Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41649 

accepted during the regional office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

regional office official hours of business 

are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Aburano, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period; 

therefore, any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–19467 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131; MO 

9221050083–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on 

a Petition To List 206 Species in the 

Midwest and Western United States as 

Threatened or Endangered 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 38 species from a 

petition to list 206 species in the 

mountain-prairie region of the United 

States as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). For 9 of the 38 

species, we find that the petition did not 

present substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted. 

For 29 of the 38 species, we find that the 

petition does present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

of the 29 species to determine if listing 

is warranted. To ensure that the review 

is comprehensive, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding these 29 species. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct a status review, we request that 

we receive information on or before 

October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket no. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131. 

• U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6– 

ES–2008–0131, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Carlson, Listing Coordinator, MountainPrairie Regional Ecological Services 

Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 303– 

236–4264. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that a species 

may be warranted, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species. To ensure that the 

status review is complete and based on 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we are 

soliciting information concerning the 

status of the 29 species for which we 

found that the petition provides 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted. We request information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning the 

status of the species. We are seeking 

information regarding the species’ 

historical and current status and 

distribution, their biology and ecology, 

ongoing conservation measures for the 

species and their habitats, and threats to 

the species or their habitats. 

Please note that comments merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 

(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as 

to whether any species is a threatened 

or endangered species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(B)). 

You may submit your information 

concerning this 90-day finding or the 29 

species by one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. We will not 

consider submissions sent by e-mail or 

fax or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation 

used in preparing this 90-day finding, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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 

a petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition. To 

the maximum extent practicable, we are 

to make the 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,’’ as defined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b), 

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.’’ If we find 

that substantial information was 

presented, we are required to promptly 

commence a status review of the 

species. 

In making this finding, we based our 

decision on information provided by the 

petitioner that we determined to be 

reliable after reviewing sources 

referenced in the petition and otherwise 

available in our files. We evaluated that 

information in accordance with 50 CFR 

424.14(b). Our process for making this 

90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act is limited to a determination 

of whether the information in the 

petition meets the ‘‘substantial 

information’’ threshold. 

Petition 

On July 30, 2007, we received a 

formal petition dated July 24, 2007, 

from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians) requesting that the Service: 

(1) Consider all full species in our 

Mountain Prairie Region ranked as G1 

or G1G2 by the organization 

NatureServe, except those that are 

currently listed, proposed for listing, or 

candidates for listing; and (2) list each 

species as either endangered or 

threatened. The petition incorporated 

all analysis, references, and 

documentation provided by 

NatureServe in its online database at 

http://www.natureserve.org/ into the 

petition. The petition clearly identified 

itself as a petition and included the 

identification information, as required 

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

the petitioners, dated August 24, 2007, 

acknowledging receipt of the petition 

and stating that, based on preliminary 

review, we found no compelling 

evidence to support an emergency 

listing for any of the species covered by 

the petition. 

On March 19, 2008, WildEarth 

Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– 

472–CKK) indicating that the Service 

failed to comply with its mandatory 

duty to make a preliminary 90-day 

finding on their two multiple species 

petitions—one for mountain-prairie 

species, and one for southwest species. 

We subsequently published two initial 

90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74 

FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 

6122). On March 13, 2009, the Service 

and WildEarth Guardians filed a 

stipulated settlement in the District of 

Columbia Court, agreeing that the 

Service would submit to the Federal 

Register a finding as to whether 

WildEarth Guardians’ petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for 38 mountain-prairie species by 

August 9, 2009. This finding meets that 

portion of the settlement. 

On June 18, 2008, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians, 

dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list 

32 species under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) and the 

Endangered Species Act. Of those 32 

species, 11 were included in the July 24, 

2007, petition to be listed on a nonemergency basis. Although the Act does 

not provide for a petition process for an 

interested person to seek to have a 

species emergency listed, section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act authorizes the Service to 

issue emergency regulations to 

temporarily list a species. In a letter 

dated July 25, 2008, we stated that the 

information provided in both the 2007 

and 2008 petitions and in our files did 

not indicate that an emergency situation 

existed for any of the 11 species. The 

Service’s decisions whether to exercise 

its authority to issue emergency 

regulations to temporarily list a species 

are not judicially reviewable. See Fund 

for Animals v. Hogan, 428 F.3d 1059 

(DC Cir. 2005). 

The following discussion presents our 

evaluation of a portion of the species 

included in the July 24, 2007, petition, 

based on information provided in the 

petition and our current understanding 

of the species. 

The 2007 petition included a list of 

206 species. Two species, Cymopterus 

beckii (pinnate spring-parsley) and 

Camissonia gouldii (Diamond Valley 

suncup), also were included in a 

separate petition to list 475 species in 

our Southwest Region that we received 

on June 18, 2007. We reviewed the 

species files for Cymopterus beckii and 

Camissonia gouldii under the June 18, 

2007, petition, and in an initial response 

to the petition for 475 species included 

them in a 90-day finding for 270 species 

published on January 6, 2009 (74 FR 

419), concluding that the petition did 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing of the species may be warranted. 

We addressed an additional 165 

species (from the petition to list 206 

species) in a 90-day finding that 

published on February 5, 2009 (74 FR 

6122), concluding that the petition did 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing of the species may be warranted. 

The petitions for 206 and 475 species 

each included Sphaeralcea gierischii 

(Gierisch mallow). We found this 

species is currently a candidate species 

for listing and that action was initiated 

through a candidate assessment 

completed by the Southwest Region 

headquartered in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. We have sufficient information 

on biological vulnerability and threats 

to support a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened (i.e., it met 

our definition of a candidate species); 

however, preparation and publication of 

a proposed rule is precluded by higherpriority listing actions—existing 

candidates with listing priority numbers 

of 2 and additional factors such as 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) rankings. The species 

was included in the Candidate Notice of 

Review that published on December 10, 

2008 (73 FR 75176). The threats to S. 

gierischii are high in magnitude, 

because survival of the species is 

threatened throughout its entire range in 

Arizona by gypsum mining, and the two 

largest populations exist in areas that 

are being actively mined. Loss of those 

two populations would significantly 

reduce the total number of individuals 

throughout the range, threatening the 

long-term viability of the species. The 

threats are imminent, because they are 

ongoing in Arizona. Therefore, we 

assigned a listing priority number of 2 

to this species. 

Species Information 

The petitioners presented two tables 

that collectively listed the 206 species 

for consideration and requested that the 

Service incorporate all analysis, 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41651 

references, and documentation provided 

by NatureServe in its online database 

into the petition. The information 

presented by NatureServe (http:// 

www.natureserve.org/) is found in peerreviewed professional journal articles 

and is considered to be a reputable 

source of scientific information. We 

judge this source to be reliable with 

regard to the information it presents. 

However, NatureServe indicates on their 

Web Site that information in their 

database is not intended for determining 

whether species are warranted for 

listing under the Act, and we found that 

the information cited was limited in its 

usefulness for this process. 

We accessed the NatureServe database 

on August 10, 2007. We saved 

hardcopies of each species’ file and 

used this information, including 

references cited within these files, 

during our review. Therefore, all 

information we used from the species 

files in NatureServe was current to that 

date. All of the petitioned species were 

ranked by NatureServe as G1 (critically 

imperiled) or G1G2 (between critically 

imperiled and imperiled). 

We reviewed all references cited in 

the NatureServe database species files 

that were available to us. Some 

literature cited was not readily available 

through known sources, and we 

requested these directly from the 

petitioner. For some species in 

NatureServe, there is a ‘‘Local 

Programs’’ link to the Web Sites of the 

State programs that contribute 

information to NatureServe. We found 

this ‘‘Local Programs’’ link to have 

additional information for very few of 

the 206 species. We reviewed 

information in references cited in 

NatureServe and information readily 

available in our files that was directly 

relevant to the information raised in the 

petition. 

We have already assessed 168 of the 

206 species. This petition addresses the 

remaining 38 species, which are listed 

below in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF 38 SPECIES INCLUDED IN THIS FINDING

Scientific name Common name Range Group 

Species for which Substantial Information was not Presented: 

Amnicola sp. 2 ......................................................................... Washington duskysnail .......... ID, MT, WA ............................ Mollusk. 

Camissonia exilis ..................................................................... Cottonwood Spring suncup ... AZ, UT ................................... Plant. 

Discus brunsoni ....................................................................... Lake disc ................................ MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Frasera gypsicola .................................................................... Sunnyside green-gentian ....... NV, UT ................................... Plant. 

Lomatium latilobum .................................................................. Canyonlands lomatium .......... CO, UT ................................... Plant. 

Lygodesmia doloresensis ........................................................ Dolores River skeletonplant ... CO, UT ................................... Plant. 

Oreohelix sp. 4 ........................................................................ Drummond mountainsnail ...... MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Oreohelix amariradix ................................................................ Bitterroot mountainsnail ......... MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Oreohelix carinifera .................................................................. Keeled mountainsnail ............ MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Species for which Substantial Information was Presented: 

Abronia ammophila .................................................................. Yellowstone sand verbena .... WY ......................................... Plant. 

Agrostis rossiae ....................................................................... Ross’ bentgrass ..................... WY ......................................... Plant. 

Astragalus hamiltonii ................................................................ Hamilton milkvetch ................. CO, UT ................................... Plant. 

Astragalus iselyi ....................................................................... Isely milkvetch ....................... UT .......................................... Plant. 

Astragalus microcymbus .......................................................... Skiff milkvetch ........................ CO .......................................... Plant. 

Astragalus proimanthus ........................................................... Precocious milkvetch ............. WY ......................................... Plant. 

Astragalus sabulosus ............................................................... Cisco milkvetch ...................... UT .......................................... Plant. 

Astragalus schmolliae .............................................................. Schmoll milkvetch .................. CO .......................................... Plant. 

Boechera (Arabis) pusilla ........................................................ Fremont County rockcress ..... WY ......................................... Plant. 

Catinella gelida ........................................................................ Frigid ambersnail ................... IA, IL, IN, KY (Extirpated), MI, 

MO, MS, OH, SD, WI.

Mollusk. 

Corispermum navicula ............................................................. Boat-shaped bugseed ............ CO .......................................... Plant. 

Cryptantha semiglabra ............................................................. Pine Springs cryptantha ........ AZ, UT ................................... Plant. 

Draba weberi ........................................................................... Weber whitlowgrass ............... CO .......................................... Plant. 

Eriogonum brandegeei ............................................................ Brandegee’s wild buckwheat CO .......................................... Plant. 

Eriogonum soredium ................................................................ Frisco buckwheat ................... UT .......................................... Plant. 

Ironoquia plattensis .................................................................. Platte River caddisfly ............. NE .......................................... Invertebrate. 

Lednia tumana ......................................................................... Meltwater lednian stonefly ..... CAN: MB USA: MT, ND, WA Invertebrate. 

Lepidium ostleri ........................................................................ Ostler’s peppergrass .............. UT .......................................... Plant. 

Lepidomeda copei ................................................................... Northern leatherside Chub .... ID, NV, UT, WY ..................... Fish. 

Lesquerella navajoensis .......................................................... (No common name) ............... AZ, NM, NN, UT .................... Plant. 

Oreohelix sp. 3 ........................................................................ Bearmouth mountainsnail ...... MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Oreohelix sp. 31 ...................................................................... Byrne Resort mountainsnail .. MT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Penstemon flowersii ................................................................. Flowers penstemon ............... UT .......................................... Plant. 

Penstemon gibbensii ............................................................... Gibben’s beardtongue ........... CO, UT, WY ........................... Plant. 

Pyrgulopsis anguina ................................................................ Longitudinal gland pyrg ......... NV, UT ................................... Mollusk. 

Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis .......................................................... Hamlin Valley pyrg ................. UT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Pyrgulopsis saxatilis ................................................................ Sub-globose snake pyrg ........ UT .......................................... Mollusk. 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum ...................................................... Pale blue-eyed grass ............. ND, OR, WA .......................... Plant. 

Trifolium friscanum .................................................................. Frisco clover .......................... UT .......................................... Plant. 

Five-Factor Evaluation 

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 the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segment of 

vertebrate taxa may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened 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 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41652 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above factors, singly or in 

combination. 

Under the Act, a threatened species is 

defined as a species that is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. An 

endangered species is defined as a 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. In making this 90-day finding, 

we evaluated whether information on 

each of the 38 species, as presented in 

the petition and other information in 

our files is substantial, indicating that 

listing any of the 38 species as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted. Our evaluation is presented 

below. 

We separately addressed each species 

with respect to the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For each 

species, we fully evaluated all 

information available to us through the 

NatureServe website, and in our files. 

Because so little information was 

available in our files for these, typically 

rare, species, we did not distinguish 

between information obtained from the 

website and our files. 

Species for Which Substantial 

Information Was Not Presented 

Amnicola sp. 2 (Washington 

Duskysnail) 

Currently, three locations of the 

Washington duskysnail exist ƒ two in 

Washington and one in Montana. 

Washington duskysnail (Amnicola sp. 2) 

may be the same as a species included 

in a separate petition to list 32 species 

of mollusks, also called Washington 

duskysnail (Lyogyrus sp. 2). The 

historical range of Amnicola sp. 2 is 

hypothesized to include a larger area; 

according to Frest and Johannes (1995, 

p. 158), the species is declining in 

populations and number of individuals; 

however, this information is speculative 

because the authors based their analysis 

of the species’ historical range on 

geographic characteristics, not on actual 

survey data. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, the species’ 

survival is thought to be affected by 

poor water quality associated with 

residential development, grazing, 

logging, and intentional aquatic 

organism control activities and fish 

reintroductions that occur in potential 

habitat or existing areas of occurrence. 

These activities, which potentially 

adversely affect water quality are 

general, and no quantification, 

verification, or subsequent effect to the 

species was presented. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Washington duskysnail may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

activities affecting water quality. 

Cammissonia exilis (Cottonwood Spring 

Suncup) 

Camissonia exilis is endemic to 

gypsiferous soils in Kane County, Utah, 

and Coconino and Mohave Counties, 

Arizona. The species is a narrow 

endemic, which may affect its ability to 

persist when faced with habitat 

reductions. Not much is known about 

this species. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, off-road vehicle 

(ORV) use and woodcutting are known 

to occur at some sites occupied by the 

species; however, no quantification, 

verification, or effect to the species was 

presented. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Camissonia exilis may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

ORV use or woodcutting. 

Discus brunsoni (Lake Disc) 

The lake disc is a mollusk found only 

on the north shore of McDonald Lake in 

the Mission Range, Lake County, 

Montana. The species is a highly 

localized endemic. Limited survey 

information exists, and population 

trends are unknown. The species has 

been consistently present at the location 

from 1948 to 1997 (Hendricks 2003a, p. 

10). Although extensive surveys have 

been performed, only 1 location of 

approximately 100 by 300 yards (91 by 

274 meters) in size is known (Brunson 

1956, p. 17; Hendricks 2003a, pp. 9–11). 

As additional information is gathered on 

the requirements of the species, more 

occupied locations may be determined; 

however, the species is difficult to 

detect even when present and with 

significant survey effort (Brunson 1956, 

entire; Hendricks 2003b, p. 10). 

Factor A: Fire and subsequent talus 

destabilization above and below the 

occupancy site of this species could 

threaten its habitat (Frest and Johannes 

1995, p. 98), but substantial information 

on these potential threats was not 

presented. Much of the Mission Range 

has been logged, or is slated for logging, 

but this potential threat likely does not 

affect the species because it is 

associated with loose rock talus slopes 

that support lichens and mosses 

(Brunson 1956, p. 17), and low canopy 

cover but not trees (Hendricks 2003b p. 

9). Other snail species are found in duff 

at the sides of talus slides, but the lake 

disc has not been found in duff 

(Hendricks 2003a, p. 5). Livestock 

generally avoid unstable rocky slopes 

and, therefore, the species is not likely 

to be affected by them (Hendricks 

2003a, p. 5). A recreation trail exists at 

the site (Hendricks 2003a, p. 11), but 

effects related to it have not been 

documented or linked to the species. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: The species has had a 

limited geographic range since 1948. 

However, no information was presented 

either in NatureServe or the petition 

indicating that a restricted range may be 

a threat to the species. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Discus brunsoni may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range due to 

fire, talus destabilization, logging, 

livestock, recreational use, or due to the 

species’ restricted range. 

Frasera gypsicola (Sunnyside GreenGentian) 

Frasera gypsicola grows on white 

calcareous barrens and Pleistocene 

spring-mounds in Millard County, Utah, 

and Nye and White Counties, Nevada. 

The White River Valley of Nevada 

contains 9 previously known sites 

(Smith 2000, p. 8) and 17 newly 

discovered sites (Forbis 2007, pp. 2–3). 

Populations include approximately 

69,000 individuals on 321 hectares (ha) 

(793 acres (ac)) (Smith 1994, p. 8). The 

size of the Utah population is unknown, 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41653 

but considered to be much smaller 

(England pers. comm. 2008). 

Factor A: Potential threats include 

livestock trampling, road widening, 

seismic exploration, juniper cutting, and 

agricultural or ORV use (Smith 2000, p. 

14). However, no evidence was 

presented to indicate that any of these 

activities currently pose a threat to any 

of the known populations (Smith 2000, 

pp. 14–15). 

Factors B and C: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factors. 

Factor D: The species is protected by 

the State of Nevada, and is managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

as a sensitive species. Two Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern have 

been designated that include substantial 

habitat for the species (Forbis 2007, p. 

2). Neither the petition nor NatureServe 

present any information concerning the 

adequacy of this designation as a 

regulatory mechanism. 

Factor E: The species may be sensitive 

to climate-change-induced drought and 

resulting habitat changes (Smith 2000, 

p. 15); however, no information was 

presented in the petition or exists in our 

files to verify this. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Frasera gypsicola may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from livestock trampling, road 

widening, seismic exploration, juniper 

cutting, and agricultural or ORV use; 

due to the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or due to other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. 

Lomatium latilobum (Canyonlands 

Lomatium) 

Lomatium latilobum is endemic to 

sand substrates at low elevations in 

Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, and 

Mesa County, Colorado. There are 4,000 

plants in 14 occurrences in Utah 

(Franklin 1995, appendix C) and 1,825 

plants in 5 occurrences in Colorado 

(Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

2008a, p. 1). 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, potential threats 

to the species include ORV use, cattle 

grazing, hikers, and mountain bikes, but 

no quantification, verification, or effects 

to the species were presented. 

Factors B and C: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factors. 

Factor D: The species is listed as 

sensitive by the National Park Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, and BLM. Neither 

the petition nor NatureServe present 

any information concerning the 

adequacy of this designation as a 

regulatory mechanism. 

Factor E: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Lomatium latilobum may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from ORV use, cattle grazing, 

hikers, or mountain bikes; or due to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Lygodesmia doloresensis (Dolores River 

Skeletonplant) 

Lygodesmia doloresensis is a narrow 

endemic limited to the Dolores River 

Canyon in Grand County, Utah, and 

Mesa and San Miguel Counties in 

Colorado, and one location outside the 

Dolores River Canyon in Rabbit Valley, 

Colorado. There are 17 known 

occurrences; 12 of these are in Colorado, 

although 2 are considered historical 

because they have not been seen in over 

20 years (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008b, p. 21). In Colorado, 

population estimates are available for 

only 6 of the 12 occurrences, totaling 

2,580 plants (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008b, p. 21). The remaining 

occurrences occur along the Dolores 

River in Utah, near the Colorado border. 

The taxonomy of L. doloresensis is 

currently being reviewed (Tomb 1980, 

pp. 48–50; Welsh et al. 2003, pp. 210– 

211). 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, potential threats 

include livestock grazing, road 

maintenance, and nonnative plants, but 

no quantification, verification, or effect 

to the species was presented. 

Factors B and C: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factors. 

Factor D: The species is listed as 

sensitive by BLM. Neither the petition 

nor NatureServe present any 

information concerning the adequacy of 

this designation as a regulatory 

mechanism. 

Factor E: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of Lygodesmia doloresensis may 

be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from livestock grazing, road 

maintenance, or nonnative plants; or 

due to the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Oreohelix sp. 4 (Drummond 

Mountainsnail) 

The Drummond mountainsnail is an 

extremely rare, local endemic with one 

small site known to persist, and an 

uncertain historical distribution in 

Granite and Powell Counties, Montana. 

Potentially, additional sites are 

occupied. According to Frest and 

Johannes (1995, p. 116), the population 

trend is downward in number of sites 

and individuals based on extirpation in 

previously-occupied areas; however, 

this information is somewhat 

speculative because it is difficult to 

survey for snails—they tend to be cyclic, 

depending on weather and other natural 

factors. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, human activities 

such as logging, highway construction, 

roadside spraying, and grazing 

potentially cause population declines, 

but no quantification, verification, or 

effect to the species was presented. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: The species has a limited 

geographic range. However, no 

information was presented either in 

NatureServe or the petition indicating 

that habitat disturbance caused by 

stochastic events, exacerbated by small 

population sizes and a restricted range, 

may be a threat to the species. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of the Drummond mountainsnail 

may be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from logging, highway 

construction, roadside spraying, or 

grazing. 

Oreohelix amariradix (Bitterroot 

Mountainsnail) 

The Bitterroot mountainsnail is a 

local endemic with at least two known 

occurrences in the Lolo Creek drainage 

in Missoula County, Montana. There 

appears to be inconsistency in 

population and location information. 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41654 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Errors in locations and species 

identification (confusion with other 

Oreohelix species) cited in previous 

reports bring into question range, threat, 

and population trend information 

(Hendricks 2003a, pp. 21–22). 

According to Frest and Johannes (1995, 

p. 105), the species is possibly declining 

based on absolute numbers, number of 

known and potential sites, and known 

habitat loss; however, this information 

is speculative due to past 

misidentifications. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, much of the 

Bitterroot Mountains have been logged, 

followed by intensified grazing. 

Roadside spraying for weed control 

could affect the species. Portions of the 

Lolo Pass and lower Lolo Creek area 

were subject to fires in 1991 and 1993. 

Highway improvements resulted in 

removal of extensive portions of the 

taluses in the Lolo Creek drainage. 

However, no evidence exists to indicate 

that any of these activities currently 

pose a threat to any of the known 

populations. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of the Bitterroot mountainsnail 

may be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from logging, grazing, roadside 

spraying, fires, or highway 

improvements. 

Oreohelix carinifera (Keeled 

Mountainsnail) 

The keeled mountainsnail persists in 

a portion of its type locality (area where 

the species was first found and that is 

used to define the species’ habitat). Four 

known sites exist near the Clark Fork 

River in Powell County, Montana, 

including a portion of the type locality. 

The species has been extirpated over 

parts of its range (Frest and Johannes 

1995, p. 105), although shell remains 

can still be found, suggesting recent 

population declines (Frest and Johannes 

1995, p. 106). Limited survey 

information or effort exists. No 

published estimates of population size 

or relative abundance exist. 

Factor A: The type locality has been 

reduced by highway and urban 

encroachment due to the expansion of 

the City of Garrison, and additional 

threats cited as potentially affecting the 

species include grazing, logging, and 

road construction and maintenance 

(Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 105–106; 

Hendricks 2003a, p. 26). However, no 

evidence exists to indicate that any of 

these activities currently pose a threat to 

any of the known populations or may do 

so in the future. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: Factor A threats could be 

exacerbated by recent drought. The 

species’ occupied and potential habitat 

and the type locality colony have been 

reduced (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 

105–106; Hendricks 2003a, p. 26). 

However, neither NatureServe nor the 

petition presented any information 

indicating that this is a threat. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information to indicate that 

listing of the keeled mountainsnail may 

be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from highway and urban 

encroachment, grazing, logging, or road 

construction; or other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Species for Which Substantial 

Information Was Presented 

Abronia ammophila (Yellowstone Sand 

Verbena) 

Abronia ammophila is endemic to 

Yellowstone National Park (Fertig 

2000a, p. 1; Whipple 2002, p. 257). The 

one known population consists of three 

locations along Yellowstone Lake (Fertig 

2000a, p. 1). Habitat for this species 

consists of open, sandy, and sparsely 

vegetated shorelines, with the habitat 

likely maintained by wave action or 

erosion (Fertig 2000a, p. 1; Whipple 

2002, p. 256). In 1998, the total 

population was conservatively 

estimated at 8,325 plants, with 96 

percent of them in 1 location (Fertig 

2000a. p. 2). Trend data are lacking 

(Fertig 1997, unpubl. data), but the plant 

has been extirpated from at least one 

other known location as a result of 

human trampling associated with 

recreation (Fertig 1996, unpubl. data). 

Factor A: Yellowstone Lake is a highuse recreational area. Human impacts to 

the sandy habitats may pose a threat to 

the species (Whipple 2002, p. 267). 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: The references within the 

NatureServe database indicated that 

habitat- disturbance caused by 

stochastic events, exacerbated by small 

population sizes and a restricted range, 

may be a threat to the species (Fertig 

2000a, p. 1; Whipple 2002, p. 260). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Abronia ammophila may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from recreational impacts. The 

possible threats to the species may be 

exacerbated by its small population size 

and a restricted range. 

Agrostis rossiae (Ross’ bentgrass) 

Agrostis rossiae is endemic to the 

Upper Geyser Basin of Yellowstone 

National Park (Dorn 1980, p. 59; Clark 

et al. 1989, p. 8), where four known 

populations exist (Fertig et al. 1994, 

unpaginated). The species occurs in 

warm soils around hot springs and 

geysers (Fertig et al. 1994, unpaginated; 

Fertig 2000b, p. 2). In 1995, the total 

population was estimated at 5,000 to 

7,500 individuals (Fertig 2000b, p. 2). 

However, the ephemeral nature of the 

thermal habitats occupied by this 

species may result in rapid population 

fluctuation, making estimates difficult 

(Fertig 2000b, p. 2). 

Factor A: Park visitor activity, through 

trampling, is cited as a threat to the 

species (Fertig 2000b, p. 2). In addition, 

invasion of Agrostis scabra (rough 

bentgrass), which may be facilitated by 

park visitors, may be reducing the 

distribution of the species through 

displacement (Fertig 2000b, p. 2). 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: The changing thermal 

activity in occupied areas may affect 

habitat suitability for the species; one 

colony in Midway Geyser Basin was 

extirpated in the 1980s, likely due to a 

change in soil temperature resulting 

from a change in geyser activity (Fertig 

2000b, p. 2). Small population sizes 

within a very restricted range make A. 

rossiae vulnerable to stochastic 

extinction events (Dorn 1980, p. 59). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Agrostis rossiae may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41655 

habitat or range resulting from park 

visitation and competition from 

invasive species; and due to other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

thermal activity. 

Astragalus hamiltonii (Hamilton 

milkvetch) 

Astragalus hamiltonii is endemic to 

low-elevation clay soils in Colorado and 

Uintah County, Utah, where 10 element 

occurrences exist. Only one of these 

element occurrences exists in Colorado. 

Element occurrences are part of 

scientific methodology established by 

Natural Heritage programs, and are the 

spatial representation of a species 

population as documented through 

voucher specimens or other methods. 

Population estimates are 10,000 to 

15,000 individuals (Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program 2008c, p. 1). 

Factor A: Energy exploration and 

development are planned, and can 

impact the landscape where Astragalus 

hamiltonii exists (Neese and Smith 

1982; Heil and Melton 1995; BLM 2008, 

pp. 4–239 to 4–245). Oil and gas 

geophysical exploration usually 

involves either drilling holes and 

detonating explosives, or using a 

vibrating pad that is driven across an 

area using heavy vehicles. The extent of 

impact from either exploration method 

is unknown, but the vibrations and 

potential soil impacts may impact 

habitat and any species in the area. Oil 

and gas development involves staging a 

drilling rig, setting up additional 

equipment, and building roads to access 

each site, which may fragment the 

species’ habitat. Similarly, soil 

disturbance occurs in oil and gas fields 

and would impact the habitat that lies 

within the footprint of well pads and 

roads, and areas disturbed during the 

development of that infrastructure. Any 

soil that is moved may have a direct 

impact on A. hamiltonii individuals that 

are present. Once a rig is in place, the 

drilling process creates vibrations that 

may impact habitat and any plants in 

the area. Once a well has been drilled 

and is producing, energy companies 

make regular trips to well pads to 

monitor production, conduct 

maintenance, or collect extracted 

resources. These regular trips may 

disturb A. hamiltonii plants present at 

or near well pads and roads. The 

introduction and spread of nonnative 

plants may result from energy 

development activities, and this would 

negatively impact A. hamiltonii. Over 

90 percent of the species’ population is 

associated with surface mineable 

deposits of the Little Water, Spring 

Hollow, and Cow Wash Tar Sand 

deposits (BLM 2008a, pp. 3–50, 3–174; 

Neese and Smith 1982; Heil and Melton 

1995; BLM 2008, pp. 4–239 to 4–245). 

ORV use and nonnative plants are 

potential threats to the species (Heil and 

Melton 1995, p. 16). 

Factor B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus hamiltonii may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from energy exploration and 

development. 

Astragalus iselyi (Isely milkvetch) 

Astragalus iselyi is endemic to lowelevation clay soils in Grand and San 

Juan Counties in southeastern Utah. The 

species has a narrow range and a small 

population estimated at approximately 

2,500 individuals. 

Factor A: Uranium mining was once 

a threat, and uranium mining is again 

proposed for the area and is a potential 

threat to the existing population 

(Franklin 2003 pp. 1, 2, 35, 46). ORV 

use occurs within sites occupied by the 

species and is a potential threat (Hreha 

1982, pp. 16–17; Franklin 2003, pp. 1, 

2, 9, 37; Heil et al. 1991, p. 9; Thompson 

1987, p. 3). The species’ narrow range 

and small population size renders it 

vulnerable to any habitat disturbing 

activity (Franklin 2003, pp. 1, 2). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus iselyi may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range resulting from uranium 

mining and possibly ORV use within 

the occupied sites. 

Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff 

milkvetch) 

Astragalus microcymbus exists in 4 

element occurrences within a range of 

about 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) 

that includes an estimated 10,322 

individuals (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008d, pp. 4–5). Its habitat is 

found mainly on Federal land in a BLM 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern, 

and in a Colorado Natural Area. A 1994 

not-substantial finding on a petition to 

list this species indicated that drought 

and herbivory could not be clearly 

shown to present a substantial threat to 

the species. 

However, four demographic 

monitoring plots show an overall 

decline in numbers. The decline 

occurred from 1995 to 2002, and then a 

relatively stable trend occurred from 

2003 until 2007 (Denver Botanic 

Gardens 2007, p. 4). The cause of 1995 

to 2002 decline is unknown but may 

have been due to herbivory (Denver 

Botanic Gardens 2007, p. 7). 

Factors A, C, and E: A population 

viability analysis conducted in 2007 

predicted a loss of all four monitored 

populations by 2030 (Denver Botanic 

Gardens, p. 7); the reasons for this 

predicted decline are undocumented, 

but potentially include lack of 

precipitation, herbivory (primarily from 

rabbits), and episodic fruit production 

(Denver Botanic Gardens, p. 7). ORV use 

occurs within occupied habitat and 

could negatively impact habitat of A. 

microcymbus (Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program 2008d, p. 3). 

Factors B and D: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus microcymbus may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from ORV use; or due to other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

drought. 

Astragalus proimanthus (precocious 

milkvetch) 

Astragalus proimanthus is restricted 

to the bluffs of the Henry’s Fork River 

near McKinnon, Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming (Roberts 1977, p. 63; WYNDD 

2001, p. 2). The species’ global 

distribution is limited to less than 130 

ha (320 ac) on BLM land (WYNDD 2001, 

pp. 2, 3). This milkvetch occurs in plant 

communities on rocky clay and shale 

soils along rims, bluffs, and rocky ridges 

(Fertig et al. 1994, unpaginated; 

WYNDD 2001, p. 2). In 2000, the entire 

population was estimated at 10,500 to 

13,000 individuals, a reduction from 

estimates in the 1980s of 22,000 to 

40,000 individuals (WYNDD 2001, p. 3); 

however, trend data are inconsistent 

between monitoring plots (WYNDD 

2001, p. 3). 

Factor A: Purported threats to this 

species include road construction, ORV 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

use, oil and gas exploration and 

development, garbage dumps, livestock 

grazing, and range improvement 

projects (WYNDD 2001, p. 3). While the 

impacts of these threats were not 

quantified, the species is located in an 

area incurring substantial energy 

development (Fertig and Welp 2001, p. 

16). Impacts from energy development 

to Astraglaus proimanthus are the same 

as shown under Factor A analysis for 

Astragalus hamiltonii above; activities 

are the same and would have the same 

effect on each plant species. These 

threats exist within the habitat of A. 

proimanthus, and are acting on the 

species to some degree. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus proimanthus may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from energy exploration and 

development. 

Astragalus sabulosus (Cisco milkvetch) 

Astragalus sabulosus is a narrow 

endemic found in five locations in 

Grand County, Utah, that occur in a 

total area of approximately 320 ha (800 

ac) (Atwood 1995, pp. 3, 4; Franklin 

1988, p. 5). The species’ population size 

is highly variable from year to year 

depending, presumably, on winter and 

spring precipitation. The total 

population is an estimated 25,000 

individuals (Atwood 1995, pp. 5–6). 

Factor A: Potential threats to the 

species include ORV use, oil and gas 

development, uranium mining, and 

natural gas development (Atwood 1995, 

pp. 7–9). Energy exploration and 

development and mining are planned in 

the population area, and can impact the 

landscape where the species exists 

(Atwood 1995, pp. 7–9). Impacts from 

energy development to Astraglaus 

sabulosus are the same as shown under 

Factor A analysis for Astragalus 

hamiltonii above; activities are the same 

and would have the same effect on each 

plant species. These threats exist within 

the habitat of A. sabulosus, and are 

acting on the species to some degree. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus sabulosus may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from energy exploration and 

development. 

Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll 

milkvetch) 

Astragalus schmolliae is known only 

from Chapin Mesa in Mesa Verde 

National Park (MVNP) and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Reservation in 

Montezuma County, Colorado. The 6 

element occurrences include roughly 

294,499 individuals, all of which are in 

MVNP (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008e, pp. 8–9). Populations 

are likely to occur on the Ute Mountain 

Ute Reservation, but no survey data 

exist from this location. 

Factor A: A potential threat to the 

species is the invasion of nonnative 

species into burned areas it occupies. 

Carduus nutans (musk thistle) is 

particularly invasive in burned areas of 

southern MVNP, and has been observed 

invading areas occupied by A. 

schmolliae (summarized in Anderson 

2004, p. 61). Bromus tectorum 

(cheatgrass) also is invading occupied 

burned areas (Anderson 2004, pp. 60– 

61). The Chapin 5 fire in 1996, and the 

Long Mesa Fire in 2002, impacted a 

large portion of the occurrences in 

MVNP. Burning may not have 

significantly impacted plant mortality, 

but long-term impacts of fire, such as 

nonnative invasion, are likely to cause 

a decline in populations (Anderson 

2004, pp. 60–61). Data on the species’ 

response to nonnative invasions since 

2006 are not readily available. Visitor 

impacts to the species within MVNP are 

localized and minimal, limited to 

trampling of an occasional plant 

growing adjacent to a trail or road 

(Anderson 2004, p. 72). Outside MVNP 

boundaries, threats from road 

construction and grazing may exist 

(O’Kane 1988, p. 444). 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: A. schmolliae has declined 

39 percent from 2001–2003; the decline 

was attributed to drought (Anderson 

2004, p. 37 and Table 5). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Astragalus schmolliae may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from impacts of fire and 

nonnative invasions, and possibly road 

construction and grazing; and due to 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence 

resulting from drought. 

Boechera (formerly Arabis) pusilla 

(Fremont County rockcress) 

Boechera pusilla is known from one 

location in the southern Wind River 

Range, Fremont County, Wyoming 

(Fertig 2000c; p. 1; Heidel 2005, p. 6). 

The genus was changed from Arabis to 

Boechera in 2002 (Heidel 2005, p. 1). Its 

habitat consists of crevices and sparsely 

vegetated granitic soils in granitepegmatite outcrops, at an elevation of 

2,438 to 2,469 meters (8,000 to 8,100 

feet) (Fertig 2000c, p. 1; Heidel 2005, 

pp. 8–9). Population estimates have 

varied from 800 to 1,000 individuals in 

1988, to 600 in 1990, to 100 to 150 

plants in 2003 (Heidel 2005, p. 14). 

Occupied habitat is limited to 2.4 to 6.5 

ha (6 to 16 ac) (Dorn 1990, p. 8; Heidel 

2005, p. 15), entirely on BLM land. The 

Service previously identified B. pusilla 

as a candidate species for listing as 

endangered in 1992 due to small 

population numbers, restricted range, 

recreational activities, and existence of 

six mining claims within the species’ 

habitats. Due to conservation measures 

implemented by the BLM, B. pusilla 

was withdrawn from candidate status in 

1999. It is currently unclear whether 

conservation measures are adequate to 

protect the species. 

Factor A: ORV use occurs in the 

habitat of this species, and is likely 

affecting the species to some extent 

(Dorn 1990, p. 11; Fertig 2000c, p. 2; 

Heidel 2005, p. 17). Mining historically 

occurred in the area, but it is not clear 

if mining directly affected this species 

(Heidel 2005, p. 17). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Boechera pusilla may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range resulting from ORV use. 

Catinella gelida (Frigid ambersnail) 

The Frigid ambersnail is known from 

14 sites in Iowa (Frest 1991, p. 17), 12 

sites in the Black Hills of South Dakota 

(Frest and Johannes 2002, p. 74), and 19 

sites in Wisconsin (Nekola, 2003, p. 8). 

According to the NatureServe database, 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41657 

the species is possibly extirpated in 

Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and 

Mississippi, and is presumed extirpated 

in Kentucky. The Frigid ambersnail 

could be a difficult species to sample 

because it is present in low densities, 

and is typically located 3 to 15 

centimeters (1 to 6 inches) beneath the 

talus field surface (Frest 1991, p. 16). 

While information presented in the 

petition was not substantial, we have 

sufficient information in our files 

indicating that threats are impacting the 

Frigid ambersnail (Ostlie 2009, pp. 49 

and 50). As such, we have already 

initiated a status review on several 

mollusk species, including this one. 

Factor A: The species may be found 

near roads, although this could be an 

artifact of survey bias, and in areas 

subject to livestock grazing and logging 

disturbances (Frest and Johannes 1993, 

p. 53; Frest and Johannes 2002, p. 73). 

Populations are small at all Iowa sites 

making the species more vulnerable to 

current threats of human and livestock 

trampling, and landslides (Frest 1991, p. 

16; Frest and Johannes 1993, p. 53; Frest 

and Johannes 2002, p. 73). Wisconsin 

sites could be disturbed by development 

in the future (Nekola 2003, p. 21), but 

this threat is currently unsubstantiated. 

Known South Dakota sites are located 

near highways and roads, and most are 

subject to livestock trampling and 

effects of timber harvest (Frest and 

Johannes 2002, p. 73). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

The petition did not present 

substantial information regarding the 

presence of the threats identified above. 

However, our files contain substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Generally, land snail individuals and 

colonies are vulnerable to land-use 

activities due to their small body size 

and specific habitat requirements. The 

species is State-listed as endangered in 

Iowa, and as a Species of Special 

Concern in Wisconsin. Based on our 

identification of likely threats, and 

indications that they are likely 

impacting the species to some degree, 

we have determined that substantial 

information exists to indicate that 

listing of Frigid ambersnail may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from the effects from roads, 

livestock trampling, and logging 

disturbances. 

Corispermum navicula (boat-shaped 

bugseed) 

According to the NatureServe 

database, the taxonomy of Corispermum 

navicula is currently being questioned. 

The only two element occurrences are 

recorded in Jackson County, Colorado, 

and include an unknown number of 

plants on two active sand dune 

complexes covering about 15.5 km2 (6 

mi2); total occupied habitat is about 173 

ha (427 ac) (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008f, p. 12). 

Factor A: Heavy ORV use is allowed 

on one of the two dune complexes, and 

has negatively impacted the species by 

disturbing the habitat and destroying 

plants (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008f, p. 12). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Corispermum navicula may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from ORV use. 

Cryptantha semiglabra (Pipe Springs 

cryptantha) 

Cryptantha semiglabra is endemic to 

clay soils in Washington County, Utah, 

and Coconino and Mohave Counties, 

Arizona. No population data are 

currently available. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, all populations of 

this species exist within 11 km (7 mi) 

of Fredonia, Arizona, which is 

undergoing expansion. As a result, C. 

semiglabra may be facing threats 

resulting from development, but this 

potential threat has not been adequately 

identified by any source. The habitat of 

the species is subject to disturbance 

from garbage dumping, ORV use, and 

trampling (AGFD 2004, p. 3). No 

information was available concerning 

the status of this species in Utah. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Cryptantha semiglabra may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from livestock grazing and 

ORV use. 

Draba weberi (Weber whitlowgrass) 

One occurrence of Draba weberi was 

recorded in 1969, in Summit County, 

Colorado, and this remains the only 

known location. The number of plants 

appears to have diminished from about 

100 to 20 or 30 between the 1980s and 

2006 (Decker 2006, p. 3). 

Factor A: The plants are found in 

shallow rock crevices easily accessed 

from a parking lot that is a popular 

point of access for climbers, hikers, and 

backcountry skiers (Decker 2006, p. 20); 

this level of recreational activity is 

likely to result in trampling. The 

population depends on water flowing 

from an outflow pipe below a dam that 

enters a relatively natural creek bed; 

under most circumstances, water flows 

from the outlet pipe into the stream 

channel (Decker 2006, p. 20). A 

municipal water company owns the 

property; road and dam construction 

and maintenance are potential threats to 

the species (Decker 2006, p. 7). 

Factors B and C: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factors. 

Factor D: The dam property owners 

are aware of the plants and have no 

plans that would affect the habitat, but 

no conservation plans or agreements 

have been developed; therefore, the 

water flowing to the creek bed is not 

reliable (Decker 2006, pp. 7, 20). 

Factor E: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Draba weberi may be warranted due to 

the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range resulting from 

recreational activities, and possibly 

activities related to road construction 

and dam maintenance. 

Eriogonum brandegeei (Brandegee’s 

wild buckwheat) 

Eight occurrences of Eriogonum 

brandegeei are currently considered 

extant, with an additional three 

considered historical because they have 

not been seen in over 20 years (Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program 2008g, p. 15). 

The habitat consists of barren outcrops 

of white to grayish bentonite soils in 

Fremont and Chaffee Counties, 

Colorado. The 6 occurrences for which 

we have plant estimates total 33,465 

individuals (Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program 2008g, p. 15), but some 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

observer estimates have placed this 

number much higher, up to several 

million plants (Anderson 2006, pp. 3, 

11). The species was made a candidate 

in 1993, but removed from candidate 

status in 1996 (61 FR 7460) as a result 

of additional information collected from 

survey work (Anderson 2006, p. 11). A 

conservation assessment was completed 

for the species in 2006 by the Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program (Anderson 

2006, entire). Population estimates in 

the millions are noted in the 

conservation assessment, and in our 

removal of the species from candidate 

status, but we lack survey 

documentation of these higher 

population estimates. 

Factor A: ORV and other recreational 

uses threaten some occurrences of 

Eriogonum brandegeei, and curtailment 

of these activities in plant occurrences 

would likely provide the greatest 

conservation benefit to the species 

(Anderson 2006, p. 3). Residential and 

commercial development has 

encroached on one of the healthiest 

occurrences, and could affect most of 

the species’ range in the future; road 

construction related to increased 

development creates an additional 

threat to its habitat (Anderson 2006, p. 

37). According to the NatureServe 

database, timber thinning and extraction 

is expected to cause direct mortality of 

plants, erosion, and invasion of 

nonnative plants; mining and oil and 

gas development are potential activities 

in this area, but the possible effects have 

not been assessed; bentonite mining 

resulted in habitat destruction in the 

past, but is not occurring now. 

Protection of plants is not considered 

prior to right-of-way maintenance 

because rights-of-way are outside the 

area assessed for project work; however, 

this activity affects a small portion of 

the total population (Anderson 2006, p. 

39). Grazing is a small threat, and 

invasive nonnative species pose a high 

but undocumented threat (Anderson 

2006, p. 39). 

Factors B and C: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Factor D: Four of the eight 

occurrences are partially within two 

BLM Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern that also are State Natural 

Areas. Neither the petition nor 

NatureServe present any information 

concerning the adequacy of these 

designations as a regulatory mechanism. 

Some ORV route restrictions apply in 

these areas, but no restrictions apply to 

the remaining habitat, and therefore 

ORV use poses a potential threat to the 

species and its habitat. 

Factor E: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Eriogonum brandegeei may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from recreational activities, 

ORV use, development, and road 

construction; and due to the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms 

related to ORV use. 

Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat) 

Eriogonum soredium is a narrow 

endemic with small populations 

(Evenden 1998, p. 5). The three element 

occurrences are restricted to limestone 

outcrops on Grampian Hill in Beaver 

County, Utah (Evenden 1998, appendix 

C). Estimates of the area of occupied 

habitat of the species range from 70 ha 

(170 ac) (Evenden 1998, appendix C) to 

160 ha (400 ac) (Kass 1992, pp. 7–8). 

Estimates of the species’ total 

population are 2,000 individuals (Kass 

1992, p. 8) to approximately 30,000 

individuals (Evenden 1998, appendix 

C). These numbers are only estimates 

because approximately 90 percent of the 

species’ habitat is on private land, and 

access to these areas to survey for the 

plant is limited. 

Factor A: Mineralized limestone 

substrates that sustain the species were 

subject to habitat destruction from 

precious metals mining. Over 90 percent 

of the species’ habitat is located on 

lands having private, patented mining 

claims (Evenden 1998 p. 9; Kass 1992, 

p. 9). This high-value substrate on 

private lands to which we have no 

access is likely to be impacted by 

continued mining, and the future of E. 

soredium on those lands is tenuous. A 

small portion of the species’ habitat may 

exist on adjacent BLM land; however, 

we currently have no information on the 

number of individuals or the magnitude 

of threats to the species on that land. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Eriogonum soredium may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from mining activities. 

Ironoquia plattensis (Platte River 

caddisfly) 

The Platte River caddisfly is endemic 

to an approximately 75-km (46-mi) 

segment of the central Platte River that 

extends from approximately Gibbon, 

Buffalo, and Kearney Counties, 

Nebraska, to Central City, Merrick 

County, Nebraska, comprising 

approximately 63,940 ha (158,000 ac) 

(Goldowitz 2004, p. 4). One population 

has likely been lost (Reins and Hoback 

2008, p. 1). The species inhabits 

intermittent wetland habitats that are 

associated with the central Platte River. 

Intermittent wetland hydrology is 

affected by precipitation, periodic 

flooding, and groundwater levels as 

influenced by the nearby Platte River. 

Intermittent wetlands used by the Platte 

River caddisfly may contain water 75 to 

90 percent of the time, but can typically 

go dry during the summer (Goldowitz 

2004, p. 2), and completely freeze over 

during the winter (Alexander and 

Whiles 2000, p. 2). 

Factor A: Hydrologic regimes, which 

are increasingly altered by regulation of 

the Platte River for hydroelectric and 

agricultural purposes, influence the 

hydroperiod in intermittent wetlands 

and, therefore, the abundance and 

distribution of the Platte River caddisfly 

and other macroinvertebrates that rely 

on this habitat (Goldowitz 2004, p. 2). 

For example, construction of 

impoundments, dewatering the Platte 

River for irrigation, installation of new 

irrigation wells in the floodplain, land 

restoration and management projects, 

and channel modification pose threats 

to the longevity of intermittent wetland 

habitat utilized by the Platte River 

caddisfly (Goldowitz 2004, p. 2). An 

increase in row crop agriculture or 

vegetation control can increase nutrient, 

toxic, and pesticide runoff that could 

have direct or cumulative effects on the 

species; heavy grazing pressure in 

wetland and grassland habitats can 

result in removal and degradation of 

wetland habitats critical for larval 

development (Goldowitz 2004, p. 9). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Platte River caddisfly may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from construction of 

impoundments, dewatering the Platte 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41659 

River for irrigation, installation of new 

irrigation wells in the floodplain, land 

restoration and management projects, 

and channel modification. 

Lednia tumana (meltwater lednian 

stonefly) 

The meltwater lednian stonefly is a 

narrow endemic found in two known 

occurrences, both in Glacier National 

Park in Montana. No information exists 

to indicate that the species exists in 

other locations. The species is 

associated with glacier melt-water 

streams. An extensive survey in 1979 

did not result in any additional 

occurrences (Baumann and Stewart 

1980, p. 658). A 1980 survey showed 

moderate abundance (Baumann and 

Stewart 1980, p. 658); no more refined 

quantification occurred and no further 

information has been available. 

Factors A and E: Climate-changerelated ecosystem modeling predicts the 

loss of glaciers in Glacier National Park 

by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 138). 

This loss of glaciers could result in the 

loss or significant reduction of glacier 

melt-water streams, resulting in reduced 

habitat for the meltwater lednian 

stonefly. Glacier melt provides water 

and temperature moderation in high 

altitude streams. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

meltwater lednian stonefly may be 

warranted due to other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence resulting from climate-changeinduced glacier loss. 

Lepidium ostleri (Ostler’s peppergrass) 

Lepidium ostleri is a narrow endemic 

with small populations (Evenden 1998, 

p. 5). The four element occurrences are 

restricted to limestone outcrops on 

Grampian Hill in Beaver County, Utah 

(Evenden 1998, appendix C). Estimates 

of occupied habitat within the species’ 

range are 80 ha (200 ac) (Evenden 1998, 

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

1992b, p. 7). Estimates of the species’ 

total population are 700 individuals 

(Kass 1992b, p. 8) to approximately 

10,000 individuals (Evenden 1998, 

appendix C). These numbers are only 

estimates because approximately 90 

percent of the species’ habitat is on 

private land, and access to these areas 

to survey for the plant is limited. 

Population estimates from Evenden and 

Kass are more than a decade old, and no 

verification of their survey results has 

been made. 

Factor A: Mineralized limestone 

substrates that sustain the species were 

subject to habitat destruction from 

precious metals mining. Over 90 percent 

of the species’ habitat is located on 

lands having private, patented mining 

claims (Evenden 1998 p. 9; Kass 1992, 

p. 9). This high-value substrate on 

private lands to which we have no 

access is likely to be impacted by 

continued mining, and the future of L. 

ostleri on those lands is tenuous. A 

small portion of the species’ habitat may 

exist on adjacent BLM land; however, 

we currently have no information on the 

number of individuals or the magnitude 

of threats to the species on that land. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Lepidium ostleri may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range resulting from mining 

activities. 

Lepidomeda copei (northern leatherside 

chub) 

The northern leatherside chub’s 

historical range encompassed the 

northeastern margins of the Bonneville 

Basin in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; the 

Pacific Basin, Goose Creek, Wood and 

Raft Rivers in Idaho and Nevada; and 

the Snake River above Shoshone Falls in 

Idaho and Wyoming (UDWR 2009, p. 

28). The current range includes 

fragmented populations in the Bear 

River drainage, the Snake River 

drainage, and introduced populations in 

the Colorado River Basin, including the 

Fremont River, Pleasant Creek, Dirty 

Devil River, and Quitchupah Creek in 

Utah (UDWR 2009, p. 29). Some 

taxonomic uncertainty exists; two 

evolutionarily distinct species of 

leatherside chub have recently been 

recognized (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 

841–855; Belk et al. 2005, p. 182). This 

taxon was formerly considered to be 

conspecific with the southern 

leatherside chub, and to be in the genus 

Gila (as cited in IDFG 2005, Appendix 

F, p. 25). A Conservation Agreement 

and Strategy on the species in its 

current range has recently been 

finalized by a coalition of Federal and 

State agencies, and nongovernmental 

organizations; a technical team is 

assessing issues related to the northern 

leatherside chub (UDWR 2009, entire). 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, potential threats 

to the species include habitat 

degradation, fragmentation, and loss 

from water developments (e.g., 

irrigation projects, dewatering); stream 

alterations (e.g., channelization, 

barriers); siltation; grazing; and 

nonnative brown trout. The 

conservation agreement further 

describes these threats; surveys indicate 

that the species is declining due to 

fragmentation from human-caused 

activities, including water diversions, 

nonnative species, and grazing (IDFG 

2005, p. 5; Appendix F, p. 26). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

northern leatherside chub may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from water developments, 

stream alterations, livestock trampling, 

and nonnative brown trout. 

Lesquerella navajoensis (no common 

name) 

Lesquerella navajoensis is endemic to 

Todilto limestone outcrops in Kane 

County, Utah; Apache County, Arizona; 

and McKinley County, New Mexico. 

Little is known about populations or 

distribution of this species beyond the 

two known occurrences. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, mining is 

considered a threat to the species, 

outcrops of Todilto limestone are not 

abundant in the area, and are actively 

mined in New Mexico for road base 

material. Habitat at one of the two 

known population sites in New Mexico 

has been quarried, and the species exists 

there only on a narrow remnant of the 

mesa rim (New Mexico Rare Plant 

Technical Council 1999, Web site). No 

information on this species in Utah or 

Arizona was available. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Lesquerella navajoensis may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from mining. 

Oreohelix sp. 3 (bearmouth 

mountainsnail) 

The bearmouth mountainsnail is a 

local endemic with one small site 

known in Granite and Powell Counties, 

Montana (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 

115). The NatureServe database 

indicates that the species has been in 

decline in absolute numbers and 

number of sites, potentially due to 

human activities (Frest and Johannes 

1995, p. 115); however, no population 

numbers were cited, and further 

information has not been available since 

1995. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, potential threats 

to the species’ habitat include talus 

disturbance, and construction and 

maintenance of highways. Effects from 

highways and associated frontage roads 

have impacted known sites (Frest and 

Johannes 1995, p. 115). Grazing has 

been cited as a potential threat (Frest 

and Johannes 1995, p. 115); however, 

the species exists in rocky habitat not 

suited to livestock grazing. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

bearmouth mountainsnail may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from highways and associated 

activities. 

Oreohelix sp. 31 (Byrne Resort 

mountainsnail) 

The Byrne Resort mountainsnail is a 

local endemic known only in one site in 

the Clark Fork River Valley in Granite 

County, Montana. Additional 

occurrences may exist on neighboring 

national forest land, but survey 

information is not available. Based on 

survey data, previously known sites 

have been extirpated, and a decline of 

populations and absolute numbers has 

occurred (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 

140). 

Factor A: The species occurs at the 

base of talus sites that are subject to 

removal for road construction and fill. 

Effects from highways and associated 

frontage roads have impacted known 

occurrence sites, resulting in extirpation 

at some sites (Frest and Johannes 1995, 

p. 140). According to the NatureServe 

database, extensive alteration of the area 

has occurred from recreational resort 

activities, grazing, and highway 

construction; however, uncertainty 

exists as to whether the species has been 

directly affected by recreational 

activities and grazing. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Byrne Resort mountainsnail may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from road construction. 

Penstemon flowersii (flowers 

penstemon) 

Penstemon flowersii is endemic to 

fine soils derived from the Uinta 

Formation at low elevations in the Uinta 

Basin in Duchesne and Uintah Counties, 

Utah. Little is known about this species. 

It is a narrow endemic, and all known 

habitat is on private and Ute Tribe lands 

(Heil and Melton 1995, pp. 8–10). Heil 

and Melton (1995, p. 13) estimate the 

species population at 15,000 to 20,000 

individuals. 

Factor A: The species is impacted by 

ORV use (Heil and Melton 1995, p. 15). 

Energy exploration and development are 

planned in the landscape where 

Penstemon flowersii exists (Heil and 

Melton 1995, pp. 15–16). Impacts from 

energy development to A. flowersii are 

the same as shown under Factor A 

analysis for Astragalus hamiltonii 

above; activities are the same and would 

have the same effect on each plant 

species. These threats exist within the 

habitat of P. flowersii, and are acting on 

the species to some degree. 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Penstemon flowersii may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from ORV use and energy 

exploration and development. 

Penstemon gibbensii (Gibben’s 

beardtongue) 

Penstemon gibbensii is endemic to 

south-central Wyoming and adjacent 

northeastern Utah, and northwestern 

Colorado (Fertig 2000d, p. 2). Most of 

the species’ known range exists in 

Wyoming, in Sweetwater and Carbon 

Counties, and encompasses 

approximately 40 ha (100 ac) (Fertig 

2000d, p. 2). Habitat for this species is 

primarily sparsely vegetated shale or 

sandstone slopes (Fertig et al. 1994, 

unpaginated; Fertig and Neighbors 1996, 

p. 109), associated with the Browns Park 

Formation and Green River shale (Fertig 

2000d, p. 2). In Wyoming, four 

populations are known (Fertig 2000d, p. 

2). Only one known population has 

been identified in Colorado, in Brown’s 

Park; this population extends into 

Daggett County, Utah (Fertig and 

Neighbors 1996, p. 6). In 1995, 3 of the 

Wyoming populations were estimated to 

have a total population of 8,600 to 8,900 

plants, and a 1999 survey of the fourth 

Wyoming population resulted in an 

estimated 4,500 to 5,000 plants (Fertig 

2000d, p. 2). Long-term trend data are 

lacking (Fertig 2000d, p. 2). P. gibbensii 

was formerly designated as a C2 

candidate species for listing. The C2 

designation was used for species for 

which there was evidence of 

vulnerability, but for which the Service 

lacked sufficient biological data to 

support a listing proposal. In 1996, the 

Service ceased using the C2 designation 

(61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). 

Factor A: Potential threats to the 

species include habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from land uses 

that cause soil erosion, particularly 

grazing, mineral development (primarily 

oil and gas exploration), and recreation 

(Fertig and Neighbors 1996, pp. 19–20; 

Fertig 2000d, p. 3). Grazing is the 

primary threat to the species (WYNDD 

2000, p. 27). ORV use affects the 

species; although it may colonize 

disturbed areas at the margins, it cannot 

become established where direct vehicle 

use occurs (WYNDD 2000, p. 28). Oil 

and gas development has increased 

greatly in the species’ habitat in recent 

years (WYNDD 2000, p. 27). The 

magnitude of effects from energy 

development is unknown, because the 

species tends to occur on slopes that are 

too unstable to support oil drilling 

platforms (Fertig and Neighbors 1996, p. 

20). 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Factor E: According to the references 

contained in NatureServe, drought may 

be a threat to the species (WYNDD 2000, 

pp. 3, 28). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41661 

information to indicate that listing of 

Penstemon gibbensii may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from energy exploration and 

development, livestock grazing, and 

ORV use. 

Pyrgulopsis anguina (longitudinal gland 

pyrg) 

The longitudinal gland pyrg is a 

freshwater snail endemic to Snake 

Valley, a large valley that straddles the 

Nevada-Utah border (Hershler 1998, p. 

110). This species is known from spring 

systems in White Pine County, Nevada, 

and Millard County, Utah (Hershler 

1998, p. 111; Bio-West 2007, pp. 86–87). 

Factors A and E: Bio-West (2007, p. 

91) characterized disturbances at 

species’ sites (spring diversion, 

domestic livestock grazing, impacts 

from roads and residences, drought) as 

moderate to high in 2007. Additional 

potential threats include agricultural 

development (State of Utah 2007, p. 88) 

and habitat changes (e.g., reduction in 

spring discharge) that may result from 

climate change or groundwater 

withdrawal by the Southern Nevada 

Water Authority in Snake and Spring 

Valleys (Congdon 2006, pp. 3, 15; Elliot 

et al. 2006, pp. 44, 157). 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

longitudinal gland pyrg may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from spring diversions, 

livestock trampling, roads, and 

development; and due to other natural 

or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

drought and effects of climate change. 

Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis (Hamlin Valley 

pyrg) 

The Hamlin Valley pyrg is a 

freshwater snail that is a narrow 

endemic found in only one location in 

Beaver County, Utah. 

Factors A and E: Herschler (1998, p. 

105) characterized disturbances at 

springs inhabitated by freshwater snails 

throughout the region, including 

Hamlin Valley pyrg, as including spring 

diversion, domestic livestock grazing, 

impacts from roads and residences, and 

drought. Additional potential threats 

include agricultural development (State 

of Utah 2007, p. 88) and habitat changes 

(e.g., reduction in spring discharge) that 

may result from climate change or 

groundwater contamination from 

several sources, including water filings 

by the Central Iron County Water 

Conservancy District in Utah, and 

Southern Nevada Water Authority 

projects in the Snake and Spring Valleys 

(Congdon 2006, pp. 3, 15; Elliot et al. 

2006, pp. 44, 157). These threats exist 

within the habitat of the Hamlin Valley 

pyrg, and are acting on the species to 

some degree. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Hamlin Valley pyrg may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from spring diversions, 

livestock trampling, roads, and 

development; and due to other natural 

or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

drought and effects of climate change. 

Pyrgulopsis saxatilis (sub-globose snake 

pyrg) 

The sub-globose snake pyrg is a 

freshwater snail that is a narrow 

endemic known from one spring in 

Millard County, Utah. 

Factors A and E: Herschler (1998, p. 

105) characterized disturbances at 

springs inhabitated by freshwater snails 

throughout the region, including the 

sub-globose snake pyrg, as including 

spring diversion, domestic livestock 

grazing, impacts from roads and 

residences, and drought. Additional 

potential threats include agricultural 

development (State of Utah 2007, p. 88), 

the presence of the invasive mollusk 

Melanoides, and habitat changes (e.g., 

reduction in spring discharge) that may 

result from climate change or 

groundwater contamination from 

several sources, including water filings 

by the Central Iron County water 

Conservancy District in Utah, and 

Southern Nevada Water Authority 

projects in the Snake and Spring Valleys 

(Congdon 2006, pp. 3, 15; Elliot et al. 

2006, pp. 44, 157). These threats exist 

within the habitat of the sub-globose 

snake pyrg, and are acting on the 

species to some degree. 

Factors B, C, and D: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

sub-globose snake pyrg may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from spring diversions, 

livestock trampling, roads, and 

development; and due to other natural 

or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

drought and effects of climate change. 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum (Pale blueeyed grass) 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum is a 

narrow endemic that exists in Klickitat 

and Skamania Counties in southcentral 

Washington, and Clackamas County in 

northern Oregon. Records of this plant 

existing in North Dakota are suspect, 

and likely inaccurate. According to the 

NatureServe database, the species is 

currently known from about 18 

occurrences, and the total number of 

individuals is thought to be 5,000 to 

7,000. The species is listed as 

threatened by Washington State (WNHP 

2009, Web site). Insufficient historical 

data exist to determine an overall trend 

in species abundance and distribution. 

Factor A: According to the 

NatureServe database, the species has 

shown some ability to withstand 

disturbance, but development and 

agricultural activities have limited the 

amount of suitable habitat. The smaller 

occurrences are probably threatened by 

plant succession leading to canopy 

closure (Thomas 2009, pers. comm.). 

Some degree of threat may be posed by 

ORV use of the meadows where the 

species occurs (Thomas 2009, pers. 

comm.). 

Factor B: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Factor C: Grazing directly impacts the 

plant’s ability to reproduce by seed and, 

therefore, to broaden its genetic 

variability by reproduction through 

cross-pollination with other plants 

(Thomas 2009, pers. comm.). When 

seeds are consumed by grazing animals, 

the plant shifts its reproductive strategy 

to vegetative reproduction. Vegetative 

reproduction narrows the genetic 

makeup of plants, and the species does 

not benefit from cross pollination with 

other neighboring plants. 

Factor D: No information was 

presented in the petition concerning 

threats to this species from the factor. 

Factor E: The species is threatened by 

a genetic bottleneck and reduction in 

genetic flow, leading to reduced genetic 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

variation (Thomas 2009, pers. comm.). 

Because of the reduction in genetic 

exchange it faces in the wild, the 

species is less capable of withstanding 

other environmental stressors like 

drought, or climate change (Thomas 

2009, pers. comm.). 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum may be 

warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from development, livestock 

trampling, plant succession, and 

possibly ORV use; and due to other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence resulting from 

genetic reduction, drought, and effects 

of climate change. 

Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover) 

Trifolium friscanum is a narrow 

endemic with small populations 

(Evenden 1998, p. 6). The two element 

occurrences are restricted to limestone 

outcrops on Grampian Hill in Beaver 

County, Utah (Evenden 1998, appendix 

C), and in the nearby Tunnel Spring 

Mountains (Evenden 1999, pp. 6–7). 

Estimates of the area of occupied habitat 

vary from 30 ha (75 ac) (Evenden 1998, 

appendix C; Evenden 1999, appendix B) 

to 225 ha (560 ac) (Kass 1992, pp. 7–8). 

Estimates of the species’ total 

population vary from 2,000 individuals 

(Kass 1992, p. 7) to approximately 3,500 

individuals (Evenden 1998, appendix C; 

Evenden 1999, appendix B). 

Factor A: Mineralized limestone 

substrates that sustain the species were 

historically subjected to habitat 

destruction from precious metals 

mining. Over 80 percent of the species’ 

habitat is located on lands having 

private, patented mining claims 

(Evenden 1998, p. 9; Kass 1992, p. 9). 

Factors B, C, D, and E: No information 

was presented in the petition 

concerning threats to this species from 

the factors. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files, we have determined 

that the petition presents substantial 

information to indicate that listing of 

Trifolium friscanum may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from mining. 

Finding 

We reviewed and evaluated 38 of the 

206 petitioned species, based on the 

information in the petition and the 

literature cited in the petition, and we 

have evaluated the information to 

determine whether the sources cited 

support the claims made in the petition 

relating to the five listing factors. We 

also reviewed reliable information in 

our files. 

We find that the petition does not 

present substantial information that 

listing may be warranted for nine 

species: Washington duskysnail 

(Amnicola sp. 2), Camissonia exilis 

(Cottonwood Spring suncup), lake disc 

(Discus brunsoni), Frasera gypsicola 

(Sunnyside green-gentian), Lomatium 

latilobum (Canyonlands lomatium), 

Lygodesmia doloresensis (Dolores river 

skeletonplant), Drummond 

mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 4), 

Bitterroot mountainsnail (Oreohelix 

amariradix), and keeled mountainsnail 

(Oreohelix carinifera). 

We find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information that listing the remaining 

29 of the 38 species that we evaluated 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Act may be warranted. Therefore, we are 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing these 29 species under 

the Act is warranted. 

We previously determined that 

emergency listing of any of the 38 

species is not warranted. However, if at 

any time we determine that emergency 

listing of any of the species is 

warranted, we will initiate an 

emergency listing. 

The petitioners also request that 

critical habitat be designated for the 

species concurrent with final listing 

under the Act. If we determine in our 

12-month finding, following the status 

review of the species, that listing is 

warranted, we will address the 

designation of critical habitat in the 

subsequent proposed rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Mountain-Prairie Region 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the MountainPrairie Region Ecological Services 

Offices (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

Jerome Ford, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19494 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044; 

92210–1117–0000–FY09–B4] 

RIN 1018–AU23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct 

Population Segment of California Tiger 

Salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; public hearing 

announcement. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the Sonoma 

County distinct population segment 

(DPS) of the California tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

74,223 acres (30,037 hectares) are being 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. The proposed critical habitat is 

located in Sonoma County, California. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

October 19, 2009. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by October 2, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0044; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS