64884 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

3. Amend §98.53 by revising 

paragraphs (f), (h)(3), and (h)(4) to read 

as follows:

§ 98.53 Matching fund requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Donated funds need not be 

transferred to or under the 

administrative control of the Lead 

Agency in order to qualify as an 

expenditure eligible to receive Federal 

match under this subsection. They may 

be given to the public or private entities 

designated by the State to implement 

the child care program in accordance 

with § 98.11 provided that such entities 

are identified and designated in the 

State Plan to receive donated funds 

pursuant to § 98.16(c)(2).

* * * * *

(h) * * * 

(3) In any fiscal year, a State may use 

public pre-K funds for up to 20% of the 

funds serving as maintenance-of-effort 

under this subsection. In addition, in 

any fiscal year, a State may use other 

public pre-K funds as expenditures 

serving as State matching funds under 

this subsection; such public pre-K funds 

used as State expenditures may not 

exceed 30% of the amount of a State’s 

expenditures required to earn the State’s 

full allotment of Federal matching funds 

available under this subsection. 

(4) If applicable, the CCDF Plan shall 

reflect the State’s intent to use public 

pre-K funds in excess of 10%, but not 

for more than 20% of its maintenanceof-effort or 30% of its State matching 

funds in a fiscal year. Also, the Plan 

shall describe how the State will 

coordinate its pre-K and child care 

services to expand the availability of 

child care.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–24944 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a 

Petition to List Cymopterus deserticola

(desert cymopterus) as Endangered

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 for a petition to list 

Cymopterus deserticola (desert 

cymopterus) as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After reviewing the 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

species as threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range is not warranted at this time. 

We ask the public to submit to us any 

new information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to 

the species. This information will help 

us monitor the status of this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 9, 

2004. Although no further action will 

result from this finding, we request that 

you submit new information concerning 

the status of, or threats to, this species, 

whenever it becomes available.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

finding is available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 

93003. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this species to the 

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section above) (telephone at 805/644–

1766; facsimile 805/644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition to revise the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

that contains substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted, we make a 

finding within 12 months of the date of 

the receipt of the petition. We may find 

that the petitioned action is: (a) Not 

warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted but precluded by other 

pending proposals. Such 12-month 

findings are to be published promptly in 

the Federal Register. 

On April 15, 2002, we received a 

petition, dated March 29, 2002, from the 

California Native Plant Society and the 

Center for Biological Diversity, 

requesting us to list Cymopterus 

deserticola (desert cymopterus) as an 

endangered species and designate 

critical habitat. On June 12, 2002, we 

sent a letter to the petitioners explaining 

that we would not be able to address 

their petition in the current fiscal year 

because court orders and settlement 

agreements required nearly all of our 

listing funding. On April 25, 2003, the 

California Native Plant Society and the 

Center for Biological Diversity filed a 

complaint against the Service for failure 

to make the mandatory 90-day and 12-

month petition findings (California 

Native Plant Society and the Center for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, C–03–1881–JCS). 

Settlement due dates were agreed to of 

February 1, 2004, for the 90-day finding, 

and, if the 90-day finding was found to 

be substantial, November 1, 2004, for 

the 12-month finding. The Director 

signed the 90-day finding on January 29, 

2004. On February 10, 2004, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing our initial petition 

finding that the petitioned action may 

be warranted (69 FR 6240) and initiated 

a status review at that time. We have 

now completed our status review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information on Cymopterus deserticola,

and have reached a determination 

regarding the petitioned action. 

Species Information 

Cymopterus deserticola, an 

herbaceous perennial plant, is a member 

of the carrot family (Apiaceae). 

Individual plants generally reach 6 

inches (in) (15 centimeters (cm)) in 

height when in flower. Cymopterus 

deserticola is unusual in having 

herbaceous above-ground leaves and 

inflorescences (flowering parts of plant) 

that die back at the end of the growing 

season, leaving only the perennial 

taproot to overwinter. The plant may 

only produce the leaves and 

inflorescences in years when favorable 

climatic conditions, including sufficient 

rainfall, are present. In some years, 

individuals may produce leaves but not 

inflorescences. In years when flowering 

does occur, the inflorescences emerge in 

early spring. During unfavorable 

climatic conditions, such as severe 

drought, the plant may persist solely as 

a dormant taproot; the length of time the 

perennial taproot of C. deserticola can 

survive is unknown. 

Cymopterus deserticola grows on 

loose, sandy soils in Joshua tree 

woodland, saltbush scrub, and 

Mojavean desert scrub communities in 

the western Mojave Desert, at elevations 

between 2,000 and 3,000 feet (610 and 

915 meters) (Bagley 1998). The sandy 

soils that C. deserticola requires can be 

found on alluvial fans and basins, 

stabilized sand fields, and occasionally 

sandy slopes of desert dry lake basins. 

This species typically grows in the cool, 

moist conditions of winter and early 

spring, and goes dormant as the warmer 

weather progresses in April and May 

(Bagley 1998). Very little is known 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64885

about the reproduction and recruitment 

of C. deserticola.

Range and Distribution 

In 1915, Thomas Brandegee first 

described Cymopterus deserticola from 

material collected near Kramer Junction, 

San Bernardino County, California. The 

historic distribution of C. deserticola

ranges from Apple Valley, San 

Bernardino County, northward 

approximately 55 miles (mi) (89 

kilometers (km)) to the Cuddeback Lake 

basin in San Bernardino County, and 

westward approximately 45 mi (73 km) 

to the Rogers and Buckhorn Dry Lake 

basins on Edwards Air Force Base 

(EAFB) in Kern and Los Angeles 

Counties, California (Mitchell et al.

1995; California Department of Fish and 

Game’s California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) 2003). 

The Apple Valley sites are known 

only from historic collections made in 

1915, 1920, and 1941. Recent attempts 

to locate Cymopterus deserticola in 

areas of the historic Apple Valley 

collections have been unsuccessful, and 

it appears that these sites have been lost 

as a result of urban development and 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (Moe 

1988). The Apple Valley sites are also 

disjunct by at least 28 mi (45 km) from 

the nearest known extant populations 

(i.e., group of individuals of the same 

species living and interacting in the 

same geographic area). The known 

extant range of the species is confined 

mostly to the Rogers Dry Lake, Harper 

Dry Lake, Cuddeback Dry Lake, and 

Superior Dry Lake basins. The Rogers 

Dry Lake basin, where most of the 

plants are known to occur, is located 

mainly on EAFB in the southwestern 

portion of the species’ range. The 

Harper Dry Lake basin located in the 

central portion of the species’ range is 

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and private 

land owners. The Cuddeback Dry Lake 

basin located in the northern portion of 

the species’ range is under the 

jurisdiction of BLM. The Superior Dry 

Lake basin located in the eastern portion 

of the species range is mainly on Ft. 

Irwin, including the Ft. Irwin expansion 

area. This extant range extends 

approximately 50 mi (80 km) from east 

to west and 35 mi (56 km) from north 

to south. 

Since we published our 90-day 

finding on the petition to list the species 

on February 10, 2004 (69 FR 6240), the 

CNDDB received one new record of 

occurrence of Cymopterus deserticola in 

San Bernardino County. This brings the 

total number of known records in the 

CNDDB to 71 populations as of May 

2004. We also received additional 

records of occurrence for Kern and San 

Bernardino Counties in 2003 and 2004 

(Service files) which have not been 

entered into CNDDB. Currently there are 

a total of 105 known populations of C. 

deserticola.

The greatest number of known 

populations and individuals is located 

within the Rogers Dry Lake basin. The 

vast majority of the populations 

(approximately 87 percent) in this basin 

are located on EAFB, with a few of the 

known plants on BLM and private land 

to the north of the base. Intensive 

surveys for Cymopterus deserticola were 

conducted on EAFB in 1995 (Mitchell et 

al. 1995), during which 56 new 

populations were discovered. In all, 85 

C. deserticola populations were 

observed within this basin in 1995, with 

14,362 plants counted.

In 2003, EAFB developed a habitat 

model for Cymopterus deserticola and 

two other plant species of concern, 

Calochortus striatus (alkali mariposa 

lily) and Eriophyllum mohavense

(Barstow woolly sunflower). The model 

used the habitat attributes of the known 

occurrences of these species. The 

purpose of the model was to identify 

other potential sites where these species 

might occur. EAFB then conducted field 

surveys to validate the model. Six new 

populations of C. deserticola were found 

on EAFB and just to the north of the 

base during these field surveys (Wood 

2003). These new populations increased 

the known distribution and abundance 

of this species within the Rogers Dry 

Lake basin. Therefore, at least 91 (not 92 

as incorrectly reported in the 90-day 

finding (69 FR 6240)) populations of C. 

deserticola are currently known to occur 

within the basin. According to the 

CNDDB (2004), the number of 

individuals reported ranges from a 

single individual on less than 10.7 

square feet (1 square meter) to a 

population of 5,377 individuals on 

376.3 acres (ac) (152.3 hectares (ha)). 

The Cuddeback Dry Lake basin is 

under the jurisdiction of BLM, and the 

grazing privileges to this area have been 

acquired by non-profit environmental 

groups. Although extensive surveys for 

Cymopterus deserticola have not been 

conducted within the Cuddeback Dry 

Lake basin, four populations are 

currently known to occur within the 

basin. The number of individual plants 

in these populations varies from a few 

to more than 40 (CNDDB 2004), and 

additional data collected by BLM and 

the Department of Defense (DOD) in 

2003 and 2004 (Service files) regarding 

these populations are being submitted to 

the CNDDB. Dr. Michael Conner of the 

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee has 

observed individuals of C. deserticola

within the Cuddeback Dry Lake basin 

and believes that the number of 

individuals would be found to be higher 

than is currently known if focused 

surveys for C. deserticola were 

conducted in the Cuddeback Dry Lake 

basin (M. Conner, pers. comm. 2004). 

Glenn Harris of the BLM has also found 

C. deserticola to be more prevalent and 

widespread within this basin than 

reported in the petition and the CNDDB. 

He has found that the reported 

distribution and abundance of this 

species within this basin increases as 

suitable habitat is surveyed (G. Harris, 

pers. comm. 2004). He also believes the 

distribution of individuals within this 

basin would potentially increase if 

surveys focusing on C. deserticola and 

its habitat were conducted, and the 

actual number of individuals within this 

basin probably ranges from several 

hundred to a few thousand. 

Six known populations of Cymopterus 

deserticola occur in the Harper Dry Lake 

basin, totaling approximately 200 

individual plants (BLM 2001). However, 

extensive surveys focusing on C. 

deserticola have not been performed 

within this basin. 

Within the Superior Dry Lake basin, 

Silverman and Cione (BLM 2001) 

reported a previously unknown 

population of 40 individuals of 

Cymopterus deserticola in 2001. The 

U.S. Army’s Ft. Irwin conducted 

surveys in 2004 and found that the 

species occurred in greater abundance 

and over a wider area than previously 

known (Mickey Quillman, Natural 

Resources Manager, Ft. Irwin, pers. 

comm. 2004). These surveys did not 

include lands within the China Lake 

Naval Weapons Center (CLNWC) or 

NASA’s Goldstone facility that borders 

Ft. Irwin and the western expansion 

area of the Army’s National Training 

Center. However, C. deserticola was 

observed at the boundary between Ft. 

Irwin and CLNWC, and Ft. Irwin and 

Goldstone, indicating that there is high 

probability that C. deserticola is also 

present on CLNWC and Goldstone. 

The extent that a species is threatened 

depends on numerous factors, including 

the species’ range and distribution. 

Currently, the known range of 

Cymopterus deserticola is primarily 

based on occurrence data submitted to 

the CNDDB, but such data does not rule 

out the existence of additional occupied 

areas. C. deserticola is cryptic in nature, 

and often requires several years of 

surveying to identify occupied and 

unoccupied habitat due to this species’

short period of above-ground foliage and 

inflorescence. Also, survey information 

for C. deserticola is more complete for 

some areas than others, and large areas 

64886 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

within the plant’s range have not been 

surveyed. With the exception of EAFB 

and the recent April and May 2004 

surveys performed on Ft. Irwin’s 

western expansion area in the Superior 

Dry Lake basin, the range and 

distribution of C. deserticola has been 

poorly documented, especially for nonDOD lands. In addition, survey results 

are not always comparable because of 

the variation in how individual plants 

and populations (group of individuals of 

the same species living and interacting 

in the same geographic area) are tallied 

across the landscape. Moreover, surveys 

only count the individuals visible above 

ground; consequently, survey numbers 

may represent only a subset of the total 

number of individuals within a 

population. Because there are no survey 

data for many areas, the range and 

distribution of C. deserticola are not 

well established and may be more 

extensive than indicated by currently 

available information. For example, 

many new populations of C. deserticola

were found during recent focused 

surveys in Superior Dry Lake basin. 

From discussions with biologists from 

DOD (M. Quillman, pers. comm. 2004), 

BLM (G. Harris, pers. comm. 2004), and 

the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee 

(M. Conner, pers. comm. 2004), C. 

deserticola is thought to be more 

abundant and have a wider distribution 

than currently documented. 

Nevertheless, based on the currently 

known numerous extant populations 

and the status of these populations, 

discussed below, we have determined 

that listing is not warranted at this time.

Discussion of Listing Factors 

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

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424 set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal endangered and 

threatened species list. 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). These factors and their 

application to Cymopterus deserticola

are as follows: 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range.

According to the petition, Cymopterus 

deserticola is potentially vulnerable to 

habitat alteration and destruction due to 

military activities on EAFB, the 

expansion of Ft. Irwin, utility 

construction, OHV use, oil and gas 

development, and Land Tenure 

Adjustment (LTA) (a process whereby 

public and private lands are exchanged 

and consolidated). Of the 71 C. 

deserticola population occurrences 

reported in the CNDDB (2004), 55 

(roughly 77 percent) are on land 

managed by EAFB, 9 are on BLM lands, 

3 are on private lands, and 4 are located 

on lands with unknown ownership. 

Additional occurrences not yet reported 

to the CNDDB are located on land 

managed by the BLM and private land 

owners. 

One of the threats to known 

Cymopterus deserticola habitat 

mentioned by the petitioners is from the 

cleanup of the Propulsion Directorate 

Plume of groundwater contamination in 

the Rogers Dry Lake basin area on EAFB 

(EAFB 1998). The petitioners claim that 

the associated effects from extracting 

contaminated groundwater would be 

surface disturbance and a massive 

change in hydrology, and that these 

effects may imperil the persistence of 

this large population. However, EAFB is 

not conducting, and is not planning to 

conduct, groundwater extraction (EAFB 

in litt. 2004). The only activity that may 

affect C. deserticola is groundwater 

monitoring, which includes installation 

of wells and access to wells via foot 

traffic to sample groundwater at the well 

sites. According to EAFB, from 1999 to 

2003, cleanup activities associated with 

this plume, which underlies this large 

population, have disturbed less than 

0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of the 86 ac (35 ha) 

associated with this known population. 

Therefore, the number of individual 

plants affected by this action is expected 

to be minimal due to the extremely 

small area of disturbance at this site. 

Other military activities within the 

boundaries of EAFB include occasional 

foot traffic to conduct wildlife and plant 

inventories. These activities should 

have little or no impact on Cymopterus 

deserticola. Activities in the eastern 

portion of the base are generally limited 

to foot traffic and routine range 

operations that have a minimal impact 

on C. deserticola, and ground training 

using troops and vehicles in this area is 

rare, typically limited to existing roads 

and cleared areas (EAFB, in litt. 2004). 

No other activities are currently being 

conducted on EAFB that would affect 

the habitat of C. deserticola (Shannon 

Collis, pers. comm. 2004). 

At the time the petitioners submitted 

their petition, only a single population 

of approximately 40 individual plants 

was known from the Superior Dry Lake 

basin. The petitioners claimed that this 

population would be threatened with 

extirpation from large-scale tank 

maneuvers that would result from the 

expansion of Ft. Irwin. Although this 

may have been the eventual outcome for 

the single known population, three 

additional populations have been found 

in this basin since the petition was 

submitted. These four populations vary 

by area and number of individuals. One 

population is located on 33 acres and 

contained 12 individuals, a second 

population located on 61 acres 

contained 60 individuals, a third 

population located on 298 acres 

contained 366 individuals, and a fourth 

population located on 371 acres 

contained 484 individuals (Ft. Irwin 

2004). Although military training 

exercises are likely to adversely affect 

three of the four populations, Ft. Irwin 

has installed a permanent fence around 

the 298 acres containing the 366-plant 

population, thereby protecting this 

population from all military operations 

as well as from OHV use and grazing 

(M. Quillman, pers. comm. 2004). 

Permanent fencing has been effectively 

used by Ft. Irwin to protect the 

threatened plant, Astragalus jaegerianus

(Lane Mountain milk-vetch) from 

military operations (M. Quillman, pers. 

comm. 2004). Fencing for Cymopterus 

deserticola and A. jaegerianus is 

maintained by Ft. Irwin on a monthly 

basis, and Ft. Irwin strictly enforces area 

closures. Electronic monitoring devices 

warn tracked vehicles on approach of 

closed areas, and breaches are rare (M. 

Quillman, pers. comm. 2004).

Although focused surveys for 

Cymopterus deserticola have not been 

conducted on CLNWC, which is located 

adjacent and to the north and west of Ft. 

Irwin, plants are known to occur there 

(M. Quillman, pers. comm. 2004). 

Ground-based military training 

operations do not occur on CLNWC, and 

threats to the plants on CLNWC are 

minimal. Focused surveys have also not 

been conducted on BLM lands adjacent 

to Ft. Irwin in the Superior Dry Lake 

basin. However, based on the presence 

of suitable habitat for C. deserticola on 

BLM land, it is highly likely that plants 

also occur there. As mentioned above, 

Ft. Irwin has conducted focused surveys 

of the base. To locate new populations 

and further delineate the range of the 

plant in the Superior Dry Lake basin, Ft. 

Irwin will expand their surveys for C. 

deserticola to include areas outside of 

Ft. Irwin’s boundaries next year 

contingent upon adequate rains. 

CLNWC will also conduct surveys for C. 

deserticola next year, contingent upon 

adequate rains (Steve Penix, CLNWC, 

pers. comm. 2004). Therefore, because 

of the large number of plants (366) and 

their habitat (298 acres) that Ft. Irwin is 

protecting and the presence of plants on 

CLNWC where threats are minimal, we 

believe that C. deserticola is not likely 

to be in danger of extirpation in this 

area within the foreseeable future. 

The petitioners claim that utility 

construction has impacted Cymopterus 

deserticola and its habitat in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64887

southern portion of Harper Dry Lake 

basin and the northern portion of Rogers 

Dry Lake basin. According to the 

petitioners, the known locations of C. 

deserticola within this utility corridor 

are the result of surveys performed for 

a linear energy project. Less than 1 

percent of known C. deserticola

individuals are located within 

designated utility corridors, and no new 

utility corridors are proposed in the 

West Mojave Plan (WMP) (BLM 2003). 

Utility corridors are used for both 

electrical transmission lines and oil and 

gas pipelines. Although past utility 

construction has likely resulted in the 

loss of some habitat and individual 

plants, we do not consider utility 

construction to be a major current threat 

to this species because very few plants 

are known to occur within existing 

corridors. 

Heavy recreational OHV activity has 

been cited as seriously impacting 

potential Cymopterus deserticola habitat 

and may have been at least partly 

responsible for the extirpation of the 

population in Apple Valley (Moe 1988). 

The petitioners claim that OHV activity 

has impacted C. deserticola habitat in 

the Superior Valley, and BLM has 

assessed the habitat at the single 

previously known Superior Valley 

population as being in ‘‘poor condition’’

due to adverse effects from OHV 

recreation. However, with the expansion 

of Ft. Irwin, recreational OHV activity is 

now precluded from much of the area, 

and Ft. Irwin has now permanently 

fenced a large, 366-plant Superior Dry 

Lake population, thereby protecting it 

from OHV activity. 

We have been unable to find any 

documentation indicating OHV activity 

as a threat to Cymopterus deserticola

and its habitat within the Harper, 

Rogers, and Cuddeback Dry Lake basins. 

According to the WMP (BLM 2003), the 

Harper Dry Lake basin area is used for 

environmental education, nature study, 

and wildlife viewing, and OHV use is 

restricted to the open routes of travel. 

Within the Rogers Dry Lake basin 

located on EAFB, OHV activity is not 

allowed. Within the Cuddeback Dry 

Lake basin area, where there may be as 

many as a few thousand plants (G. 

Harris, pers. comm. 2004), OHV activity 

is designated by the BLM as a ‘‘limited’’

use area; in limited use areas, 

‘‘motorized-vehicle access is allowed 

only on certain existing routes of travel, 

which include roads, ways, trails, and 

washes’’ (BLM 1980). In designated 

‘‘open’’ use areas, ‘‘vehicle travel is 

permitted anywhere in the area if the 

vehicle is operated responsibly in 

accordance with regulations and subject 

to permission of private land owners if 

applicable’’ (BLM 1980). Open use areas 

are the preferred destination for OHV 

enthusiasts, and receive much more 

activity than limited or moderate use 

areas. This does not mean, however, 

that OHV activity is nonexistent in 

limited or moderate use areas, but rather 

the threat of OHV activity in these areas 

is minimal due to the majority of OHV 

activity taking place in open areas. 

Because OHV activity is either not 

permitted, or only permitted to the 

limited passage of vehicles across the 

area and allowed only on designated 

existing roads, and that the areas 

described above do not receive the level 

of OHV activity as open areas, we do not 

consider OHV use as a major threat to 

C. deserticola populations within the 

Harper, Rogers, and Cuddeback Dry 

Lake basin areas. 

Presently, and in the foreseeable 

future, the existence of Cymopterus 

deserticola does not appear to be 

threatened by oil and gas development. 

We are not aware of any oil and gas 

development projects within the area 

occupied by C. deserticola, nor is BLM 

aware of any such projects (Larry Lapre, 

BLM, pers. comm. 2004). 

The petitioners expressed concern 

regarding one population located north 

of EAFB in the Peerless Valley that is 

available for LTA. They state that this 

action would potentially remove 

another site from public domain. 

However, according to the Record of 

Decision for the Western Mojave Land 

Tenure Adjustment Project, ‘‘Should a 

listed or sensitive species, other than 

those previously covered by 

consultation and conference, be found 

on a parcel proposed for disposal during 

site specific analysis, consultation will 

be initiated with Federal and State fish 

and wildlife agencies to determine if 

mitigation should be applied prior to or 

after disposal or if the disposal should 

not occur’’ (BLM 1991). Since 

Cymopterus deserticola is considered by 

BLM to be a sensitive species, either the 

loss of this site would not occur or 

would be mitigated. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes. The listing petition 

acknowledges, and we agree, that 

current data do not indicate that this 

factor constitutes a threat to Cymopterus 

deserticola.

C. Disease or Predation. The listing 

petition acknowledges, and we agree, 

that current data do not indicate that 

disease constitutes a threat to 

Cymopterus deserticola. The listing 

petition also acknowledges that there is 

currently nothing in the scientific 

literature about the effects of livestock 

grazing on this species. However, 

grazing has been documented as a threat 

on EAFB in the Rogers Dry Lake basin 

area (EAFB, in litt. 2004), and as noted 

by the petitioners, grazing continues to 

occur in several areas within the range 

of C. deserticola.

Even though livestock grazing on 

EAFB is prohibited, a research study 

site for Cymopterus deserticola on EAFB 

was directly affected when the 

aboveground portion of all plants were 

eaten by trespass sheep in 1994. By 

2001, EAFB installed a fence along the 

boundary of the base preventing access 

by livestock and eliminating the threat 

of grazing on C. deserticola in the 

Rogers Dry Lake basin area of EAFB 

(EAFB, in litt. 2004). 

Cymopterus deserticola occurs within 

the 26,314-ac (10,649-ha) Harper Lake 

cattle grazing allotment, which is within 

the Harper Dry Lake basin and is 

managed by BLM. In the past, trespass 

grazing (cattle and sheep) from this 

allotment has been chronic on adjacent 

lands where a population of C. 

deserticola is located (BLM 1998). BLM 

has installed a fence to reduce the 

possibility of trespass grazing on the 

adjacent land and to confine the grazing 

to the allotment itself where, for the 

time being, grazing still occurs (Charles 

Sullivan, BLM, pers. comm. 2004). 

Therefore, currently, grazing by 

livestock on C. deserticola and potential 

impacts (e.g., trampling, soil 

compaction) to the habitat have been 

minimized in the Harper Dry Lake 

basin, and we believe that C. deserticola

is not likely to be in danger of 

extirpation in this area within the 

foreseeable future. In addition to the 

fencing installed by BLM, as mitigation 

for the Ft. Irwin expansion area, the 

Army has purchased lands within the 

Harper Lake cattle grazing allotment 

(Anthony Chavez, BLM, pers. comm. 

2004). As a condition for this purchase, 

the owner has relinquished all grazing 

privileges to the allotment. Therefore, 

cattle grazing will no longer occur in 

this allotment, and the potential threat 

to C. deserticola from grazing will be 

eliminated from this large area. 

Cymopterus deserticola occurs within 

the 49,000-ac (19,830-ha) Pilot Knob 

cattle grazing allotment, which is 

located within the Cuddeback Dry Lake 

basin. To benefit the desert tortoise, the 

Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee 

(Preserve Committee) and the Wildlands 

Conservancy purchased 1,360 ac (550 

ha) of desert tortoise critical habitat 

within the allotment and thereby gained 

control of all grazing privileges, water 

rights, structures, and range 

improvements for the entire allotment 

(Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee 

1996). The Preserve Committee does not 

64888 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

allow any livestock grazing to occur 

within the Pilot Knob allotment. 

Although the elimination of grazing in 

this 49,000-ac area is to protect the 

desert tortoise, the potential threat of 

grazing to C. deserticola has also been 

eliminated. 

Grazing has occurred within the 

Superior Dry Lake basin in the past. 

However, with the expansion of Ft. 

Irwin, grazing is now precluded from 

much of the area, and Ft. Irwin has now 

permanently fenced a large, 366-plant 

Superior Dry Lake population, thereby 

protecting it from grazing. 

At the Rogers Dry Lake basin, high 

levels of ‘‘leaf predation’’ on 

Cymopterus deserticola were observed 

in two studies on EAFB in areas not 

grazed by livestock (Mitchell et al. 1995; 

Charleton 1993). Such grazing was 

likely due to a variety of native animals 

such as black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus 

californicus), brush rabbits (Family 

Leporidae), ground squirrels (Family 

Sciuridae), kangaroo rats (Family 

Heteromyidae), mice (Families 

Cricetidae), desert tortoise, caterpillars 

(Order Lepidoptera), and beetles (Order 

Coleoptera) (Bagley 1998). Although the 

effects of grazing on C. deserticola by 

native wildlife are unknown, this type 

of grazing is a natural component of the 

Mojave Desert ecosystem, and we do not 

believe that native wildlife is a threat to 

C. deserticola.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. We have not 

used the WMP in our finding regarding 

Cymopterus deserticola because it is 

presently still in draft form, and is 

therefore, not an existing regulatory 

mechanism. However, the petitioners 

expressed concern about the draft WMP, 

which will function as a multiple 

species habitat management plan for the 

desert tortoise and other listed and 

sensitive species within the planning 

area. They claim that Cymopterus 

deserticola has been dropped from the 

planning process because the species 

cannot have a viable conservation 

strategy without military participation 

(BLM 2002). However, according to the 

draft Environmental Impact Report and 

Statement (EIR/EIS) for the WMP (BLM 

2003), C. deserticola has not been 

dropped from the plan. The EIR/EIS 

states that C. deserticola that occurs in 

the northern Rogers, Cuddeback, and 

Harper Dry Lake basin areas is a species 

targeted for conservation measures. 

Conservation of this species is 

addressed on the portion of its known 

range that is outside of EAFB. The draft 

WMP (BLM 2003) requires botanical 

surveys for projects proposed within 

suitable habitat for C. deserticola (the 

North Edwards Conservation Area, and 

the Fremont-Kramer and SuperiorCronese Desert Wildlife Management 

Areas (DWMAs)). If the plant is located, 

prescriptions call for avoiding all 

individuals to the maximum extent 

practicable and reporting the loss of any 

plants. In Kern County, the draft WMP 

proposes the following measures: 

establishing the North Edwards 

Conservation Area (NECA) to protect C. 

deserticola populations that extend off 

of EAFB, requiring botanical surveys, 

limiting new ground disturbance to 1 

percent of a DWMA, applying a 5:1 

mitigation ratio within the Conservation 

Area, and adjusting the boundary of the 

NECA over time to reflect survey 

results. BLM intends to issue a final 

WMP within the next few months, and 

to begin implementing these 

conservation measures shortly 

thereafter. 

The petitioners state that the lack of 

management or conservation strategies 

by EAFB and the ongoing projects on 

EAFB that adversely affect this species 

leave the future survival of Cymopterus 

deserticola populations in most of the 

Rogers Dry Lake basin uncertain. They 

also state that, since the core 

populations of this species are located 

on EAFB, without assured conservation 

measures in place, the long-term 

survival of C. deserticola remains in 

question. 

As discussed above under Factor A, 

threats to Cymopterus deserticola on 

EAFB are minimal. In April 2004, EAFB 

revised the October 2001 Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) to include C. deserticola,

thereby providing further assurance that 

the threats will remain minimal. The 

2004 INRMP contains conservation 

measures (e.g., develop and implement 

an education awareness program, 

project review, project alternatives 

designed to minimize impacts, 

construction monitoring, habitat 

modeling) to manage for C. deserticola

and funding for research (e.g., 

population status, additional habitat 

modeling, reproductive biology, growth 

experiments) on this species. In 

addition, one of the objectives of EAFB 

is to use existing inventory, monitoring, 

and research data to develop a 

management and long term monitoring 

plan. Thus, the 2004 INRMP for EAFB 

has a management strategy for the 

conservation of C. deserticola.

Based on the overall status of 

Cymopterus deserticola and the 

inclusion of C. deserticola in the INRMP 

for EAFB where the vast majority of the 

plants occur, the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are adequate. In the future, 

the inclusion of C. deserticola in the 

WMP will provide further protective 

measures to other populations outside 

of EAFB. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence. The 

petitioners claim that the extremely 

limited distribution and relatively small 

numbers of individuals of Cymopterus 

deserticola make populations 

vulnerable to stochastic extinction. 

Although it is possible that a few 

populations with very small numbers of 

individuals could be lost, we believe 

that the species is not at risk of 

extinction from stochastic events. The 

number of populations and individuals 

is now known to be greater than 

reported in the petition, and the species 

is distributed over a relatively broad 

area (approximately 50 mi (80 km) from 

east to west and 35 mi (56 km) from 

north to south). Because most of the 

one-hundred plus populations are 

secure, or have very minimal threats, we 

believe that listing is not needed at this 

time. Also, we are not aware of any 

other factors that may be considered a 

threat to C. deserticola at this time.

Petition Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by this species. 

We reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, other published 

and unpublished information, and 

comments submitted to us during the 

public comment period following our 

90-day petition finding, and we 

consulted with recognized botanists and 

experts from other resource agencies. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the proposal to list Cymopterus 

deserticola as threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range is not warranted at this time. 

A summary of threats to the 105 total 

known populations of C. deserticola is 

provided in Table 1; we have evaluated 

the threat level using a scale of none, 

minimal, low, moderate, and high. 

Some of the threats described by the 

petitioners have now been minimized or 

reduced (e.g., grazing) in some areas. 

Some potential threats described by the 

petitioners are not expected to occur 

(e.g., change in hydrology on EAFB as 

a result of groundwater extraction or oil 

and gas development). Although some 

C. deserticola habitat will be lost to 

military training in the Ft. Irwin 

expansion area, Ft. Irwin has protected 

a large population in this basin, which 

in fact contains a larger number of 

individuals (366 rather than 40 

individuals) within the expansion area 

than was mentioned in the petition. 

Overall, we believe the remaining 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64889

threats to the species are minimal to 

low. Public agencies and organizations 

have also implemented actions that 

have eliminated or reduced the threats 

to various populations of C. deserticola

(e.g., elimination of grazing from the 

Pilot Knob grazing allotment and the 

Harper Lake grazing allotment). Of 

particular importance, EAFB, where the 

vast majority of populations 

(approximately 87 percent) are known 

to occur, has included and implemented 

conservation measures for C. deserticola

in the most recent revision to its 

INRMP. Overall, threats to C. deserticola

on EAFB are minimal (Table 1).

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE 105 TOTAL KNOWN POPULATIONS OF DESERT CYMOPTERUS

(Cymopterus deserticola) 

Basin General land ownership 

Number of 

known

populations 

Identified threats Status of threats Threat level 

Rogers Dry Lake ............. Edwards Air Force Base 

(EAFB).

91 Cleanup ......................... Not occurring ................. None. 

Military activities ............ Limited activities ............ Minimal. 

Grazing .......................... Fencing installed on 

EAFB.

Minimal. 

Utilities ........................... No new corridors ........... Minimal. 

Inadequacy of management.INRMP modified ............ Minimal. 

Cuddeback Dry Lake ...... BLM ............................... 4 Grazing .......................... None in 49,000 acre 

Pilot Knob allotment.

None to Minimal. 

Off Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) use.

Limited use .................... Minimal to low. 

Energy ........................... Not expected ................. None. 

Harper Dry Lake ............. BLM/private ................... 6 Grazing .......................... Eliminated as mitigation 

for Ft. Irwin expansion.

None to Minimal. 

OHV use ........................ Moderate use ................ Low. 

Energy ........................... Not expected ................. None. 

Utilities ........................... No new corridors ........... Minimal. 

Superior Dry Lake ........... Ft. Irwin ......................... 4 Military activities ............ Protection of large population.

1 None to high. 

1Ft. Irwin has eliminated the threats to one large, 366-plant population. Threats from military training to the other three populations are moderate to high. 

We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species and will accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. This 

information will help us monitor and 

encourage beneficial measures for this 

species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available on request from the 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Robert McMorran, Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: October 29, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones Jr., 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24700 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the White-Tailed Prairie 

Dog as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

leucurus) as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. We find the petition 

and other information available do not 

provide substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species may be warranted. 

Therefore, we will not be initiating a 

further status review in response to this 

petition. We ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of the 

species or threats to it. This will help us 

monitor and encourage the conservation 

of the species.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 2, 

2004. You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

finding is available for inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 

West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley 

City, Utah 84119. Submit new 

information, materials, comments or 

questions concerning this taxon to the 

Service at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, at the 

address given in the ADDRESSES section 

or telephone 801–975–3330 or facsimile 

801–975–3331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

(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