 

demand for the limestone and gravel 

resources at and nearby known 

populations of T. friscanum. 

To summarize, mining throughout 

large portions of Trifolium friscanum’s 

range has impacted available habitat. 

Three of the five known populations are 

located at historical precious metal 

mines or gravel mines on private and 

SITLA lands (Table 5; Table 6; see 

Factor D). Two of these populations 

(San Francisco and Grampian Hill) 

comprise the vast majority (71 percent) 

of the known estimated population of 

T. friscanum (Table 5). Precious metal 

mining is likely to impact populations 

of T. friscanum in the foreseeable future, 

particularly in the vicinity of the large 

Grampian Hill and San Francisco 

populations. Gravel mining is expected 

to increase in the future in response to 

increased population growth and 

limited availability of active gravel pits 

in nearby Washington County (see E. 

soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A). 

Available information suggests that 

three of five populations will be 

significantly impacted by either 

precious metal or gravel mining in the 

foreseeable future (see E. soredium and 

L. ostleri, Factor A, Mining). Therefore, 

we have determined that mining is a 

threat to T. friscanum now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

(4) Nonnative Invasive Species 

Potential impacts of nonnative 

invasive species to native plants and 

their habitat are discussed above in 

Astragalus hamiltonii, Factor A, 

Nonnative Invasive Species. The annual 

nonnative invasive grass, Bromus 

tectorum, is considered the most 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ubiquitous invasive species in the 

Intermountain West due to its ability to 

rapidly invade native dryland 

ecosystems and outcompete native plant 

species (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack and 

Pyke 1983, p. 88; Thill et al. 

1984, p. 10). 

Bromus tectorum occurs in the habitat 

and vicinity of the Grampian Hill and 

San Francisco Trifolium friscanum 

populations, which also is where the 

majority of plants occur (Table 5; Miller 

2010c, pp. 2–5; Roth 2010a, p. 1). We do 

not know whether B. tectorum occurs in 

the other three populations, but given 

the ubiquitous distribution of B. 

tectorum in the Intermountain West, we 

expect it occurs in the vicinity of all 

populations (Novack and Mack, 2001, 

p. 115). 

Surface disturbances increase the 

occurrence and densities of B. tectorum 

(see Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium 

ostleri, Factor A, Nonnative Invasive 

Species; Mack 1981, p. 145). As 

previously described, increased mining 

activities and associated surface 

disturbances are expected to occur in 

and adjacent to the occupied habitat for 

T. friscanum in the San Francisco and 

Blue Mountains (see Mining, above), 

consequently encouraging B. tectorum 

to expand into the species’ habitat. 

Invasions of annual nonnative 

species, such as Bromus tectorum, are 

well documented to contribute to 

increased fire frequencies (Brooks and 

Pyke 2002, p. 5; Grace et al. 2002, p. 43; 

Brooks et al. 2003, pp. 4, 13, 15). The 

risk of fire is expected to increase from 

46 to 100 percent when the cover of 

B. tectorum increases from 12 to 45 

percent or more (Link et al. 2006, p. 

116). In the absence of exotic species, it 

is generally estimated that fire return 

intervals in xeric sagebrush 

communities range from 100 to 350 

years (Baker 2006, p. 181). In some areas 

of the Great Basin (Snake River Plain), 

fire return intervals due to B. tectorum 

invasion are now between 3 and 5 years 

(Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Most plant 

species occurring within a sagebrush 

ecosystem are not expected to be 

adapted to frequent fires, as evidenced 

in the lack of evolutionary adaptations 

found in other shrub-dominated fireadapted ecosystems like chaparral. 

Examples of such adaptation would 

include re-sprouting and heatstimulated seed germination (Baker, in 

press, p. 17). 

In the absence of annual nonnative 

species, T. friscanum grows in sparsely 

vegetated communities that are unlikely 

to carry fires (see Habitat section). Thus, 

T. friscanum is unlikely to be adapted 

to fire and, therefore, unlikely to persist 

through a fire. Therefore, the potential 

expansion of invasive species and 

associated fire is a threat to the species, 

especially when considering the limited 

distribution of the species and the high 

potential of stochastic extinctions (as 

discussed in the Small Population Size, 

Factor E, below). As described in the 

Distribution section, the majority of 

plants are located within the Grampian 

Hill and San Francisco populations, 

where occurrences of B. tectorum are 

documented. Occupied habitat in these 

populations ranges from 1 to 12 ac (0.4 

to 5 ha). 

In summary, Bromus tectorum occurs 

in the two largest Trifolium friscanum 

populations (Grampian Hill and San 

Francisco populations, Table 5). Given 

the ability of B. tectorum to rapidly 

invade dryland ecosystems (Mack 1981, 

p. 145; Mack and Pyke, 1983, p. 88; 

Thill et al. 1984, p. 10), we expect it to 

increase in the future in response to 

surface disturbance from increased 

mining activities and global climate 

change (see the Climate Change and 

Drought section under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii). An increase in 

nonnative species is expected to 

increase the frequency of fires in 

T. friscanum’s habitat. Therefore, we 

determine that nonnative invasive 

species are a threat to two of five 

populations of T. frsicanum and the 

majority of individuals now, and may 

impact all populations in the 

foreseeable future when evaluated 

cumulatively with mining activities 

(and associated surface disturbances), 

climate change, and fire. 

Summary of Factor A 

At this time, based on best available 

information, we do not believe that 

grazing or recreational activities 

significantly threaten Trifolium 

friscanum now or in the foreseeable 

future. However, we determine that 

mining and nonnative invasive species 

are threats to T. friscanum. 

Mining activities impacted Trifolium 

friscanum habitat in the past and 

continue to be a threat to the species 

and its habitat throughout large portions 

of its range. Two of the five populations 

and the majority of individuals are 

located on lands with an extensive 

history of precious metal mining; 

ongoing exploration activities indicate 

that precious metal mining is likely to 

threaten the species in the foreseeable 

future. The main threat to the majority 

of T. friscanum plants is gravel mining 

(Table 6). Three of the five populations 

are located in the vicinity of gravel pits 

that are mined for road and landscaping 

gravel. The three populations located in 

the vicinity of gravel mines contain the 

majority of plants and may be mined for 

gravel in the future (Table 6). We 

anticipate an increase in the demand for 

precious metals and landscape rock 

based on the economic outlook for these 

commodities, regional availability, and 

the proximity of these gravel mines to 

a rapidly expanding urban area and, 

therefore, an increase in impacts to T. 

friscanum. 

Bromus tectorum is documented to 

occur in the two largest of the five 

populations of Trifolium friscanum. The 

threat of fire caused by annual 

nonnative species invasions is 

exacerbated by mining activities and 

global climate change (see the Climate 

Change and Drought section under 

Factor E). Small population sizes and 

extremely limited distribution of this 

species make it especially vulnerable to 

stochastic extinction events, including 

mining activities and wildfires caused 

by increased invasions of nonnative 

species (see the Small Population Size 

section under Factor E). 

Therefore, we find that Trifolium 

friscanum is threatened by the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range, now and in the foreseeable 

future, based on impacts from mining 

activities and nonnative invasive 

species. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Trifolium friscanum is not a plant of 

horticultural interest. We are not aware 

of any overutilization or collection of T. 

friscanum. Therefore, overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes does not appear to 

pose a significant threat to the species 

now nor is it likely to become a threat 

in the foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease and herbivory on the species 

are unknown. We do not have any 

information indicating that disease is 

impacting Trifolium friscanum. We also 

do not have any information indicating 

that herbivory is occurring from 

livestock (see the Livestock Grazing 

section under Factor A), wildlife, or 

insects (Kass 1992c, p. 10; Evenden 

1998, entire; Evenden 1999, entire; 

Miller 2010a, p. 1; Miller 2010c, entire; 

Roth 2010a, entire). Thus, we do not 

consider disease or predation to be 

threats to this species. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no endangered species laws 

protecting plants on private, State, or 

Tribal lands in Utah. The majority of 

individual plants are located on SITLA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10195 

or private lands (Table 5). Trifolium 

friscanum is listed as a bureau-sensitive 

plant for the BLM. Limited policy-level 

protection by the BLM is afforded 

through the Special Status Species 

Management Policy Manual # 6840, 

which forms the basis for special status 

species management on BLM lands 

(BLM 2008e, entire). The two sites on 

USFS lands are located within the 

Desert Experimental Range in the 

Tunnel Springs Mountains (Tunnel 

Springs population) and appear to be 

secure, although the population has not 

been visited since 1992 (Kass 1992c, p. 

11; Evenden 1998, Appendix C; 

Evenden 1999, p. 3). 

This species is predominantly located 

on private or SITLA lands (Table 5), 

where it is threatened by mining-related 

activities (see Factor A). There are 

limited regulatory mechanisms in place 

that may protect Trifolium friscanum 

from mining on private or State lands. 

As described under Eriogonum 

soredium and Lepidium ostleri, Factor 

D, State environmental impact 

assessments are required for large 

mining operations for all mineral 

exploration, development, and 

extraction, including gravel pits and 

precious metal mining (UDOGM 2010b, 

p.1; Baker 2010, pers. comm.). T. 

friscanum is not State listed, but it is on 

the BLM sensitive species list. If 

UDOGM is made aware of impacts to 

these species, they could consider 

minimizing and mitigating impacts; 

however, there is no requirement to 

address species that are not federally 

listed in the mine permitting process 

(Baker 2010, pers. comm.). 

The existing mining activities (see 

Factor A, Mining) are under the 5-ac (2- 

ha) regulatory threshold and, therefore, 

not subject to permitting laws (Munson 

2010, pers. comm.). A few of the gravel 

mine pits almost exceed the 5-ac (2-ha) 

limit, and the operators may need to 

apply for permits (Munson 2010, pers. 

comm.); however, they also could 

choose to begin new gravel pits, or 

reclaim portions of the existing pits to 

remain below the 5-ac (2-ha) limit 

(Munson 2010, pers. comm.). 

In summary, the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are not adequate to protect 

T. friscanum from becoming threatened 

or endangered by precious metal or 

gravel mining on SITLA and private 

lands. The active gravel pits are below 

the 5-ac (2-ha) threshold that would 

automatically trigger regulatory 

environmental impact assessments. 

Even if an environmental impact 

assessment is completed for any of the 

mines, the existing mining laws only 

recommend, and do not mandate, the 

species’ protection or mitigation. Thus, 

we find that the inadequacy of existing 

mechanisms to regulate mining 

activities on private and State lands is 

a threat to three of five populations and 

the majority of individuals, and thus to 

T. friscanum now and into the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Natural and manmade threats to 

Trifolium friscanum’s survival include: 

(1) Small population size and (2) 

climate change and drought. 

(1) Small Population Size 

General potential impacts of small 

population sizes in plants are discussed 

above in the Small Population Size 

section under Factor E for Astragalus 

hamiltonii. 

As previously discussed (see 

Distribution and Population Status, 

above), the entire species’ range is 

restricted to highly specialized habitat 

niches, distributed in 5 populations 

(and 9 sites) with a total population 

estimate of 13,000 plants. Four of the 9 

sites contain 500 or fewer individuals 

(Table 5). Only a fraction of the entire 

species’ range is occupied habitat. The 

majority of plants are located in two 

populations containing four sites of 

occupied habitat, ranging from an 

estimated 1 ac (0.4 ha) to a maximum 

of 12 ac (5 ha) (Darnall et al. 2010, 

entire; Miller 2010g, Appendix B). 

Despite the overall lack of information 

on the population ecology of Trifolium 

friscanum, we know that small 

populations 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). No information is available on 

the population genetics, pollination, or 

reproductive effort and success of T. 

friscanum. However, the small areas of 

occupation and the narrow overall range 

of the species make it highly susceptible 

to stochastic extinction events and the 

effects of inbreeding depression. 

Mining or a single random event, such 

as a wildfire from invasive species (see 

Factor A, Nonnative Invasive Species), 

could extirpate an entire or at least a 

substantial portion of a population, 

given the small areas of occupied 

habitat. Species with limited ranges and 

restricted habitat requirements also are 

more vulnerable to the effects of global 

climate change (see Climate Change and 

Drought, below) (IPCC 2002, p. 22; Jump 

and Penuelas 2005, p. 1016; Machinski 

et al. 2006, p. 226; Krause 2010, p. 79). 

Overall, we consider small population 

size an intrinsic vulnerability to 

Trifolium friscanum, which may not 

rise to the level of a threat on its own. 

However, the small population sizes rise 

to the level of a threat because of the 

combined effects of having only five 

highly localized small populations with 

the effects of global climate change (see 

below) and the potential for stochastic 

extinction events such as mining, and 

fire induced by invasive species (see 

Factor A). Therefore, we consider small 

localized population size, in 

combination with mining, invasive 

species, and climate change, to be a 

threat to the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

(2) Climate Change and Drought 

Potential impacts of climate change 

and drought to the geographic area are 

characterized in the Climate Change and 

Drought section under Factor E for 

Astragalus hamiltonii. As discussed in 

the Small Population Size section 

above, Trifolium friscanum has a 

limited distribution and populations are 

localized and small. In addition, these 

populations are restricted to very 

specific soil types. Global climate 

change exacerbates the risk of extinction 

for species that are already vulnerable 

due to low population numbers and 

restricted habitat requirements (see 

Climate Change and Drought, Factor E 

for Astragalus hamiltonii, above). 

Predicted changes in climatic 

conditions include increases in 

temperature, decreases in rainfall, and 

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide 

in the American Southwest (Walther et 

al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Karl 

et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have 

no information on how Trifolium 

friscanum will respond to effects related 

to climate change, persistent or 

prolonged drought conditions are likely 

to reduce the frequency and duration of 

flowering and germination events, lower 

the recruitment of individual plants, 

compromise the viability of 

populations, and impact pollinator 

availability (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, 

p. 263; Harrison 2001, p. 78). The 

smallest change in environmental 

factors, especially precipitation, plays a 

decisive role in plant survival in arid 

regions (Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084). 

Drought conditions led to a noticeable 

decline in survival, vigor, and 

reproductive output of other rare and 

endangered plants in the Southwest 

during the drought years of 2001 

through 2004 (Anderton 2002, p. 1; Van 

Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren 

and Harper 2004, entire; Hughes 2005, 

entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 

2008a, entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3–4). 

Similar responses are anticipated to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

adversely affect the long-term 

persistence of T. friscanum. 

Climate change is expected to 

increase levels of carbon dioxide 

(Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, 

p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Elevated 

levels of carbon dioxide lead to 

increased invasive annual plant 

biomass, invasive seed production, and 

pest outbreaks (Smith et al. 2000, p. 80– 

81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et al. 

2005, p. 1328), and will put additional 

stressors on rare plants already suffering 

from the effects of elevated temperatures 

and drought. 

The actual extent to which climate 

change itself will impact Trifolium 

friscanum is unclear, mostly because we 

do not have long-term demographic 

information that allows us to predict the 

species’ response to changes in 

environmental conditions, including 

prolonged drought. However, as 

previously described, the species is 

threatened by mining activities (see 

Mining, Factor A, above), which will 

likely result in the loss of large numbers 

of individuals or even entire 

populations. Increased surface 

disturbances associated with mining 

activities also will likely increase the 

extent and densities of nonnative 

invasive species and, with these, the 

frequencies of fires (see Nonnative 

Invasive Species, Factor A, above). The 

cumulative effects of the potential 

reduction in population numbers and 

habitat loss (of already small 

populations) associated with mining 

and increased invasive species (and fire) 

are likely to increase the risk of the 

species being impacted by changes in 

climate. 

In summary, we find it difficult to 

analyze the potential effects of global 

climate change on Trifolium friscanum 

in the absence of demographic trend 

data for the species which would allow 

us to analyze how the species responds 

to climate change through time. 

However, the cumulative effects posed 

by the threats of mining, nonnative 

species and small population size may 

exacerbate the effects of climate change 

on T. friscanum in the future. However, 

at this time, we believe that the state of 

knowledge concerning the localized 

effects of climate change within the 

habitat occupied by T. friscanum is too 

speculative to determine whether 

climate change is a threat to this species 

in the foreseeable future. We will 

continue to assess the potential of 

climate change to threaten the species as 

better scientific information becomes 

available. 

Summary of Factor E 

We assessed the potential risks of 

small population size, climate change, 

and drought to Trifolium friscanum 

populations. T. friscanum has a highly 

restricted distribution and is known 

from five small, localized populations. 

Even in the absence of information on 

genetic diversity, inbreeding depression, 

and reproductive effort, a random 

stochastic event could impact a 

significant portion of a population. 

Small populations that are restricted by 

habitat requirements are also more 

vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change, such as prolonged droughts and 

increased fire frequencies. 

While naturally occurring droughts 

are not likely to impact the long-term 

persistence of the species, an increase in 

periodic prolonged droughts due to 

climate change is likely to impact the 

species across its entire range in the 

future. Global climate change, 

particularly when assessed 

cumulatively with small population size 

and threats from mining activities, is 

expected to increase the density of 

invasive annual grasses, which are 

already present in the habitat of 

Trifolium friscanum within the 

populations that contain the majority of 

the plants (see Factor A). Increased 

nonnative species in the habitat of 

T. friscanum can increase fire frequency 

and severity. Because T. friscanum is 

not likely adapted to persist through 

fires, wildfires can have a significant 

impact on these small populations. 

Although small population size and 

climate change make the species 

intrinsically more vulnerable, we are 

uncertain whether they would rise to 

the level of threat by themselves. 

However, when combined with the 

threats listed under Factor A, we believe 

that small population size is likely to 

rise to the level of threat in the 

foreseeable future. At this time, we are 

uncertain of the degree to which climate 

change constitutes a threat to the 

species. 

Finding 

As required by the ESA, we 

conducted a review of the status of the 

species and considered the five factors 

in assessing whether Trifolium 

friscanum is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. We examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by T. friscanum. 

We reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, as well as other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

species experts and other Federal and 

State agencies. 

This status review identified threats 

to the species attributable to Factors A, 

D, and E. The primary threat to the 

species is habitat destruction from 

precious metal and gravel mining on 

private and SITLA lands (Factor A). The 

largest populations containing the 

majority of Trifolium friscanum plants 

are located on private lands with active 

mining claims. These populations were 

likely impacted by historical precious 

metal mining. Another population is 

located on SITLA lands in the 

immediate vicinity of a gravel pit. We 

expect an increase in precious metal 

and gravel mining in the foreseeable 

future, with the associated loss and 

fragmentation of T. friscanum 

populations. 

Bromus tectorum occurs in the 

vicinity of the two largest populations of 

the five known Trifolium friscanum 

populations. It is a highly invasive 

species and is expected to increase in 

areas where surface disturbance such as 

mining occurs. As previously discussed, 

the species occurs in the vicinity of 

gravel and precious metal mines. Mines 

inherently cause surface disturbances 

from excavation activities and the 

construction of roads and other 

infrastructure. Global climate change is 

expected to increase drought conditions 

in the Southwest and increase the 

spread of nonnative invasive species. 

The biggest concern associated with the 

increase in invasive species is the threat 

of increased wildfire (Factor A), 

particularly when considering the small 

population sizes and small occupied 

habitat acreages associated with the 

species. 

The magnitude of the biological 

threats posed by the small population 

size and limited species range are not 

well understood due to the lack of 

information available on the ecology of 

Trifolium friscanum. Future studies 

may provide us with a more thorough 

understanding of threats posed by 

pollinator limitation, inbreeding 

depression, and the potential lack of 

genetic diversity over the species’ range. 

Even without detailed knowledge on 

how small population sizes are 

impacting the biology and ecology of 

T. friscanum, the small areas of 

occupied habitat make the species 

highly vulnerable to habitat destruction 

through mining-related activities as well 

as random extinction events, including 

fires and the effects of global climate 

change (Factor E). 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

are not adequate to protect Trifolium 

friscanum from the primary threat of 

mining, particularly because the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10197 

majority of individuals are located on 

private lands (Factor D). The 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) on private and State lands, 

combined with the high economic and 

commercial value of much of the 

substrate this species depends on, poses 

a serious threat to T. friscanum. A large 

portion of the species’ individuals have 

the potential to be extirpated by mining 

activities in the foreseeable future 

(Factor A; Table 6). Ongoing mining in 

the habitat of T. friscanum has the 

potential to extirpate three of the five 

populations in the foreseeable future, 

two of which contain the majority of 

plants (Factor A, Table 5). 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list 

Trifolium friscanum as endangered or 

threatened is warranted. We will make 

a determination on the status of the 

species as endangered or threatened 

when we do a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and progress is 

being made to add or remove qualified 

species from the Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is not warranted at 

this time because there is no emergency 

posing a significant risk to the well 

being of Trifolium friscanum. We do not 

believe that any of the potential threats 

are of such great immediacy and 

severity that would threaten all of the 

known populations with the imminent 

risk of extinction. However, if at any 

time we determine that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing Trifolium friscanum is 

warranted, we will initiate this action at 

that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

Pursuant to our guidelines, titled 

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Species 

Listing and Recovery Priority 

Guidelines’’ (described above), we have 

assigned Trifolium friscanum a Listing 

Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based on 

our finding that the species faces threats 

that are of moderate magnitude and are 

imminent. These threats include the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, and other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. These threats are 

ongoing and, in some cases (such as 

nonnative species), are considered 

irreversible because large-scale 

invasions cannot be recovered to a 

native functioning ecosystem. Our 

rationale for assigning T. friscanum an 

LPN of 8 is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s LPN guidance, 

the magnitude of threat is the first 

criterion we look at when establishing a 

listing priority. The guidance indicates 

that species with the highest magnitude 

of threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

magnitude of Factor A moderate. While 

current mining activities are ongoing in 

the habitat of T. friscanum, they are not 

ongoing in the immediate vicinity of 

any of the populations. Mining in the 

habitat of these populations is expected 

to increase the density of B. tectorum, 

thereby facilitating the spread of fire. B. 

tectorum occurs in two of the five 

populations, which also contain the 

largest number of individuals. We have 

no documentation on the density of B. 

tectorum within these populations but 

we are expecting it to increase in the 

future. 

We consider the magnitude of Factor 

D to be moderate. Three of the five 

populations are located on private or 

SITLA lands. The majority of 

individuals are located on private lands 

with active patented mining claims. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms do not 

adequately protect Trifolium friscanum 

from the impacts of mining on private 

lands. The majority of individuals (3 

populations) have the potential to be 

impacted by mining in the future. 

However, because none of the 

populations are directly impacted by 

current mining levels on SITLA or 

private lands, we consider threats under 

Factor D to be moderate at this time. 

We consider the magnitude of Factor 

E moderate, because, although small 

population size and climate change 

make the species intrinsically more 

vulnerable, we are uncertain of whether 

they would rise to the level of threat by 

themselves. However, when collectively 

analyzed with the threats listed under 

Factor A, they may rise to the level of 

threat in the foreseeable future. 

Although we are uncertain about the 

direct impacts of global climate change 

on Trifolium friscanum, we expect the 

species to respond negatively to 

changed environmental conditions and 

drought, especially when combined 

with the effects of small population size 

and the threat of increased mining 

activities. 

Therefore, we consider the threats 

that Trifolium friscanum faces to be 

moderate in magnitude because the 

major threats (mining, nonnative 

invasive species, small population size, 

plus inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms), while serious and 

occurring rangewide, do not collectively 

rise to the level of high magnitude. 

Under our LPN guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or those that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. We 

consider all of the threats to be 

imminent because we have factual 

information that the threats are 

identifiable and that the species is 

currently facing them in many portions 

of its range. These actual, identifiable 

threats are covered in greater detail in 

Factors A, D, and E of this finding. The 

majority of threats are ongoing and, 

therefore, imminent, although mining is 

currently ongoing in the habitat of only 

one of the populations. In addition to 

their current existence, we expect these 

threats, except for inadequate 

regulations, to continue and likely 

intensify in the foreseeable future. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. Trifolium 

friscanum is a valid taxon at the species 

level and, therefore, receives a higher 

priority than subspecies, but a lower 

priority than species in a monotypic 

genus. Therefore, we assigned T. 

friscanum an LPN of 8. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Trifolium friscanum and the 

species’ status on an annual basis, and, 

should the magnitude or the imminence 

of the threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

While we conclude that listing 

Trifolium friscanum is warranted, an 

immediate proposal to list this species 

is precluded by other higher priority 

listings, which we address in the 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

section below. Because we have 

assigned T. friscanum an LPN of 8, work 

on a proposed listing determination for 

T. friscanum is precluded by work on 

higher priority listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court-ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

funds from FY 2010. This work includes 

all the actions listed in the tables below 

under expeditious progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year, multiple 

factors dictate whether it will be 

possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Services’ Listing Program is available to 

support work involving the following 

listing actions: Proposed and final 

listing rules; 90-day and 12-month 

findings on petitions to add species to 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change 

the status of a species from threatened 

to endangered; annual determinations 

on prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ 

petition findings as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical 

habitat petition findings; proposed and 

final rules designating critical habitat; 

and litigation-related, administrative, 

and program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). 

The work involved in preparing 

various listing documents can be 

extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. For example, during the 

past several years the cost (excluding 

publication costs) for preparing a 

12-month finding, without a proposed 

rule, has ranged from approximately 

$11,000 for one species with a restricted 

range and involving a relatively 

uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for 

another species that is wide ranging and 

involving a complex analysis. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each FY 

since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that FY. This cap 

was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the ESA (for example, recovery funds 

for removing species from the Lists), or 

for other Service programs, from being 

used for Listing Program actions (see 

House Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 

1st Session, July 1, 1997). 

Recognizing that designation of 

critical habitat for species already listed 

would consume most of the overall 

Listing Program appropriation, Congress 

also put a critical habitat subcap in 

place in FY 2002 and has retained it 

each subsequent year to ensure that 

some funds are available for other work 

in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical 

habitat designation subcap will ensure 

that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already listed species, set the limits on 

our petition finding determinations. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 

12-month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states (in a 

discussion on 90-day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 

12-month findings) that the deadlines 

were ‘‘not intended to allow the 

Secretary to delay commencing the 

rulemaking process for any reason other 

than that the existence of pending or 

imminent proposals to list species 

subject to a greater degree of threat 

would make allocation of resources to 

such a petition [that is, for a lowerranking species] unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

achieved with $10,471,000, which is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However, these funds 

are not enough to fully fund all our 

court-ordered and statutory listing 

actions in FY 2010, so we are using 

$1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap 

funds in order to work on all of our 

required petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. 

Starting in FY 2010, we also are using 

our funds to work on listing actions for 

foreign species, because that work was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program, to the Endangered 

Species Program. Our process is to make 

our determinations of preclusion on a 

nationwide basis to ensure that the 

species most in need of listing will be 

addressed first and also because we 

allocate our listing budget on a 

nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 is 

being used to fund work in the 

following categories: Compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the ESA) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. The allocations for 

each specific listing action are identified 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10199 

in the Service’s FY 2010 Allocation 

Table (part of our administrative 

record). 

In FY 2007, we had more than 120 

species with an LPN of 2, based on our 

September 21, 1983, guidance for 

assigning an LPN for each candidate 

species (48 FR 43098). Using this 

guidance, we assign each candidate an 

LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats (high vs. moderate 

to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 

or nonimminent), and taxonomic status 

of the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, DPS, or 

significant portion of the range)). The 

lower the listing priority number, the 

higher the listing priority (that is, a 

species with an LPN of 1 would have 

the highest listing priority). Because of 

the large number of high-priority 

species, we further ranked the candidate 

species with an LPN of 2 by using the 

following extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, comprised a group of 

approximately 40 candidate species 

(‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate species 

have had the highest priority to receive 

funding to work on a proposed listing 

determination. As we work on proposed 

and final listing rules for these 40 

candidates, we are applying the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for these species in the next several 

years, we are preparing multi-species 

proposals when appropriate, and these 

may include species with lower priority 

if they overlap geographically or have 

the same threats as a species with an 

LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 

resources also are a factor in 

determining high-priority species 

provided with funding. Finally, 

proposed rules for reclassification of 

threatened species to endangered are 

lower priority, since as listed species, 

they are already afforded the protection 

of the ESA and implementing 

regulations. 

We assigned Eriogonum soredium, 

Lepidium ostleri and Trifolium 

friscanum an LPN of 8. This is based on 

our finding that the species face 

immediate and moderate magnitude 

threats from the present or threatened 

destruction, modification or curtailment 

of its habitat; the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and other 

natural or man-made factors affecting 

their continued existence. These threats 

are ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., 

nonnative species), considered 

irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, 

a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent moderatemagnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 

7, 8, or 9 depending on its taxonomic 

status. Because E. soredium, L. ostleri 

and T. friscanum are species, we 

assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore, 

work on a proposed listing 

determination for E. soredium, L. ostleri 

and T. friscanum is precluded by work 

on higher priority candidate species 

(i.e., species with LPN of 7); listing 

actions with absolute statutory, court 

ordered, or court-approved deadlines; 

and final listing determinations for 

those species that were proposed for 

listing with funds from previous FYs. 

This work includes all the actions listed 

in the tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

also must demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we also are making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the Lists under the 

Recovery program, which is funded by 

a separate line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we are making 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions Federal Register 

pages 

10/08/2009 ........ Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range.Final Listing, Threatened ............ 74 FR 52013–52064. 

10/27/2009 ........ 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the 

Black Hills of SD as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.74 FR 55177–55180. 

10/28/2009 ........ Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the 

Upper Missouri River System.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review.74 FR 55524–55525. 

11/03/2009 ........ Listing the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the ESA: Proposed rule.Proposed Listing Threatened ..... 74 FR 56757–56770. 

11/03/2009 ........ Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout 

Its Range with Special Rule.

Proposed Listing Threatened ..... 74 FR 56770–56791. 

11/23/2009 ........ Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review.74 FR 61100–61102. 

12/03/2009 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.74 FR 63343–63366. 

12/03/2009 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.74 FR 63337–63343. 

12/15/2009 ........ 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels 

From TX as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.74 FR 66260–66271. 

12/16/2009 ........ Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the 

Southwestern U.S. as Threatened or Endangered With Critical 

Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial & Substantial.74 FR 66865–66905. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions Federal Register 

pages 

12/17/2009 ........ 12-month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the 

DPS of the Canada Lynx To Include NM.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.74 FR 66937–66950. 

01/05/2010 ........ Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru & Bolivia as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range.

Proposed Listing, Endangered ... 75 FR 605–649. 

01/05/2010 ........ Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing, Endangered ... 75 FR 286–310. 

01/05/2010 ........ Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel ........................ Proposed rule, withdrawal .......... 75 FR 310–316. 

01/05/2010 ........ Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel & Heinroth’s Shearwater 

as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges.

Final Listing, Threatened ............ 75 FR 235–250. 

01/20/2010 ........ Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana & Solanum 

conocarpum.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review.75 FR 3190–3191. 

02/09/2010 ........ 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 6437–6471. 

02/25/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered DPS.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 8601–8621. 

02/25/2010 ........ Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to 

List.

75 FR 8621–8644. 

03/18/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander 

as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 13068–13071. 

03/23/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut 

Mussel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 13717–13720. 

03/23/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 13720–13726. 

03/23/2010 ........ 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 13910–14014. 

03/31/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed 

Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 16050–16065. 

04/05/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 

as or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 17062–17070. 

04/06/2010 ........ 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in 

the Big Lost River, ID, as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 17352–17363. 

04/06/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) 

and a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered 

with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.75 FR 17363–17367. 

04/07/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt 

From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.75 FR 17667–17680. 

04/13/2010 ........ Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai & 

Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing, Endangered .......... 75 FR 18959–19165. 

04/15/2010 ........ Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the 

Contiguous U.S. 

Notice of Initiation of Status Review.75 FR 19591–19592. 

04/15/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 19592–19607. 

04/16/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a DPS of the Fisher in Its 

U.S. Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or 

Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 19925–19935. 

04/20/2010 ........ Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys 

macrolepidotus).

Notice of Initiation of Status Review.75 FR 20547–20548. 

04/26/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 21568–21571. 

04/27/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making 

Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 22012–22025. 

04/27/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel 

as Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 22063–22070. 

05/04/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 23654–23663. 

06/01/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila var. 

ozarkensis.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 30313–30318. 

06/01/2010 ........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie 

Dog as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.75 FR 30338–30363. 

06/09/2010 ........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s Gull-billed 

Tern as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.75 FR 32728–32734. 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 but have not yet 

been completed to date. These actions 

are listed below. Actions in the top 

section of the table are being conducted 

under a deadline set by a court. Actions 

in the middle section of the table are 

being conducted to meet statutory 

timelines, that is, timelines required 

under the ESA. Actions in the bottom 

section of the table are high-priority 

listing actions. These actions include 

work primarily on species with an LPN 

of 2, and selection of these species is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10201 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement: 

6 Birds from Eurasia .............................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Flat-tailed horned lizard ......................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Mountain plover ..................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru .................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing determination. 

Sacramento splittail ............................................................................................................................... Proposed listing determination. 

Gunnison sage-grouse .......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Wolverine ............................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Montana Arctic grayling ......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Agave eggersiana .................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Solanum conocarpum ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Mountain plover ..................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly ................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Hermes copper butterfly ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Actions With Statutory Deadlines: 

Casey’s june beetle ............................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail .................................................................. Final listing determination. 

2 Hawaiian damselflies .......................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

African penguin ...................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest thrush) ........................ Final listing determination. 

5 Penguin species ................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ............................................................. Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ......................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

7 Bird species from Brazil ..................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk ..................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ...................................................................................................................... Proposed listing determination. 

Black-footed albatross ........................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly ............................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Least chub 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide) 1 ................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ............................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Delta smelt (uplisting) ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ............................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Northern leopard frog ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Tehachapi slender salamander ............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Coqui Llanero ........................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

White-sided jackrabbit ........................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Jemez Mountains salamander .............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Dusky tree vole ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 .................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

29 of 206 species .................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Desert tortoise—Sonoran population .................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population .................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Amargosa toad ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Pacific walrus ......................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Wrights marsh thistle ............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

67 of 475 southwest species ................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

9 Southwest mussel species ................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

14 parrots (foreign species) .................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Berry Cave salamander 1 ...................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Striped Newt 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 .......................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly ............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Western gull-billed tern .......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) .......................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern population of snowy plover and wintering population of piping plover 1 ........................ 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 ................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Bay Springs salamander 1 ..................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

32 species of snails and slugs 1 ............................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Calopogon oklahomensis 1 .................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

White-bark pine ..................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

42 snail species (Nevada and Utah) ..................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

HI yellow-faced bees ............................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Red knot roselaari subspecies .............................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
10202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Honduran emerald ................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou ........................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Plains bison ........................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Giant Palouse earthworm ...................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Mexican gray wolf .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Spring pygmy sunfish ............................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

San Francisco manzanita ...................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Bay skipper ............................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Unsilvered fritillary ................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Texas kangaroo rat ............................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Spot-tailed earless lizard ....................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eastern small-footed bat ....................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Northern long-eared bat ........................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Prairie chub ........................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly ....................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ............................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Golden-winged warbler .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Sand-verbena moth ............................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Aztec (beautiful) gilia ............................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Arapahoe snowfly .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

High-Priority Listing Actions: 3

19 Oahu candidate species 3 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with 

LPN = 9).

Proposed listing. 

17 Maui-Nui candidate species 3 (14 plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with 

LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

Sand dune lizard 3 (LPN = 2) ................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 3 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2) ................ Proposed listing. 

2 New Mexico springsnails 3 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 11) Proposed listing. 

2 mussels 3 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox (No LPN) ...................................................................... Proposed listing.

2 mussels 3 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4)) ............................................................ Proposed listing. 

Ozark hellbender 2 (LPN = 3) ................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 (LPN = 2) ....................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

5 southeast fish 3 (rush darter (LPN = 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), yellowcheek darter (LPN = 2), 

Cumberland darter (LPN = 5), laurel dace (LPN = 5).

Proposed listing. 

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama 

pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN 

= 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), & tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)).

Proposed listing. 

3 Colorado plants 3 (Pagosa skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), Parchute beardtongue 

(Penstemon debilis) (LPN = 2), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) (LPN = 8)).

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose 

mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 5)).

Proposed listing. 

Florida bonneted bat (LPN = 2) ............................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (LPN = 2) ................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species 

were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 

2008. 3Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the ESA, 

these actions described above 

collectively constitute expeditious 

progress. 

Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium 

ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum will be 

added to the list of candidate species 

upon publication of this 12-month 

finding. We will continue to monitor the 

status of these species as new 

information becomes available. This 

review will determine if a change in 

status is warranted, including the need 

to make prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for Eriogonum soredium, 

Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium 

friscanum will be as accurate as 

possible. Therefore, we will continue to 

accept additional information and 

comments from all concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or upon request 

from the Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10203 

Dated: February 2, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3675 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4