24908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0016; 

4500030114] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List Aliciella formosa 

(Aztec gilia) as Endangered or 

Threatened With Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list 

Aliciella formosa (Aztec gilia) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), and designate critical 

habitat. Based on our review, we find 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information indicating that 

listing Aztec gilia may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of, or 

threats to, Aztec gilia or its habitat at 

any time. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document on April 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R2–ES–2012–0016. 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, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES) by telephone 

(505–346–2525) or by facsimile (505– 

346–2542). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

this finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- 

day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that substantial scientific and 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On February 12, 2010, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians, 

dated February 12, 2010, requesting that 

the Aliciella formosa (Aztec gilia) be 

listed as endangered or threatened and 

that critical habitat be designated under 

the Act. The petition clearly identified 

itself as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, as required at 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a July 19, 2010, letter to 

WildEarth Guardians, we acknowledged 

receipt of the petition, and reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species under section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act was not warranted. This 

finding addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Actions 

For the purposes of this document, we 

will refer to Aliciella formosa by its 

common name, Aztec gilia. 

In September 1985, we published our 

candidate notice of review (CNOR) 

classifying Aztec gilia (identified as 

Gilia formosa) as a Category 2 species 

(50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985). 

Category 2 status included those taxa for 

which information in the Service’s 

possession indicated that a proposed 

listing rule was possibly appropriate, 

but for which sufficient data on 

biological vulnerability and threats were 

not available to support a proposed rule. 

In the February 1990 CNOR, we retained 

a Category 2 designation for Aztec gilia 

(again identified as Gilia formosa) (55 

FR 6184; February 21, 1990); in the 

September 1993 CNOR, we announced 

that the status of Aztec gilia (again 

identified as Gilia formosa) was 

‘‘declining,’’ but was still considered a 

Category 2 species (58 FR 51144, 

September 30, 1993). 

In the 1996 CNOR, we announced a 

revised list of animal and plant taxa that 

were regarded as candidates for possible 

addition to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (61 FR 

7596, February 28, 1996). The revised 

candidate list included only former 

Category 1 species. All former Category 

2 species were dropped from the list in 

order to reduce confusion about the 

conservation status of these species, and 

to clarify that the Service no longer 

regarded these species as candidates for 

listing. Because Aztec gilia was a 

Category 2 species, it was removed from 

the candidate list in 1996, and was no 

longer recognized as a candidate 

species. 

Species Information 

The Aztec gilia (originally Gilia 

formosa) type specimen was collected 

prior to 1907, near Aztec, New Mexico 

(San Juan County), and was 

subsequently described by E. L. Greene 

in 1907 (Greene 1907, p. 119; Martin 

and Hutchins 1980, p. 1584; Kartesz 

1994, p. 468). Additional collections are 

at the U.S. National Herbarium and the 

Missouri Botanical Gardens (Knight and 

Cully 1986, p. 5). In 1998, G. formosa 

was reclassified to Aliciella formosa 

(family Polemoniaceae) (Porter 1998, p. 

33). 

Aztec gilia is a monocarpic 

herbaceous perennial (a plant that lives 

for more than 2 years, flowers, sets seed, 

and then dies) (Porter 1998, p. 33). The 

plant is up to 30 centimeters (cm) (12 

inches (in)) tall. Older plants are woody 

at the base, are glandular (sticky), and 

have numerous branched stems with 

long, sharp-pointed, smooth-edged 

leaves that are about 25 millimeters 

(mm) (1.0 in) tall. Flowers are up to 22 

mm (0.87 in) long, pinkish-purple, and 

trumpet-shaped. Aztec gilia blooms 

from late April through May and is 

distinguished from several closely 

related species by its perennial nature, 

woody base of older plants, entire 

leaves, and pinkish-purple flowers (New 

Mexico Native Plants Protection 

Advisory Committee (NMNPPAC) 1984, 

p. 218; Knight and Cully 1986, p. 7; 

Porter 1998, p. 33). 

Aztec gilia is only known to occur in 

San Juan County, near the towns of 

Aztec and Bloomfield, New Mexico 

(Knight and Cully 1986, p. 8). This 

species appears to be found only in 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24909 

sandy clay soils of the Animas 

Formation, specifically the Nacimiento 

Formation, mostly on slopes, benches, 

and summits of gently rolling hills 

between 1,740 to 1,890 meters (m) 

(5,800 to 6,200 feet (ft)) (Knight and 

Cully 1986, p. 17; Porter 1998, p. 33). 

The Nacimiento Formation (the 

southern extension of the Animas 

Formation of the San Juan Basin) is 

made up of black and gray shales, with 

occasional channel sandstone beds 

(Fassett 1974, p. 229). 

Aztec gilia is commonly associated 

with Erigeron bistiensis (Bisti fleabane) 

and Sclerocactus cloverae ssp. brackii 

(Brack’s cactus) (Sivinski 1997, pp. 10– 

12; New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 

Council (NMRPTC) 2005, p. 2). General 

habitat associates found in areas 

inhabited by this species include 

Juniperus osteosperma (Utah juniper), 

Pinus edulis (Pinyon pine), Purshia 

tridentata (antelope bitterbrush), 

Cercocarpus montanus (mountain 

mahogany), Amelanchier utahensis 

(Utah serviceberry), Ephedra spp. 

(Mormon tea), Yucca angustissima 

(narrowleaf yucca), and Atriplex 

confertifolia (shadscale saltbush) 

(Sivinski 1997, pp. 10–12). 

The petition provided no specific 

information on Aztec gilia populations. 

However, the Service’s files reflect that 

Aztec gilia is known from more than 75 

populations, ranging in size from a few 

dozen to thousands of plants (Knight 

and Cully 1986, p. 18; The Nature 

Conservancy 1990, p. A–3; DeBruin 

1995, p. 6; Ecosphere Environmental 

Services (Ecosphere) 1995, p. 15; 1997, 

p. 3; Sivinski 1997, pp. 10–12; Marron 

et al. 2008, p. 26). Surveys estimated 

about 15,000 plants occur on Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) lands, but 

several surveys only counted the 

number of populations, indicating that 

the total number of plants on BLM lands 

may be higher than 15,000. There are 5 

populations of approximately 1,400 

total plants on lands owned by the State 

of New Mexico and 14 populations 

(unknown number of plants) on private 

lands (Knight and Cully 1986, p. 20; 

Sivinski 1997, pp. 10–12). Finally, 

several Aztec gilia populations are 

known to occur on Navajo Nation lands 

in Kutz Canyon (mixed land ownership 

with BLM), but the number of plants is 

unknown (Navajo Nation 2008, p. 3; 

Navajo Natural Heritage Program 2008, 

p. 89). The petitioner provides no 

information indicating that any of these 

populations are declining or have been 

extirpated. In fact, Knight and Cully 

(1986, p. 16) reported no populations 

have ever been extirpated. We do not 

have any additional information on 

abundance or long-term monitoring data 

from populations throughout the range 

of the species. 

In addition to the known populations 

described above, there appears to be a 

large amount of potentially suitable 

habitat unoccupied by the species 

(Knight and Cully 1986, pp. 16, 23; 

Sivinski 1997, p. 35). In 1990, the BLM 

contracted with the Nature Conservancy 

to conduct survey work within the 

Farmington Resource Area for several 

federally listed and sensitive species, 

including the Aztec gilia. This survey 

concluded that approximately 5,700 

hectares (ha) (14,000 acres (ac)) of 

public land support thousands of 

individual plants (The Nature 

Conservancy 1990, P. A–3). An 

additional 51,000 ha (125,000 ac) of 

BLM lands were described as 

unoccupied potential habitat (The 

Nature Conservancy 1990, p. A–3). We 

have no information on the amount of 

Aztec gilia habitat outside of BLM 

lands. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding species to, or removing a species 

from, the Federal Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species due to 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(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 considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species may warrant listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information must contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information on 

threats to the Aztec gilia, as presented 

in the petition and other information 

readily available in our files, is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The petition states that Aztec gilia 

and its habitat are threatened by the 

following: Oil and gas development; 

surface mining; road construction and 

use; off-road vehicle (ORV) use; electric 

transmission line installation; livestock 

grazing; human population growth; and 

BLM land uses. Each of these topics is 

discussed below. 

Oil and Gas Development 

The petitioner claims that extensive 

oil and gas development has occurred 

within the range of Aztec gilia in the 

San Juan Basin (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, pp. 9–12, citing Engler et al. 2001; 

BLM 2003; GO–TECH 2010a-e). The 

petitioner states that oil and gas 

extraction causes destruction and 

degradation of Aztec gilia habitat, and 

also kills plants. Moreover, the 

petitioner contends that associated 

roads, well pads, pipelines, waste pits, 

power lines, railroad tracks, and other 

infrastructure used in oil and gas 

operations cause significant habitat 

disturbance (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 10, citing Weller et al. 2002). The 

petitioner claims that, as of 2010, 18,000 

active oil and gas wells were located 

within the San Juan Basin. The 

petitioner also claims that there are an 

additional 9,942 wells authorized over 

the next 20 years within areas known to 

be occupied by Aztec gilia (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 9–10, citing BLM 

2003). To support these additional 

wells, the petitioner indicates that 5,794 

kilometers (km) (3,600 miles (mi)) of 

new gas pipeline will have a 

disturbance footprint of at least 4,709 ha 

(11,636 ac) (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 9, citing Engler et al. 2001). 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims, 

the factual description of oil and gas 

development presented appears 

plausible. However, the petitioner 

provided no specific data to support 

that oil and gas development might 

impact Aztec gilia populations. 

Information in our files indicates that 

some of the oil and gas wells likely 

overlap with Aztec gilia habitat, but the 

petition did not contain, nor do we 

have, any information on the extent or 

degree of occupied habitat that has been 

impacted or may be impacted. The 

petition states that, as of 2010, there are 

18,000 active oil and gas wells located 

in the San Juan Basin. However, the 

petition does not address how much 

Aztec gilia habitat or how many 

populations may have been affected by 

these oil and gas wells. Habitat for Aztec 

gilia does not encompass the entirety of 

the San Juan Basin. 

Despite the claim that destruction and 

degradation of Aztec gilia habitat has 

occurred from oil and gas activities, the 

petitioner does not provide citations or 

other substantial information to support 

their assertions regarding the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range from oil 

and gas activities. On the contrary, the 

petitioner cites that this plant tolerates 

and recovers from some habitat 

disturbance (NatureServe 2009). 

Similarly, Sivinski (1997, p. 11) found 

a re-establishing occurrence of about 

100 plants on a gas well pad and several 

other healthy populations near well 

pads and roads. Our files also contain 

BLM reports that summarize 4 years of 

monitoring (1991–1995) indicating a 

significant overall increase in the 

abundance of Aztec gilia, including 

those plots associated with oil and gas 

extraction activities (BLM 1996, pp. 6– 

8; DeBruin 1995, entire). The BLM 

concluded that oil and gas, among other 

activities, did not cause the extirpation 

of plants, but populations associated 

with oil and gas activities contained 

younger individuals (seedlings and 

juveniles) (DeBruin 1995, p. 8; BLM 

1996, pp. 6–8). This information 

illustrates that the species may be 

tolerant of disturbance. Based on this 

review, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that oil and gas development 

constitutes a threat to the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of Aztec 

gilia’s habitat or range. 

Surface Mining 

The petitioner claims that surface 

mining has occurred within the range of 

Aztec gilia in the San Juan Basin 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 2 and 

18). The petitioner states that surface 

mining causes destruction and 

degradation of Aztec gilia habitat, and 

causes direct plant mortality. The BLM’s 

2003 Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

indicates that surface mining, 

specifically coal leases, will continue to 

be managed as specified in their 1988 

RMP, with new coal leases considered 

on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2003, p. 8). 

The extent of surface mining leases that 

overlap with occupied Aztec gilia 

habitat was not provided by the 

petitioner nor do we have any readily 

available information on the extent or 

degree of occupied habitat that has been 

or may be impacted by surface mining 

activities. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims, 

the factual description of surface mining 

presented appears plausible. The 

petitioner cites the BLM’s 2003 RMP in 

the discussion of multiple use activities, 

which includes surface mining, on BLM 

land; however, the petitioner provided 

no specific data to support how surface 

mining might impact Aztec gilia 

populations. Despite the claim that 

surface mining could detrimentally 

affect Aztec gilia habitat, the petitioner 

does not provide citations or other 

substantial information to support their 

assertions regarding the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range from 

surface mining. Therefore, we find that 

the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information 

readily available in our files, does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

surface mining constitutes a threat to 

the destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Aztec gilia’s habitat or 

range. 

Road Construction and Use 

The petitioner states that road 

construction and use can detrimentally 

impact imperiled plants, including 

Aztec gilia, through soil compaction, 

soil erosion, spread of noxious weeds, 

heavy metals, and dust pollution, which 

can alter water flows, destabilize slopes, 

and offer increased access by ORVs 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 14, citing 

Forman and Alexander 1998; 

Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Glebard 

and Belknap 2003). The petitioner 

asserts that road density is high in the 

Aztec gilia’s range and is increasing due 

to oil and gas activities (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 15, citing BLM 

2008b). The petition does not define or 

quantify the parameters used to describe 

road density as ‘‘high’’. The petitioner 

claims that one of the objectives in the 

2003 BLM RMP is to improve existing 

roads, and that the maintenance 

activities associated with road 

improvement would increase 

disturbance to adjacent areas (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 14). The petitioner 

also asserts that the human populations 

in the towns of Farmington, Bloomfield, 

and Aztec, New Mexico, increased 

approximately 9 to 13 percent between 

the years 2000 and 2008, which may 

suggest that more roads will be 

constructed (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 14). The petitioner provides one 

example of a proposed road 

construction project within the City of 

Aztec, where 16 Aztec gilia plants might 

potentially be destroyed incidentally 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 14, citing 

Marron et al. 2008), but no further 

information was provided by the 

petitioner or found in our files. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claims 

concerning impacts from road 

construction and use, the factual 

description presented appears plausible. 

However, we reviewed citations 

provided by the petitioner and 

assertions regarding road construction 

and use, and find that the petitioner’s 

statements concerning detrimental 

impacts from road construction and use 

to be unsubstantiated. The petition fails 

to describe how and to what extent 

roads may be affecting the species. 

There is no information with regards to 

whether the proposed City of Aztec road 

was built or if any plants were 

impacted. Nonetheless, the majority of 

habitat is on Federal land, and the 

potential loss of plants on City of Aztec 

lands is likely not significant to the 

overall population. On BLM lands, 

surveys are required prior to project 

implementation (see discussion under 

Factor D, below). Under the BLM’s 

Special Status Species policy, if Aztec 

gilia individuals are discovered on BLM 

lands, the agency requires that the 

project proponent minimize or avoid 

impacts. Therefore, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that road use and 

construction constitutes a threat to the 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24911 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Aztec gilia’s habitat or 

range. 

Off-Road Vehicles 

The petitioner asserts that ORV use is 

detrimental to native vegetation and 

imperiled plants (Stokowski and 

Lapointe 2000; WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 17 citing BLM 2006) and that 

the amount of ORV use on the 

Farmington Field Office BLM lands is 

increasing (BLM 2003). The petitioner 

claims that ORVs can access BLM lands 

that are occupied by Aztec gilia, or 

contain potentially suitable habitat, and 

that ORVs could run over and kill plants 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 17, 19). 

Further, the petitioner believes that 

ORV use is not limited to designated 

trails within a large, unquantified area 

of potentially suitable Aztec gilia habitat 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 17). The 

petitioner suggests that the number of 

juvenile Aztec gilia is reduced in these 

areas with high ORV use (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 19, citing 

NatureServe 2009). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning impacts from ORVs, the 

factual description of impacts from ORV 

use presented appears plausible. 

Information in the petition discusses 

that ORV use can impact native 

vegetation and imperiled plants, in 

general (Stokowsi and Lapointe 2000, 

p. 3; BLM 2006, p. 58). 

No information was presented 

indicating that ORV use is detrimental 

to Aztec gilia. ORV users can likely 

access areas with Aztec gilia 

populations and potentially suitable 

habitat (BLM 2003, pp. 3, 7; BLM 2006, 

pp. 42, 66). We also reviewed 

NatureServe (2009, p. 2) but could not 

substantiate the petitioner’s claim that 

higher ORV use resulted in reduced 

juvenile Aztec gilia plants. In fact, 

DeBruin (1995, p. 7) found that plots 

disturbed by ORV use had the greatest 

increase in new recruits of Aztec gilia. 

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that 

ORVs partially damaged one monitoring 

plot of Aztec gilia, but note that the 

majority of the damage is likely due to 

a combination of drought and pipeline 

construction (Floyd-Hanna 1993, p. 8). 

We believe that this level of impact may 

not be significant to the species, because 

it did not result in the extirpation of 

Aztec gilia at this location. Moreover, 

Sivinski (1997, p. 11) reported healthy 

populations of Aztec gilia adjacent to an 

area heavily impacted by ORV traffic 

and in an area with a single gas well 

pad, road, and a motorcycle trail 

through the middle of the species’ 

habitat. Based on this review, we find 

that the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information 

readily available in our files, does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

ORV use constitutes a threat to the 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Aztec gilia’s habitat or 

range. 

Electric Transmission Lines 

The petitioner claims that in 2008, the 

city of Farmington, New Mexico, and 

their electric company, Kinder Morgan, 

proposed to construct a 14-mile electric 

transmission line that had known 

occurrences of Aztec gilia within the 

project area (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 17, citing City of Farmington 2008). 

The transmission line right-of-way is 

mostly on Federal land administered by 

the BLM with a few sections on State 

and private land (City of Farmington 

2008). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning impacts from an electric 

transmission line installation by the 

City of Farmington, New Mexico, the 

factual information presented appears 

plausible. No information was presented 

that indicates there were direct impacts 

on plants, nor is there any 

documentation of direct or indirect 

impacts to Aztec gilia from this project 

in our files. We reviewed information 

provided by the petitioner and found 

that 10 Aztec gilia plants were located 

within the preliminary right-of-way for 

the project; however, the final design 

avoided all plants (City of Farmington 

2008, p. 32). Under the BLM’s 2003 

RMP, if Aztec gilia individuals are 

discovered on BLM lands, the agency 

requires that the project proponent 

minimize or avoid impacts (see 

discussion under Factor D, below) (City 

of Farmington 2008, Exhibit A, p. 5). 

Also, readily available information in 

our files indicates that other 

transmission line projects have similarly 

avoided damaging or destroying Aztec 

gilia plants. In 1987, Aztec gilia plants 

were also avoided along a proposed 

transmission line associated with the 

Navajo Dam project (City of Farmington 

1987, p. 1). Additionally, Farmington 

Electric Utility Services, in coordination 

with the BLM, also avoided 21 

populations with approximately 550 

plants near the Potter Canyon 

compressor station electric utility 

powerline (Ecosphere 1997, p. 1). For 

these reasons, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that electric 

transmission line construction 

constitutes a threat to the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of Aztec 

gilia’s habitat or range. 

Livestock Grazing 

The petitioner claims that domestic 

livestock grazing occurs within Aztec 

gilia’s habitat on private, Navajo Nation, 

New Mexico State, and BLM lands 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 17). The 

petitioner asserts that the BLM 

disregarded livestock grazing as a 

potential threat in an environmental 

assessment for two grazing allotments 

within areas that potentially contain 

suitable habitat for Aztec gilia, because 

neither plant surveys nor mitigation 

measures were mentioned in that 

assessment (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 17, citing BLM 2009; WildEarth 

Guardians 2010a, b). The petitioner 

believes that livestock grazing spreads 

noxious weeds and invasive plants that 

could alter the habitat for Aztec gilia 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 17, citing 

Fleischner 1994; Belsky and Gelbard 

2000; DiTomaso 2000; Parker et al. 

2006). The petitioner further claims that 

grazing compacts soil, increases erosion, 

and results in soil degradation. 

Moreover, the petitioner asserts that 

livestock trample and eat Aztec gilia. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning impacts from domestic 

livestock grazing, the factual 

information presented appears 

plausible. The petitioner states that 

domestic livestock grazing occurs on 

private, BLM, New Mexico State, and 

Navajo Nation lands. The petitioner 

states that grazing can destroy and 

degrade Aztec gilia habitat by promoting 

the spread of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants that could outcompete 

the Aztec gilia and by trampling the 

soil, leading to compaction and erosion 

of Aztec gilia habitat (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 17). In addition, 

Aztec gilia plants may be trampled and 

eaten by livestock. 

However, the citations listed for this 

statement do not involve New Mexico 

private or State land, or BLM or Navajo 

Nation land, further, they are not 

citations specific to Aztec gilia 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 17, citing 

Fleischner 1994; Belsky and Gelbard 

2000; DiTomaso 2000; Parker et al. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2006). Likewise, we have no substantial 

readily available information in our files 

regarding grazing as a possible threat to 

Aztec gilia, or whether grazing cooccurs with the species on New Mexico 

State or private lands. Additionally, 

DeBruin (1995, p. 7) monitored Aztec 

gilia over 4 years and found the species 

responded positively (i.e., increased in 

number) when disturbed by livestock. 

Finally, we have no readily available 

information in our files regarding the 

threat to Aztec gilia and its habitat from 

noxious weeds and invasive species that 

may be spread by livestock grazing. The 

BLM’s 2003 RMP outlines that the goals 

of the Livestock Management program 

include promoting native plant health, 

and soil stability, and providing the 

basic requirements of rangeland 

ecological sites. Based on this review, 

we find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the livestock grazing, 

and the possible spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive species constitutes 

a threat to the destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of Aztec gilia’s habitat or 

range. 

Human Population Growth 

The petitioner asserts that human 

population growth of Aztec, Bloomfield, 

and Farmington, New Mexico, will 

increase commercial and residential 

construction, farming, and recreational 

impacts and will result in a threat to 

Aztec gilia and its habitat (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 18). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The petitioner provided no specific 

information, nor do we have any readily 

available information in our files, to 

substantiate the extent of human 

population growth and its potential 

impact on Aztec gilia. Furthermore, the 

petitioner provided no specific 

information, nor do we have any readily 

available information in our files, to 

substantiate if human population 

growth would result in any increase in 

commercial and residential 

construction, farming, or recreational 

impacts and their potential impact on 

Aztec gilia. Therefore, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that human 

population growth constitutes a threat 

to the destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Aztec gilia’s habitat or 

range. 

Other BLM Land Uses 

The petitioner asserts that a variety of 

activities occur on BLM land that could 

detrimentally affect Aztec gilia habitat 

including mining, motorized and nonmotorized vehicle use on roads and 

trails, hiking, horseback riding, 

camping, and infrastructure 

developments such as picnic ground 

and camping areas (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 18). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning impacts from other BLM 

land uses, the factual information 

presented appears plausible. The 

petitioner cites the BLM’s 2003 RMP in 

the discussion of multiple use activities 

on BLM land; however, the petitioner 

provided no specific data to support 

how these other land uses might impact 

Aztec gilia populations. Despite the 

claim that these other land uses could 

detrimentally affect Aztec gilia habitat, 

the petitioner does not provide citations 

or other substantial information to 

support their assertions regarding the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range from other BLM land uses. 

Therefore, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that other BLM land uses 

constitute a threat to the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of Aztec 

gilia’s habitat or range. 

In summary, on the basis of a review 

of the information provided by the 

petitioner and readily available in our 

files, we determined that the petition 

does not present substantial information 

to indicate that listing Aztec gilia may 

be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range by any 

threats, including oil and gas 

development, surface mining, road 

construction and use, off-road vehicles, 

electric transmission line construction, 

livestock grazing, human population 

growth, or other BLM land uses. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner cites that plants and 

seeds of Aztec gilia have been collected 

in the past by permit for mitigation 

efforts. However, the petioner does 

characterize the collection of Aztec gilia 

plants and seeds for mitigation purposes 

as overutilization (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 19). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Readily available information in our 

files confirms that plants and seeds have 

been collected under a BLM permit 

(Floyd-Hanna 1994, entire; Ecosphere 

1996, entire; BLM 1996, p. 5; Reeves 

1996, entire; Murray 2006, p. 1). We do 

not know how many seeds were 

collected on BLM lands, thus we have 

no evidence of possible overutilization 

impacts to the species resulting from 

these activities. In addition, based on 

Service experience, the amount of seeds 

and plants collected for mitigation 

purposes is usually collected in a 

sustainable fashion so as not to impact 

the extant populations. In summary, on 

the basis of a review of the information 

provided by the petitioner and readily 

available in our files, we determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing Aztec gilia may be warranted due 

to overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. Therefore, we have 

determined that the petition does not 

present substantial information to 

indicate that listing may be warranted 

under this factor. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner provides no 

information pertaining to Factor C. 

Evaluation of Information Available in 

Service Files 

Information in our files indicates that 

moth larvae (family Gelechiidae) may at 

times bore into the lower, woody 

caudex of Aztec gilia, contributing to 

mortality (Porter and Floyd 1992, p. 

246; Floyd-Hanna 1993, p. 8). However, 

we have no information indicating that 

any populations have been significantly 

affected by moth larvae. We have no 

information of any other disease or 

predation potentially affecting the 

species. In summary, on the basis of a 

review of the information provided by 

the petitioner and readily available in 

our files, we determined that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information to indicate that listing 

Aztec gilia may be warranted due to 

disease or predation. Therefore, we have 

determined that the petition does not 

present substantial information to 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24913 

indicate that listing may be warranted 

under this factor. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner asserts that Aztec gilia 

is not adequately protected by Federal 

or State laws or policies to prevent its 

endangerment or extinction. The 

petition reports that Aztec gilia is listed 

as endangered by the State of New 

Mexico; however, the petitioner claims 

that this designation provides little 

regulatory protection for the habitat of 

the species (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 18, citing New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals, and Natural Resources 

Department 1995). The petitioner states 

that the Navajo Nation lists the species 

as endangered (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 18, citing Navajo Nation 2008). 

This information is incorrect. The 

Navajo Nation has this species listed as 

G4, which is defined as any species or 

subspecies for which the Navajo Nation 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(NNDFWL) does not currently have 

sufficient information to support listing 

the species as G2 or G3 (endangered), 

but is actively seeking information to 

determine if this species warrants 

further protection on the Navajo Nation. 

The petition also states that NatureServe 

classifies this species as G2, globally 

imperiled; N2, nationally imperiled; S1 

critically imperiled in the Navajo 

Nation; and S1, imperiled in the State 

of New Mexico (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 18, citing NatureServe 2009). 

The G2 status is defined as imperiled 

because it is a very narrow endemic 

dependent on soil type and has a high 

risk for extinction. The N2 status 

defined as imperiled due to a restricted 

range and very few populations; with a 

high risk for extirpation. The S1 status 

is critically imperiled because of 

extreme rarity or because of some 

factor(s), such as very steep declines, 

making it especially vulnerable to 

extirpation. The petition reports that the 

plant was previously a Category 2 

species, indicating that the Service 

believed that listing the species may be 

appropriate; now Aztec gilia is 

considered a species of concern by the 

Service (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 

18). The petitioner cites that Aztec gilia 

is also a BLM sensitive species and 

special management species; however, 

the petitioner further claims that these 

designations provide no protection or 

mitigation for impacts (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 18–19, citing BLM 

2009). 

Finally, the petitioner states that 

inadequate regulatory protection exists 

for an area managed by the BLM and 

known to be occupied by Aztec gilia. 

That area, designated as the Aztec Gilia 

Area of Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

is approximately 2,833 ha (7,000 ac) in 

size; however, the BLM rescinded the 

designation in 2003 (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 9–10). The 

petitioner claims that oil and gas 

development, of up to 153 well sites, 

could occur within the former ACEC. 

Moreover, an additional 395 well sites 

could potentially be developed within 

Kutz Canyon on the Navajo Nation, 

another area where Aztec gilia occurs 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 9–10, 

citing BLM 2003). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, the information 

is not factually correct, particularly 

related to the statements regarding the 

Navajo Nation’s status of the species, as 

explained above. The information in the 

petition and currently available in our 

files does not indicate that Aztec gilia is 

threatened by the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. This petition 

identifies risk classifications made by 

other organizations such as NatureServe 

or State Agencies, as evidence of 

extinction risk for a species. Risk 

classifications by other organizations or 

made under other Federal or State 

statutes may be informative, but the 

classification alone does not provide the 

rationale for a positive 90-day finding 

under the Act. For example, as 

explained by NatureServe, their 

assessments of a species’ conservation 

status do ‘‘not constitute a 

recommendation by NatureServe for 

listing under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act’’ because NatureServe 

assessments ‘‘have different criteria, 

evidence requirements, purposes and 

taxonomic coverage than government 

lists of endangered and threatened 

species, and therefore these two types of 

lists should not be expected to 

coincide’’ (http://www.natureserve.org/ 

prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). 

We find that Aztec gilia receives no 

protection from the NatureServe 

designations because these lists only 

serve to notify the public of the species’ 

status and do not require any 

conservation or management actions or 

provide any regulatory authority for 

conservation of species. 

The State of New Mexico lists Aztec 

gilia as endangered. As such, Aztec gilia 

is protected from unauthorized 

collection, transport, or sale by the New 

Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act, 

75–6–1 NMSA 1978. This law prohibits 

the taking, possession, transportation 

and exportation, selling or offering for 

sale any listed plant species. Listed 

species can only be collected under 

permit from the State of New Mexico for 

scientific studies and impact mitigation; 

however, this law does not provide any 

protection for Aztec gilia habitat. There 

are no statutory requirements under the 

jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico 

that serve as an effective regulatory 

mechanism for reducing or eliminating 

the threats that may adversely affect 

Aztec gilia habitat. There are also no 

requirements under the New Mexico 

State statutes to develop a recovery plan 

that will restore and protect existing 

habitat for the species. 

The petitioner incorrectly claims that 

Aztec gilia is listed as an endangered 

species on the Navajo Nation. The 

species is classified as a G4 species, 

which means that the NNDFWL does 

not currently have sufficient 

information to support it being listed as 

an endangered species (Navajo Nation 

2008, pp. 1, 3). As such, the NNDFWL 

actively seeks information on this 

species to determine if it warrants 

protection. Because Aztec gilia is listed 

as a G4 species, there is no regulatory 

protection provided to the species on 

the Navajo Nation. 

The ACEC was established in the 

BLM’s Farmington Field Office 1988 

RMP, but was rescinded in 2003, when 

the RMP was revised (2003 RMP). 

During the revision, the BLM 

determined that lands within the ACEC 

were already leased for oil and gas 

exploration prior to the 1988 

designation and the ACEC contained 

poor quality habitat for Aztec gilia 

(DeBruin 1991, entire; DeBruin 1995, 

pp. 10–11; BLM 2003, p. 3). The petition 

implicitly relies on a general 

assumption that rescinding the ACEC 

would be detrimental to the species, but 

does not include any information 

regarding the improved protections from 

the species-specific measures provided 

by the 2003 RMP. 

Nearly 70 percent (52 of 75) of the 

Aztec gilia occurrences are completely 

or partially on Federal land, and are 

therefore protected under the 2003 RMP 

and the Aztec gilia’s status as a BLM 

special management species. For 

example, on BLM lands, Aztec gilia is 

managed as a candidate for Federal 

listing in order to minimize impacts and 

preclude listing. As a BLM special 

management species, all of the 

protections provided by the pre-2003 

ACEC apply. Additionally, the BLM’s 

Special Management Species Policy 

requires biological surveys prior to 

project implementation in known or 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

suitable Aztec gilia habitat. If plants or 

suitable habitat are found, the pad or 

pipeline must be relocated and 

directional drilling can be used as 

needed. Avoidance is the primary 

conservation measure; transplanting 

plants is only used as a last resort. As 

such, the BLM currently provides 

protective measures throughout habitat 

with the potential to support Aztec gilia. 

Based on our evaluation, we conclude 

that the 2003 RMP is more protective 

than the 1988 RMP and previous ACEC 

designation. The current guidelines 

under the 2003 RMP will minimize 

various impacts to Aztec gilia across the 

San Juan Basin (BLM 2003, pp. 3, 2.32; 

BLM 2008a, entire). Consequently, the 

petition fails to present substantial 

information indicating that the 

withdrawal of the ACEC designation is 

a threat. Further, we have no 

information concerning the potential 

well sites within the previous ACEC or 

Kutz Canyon, nor is there any 

documentation that if these sites were 

developed the species would be 

threatened. 

The petitioner correctly notes that the 

Service identifies Aztec gilia as a 

species of concern (Service 2010). While 

not a formal legal designation under 

Service regulations, a species of concern 

is defined as a taxon for which further 

biological research and field study are 

needed to resolve its conservation status 

or which is considered sensitive, rare, or 

declining on lists maintained by Natural 

Heritage Programs, State wildlife 

agencies, other Federal agencies, or 

professional and academic scientific 

societies. Species of concern are 

identified for planning purposes only, 

and the title confers no regulatory 

protection. 

The information in the petition and 

currently available in our files indicates 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

are providing adequate protection for 

the species. We find that the petitioner’s 

claim that there are few protections 

within the range of Aztec gilia does not 

constitute an argument for inadequacy 

of existing regulations, because we do 

not find substantial evidence that there 

are any threats to Aztec gilia. Based on 

our evaluation of the information 

presented in the petition and readily 

available in our files, we have 

determined that the petition does not 

present substantial information to 

indicate that listing Aztec gilia may be 

warranted due to the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The petitioner asserts that the 

following conditions under Factor E 

threaten Aztec gilia: Mitigation 

techniques; climate change; and the 

plant’s narrow range. Each of these 

potential threats is discussed below. 

Mitigation Techniques 

The petitioner asserts there has been 

difficulty with mitigation efforts 

involving transplanting or reseeding of 

Aztec gilia and collection of seeds 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 19–20). 

The petitioner indicates that Federal 

agencies generally avoid transplanting 

for mitigation purposes because they 

rarely succeed (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 19, citing U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers 1997). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning difficulties with mitigation 

techniques, the factual information 

presented appears plausible. Our 

records indicate that for one project, 

Aztec gilia was transplanted and 

monitored from 1990 to 1995 (BLM 

1996, pp. 5–6). The transplants had a 

5 percent survival rate (Ecosphere 1996, 

p. 6). Another project in 1991, 

transplanted 92 Aztec gilia; by 1994, 

only 5 individuals survived, and by 

1996, only 2 individuals survived (BLM 

1996, p. 7; Floyd-Hanna 1994, pp. 5–6). 

As a result of these attempts, the BLM 

does not consider transplanting to be 

viable mitigation. We found one 

reseeding report in our files that 

summarized Aztec gilia germination 

efforts in a greenhouse where there was 

100 percent mortality before seedlings 

reached transplantable size (Reeves 

1996, entire). Another report 

demonstrated that seed collection can 

be difficult in some years (Murray 2006, 

entire). No specific information was 

provided or is readily available in our 

files, to indicate that population size, 

range, and number of populations are so 

restricted that the limited success of 

transplanting, reseeding, or seed 

collection efforts are detrimental to the 

species. In addition, the petition did not 

provide evidence that mitigation 

techniques may pose a threat to Aztec 

gilia. Therefore, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to concerns about mitigation techniques. 

Climate Change 

The petitioner claims that, because of 

its restricted range, Aztec gilia is 

threatened by climate change 

predictions of rising temperatures and 

increased duration of drought 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 20, citing 

Parmesan et al. 2000; National Safety 

Council (NSC) 2003; Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

(CCSP) 2008; Karl et al. 2009). The 

petitioner cites Allen and Breshears 

(1998), who predict that climate change 

would cause unprecedented rates of 

vegetation shifts due to increased 

warming, especially along boundaries of 

semi-arid ecosystems (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 21). The petitioner 

states that climate change effects are 

being tracked in New Mexico, and 

temperatures are warming at a rate 

comparable to projections for the next 

century with continued increases of 

greenhouse gases (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 20, citing Enquist and Gori 

2008). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

In reference to the petitioner’s claim 

concerning impacts from climate 

change, the factual information 

presented appears plausible. The 

petitioner does not cite any information 

or publications in support of the claim 

that there is a substantiated relationship 

between climate change and the 

persistence of Aztec gilia. At a global or 

regional scale, the Service acknowledges 

that climate change could result in 

rising temperatures and increased 

drought periods, based on models and 

research cited in the petitioner’s 

references (IPCC 2007a, pp. 30, 48; Karl 

et al. 2009, pp. 129–134; NSC 2003, p. 

38; Parmesan et al. 2000, entire; CCSP 

2008, pp. 37–46). The Service also 

recognizes that vegetation shifts could 

occur in semi-arid ecosystems as a 

result of climate change, even though 

citations provided by the petitioner 

(Allen and Breshears 1998, entire) 

discuss forest-woodland ecotones where 

Aztec gilia does not occur. Enquist and 

Gori (2008, pp. 4–7) used 30-year 

climate data from New Mexico to 

develop trend climatology maps applied 

to specific conservation areas. Their 

results indicate that the Colorado 

Plateau ecoregion in the far 

northwestern portion of New Mexico, 

where Aztec gilia does occur, had a 

climate exposure score in the 78th 

percentile, which is considered a 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24915 

moderate to high ranking, meaning this 

ecoregion is more likely to have 

negative ecological impacts from 

warming (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp. 20, 

32). 

We acknowledge that current climate 

projections indicate that warming in the 

U.S. Southwest will persist, and may 

worsen (IPCC 2007b, p. 15; IPCC 2007c, 

p. 887). However, we find the 

information presented in the petition 

and readily available in our files on the 

subject of climate change to be 

insufficiently specific to Aztec gilia to 

be considered substantial. Additionally, 

no data are available to evaluate 

whether long-term weather patterns 

have negatively affected the habitat or 

population sizes of Aztec gilia. In fact, 

we are not aware of any Aztec gilia 

populations that have been extirpated 

since 1986, nor are we aware of 

monitoring data to compare population 

sizes to determine whether there has 

been a downward trend in the number 

of plants across the range of the species. 

Based on these results, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to threats from climate change. 

Narrow Range 

The petitioner states that because the 

Service routinely recognizes small 

population size and restricted range as 

increasing the likelihood of extinction, 

Aztec gilia should be considered 

particularly vulnerable (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 21). The petitioner 

asserts that the species’ limited range 

indicates vulnerability to weather 

events, such as drought and storms, 

suggesting the Service should consider 

this plant’s narrow range a threat to the 

taxon (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

p. 21). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

No specific information was provided 

or is available in our files to indicate 

that Aztec gilia may be imperiled by its 

population size or narrow range. The 

petitioner provides information about 

generalized threats to other species with 

limited population size or small 

geographic ranges, but they are located 

on islands in the Pacific Ocean and not 

relevant to Aztec gilia. Therefore, we 

find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to concerns about 

small population sizes and a narrow 

range. 

Finding 

The petition does not present 

substantial information on whether oil 

and gas activities, surface mining, road 

construction and use, off-road vehicle 

use, electric transmission line 

construction, domestic livestock 

grazing, human population growth, 

other BLM land uses, inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms, limited ability 

to reseed or transplant, climate change, 

small population size, or a restricted 

range may threaten Aztec gilia 

populations and their habitat. Even 

though Aztec gilia and its habitat may 

be exposed to the factors listed above, 

this does not necessarily mean that the 

species may be threatened by those 

factors. We found very few negative 

impacts to the plant resulting, or 

documented, from the potential threats 

cited in the petition or in our review of 

information readily available in our 

files. The petitioner cites generalized 

information about potential impacts that 

can occur due to these situations and 

stressors. Little information is presented 

in the petition regarding the magnitude 

of potential impacts on the species, or 

whether the potential impacts may have 

population-level effects. The loss of a 

few individuals does not necessarily 

mean that the species may be in danger 

of extinction. Our review of the readily 

available information indicates that the 

species appears to be maintaining its 

presence in all known locations 

throughout its range. 

In summary, we find no information 

to suggest that threats are acting on 

Aztec gilia such that the species may be 

in danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. On the basis of our 

determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act, we conclude that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

listing Aztec gilia under the Act as 

endangered or threatened may be 

warranted at this time. 

Although we will not review the 

status of the species at this time, we 

encourage interested parties to continue 

to gather data that will assist with the 

conservation of Aztec gilia. If you wish 

to provide information regarding Aztec 

gilia, you may submit your information 

or materials to the Field Supervisor/ 

Listing Coordinator, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (see 

ADDRESSES section, above), at any time. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available upon request 

from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

Gregory E. Siekaniec, 

Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10049 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0030; 

FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E30000; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AW02 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revising the Proposed 

Special Rule for the Utah Prairie Dog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

public comment period and notice of 

document availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) notify the 

public that we are making changes to 

our proposed rule of June 2, 2011, to 

revise the special rule for the Utah 

prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens). We 

are reopening the comment period 

because we are making substantive 

changes and one addition to our 

proposed rule based on public and peer 

review comments received. Comments 

previously submitted will be considered 

and do not need to be resubmitted now. 

However, we invite comments on the 

new information presented in this 

announcement relevant to our 

consideration of these changes, as 

described below. We encourage those 

who may have commented previously to 

submit additional comments, if 

appropriate, in light of this new 

information. We are also making 

available for public review the draft 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS