Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2107 

amount of the Government contributions 

paid by the Agency to or on behalf of the 

contractor to maintain the contractor’s health 

insurance coverage during the period of paid 

parental leave. 

(iii) The contracting officer may waive the 

reimbursement requirement of this paragraph 

if the contractor is unable to fulfill the 

required 12-workweek obligation for any of 

the following reasons: 

(A) In the Agency’s judgment, the 

contractor is unable to return to work 

because of the continuation, recurrence, or 

onset of a serious health condition (including 

mental health) of the contractor or the newly 

born or placed child—but only if the 

condition is related to the applicable birth or 

placement; or 

(B) in the Agency’ judgment, the contractor 

is unable to return to work due to 

circumstances beyond the contractor’s 

control that precludes performance under the 

contract; or 

(C) the contracting officer terminates the 

contract for convenience in accordance with 

the clause entitled ‘‘Termination’’, or does 

not exercise any option period. 

* * * * * 

30. Relocation Expense Benefit 

[Insert the following clause in contracts 

with USPSCs based abroad except Resident 

Hire USPSCs.] 

Relocation Expense Benefit (DATE) 

If the contractor’s period of performance 

abroad is for twelve consecutive months or 

more, USAID may provide a one-time 

payment to assist the contractor with 

extraordinary relocation expenses as follows: 

(a) A contractor legally residing in, and 

relocating from the U.S., its commonwealth, 

possessions or territories to an overseas post; 

or a personal services contractor relocating 

immediately from a prior USAID overseas 

post to the USAID overseas post under this 

contract, may receive a miscellaneous 

relocation expense payment of— 

(1) $750 or the equivalent of one week’s 

pay, whichever is the lesser amount, if the 

contractor is unaccompanied; or 

(2) $1,500 or the equivalent of two weeks’ 

pay, whichever is the lesser amount, if the 

contractor is accompanied with eligible 

family members. 

(b) In addition, a contractor legally residing 

in, and relocating from the U.S., its 

commonwealth, possessions or territories to 

the cooperating country pursuant to this 

personal services contract may receive a predeparture subsistence expense 

reimbursement for the contractor and each 

eligible family member for up to 10 days 

before final departure to the cooperating 

country abroad, beginning not more than 30 

days after the contractor has vacated their 

residence, using the following partial flat rate 

method: 

(1) An actual lodging amount (excluding 

lodging tax) up to the lodging portion of the 

per diem of the U.S. locality of the 

contractor’s legal place of residence, and a 

flat amount equal to the meal and incidental 

expense (M&IE) portion of the per diem 

according to the formula below. In addition, 

the contractor may be reimbursed separately 

for taxes imposed on actual lodging 

expenses, if any. Receipts are required only 

for lodging. 

(2) For the initial occupant, whether the 

contractor or accompanying eligible family 

member age 12 or over, a daily lodging 

amount not in excess of the published 

lodging portion of the per diem rate for the 

U.S. locality at which the occupant normally 

resides, and a flat amount equal to the meal 

and incidental expense portion of the 

referenced per diem rate to defray costs for 

meals, laundry and dry cleaning. 

(3) For each additional occupant, whether 

the contractor or accompanying eligible 

family member age 12 or over, a daily lodging 

amount not in excess of 75% of the 

published lodging portion of the per diem 

rate for the U.S. locality at which the 

occupant normally resides, and a flat amount 

equal to 75% of the meal and incidental 

expense portion of the referenced per diem 

rate to defray costs for meals, laundry and 

dry cleaning. 

(4) For each accompanying eligible family 

member occupant under age 12, a daily 

lodging amount not in excess of 50% of the 

published lodging portion of the per diem 

rate for the U.S. locality at which the 

occupant normally resides, and a flat amount 

equal to 50% of the meal and incidental 

expense portion of the referenced per diem 

rate to defray costs for meals, laundry and 

dry cleaning. 

(5) A contractor and any accompanying 

eligible family member relocating from a 

place other than the U.S., its commonwealth, 

possessions or territories to the cooperating 

country, will not be eligible for the predeparture subsistence expense portion of the 

relocation expenses. 

(6) Expenses of local transportation are not 

allowable. 

(c) The contractor must obtain approval for 

what is authorized in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this clause in the Travel Authorization 

(TA) issued by USAID to the contractor, in 

accordance with the Travel and 

Transportation Expenses clause. The 

contractor must claim reimbursement under 

the TA only after the contractor and all 

accompanying eligible family members, if 

any, have arrived in the cooperating country. 

(d) If the contractor does not complete 

twelve consecutive months in the 

cooperating country, except for reasons 

beyond the contractor’s control, the 

contractor will be liable to reimburse USAID 

for the amount of the relocation expense 

benefit received. 

Mark Walther, 

Chief Acquisition Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2021–27944 Filed 1–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BD71 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Withdrawal of the 

Proposed Rules To List Graham’s 

Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) 

and White River Beardtongue 

(Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) 

as Threatened Species and To 

Designate Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

withdrawing our August 6, 2013, 

proposed rules to list Graham’s 

beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and 

White River beardtongue (Penstemon 

scariosus var. albifluvis) as threatened 

species throughout their ranges and to 

designate critical habitat for these two 

plant species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

These withdrawals are based on our 

conclusion that the stressors affecting 

the species as identified in the proposed 

listing rule are not as significant as 

previously understood at the time of 

publication of that proposed rule, such 

that the species do not meet the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

of a ‘‘threatened species.’’ Our 

conclusion is informed by an updated 

analysis of new and previous 

information concerning current and 

future stressors to the species and 

conservation efforts for them. 

DATES: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is withdrawing proposed rules 

published on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 

47590 and 47832), as of January 13, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Relevant documents used in 

the preparation of this withdrawal are 

available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah 

Ecological Services Office, 2369 W 

Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, 

UT 84119; telephone 801–975–3330. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf may call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish this 

document. Under the Act, a species may 

warrant protection through listing if it is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. In 

2013, we issued proposed rules to list 

the Graham’s beardtongue and White 

River beardtongue (beardtongues) and to 

designate critical habitat for the 

beardtongues. This document 

withdraws the proposed listing rule 

because we have now determined that 

the factors affecting the beardtongues as 

identified in that proposed rule are not 

as significant as previously understood 

in 2013, such that listing is not 

warranted for these species. Because we 

are withdrawing the proposed listing 

rule for the beardtongues, we also 

withdraw the proposed critical habitat 

designation for these species. 

The basis for our action. The Act 

defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Under 

the Act, we may determine that a 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species because of any of five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We 

have determined that the stressors 

affecting the beardtongues as identified 

in the proposed listing rule (energy 

development, cumulative impacts from 

livestock grazing, invasive weeds, small 

population size, and climate change) are 

not as significant as previously 

understood at the time of publication of 

the proposed rule (i.e., in 2013). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 6, 2013, we published a 

proposed rule to list Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue as threatened species (78 

FR 47590) under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). Please refer to that proposed 

rule for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning 

Graham’s beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue prior to 2013. On August 6, 

2013, we also published a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for both 

species (78 FR 47832). Following 

publication of our August 6, 2013, 

proposed rules, the same parties 

(Bureau of Land Management (BLM); 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service); 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR); State of Utah School and 

Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA); Uintah County, 

Utah) that had drafted a 2007 

conservation agreement (CA) for 

Graham’s beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue reconvened to evaluate 

species’ surveys and distribution 

information and to reassess the 

conservation needs of both Graham’s 

and White River beardtongues. Based on 

this evaluation, the parties completed a 

new conservation agreement (2014 CA, 

entire) that specifically addressed the 

threats identified in our August 6, 2013, 

proposed listing rule (78 FR 47590). 

Additional signatories to the 2014 CA 

included the Utah Public Lands Policy 

Coordination Office (PLPCO) and Rio 

Blanco County, Colorado. While private 

landowners were not signatories to the 

2014 CA, some private lands are 

designated as conservation areas under 

the 2014 CA, and Uintah County 

coordinates with and represents the 

interests of affected landowners. 

In the 2014 CA, the parties committed 

to conservation actions including 

establishing 44,373 acres (ac) (17,957 

hectares (ha)) of occupied and 

unoccupied suitable habitat as protected 

conservation areas with limited surface 

disturbance and avoidance of Graham’s 

and White River beardtongue plants by 

300 feet (ft) (91.4 meters (m)). 

Additionally, BLM agreed to avoid 

surface disturbances within 300 ft (91.4 

m) of Graham’s and White River 

beardtongue plants within and outside 

of conservation areas on BLM land. The 

parties also developed conservation 

measures to address the cumulative 

impacts from livestock grazing, invasive 

weeds, small population size, and 

climate change by continuing species 

monitoring, monitoring climate, 

reducing impacts from grazing when 

and where detected, and controlling 

invasive weeds. 

On May 6, 2014, we announced the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our August 6, 2013, proposed listing 

and proposed designation of critical 

habitat rules until July 7, 2014 (79 FR 

25806). In that document, we also 

announced the availability of a draft 

economic analysis (DEA), draft 

environmental assessment (EA), draft 

2014 CA, and amended required 

determinations section of the critical 

habitat proposal. We also announced 

the availability of 2013 survey results 

for Graham’s and White River 

beardtongue plants and our intent to 

hold a public information meeting and 

public hearing. 

On August 6, 2014, we withdrew the 

proposed rule to list Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue as threatened species (79 

FR 46042). That withdrawal was based 

on our conclusion that the threats to the 

species as identified in the August 6, 

2013, proposed listing rule were no 

longer as significant as we previously 

determined, such that the species did 

not meet the Act’s definitions of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or of a 

‘‘threatened species.’’ We based this 

conclusion on our analysis of new 

information concerning current and 

future threats to the species and 

conservation efforts. As a result, we also 

withdrew our associated August 6, 

2013, proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for these species. 

On March 26, 2015, a complaint was 

filed in the District Court for the District 

of Colorado by Rocky Mountain Wild, 

Center for Biological Diversity, Utah 

Native Plant Society, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, Grand Canyon 

Trust, Western Resource Advocates, and 

Western Watersheds Project challenging 

the withdrawal of the proposal to list 

Graham’s beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue (Rocky Mountain Wild v. 

Walsh, No. 15–615 (D. Colo. filed Mar. 

26, 2015)). The State of Utah, SITLA and 

PLPCO, and Uintah County, Utah, 

intervened in the litigation (Mot. to 

Intervene, ECF No. 10). On October 25, 

2016, the court found that the 

withdrawal was contrary to the Act 

because (1) we concluded that yet-to-beenacted regulatory and non-regulatory 

measures mandated by the 2014 CA 

were ‘‘existing regulatory mechanisms’’; 

(2) we failed to account for the 2014 

CA’s expiration when determining 

whether the beardtongues face material 

threats in the ‘‘foreseeable future’’; and 

(3) we took into account economic 

considerations when imposing a 300-ft 

(91.4-m) buffer zone around each 

beardtongue (Order Vacating Admin. 

Action and Req. Meet-and-Confer 

Between the Parties, ECF No. 59). 

However, before entering final 

judgment, the court ordered that the 

parties meet to discuss whether the 

2014 CA could be modified in a manner 

satisfactory to plaintiffs. Those meetings 

occurred, but in a December 15, 2017, 

Joint Status Report to the court, the 

parties reported that they were 

unsuccessful at reaching agreement. 

Therefore, on December 18, 2017, the 

court entered final judgment, vacating 

our August 6, 2014, withdrawal, and 

reinstating the proposed listing and 

critical habitat rules. As a result, the 

August 6, 2013, proposed listing and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2109 

critical habitat rules (collectively 

referred to as the 2013 proposed rules) 

for Graham’s beardtongue and White 

River beardtongue were reinstated, and 

both species once again became 

proposed for listing under the Act. The 

court did not establish a firm deadline 

for us to reach a new final listing 

determination but provided that 

plaintiffs could return to the court to 

seek such a deadline if the Service did 

not publish a new final determination 

by September 30, 2019. The plaintiffs 

have not yet done so. 

On September 12, 2019, we reopened 

the comment periods on the 2013 

proposed rules for 30 days, ending 

October 15, 2019 (84 FR 48090). We also 

announced that we would reevaluate 

the status of both species to determine 

whether they meet the Act’s definition 

of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or of a 

‘‘threatened species,’’ or whether they 

are not warranted for listing. We invited 

the public to comment on the 2013 

proposed rules, and we requested new 

information regarding Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue that had become available 

since the publication of the 2013 

proposed rules to inform our evaluation. 

We also announced the availability of 

new survey and monitoring information 

that had become available since the 

publication of our 2013 proposed rules, 

and we announced the availability of 

the final 2014 CA, a 2018 addendum to 

the 2014 CA, and modified conservation 

areas under the 2014 CA. 

Supporting Documents 

We prepared two Biological Reports 

for Graham’s beardtongue and White 

River beardtongue (Service 2021a, 

Service 2021b) (hereafter referred to as 

the Biological Reports), using concepts 

from the Service’s species status 

assessment (SSA) framework (Smith et 

al. 2018, entire). The first Biological 

Report (Service 2021a, entire) represents 

a compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the current condition of the two species, 

including the impacts of past and 

present influences (both negative and 

beneficial) on the beardtongues, as well 

as a discussion of our recommendations 

for avoidance buffers and surface 

disturbance caps. The second Biological 

Report (Service 2021b, entire) represents 

a compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the projected future condition of the two 

species, including the impacts of 

influences (both negative and beneficial) 

that are anticipated to affect the 

beardtongues into the future. In 

accordance with our joint policy on peer 

review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of three 

appropriate subject matter specialists 

regarding our Biological Report of 

Current Condition and five appropriate 

subject matter specialists regarding our 

Biological Report of Future Condition 

for the two beardtongues. We received 

responses from three specialists on our 

Biological Report of Current Condition 

and from four specialists on our 

Biological Report of Future Condition, 

which informed the underlying analysis 

and scientific basis for this document. 

(Some peer reviewers reviewed both 

biological reports). In preparing this 

listing determination, we incorporated 

the results of these reviews into our 

final biological reports, as appropriate. 

We also sent the Biological Reports to 

partners, including the signatories to the 

2014 CA (BLM; Utah DNR; SITLA; 

PLPCO; Uintah County, Utah; Rio 

Blanco County, Colorado). The 

Biological Reports and other materials 

relating to this listing determination can 

be found on the Mountain-Prairie 

Region website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/es/GrahamsAndWhite

RiverBeardtongue.php and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

As stated above under Previous 

Federal Actions, on August 6, 2013, we 

published proposed rules to list 

Graham’s beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue as threatened species and 

to designate critical habitat (78 FR 

47590 and 47832). These proposed rules 

each had a 60-day comment period, 

ending October 7, 2013. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposals. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment and 

announcing our informational meeting 

and public hearing were published in 

the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, 

and Uintah Basin Standard. On May 6, 

2014, we announced the reopening of 

the public comment period on our 2013 

proposed listing and proposed 

designation of critical habitat rules until 

July 7, 2014 (79 FR 25806). We received 

requests for a public hearing, which was 

held in Vernal, Utah, on May 28, 2014. 

Subsequently, we withdrew the 2013 

proposed rules and then later reinstated 

them following litigation. As a result, on 

September 12, 2019, we again reopened 

the comment period on the 2013 

proposed rules for 30 days (84 FR 

48090). We then developed two 

Biological Reports regarding the two 

species’ current and future conditions 

(Service 2021a, 2021b), each of which 

underwent peer review. Responses to 

comments we received during the 

comment period for our September 12, 

2019, document and from peer reviews 

of the Biological Reports are provided 

below. For additional responses to 

comments for which there is no updated 

information since 2014, please see the 

August 6, 2014, withdrawal of the 2013 

proposed rules (79 FR 46042). All 

substantive information provided 

during all peer reviews and all comment 

periods has either been incorporated 

directly into this final determination or 

our Biological Reports as appropriate or 

is addressed below. Comments related 

to our 2013 proposed critical habitat 

designation are not addressed here; 

given the decision to withdraw the 

listing proposal, no further assessment 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation is necessary at this time. 

Peer Review Comments 

We reviewed all comments on the 

Biological Reports that we received from 

the peer reviewers for substantive issues 

and new information regarding the 

beardtongues. One peer reviewer 

provided favorable support of the 

metrics used to evaluate the 

beardtongues’ current and future 

condition and provided no edits to the 

documents. Three peer reviewers 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions, which 

we have either incorporated into the 

Biological Reports or addressed below. 

(1) Comment: One reviewer stated 

that it does not seem logical that large 

Graham’s beardtongue populations 

contain such a wide range of plant 

abundance (between 171 and 19,735 

plants). The reviewer recommended that 

we provide different delineations of 

small, medium, and large population 

sizes for the beardtongues, and they 

suggested the following categories: 

Small population size between 0 and 

100 plants; medium population size 

between 101 and 1,000 plants; and large 

population size greater than 1,000 

plants. 

Our Response: The recommendation 

may be appropriate for species that do 

not have a population viability analysis 

(PVA), or a peer-reviewed PVA. 

However, we delineated the population 

size categories based on a peer-reviewed 

PVA for the beardtongues. We 

calculated the extinction risk of each 

beardtongue population and considered 

large Graham’s beardtongue populations 

to have an extinction risk of less than 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2110 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

five percent over a 50 year period 

(USFWS 2021a, pp. 59–61). Large 

Graham’s beardtongue populations must 

have a minimum of 131 plants and the 

largest population with 19,735 plants 

(population 27) has a much lower 

extinction risk (less than one percent) 

compared to another population with 

171 plants (between four and five 

percent). Our large population 

delineation identifies a lower threshold 

than what the reviewer suggested since 

it is based on a species-specific 

evaluation rather than generalized 

categories that do not take into account 

a species’ life history or demography. 

We considered the PVA results to 

provide the best available information to 

delineate the beardtongues’ population 

size categories, and as such did not 

make any changes in response to this 

comment. 

(2) Comment: One reviewer 

recommended that our 300-ft (91.4-m) 

avoidance buffer incorporate pollinator 

foraging distances for the primary 

pollinators to ensure adequate 

beardtongue pollination and 

reproduction. 

Our Response: We considered the 

effects to individual plants, populations, 

and pollinators when developing our 

avoidance buffer and surface 

disturbance cap recommendations. Our 

recommended 300-ft (91.4-m) avoidance 

buffer protects individual beardtongue 

plants from occupied habitat loss and 

effects from fugitive dust and invasive 

weeds. Our recommended surface 

disturbance caps limit pollinator habitat 

loss and were designed to be used in 

tandem with the avoidance buffer to 

maintain population-level processes 

such as visitation and gene flow by 

pollinators as well as the condition of 

the beardtongues’ populations. We 

evaluated pollinators and their needs at 

the beardtongue population level to 

support gene flow between plants and 

population-level reproduction rather 

than at an individual plant level. We 

incorporated pollinator foraging 

distances into our surface disturbance 

cap recommendation to restrict the 

amount of habitat loss and 

fragmentation within a beardtongue 

population’s pollinator habitat. We 

delineated a population’s pollinator 

habitat based on the foraging distance of 

the beardtongues’ largest pollinators: 

2,297 ft (700 m) for Graham’s 

beardtongue and 1,640 ft (500 m) for 

White River beardtongue. Based on our 

review of the best available information 

and current habitat loss within 

pollinator habitat of beardtongue 

populations, the needs of pollinators 

and beardtongue reproduction can be 

supported even with some loss of 

pollinator habitat that occurs outside of 

the 300-ft (91.4-m) plant avoidance 

buffer (USFWS 2021a, Appendix E). 

Current levels of habitat loss within the 

pollinator habitat of long-term 

monitoring plots are low, ranging from 

zero to five percent, with no statistically 

significant negative effects to pollinator 

visitation or beardtongue reproduction 

(USFWS 2021a Appendix E). Published 

literature indicates that these negative 

effects are realized after considerable 

habitat loss has occurred for other 

species and habitats (USFWS 2021a 

Appendix E). Our recommendations are 

consistent with supporting the needs of 

pollinators and population-level gene 

flow within relatively intact habitat 

conditions. Together, the avoidance 

buffer and surface disturbance caps 

within conservation areas should 

conserve beardtongue plants and their 

pollinators from stressors at two 

different scales. 

(3) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that our knowledge of the 

beardtongues’ current distribution is 

incomplete due to lack of surveys on 

Tribal lands and the State of Utah 

Department of Wildlife Resources lands 

in Range Unit 2. Surveys are needed in 

these areas. 

Our Response: We acknowledge the 

lack of surveys in these areas in our 

Biological Reports. Our determinations 

on listing the two species are based on 

the best available scientific information. 

(4) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that we omitted review 

surveys, impacts, and new information 

for the beardtongues from the Questar 

Mainline 103 pipeline replacement 

project. White River beardtongue plants 

had established in a roadside berm that 

was created by the initial disturbance 

between 2009 and 2012. Field 

observations indicate that White River 

beardtongue plants were able to 

establish or reestablish in roadcuts and 

other disturbance areas. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 2012 

environmental assessment prepared by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) for this project, and 

pre-construction surveys were 

performed for the beardtongues; 

however, no beardtongue plants were 

located within the project right-of-way. 

We mention in the Biological Reports 

that White River beardtongue occupies 

some disturbance areas and exhibits 

some tolerance to habitat disturbance. 

(5) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that it may be worth noting 

that sparsely vegetated shale barren 

habitat on ridgelines that are considered 

potential habitat for the beardtongues 

are attractive off-road vehicle (OHV) 

routes. 

Our Response: We mention the 

potential for OHV use to occur in the 

beardtongues’ habitat in the Biological 

Reports. However, the best available 

information does not indicate that OHV 

use is occurring there or impacting 

plants or populations. Therefore, we did 

not consider OHV use as a stressor in 

our analysis. 

(6) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that the beardtongues’ 

survey results in the Red Leaf lease area 

on State lands may not be included in 

the population estimates or maps 

provided in the draft Biological Report. 

Our Response: We reviewed our 

dataset and confirmed that the 

beardtongues’ survey results for this 

area are included in the population 

estimates and maps provided in the 

Biological Report. 

(7) Comment: One reviewer 

recommended that we include the 2020 

beardtongues’ survey results in 

Colorado in the Biological Reports. 

Our Response: We added the 2020 

survey results to the Biological Reports 

and considered them in our evaluation 

of the beardtongues’ current and future 

condition. These survey results 

increased the number of Graham’s 

beardtongue plants in population 22 by 

565 plants and reduced the number of 

White River beardtongue plants in 

population 10 by 1,039 plants. 

(8) Comment: One reviewer 

questioned whether the high energy 

development scenario is plausible over 

the next 10 years because of the lack of 

oil shale commercial development in 

the Uinta Basin and the checkerboard 

pattern of landownership that would 

add complexity, time, and uncertainty 

to the development of these lands. 

Our Response: We intended the high 

energy development scenario to 

illustrate the worst-case impacts from 

energy development. We also recognize 

that this scenario, while plausible, may 

be less likely to occur than other 

scenarios, and that actual future impacts 

may range anywhere between that 

scenario and the current condition. 

Public Comments 

(9) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Service should complete 

an updated threat assessment and 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment prior to making a final 

listing determination and critical habitat 

designation. Commenters believe that 

threats documented in the 2013 

proposed listing rule are still present 

and oil spills from pipeline ruptures are 

a new threat associated with energy 

development that was not previously 

addressed. Commenters stated that 

White River beardtongue should be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2111 

listed as an endangered species, not a 

threatened species, due to imminent 

threats. One commenter mentioned the 

landscape surrounding beardtongue 

populations in Colorado has been 

heavily fragmented by existing energy 

development infrastructure; if 

completed, a proposed rail line in the 

Uinta Basin could increase energy 

development impacts to the 

beardtongues. 

Our Response: We completed a new 

threat assessment that is presented in 

our Biological Reports (Service 2021a, 

entire; 2021b, entire), and summarized 

in this document. We evaluated 

stressors to the beardtongues and 

considered new information, including 

current and projected future levels of 

habitat loss and fragmentation within 

the beardtongues’ pollinator habitat and 

planned projects including the proposed 

Uinta Basin rail line. The best available 

information does not indicate that 

negative impacts to the beardtongues 

have occurred or are expected to occur 

from oil spills. 

(10) Comment: Multiple commenters 

mentioned the need for improved 

surface disturbance caps and buffers to 

protect the plants from negative impacts 

from development. The 300-ft (91.4-m) 

buffer from surface-disturbing activities 

as outlined in the 2014 CA is less than 

the 2,297-ft (700-m) proposed critical 

habitat area surrounding known 

occurrences; buffers of at least 650 ft 

(200 m) are needed to conserve 

pollinators until the research by Barlow 

and Pavlik is completed to determine 

minimum habitat areas for populations. 

Our Response: We evaluated the best 

available information to inform our 

recommended avoidance buffer and 

surface disturbance caps in our 

Biological Report of current condition 

(Service 2021a, pp. 81–82). For more 

information refer to our response to 

Comment 2, above. We did not rely on 

the Barlow and Pavlik road impact 

evaluation to inform our avoidance 

buffer recommendation, because we and 

a peer reviewer identified concerns 

regarding their assumption that roads 

were major drivers of the beardtongues’ 

plant size and reproductive effort, and 

the lack of evidence supporting this 

assumption from published literature 

(Barlow and Pavlik 2020, entire; 

McNellis 2021a and 2021b, entire; 

Service 2021a, p. 41). We considered the 

Barlow and Pavlik road impact 

evaluation to be an exploratory model 

where the results are predictions to be 

tested and do not demonstrate causation 

(Service 2021a, p. 41). 

(11) Comment: Multiple commenters 

were concerned that the conservation 

areas in the 2014 CA protect less acreage 

(44,373 ac) than the amount of area that 

was proposed for critical habitat (67,959 

ac (27,502 ha)). The 2014 CA protects 

only 78 percent of the population of 

Graham’s beardtongue and 59 percent of 

the population of White River 

beardtongue; the conservation areas do 

not include all White River beardtongue 

plants and habitat in the Book Cliffs, 

which the commenters believed was 

insufficient. They recommend 

expanding conservation areas on 

Federal and State lands to avoid listing 

both species as threatened under the 

Act. Multiple commenters stated that 

critical habitat should include all plants 

identified in surveys to-date. Three 

commenters stated that research on 

White River beardtongue identified the 

taxon has small and isolated 

populations with low levels of genetic 

diversity (Rodriguez-Pen ̃ a et al. 2018), 

and it is important to protect habitat for 

as many populations as possible to 

ensure future genetic viability. 

Our Response: There are many ways 

to achieve conservation of the 

beardtongues. The proposed critical 

habitat designation identified all 

populations known in 2013, with the 

understanding that critical habitat alone 

would not convey or guarantee 

conservation, because critical habitat 

protections for plants do not apply on 

non-Federal lands without a Federal 

action. The proposed critical habitat 

designations for the two beardtongue 

species overlapped and totaled 75,846 

ac (30,694 ha). Proposed critical habitat 

on Federal lands alone would apply to 

only 38 percent of the population of 

Graham’s beardtongue (21,301 plants) 

on 41,668 ac (16,862 ha), and 27 percent 

of the population for White River 

beardtongue (7,942 plants) on 5,758 ac 

(2,330 ha) (Service 2021a, Appendix B, 

p. 86). The 2014 CA conserves a smaller 

amount of habitat in designated 

conservation areas (42,993 ac (17,399 

ha)) than we proposed as critical habitat 

but provides protections to a similar 

percentage of the Graham’s beardtongue 

population and a much larger 

percentage of the White River 

beardtongue population than afforded 

by proposed critical habitat on Federal 

lands. The 2014 CA protects 41 percent 

of Graham’s beardtongue plants (23,333 

plants) and 66 percent (19,710 plants) of 

White River beardtongue plants on 

Federal and non-Federal lands (Service 

2021b, pp. 44–45). The 2014 CA 

conservation areas support 1,094 White 

River beardtongue plants in the Book 

Cliffs population to maintain a large 

population size with a low risk of 

extinction (less than 5 percent risk of 

extinction over a 50-year period). In 

addition, the conservation areas are 

strategically placed to provide habitat 

connectivity, thereby conserving the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (e.g., genetic diversity) of 

the beardtongues across their ranges 

(Service 2021a, pp. 42–45; Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2014, entire; 

Penstemon Conservation Team 2018b, 

2018c, entire). 

(12) Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed concern that the private 

parties will end their participation in 

the 2014 CA in 2029. 

Our Response: The duration of the 

2014 CA is 20 years (until 2034) for 

Federal, State, and county parties, and 

15 years (until 2029) for private parties. 

During this time, we hope that 

information regarding the likelihood of 

energy development beyond 2030 

becomes available. We committed to 

assess the status of the beardtongues by 

December 31, 2028, prior to the private 

parties leaving the agreement. If, during 

or after this timeframe, either species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ we can act to protect the 

species through the listing process. If 

the beardtongues are listed under the 

Act, the 2014 CA expires to avoid a 

situation where the parties are bound to 

both the commitments in the agreement 

and the requirements of the Act. This 

conservation framework provides a 

consistent regulatory framework for 

landowners or managers who may be 

affected, while still protecting the 

beardtongues under either scenario. 

(13) Comment: Commenters expressed 

concern that the voluntary nature of the 

2014 CA by private parties is inadequate 

and will lead to inconsistent 

management of the beardtongues. The 

Federal agencies do not have regulatory 

mechanisms in place to enforce the 

conservation measures in the 2014 CA 

on Federal land, and there are no 

regulatory mechanisms in place that 

provide the necessary landscape-level 

protections to the beardtongues from the 

threats identified in the 2013 proposed 

rules. The results of livestock 

monitoring and assessments were not 

made available to the public; 

commenters questioned whether 

monitoring was conducted according to 

the schedule identified in the livestock 

grazing plan. 

Our Response: The 2014 CA was 

developed by county, State, and Federal 

entities that have the authority to 

regulate and permit activities on lands 

within their jurisdiction that overlap 

with the beardtongues’ habitat. These 

parties are implementing the voluntary 

agreement and providing protections to 

the beardtongues that we considered in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

this listing determination. We 

summarize the regulatory mechanisms 

implemented by each party, the 

accomplishments of the 2014 CA, 

livestock monitoring, and corrective 

actions in our 2021 Biological Reports 

(Service 2021a, pp. 42–45, 54–56; 

2021b, pp. 43–48). 

(14) Comment: Multiple commenters 

stated the beardtongues continue to be 

at risk of extinction due to small 

population size and isolation. The 2018 

population size is misleading and 

unknown because: (a) Surveys were 

performed inconsistently and 

haphazardly across the beardtongues’ 

ranges and were not derived from 

annual censuses or a scientifically 

robust sampling design; (b) plants 

counted in one year may have been 

counted in subsequent years; and (c) the 

Service’s assumptions that no 

previously documented plants have 

died of natural or human causes or that 

all previously documented plants have 

been replaced by new plants are 

incorrect, and there is no data to 

support them. One commenter noted 

that some beardtongue species tend to 

form an extended underground root 

system and that the beardtongues’ total 

population sizes could be much smaller 

than our population estimates. 

Our Response: We stated in our 2021 

Biological Reports and past rulemakings 

that the total known number of 

beardtongues has increased over time 

based on new survey information rather 

than increasing population trends. Our 

2018 population estimates were based 

on long-term demographic monitoring 

information that indicate adult 

beardtongue plants are long-lived (30 

years or more) and maintain high 

survival rates, and populations are 

generally stable (Pavlik et al. 2015, 

entire). Therefore, it is reasonable to 

assume that plants continue to persist 

on the landscape unless there is human 

modification of the habitat, or there are 

high-intensity sheep grazing incidents. 

We and our partners reviewed all survey 

information and removed duplicate 

records to minimize the doublecounting of individual plants. There is 

no indication that the beardtongues 

form extended underground root 

systems based on past excavations and 

translocations of individual plants. 

(15) Comment: Multiple commenters 

requested an extension of the public 

comment period and the release of 

survey results and livestock monitoring 

data that became available after the 

publication of the 2013 proposed rules. 

Our Response: We have held three 

comment periods on the proposed rules. 

We held our first comment period for 60 

days, from August 6 to October 7, 2013 

(see 78 FR 47590 and 47832); our 

second comment period for 60 days, 

from May 6 to July 7, 2014 (see 79 FR 

25806), during which we also held a 

public information meeting and public 

hearing on May 28, 2014; and our third 

comment period for 30 days, from 

September 12 to October 15, 2019 (see 

84 FR 48090). Therefore, we have 

provided sufficient opportunities for the 

public to comment on the proposals. 

During each of the three comment 

periods, we made available any survey 

and livestock monitoring data that we 

had at that time. Specifically, during our 

third public comment period in 2019, 

we announced the availability of the 

latest survey results and other 

information that had become available 

since 2013. 

(16) Comment: One commenter stated 

that incompatible livestock grazing is 

occurring on Federal lands, all 

beardtongue sites within Federal 

conservation areas should meet BLM 

Rangeland Health Standards, and 

monitoring should continue to assess 

habitat conditions and inform 

management decisions. 

Our Response: Livestock grazing 

appears to be compatible with 

conservation of the beardtongues except 

for intensive sheep grazing events that 

occur in localized areas (USFWS 2021a, 

pp. 54–56). The BLM is addressing 

livestock impacts to the beardtongues 

on Federal lands as per the 2014 CA. 

The 2014 CA states that BLM will 

monitor beardtongues’ impacts from 

grazing and will adjust grazing regimes 

accordingly to reduce associated 

impacts. For example, BLM 

implemented corrective actions that 

were successful in removing grazing 

impacts to Graham’s beardtongue in the 

Raven Ridge Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 

Colorado, and BLM continues to 

monitor livestock impacts to the 

beardtongues and evaluate rangeland 

health (Service 2021a, p. 55). BLM is 

required to manage rangelands as per 

the requirements of 43 CFR part 4100, 

subpart 4180 (‘‘Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health and Standards and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration’’ 

(Rangeland Health)) and implement the 

agency’s policy guidelines identified in 

the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

(17) Comment: A commenter stated 

that surface disturbance of all kinds 

affects the beardtongues’ pollinators; 

cattle trampling results in greater 

impacts to the ground surface than other 

herbivores. 

Our Response: The best available 

information indicates that the 

beardtongues maintain a diverse 

pollinator assemblage and adequate 

reproduction under permitted grazing 

regimes. Monitored populations of the 

beardtongues that overlap active grazing 

allotments reproduce by seed on an 

annual basis and demonstrate 

reproductive rates that are not 

pollinator-limited (Barlow and Pavlik 

2020, p. 5). 

(18) Comment: A commenter stated 

that monitoring reports indicate that 

herbivory from many sources may 

impact the beardtongues’ ability to 

successfully replenish the seedbank. 

Herbivory resulted in high levels of 

stress to Graham’s beardtongue in 2014, 

and low seedling survivorship. 

Our Response: Herbivory to the 

beardtongues appears to be a natural 

stressor to beardtongue individuals and 

is primarily attributed to native grazers 

(e.g., rodents, rabbits), rather than 

livestock (Service 2021a, p. 54). 

Monitored populations of both species 

continue to remain stable despite the 

regular frequency, and occasional high 

levels, of herbivory. 

(19) Comment: The State of Utah 

provided information that the number of 

new oil and gas wells dropped by 67 

percent between 2014 and 2015, due to 

the drop in crude oil and natural gas 

prices; should prices rebound, the 

increasing use of horizontal well 

drilling could reduce the amount of 

future surface disturbance. Should the 

market demand for oil shale increase to 

an economically favorable price, 

development of this resource may be 

focused on the richer Piceance Basin in 

Colorado rather than on the Uinta Basin 

in Utah. Because of the low likelihood 

of development from oil and gas in the 

foreseeable future, the Service should 

not list the beardtongues. Another 

commenter stated that a determination 

to list a species as a threatened species 

under the Act requires a determination 

as to the likelihood rather than the mere 

prospect that a species will or will not 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. The likely threshold of Graham’s 

and White River beardtongues to 

become an endangered species in the 

foreseeable future was suspect in the 

August 6, 2013, proposed listing rule 

(78 FR 47590); was mitigated by the 

2014 CA; and is better stated as unlikely 

with the discoveries of new 

populations, the species’ range 

expansion, and the success in research 

resulting from the 2014 CA. 

Our Response: We note that the Act 

defines a threatened species as a species 

that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’. The term ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ extends only so far into the 

future as the Service can reasonably 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2113 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. See the Regulatory 

Framework section below for further 

information on how we make 

determinations on whether to list a 

species under the Act. 

We evaluated the likelihood and 

location of future energy development 

(oil shale, tar sands, traditional oil and 

gas development) within the 

beardtongues’ ranges in our Biological 

Reports based on the best available 

information, expert opinion, and peer 

review (Service 20201a, pp. 45–54; 

Service 20201b, pp. 15–38, Appendix). 

Our analysis of projected future energy 

development evaluates worst-case 

impacts under the moderate and high 

energy development scenarios until 

2030, which is the date through which 

reliable predictions can be made based 

on current information. 

(20) Comment: Commenters including 

the State of Utah stated that the 

rangewide population estimates for the 

beardtongues have greatly increased 

since 2013. The known population of 

Graham’s beardtongue increased by 177 

percent, and the known population of 

White River beardtongue increased by 

284 percent. 

Our Response: As stated by the 

commenters, the rangewide population 

estimates for the beardtongues have 

greatly increased since 2013, based on 

new survey information and a genetic 

evaluation of White River beardtongue. 

Although we want to emphasize that the 

increase in population size does not 

mean the total population is increasing. 

Rather, additional survey results 

provide a more complete picture of how 

many beardtongue plants exist across 

their ranges (USFWS 2021a, pp. 21, 28). 

Monitoring indicates the beardtongue 

populations are stable in size. 

(21) Comment: The State of Utah and 

other commenters expressed support for 

the 2014 CA as an appropriate 

regulatory mechanism to promote 

research, surveys, and stakeholder 

engagement. Uintah County, Utah, 

enacted a zoning ordinance for a 15-year 

period until 2029, to apply surface 

disturbance caps and implement a 300- 

ft (91.4-m) avoidance buffer for 2014 CA 

conservation areas on private lands. The 

signatories to the 2014 CA have 

provided considerable staff time and 

funding to implement the agreement; 

successfully implemented surveys, 

research, monitoring, and planning 

commitments; expanded conservation 

areas; committed to providing a 

summary report of accomplishments 

every 5 years; and extended the 2014 

CA protections on State and Federal 

lands for a total of 20 years until July 

25, 2034. Uintah County expressed their 

commitment to the conservation of the 

beardtongues and stated the goal of the 

2014 CA is to ensure the beardtongues 

thrive long after the expiration of the 

agreement. 

Our Response: The signatories are 

implementing the 2014 CA, and their 

many contributions were summarized 

by State members of the agreement 

(Sheppard and Wheeler 2020, entire). 

New commitments made by signatories 

were summarized in the 2014 CA’s 2018 

addendum, which includes the 

Service’s commitment to assess the 

beardtongues’ status by December 31, 

2028. We have considered the 2014 CA 

and its 2018 addendum in this listing 

determination. 

Background 

A comprehensive review of the 

taxonomy and morphology, habitat, life 

history and resource needs, population 

distribution and status, and pollinator 

information for both Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue is presented in our 

Biological Report of current condition 

(Service 2021a, pp. 13–41) and is briefly 

summarized here. 

Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues are endemic plants found 

in northeastern Utah and northwestern 

Colorado. Graham’s beardtongue occurs 

in 27 populations, with a total 

population of 56,385 individuals, across 

the Uinta Basin in Duchesne and Uintah 

Counties in Utah and Rio Blanco County 

in Colorado (Service 2021a, pp. 21–27). 

White River beardtongue occurs in 17 

populations, with a total population of 

29,902 individuals across the Uinta 

Basin and at an isolated location in the 

Book Cliffs in Grand and Uintah 

Counties in Utah and Rio Blanco County 

in Colorado (Service 2021a, pp. 28–33). 

For the purposes of our analysis, we 

grouped the populations for each 

species into five range units (i.e., 

metapopulation areas). The two species 

overlap with each other in four of their 

range units in the central and eastern 

portion of their ranges in Utah and 

Colorado. The occupied habitat area for 

Graham’s and White River beardtongues 

is 9,585 ac and 3,462 ac of habitat, 

respectively. Their pollinator habitat 

area includes beardtongue occupied 

habitat and a larger pollinator foraging 

area, which collectively comprise 

91,232 ac and 29,476 ac for Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue, respectively. 

Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues have highly specific soil 

requirements and occupy exposed oil 

shale strata of the Green River geologic 

formation. The beardtongues are longlived perennial plant species that flower 

in the spring and summer months, and 

both species require pollinators for 

maximum plant reproduction. Plant 

survival and successful recruitment 

require suitable soils with microsites for 

establishment and growth. The sparse 

canopy coverage of associated 

vegetation likely results in low 

competition from other plants, and the 

beardtongues appear to be poor 

competitors with weeds. Reproductive 

success and maintenance of genetic 

diversity of these two beardtongues 

require habitat that supports generalist 

and specialist pollinators, primarily 

bees and a specialist wasp. For more 

detailed information about the biology 

of both beardtongue species, see our 

Biological Report of current condition 

(Service 2021a, pp. 13–41). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an endangered 

species as a species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and a 

threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The Biological Reports document the 

results of our comprehensive biological 

review of the best scientific and 

commercial data regarding the status of 

the two species, including an 

assessment of the potential threats to the 

species. The Biological Reports do not 

represent a decision by the Service on 

whether these species should be listed 

as endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. However, they do 

provide the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decisions, which involve 

the further application of standards 

within the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

discussions provide summaries of the 

key results and conclusions from the 

Biological Reports; the full Biological 

Reports can be found on the MountainPrairie Region website at https://

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/

GrahamsAndWhiteRiver

Beardtongue.php and at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029. 

To assess Graham’s beardtongue and 

White River beardtongue viability, we 

used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310; Smith et al. 2018, p. 

304) (hereafter referred to as the 3Rs). 

Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of 

the species to withstand environmental 

and demographic stochasticity (for 

example, wet or dry, warm or cold 

years), redundancy supports the ability 

of the species to withstand catastrophic 

events (for example, droughts, large 

pollution events), and representation 

supports the ability of the species to 

adapt over time to long-term changes in 

the environment (for example, climate 

changes). In general, the more resilient 

and redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

Our Biological Reports used many of 

the concepts of the Service’s SSA 

framework (Smith et al. 2018, entire) 

and followed sequential stages to 

characterize the viability of the 

Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues. In our Biological Report 

of current condition (Service 2021a), we 

first evaluated the individual species’ 

life-history needs. The next stage 

involved an assessment of the historical 

and current condition of the species’ 

demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how each species arrived 

at its current condition. In our 

Biological Report of future condition 

(Service 2021b), the final stage involved 

making predictions about the species’ 

responses to positive and negative 

environmental and anthropogenic 

influences. Throughout all of these 

stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of a species to sustain 

populations in the wild over time. We 

use this information to inform our 

regulatory decisions. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In preparing the Biological Reports for 

Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues, we reviewed available 

reports and peer-reviewed literature, we 

incorporated survey information, and 

we sought information from experts 

regarding the species’ primary stressors 

to further refine our analysis. We 

identified uncertainties and data gaps in 

our assessment of the current and future 

status of both species. In this 

discussion, we briefly summarize the 

biological condition of both species and 

their resources, the influence of those 

conditions on the species’ overall 

viability, and the risks to that viability. 

For a full description of our analysis of 

each species’ biological status, current 

condition, and projected future 

condition, see our Biological Reports 

(Service 2021a, 2021b). 

Life-History Needs 

At the individual level, both Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue need suitable soils (shallow 

soils with virtually no soil horizon 

development with a surface usually 

mixed with fragmented shale), suitable 

precipitation (6 to 12 inches annually), 

and suitable temperatures (including a 

minimum of 45 consecutive days less 

than 40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the 

winter months) to support plant growth 

(Service 2021a, pp. 17, 20). To support 

plant reproduction, the plants need 

visitation and pollination by bee and 

wasp pollinators, and floral resources 

for pollinators provided by the 

associated plant community, including 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2115 

the presence of other beardtongue 

species (Service 2021a, pp. 17, 20). 

Suitable microsites that provide cover or 

shelter for seed germination, 

establishment, and growth are also 

needed to support both species (Service 

2021a, pp. 17, 20). 

For Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues to maintain viability, their 

populations or some portion of their 

populations must be sufficiently 

resilient (i.e., able to sustain 

populations in the face of 

environmental variation). At the 

population level, important habitat 

needs for the beardtongues include: (1) 

Suitable soil substrate to maximize 

recruitment and survival within the 

population (soil and microsite quality); 

(2) sufficient floral resources to ensure 

pollinator visitation and maximize adult 

reproductive output; (3) suitable climate 

conditions (temperature, moisture) 

within species’ physiological tolerances 

to maximize population growth and 

size; and (4) sufficient seed dispersal 

and contribution to the seed bank to 

support population stability or growth. 

If these habitat factors occur over an 

area of sufficient size to support a 

sufficient population size and the 

demographic needs of the species, we 

anticipate plant populations will retain 

sufficient resiliency to withstand 

natural stochastic events (Service 2021a, 

pp. 33–34). 

Based on their population 

demographics, we expect that survival 

of established plants (i.e., vegetative and 

adult (reproductive) plants) and high 

reproductive output are the most 

important factors contributing to the 

growth rate and size of populations 

(Service 2021a, pp. 34–35). Lastly, 

resiliency of populations is also 

influenced by the degree of connectivity 

among populations (Service 2021a, p. 

35). 

At the species level, Graham’s and 

White River beardtongues each need 

multiple, sufficiently resilient, 

connected populations that represent 

the range of ecological and genetic 

diversity across their ranges (Service 

2021a, p. 35). Populations that are 

connected allow for immigration and 

emigration across the landscape and 

ensure gene flow and recolonization 

following extirpation of individual sites 

or populations (Auffret et al. 2017, pp. 

1–3). In order to adapt to changing 

physical and biological conditions, each 

species needs to maintain its genetic 

and ecological diversity (representation) 

and an adequate number and 

distribution of sufficiently resilient 

populations across its range 

(redundancy). 

Because the beardtongues rely on 

pollinators to maximize seed production 

and genetic diversity of plant 

populations, we also note that the 

persistence of the pollinator assemblage 

for Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues depends on maintaining 

nesting sites and floral resources to 

support pollinator needs (Service 2021a, 

pp. 35–36). Broadly, the needs of 

Graham’s and White River beardtongue 

pollinators include intact habitat 

conditions and an abundance of floral 

resources throughout the growing 

season. For an in-depth discussion of 

the beardtongues’ pollinator assemblage, 

pollinator life history, and the needs of 

pollinators, see our Biological Report on 

current condition (Service 2021a, pp. 

35–41). 

Summary of Factors Influencing 

Viability 

As mentioned above in Regulatory 

Framework, a species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Potential stressors we 

evaluated for Graham’s and White River 

beardtongue in our Biological Reports 

included: Three types of energy 

exploration and development: Oil shale, 

tar sands, and traditional oil and gas 

drilling (Factor A); road construction 

(Factor A); herbivory (Factor C); 

invasive weeds (Factor A); small 

population size (Factor E); and climate 

change (Factors A and E). We also 

evaluated how existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) or other 

conservation measures (primarily the 

2014 CA and 2018 addendum) may 

lessen the impacts of these stressors. 

The best available information does not 

indicate that overutilization (Factor B) is 

a threat to either beardtongue species. A 

brief summary of the potential factors 

affecting Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues is presented below; for a 

full description of our evaluation of the 

effects of these stressors and 

conservation efforts, refer to the 

Biological Reports (Service 2021a, pp. 

41–63; Service 2021b, pp. 15–48). 

Conservation Agreement 

Following publication of our August 

6, 2013, proposed rules (78 FR 47590 

and 47832), we entered into a 2014 CA 

with the following parties: BLM; Utah 

DNR; SITLA; Uintah County, Utah; the 

Utah PLPCO; and Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado (Penstemon Conservation 

Team 2014, entire). The 2014 CA was 

designed to specifically address the 

threats identified in our August 6, 2013, 

proposed rule to list the two species (78 

FR 47590), and expand the protections 

afforded to the beardtongues on Federal 

lands. The 2014 CA also provides the 

species protections on certain nonFederal lands. 

The parties committed to a number of 

conservation actions, including the 

establishment of 44,373 ac (17,957 ha) 

of occupied and suitable habitat as 

protected conservation areas on Federal 

and non-Federal lands. Within the 

designated conservation areas, surface 

disturbance caps are applied to limit the 

loss and fragmentation of habitat from 

development, in conjunction with a 

300-ft (91.4-m) avoidance buffer 

between disturbance and beardtongue 

plants. Uintah County enacted an 

ordinance to enforce the surface 

disturbance caps and avoidance buffer 

within conservation areas on private 

lands (Penstemon Conservation Team 

2014, pp. 28, 35). Additionally, BLM 

implements a minimum 300-ft (91.4-m) 

avoidance buffer wherever beardtongue 

plants occur on Federal lands, as 

identified in BLM’s resource 

management plans. The parties also 

developed monitoring plans that 

include adaptive management to 

address the cumulative impacts from 

livestock grazing, invasive weeds, small 

population size, and climate change by 

continuing species monitoring, 

monitoring climate, reducing impacts 

from grazing when and where detected, 

and controlling invasive weeds. 

Today, the 2014 CA remains in place, 

and in 2018, the parties added 2,339 ac 

(947 ha) as new conservation areas for 

White River beardtongue habitat on 

Federal and State (SITLA) lands and 

removed 115 ac (47 ha) of low priority 

conservation areas (Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2018b and 2018c, 

entire). The parties also signed an 

addendum (Penstemon Conservation 

Team 2018d, entire) to extend the term 

of the 2014 CA by an additional 5 years, 

until 2034, for the Federal, State 

(SITLA, DNR), and county parties. The 

private lands in Utah will be released 

from the 2014 CA when the original 

term ends in 2029. For the purposes of 

our analysis, we considered only the 

2014 CA protections that are afforded to 

the beardtongues until 2034. Additional 

conservation areas under the 2014 CA 

were designated as ‘‘interim’’ and only 

provide shorter-term protections. 

However, we did not consider plants in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

these interim areas as protected for the 

purposes of our analysis. We are 

uncertain of the likelihood of 2014 CA 

protections continuing beyond 2034 

when the CA expires; however, it may 

be possible to renew the CA with 

willing partners. As part of the CA, the 

Service committed to assess the status of 

the beardtongues in 2028, prior to the 

expiration of protections on private 

lands. For additional discussion and 

details on the 2014 CA and its 

accomplishments, see our Biological 

Reports (Service 2021a, pp. 42–45; 

Service 2021b, pp. 43–48). 

Other Regulatory Mechanisms 

While the 2014 CA is a voluntary 

agreement, the State of Utah (SITLA and 

PLPCO), Uintah County (Utah), and Rio 

Blanco County (Colorado) used their 

regulatory authority to implement 

specific protections as outlined in the 

2014 CA (Penstemon Conservation 

Team 2014, and 2018 a, b, c, entire; 

Service 2021, pp. 39–43). Utah State law 

protects the beardtongues on State 

(SITLA) designated conservation areas 

and enforces the restrictions identified 

in the 2014 CA (see title 53C of the Utah 

Code, at chapter 2, part 2, section 202 

(53C–2–202), and the Utah 

Administrative Code, School and 

Institutional Trust Lands, at title 850, 

rule 150 (R850–150)). Uintah County 

enacted a zoning ordinance to enforce 

the surface disturbance caps and an 

avoidance buffer within conservation 

areas on private lands until 2029 

(Penstemon Conservation Team 2014, 

pp. 28, 35; Uintah County 2018, entire; 

Penstemon Conservation Team 2019, 

Appendix A). No other regulatory 

mechanisms provide protections to the 

beardtongues on private or State lands 

in Utah and Colorado. 

Other regulatory mechanisms provide 

protections to Graham’s beardtongue 

and White River beardtongue on Federal 

(BLM) lands. Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues are BLM sensitive plant 

species in Utah and Colorado, and are 

afforded protections at least comparable 

to (if not greater than) species that are 

candidates for Federal listing (BLM 

2008a, p. 43). In Utah, the BLM Vernal 

Field Office’s resource management 

plan (RMP), as amended, is the 

regulatory framework for BLM land 

management where the beardtongues 

occur (BLM 2008b, entire). In Colorado, 

the BLM White River Field Office’s 

RMP, as amended, is the regulatory 

framework for BLM land management 

where the beardtongues occur (BLM 

1997, entire; BLM 2015, entire). The 

protections in these RMPs include a 

300-ft (91.4-m) avoidance buffer, surface 

disturbance restrictions on steep slopes, 

areas that are unavailable for leasing 

and that have no surface occupancy 

(NSO) stipulations, and ACECs. For 

additional detail on all of these 

regulatory mechanisms, see our 

Biological Report of future condition 

(Service 2021b, pp. 46–48). 

Oil Shale 

Oil shale exploration (e.g., research, 

exploration, and development) activities 

occur on State and private lands within 

the range of the beardtongues. Oil shale 

exploration and development activities 

have the potential to destroy 

beardtongue habitat, plants, and 

populations. Currently, no exploration 

activities take place on BLM lands and 

no plans for commercial-scale 

development of oil shale exist within 

the range of both species in Utah and 

Colorado (BLM 2013, entire; Service 

2019d, entire; Service 2021a and b, 

entire). To date, two oil shale 

exploration projects have resulted in the 

loss of 276 ac (112 ha) of Graham’s 

beardtongue pollinator habitat and 246 

Graham’s beardtongue individuals in 

Population 13 on State lands (Red Leaf 

Resources 2013, entire; Red Leaf 

Resources 2014, entire; The Oil Mining 

Company 2014, entire; Service 2021a, 

pp. 45–48). 

There are 10,334 ac (4,182 ha) and 

1,997 ac (808 ha) of Graham’s and White 

River beardtongue pollinator habitat, 

respectively, under lease or that have a 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

mine permit (includes exploration, 

small and large mine permits) for oil 

shale (Service 2021a, pp. 45–48). These 

areas contain 35 percent (19,476 plants) 

and 13 percent (4,314 plants) of 

Graham’s and White River beardtongue 

total populations, respectively. Within 

oil shale lease and permit areas, 

conservation areas under the 2014 CA 

afford protections to 561 Graham’s 

beardtongue plants and 1,678 White 

River plants with caps on new 

development and use of an avoidance 

buffer. The majority of beardtongue 

habitat within oil shale lease areas has 

not been impacted by oil shale 

exploration activities. Aside from the 

loss of Graham’s beardtongue habitat 

reported above, the disturbance within 

lease and permit areas is the result of 

existing roads. We do not anticipate oil 

shale exploration and development 

activities to occur within designated 

conservation areas because of the caps 

on surface disturbance in the 2014 CA. 

Based on past and current exploration 

and commercial development activities, 

expert opinion, and the best available 

information, we consider exploration of 

oil shale from 2020–2030 to be likely on 

State and private lands with high 

economic potential within the 

beardtongues’ ranges (Service 2021b, 

pp. 15–17). However, we consider 

commercial development of oil shale to 

be about as likely as not on State and 

private lands, and unlikely on Federal 

lands within the beardtongues’ ranges 

(Service 2021b, pp. 15–17). 

Tar Sands 

Tar sands exploration and 

development activities are occurring on 

private, State, and BLM lands outside of 

Graham’s and White River beardtongues 

habitat in the Uinta Basin (Service 

2021a, pp. 48–49). Tar sands 

exploration and development activities 

have the potential to destroy 

beardtongue habitat, plants, and 

populations. To date, tar sand 

exploration and development activities 

have not resulted in the loss of 

beardtongue habitat or plants. One tar 

sands lease area overlaps the Book Cliffs 

population of White River beardtongue; 

however, no White River beardtongue 

plants or habitat within this lease area 

have been impacted by tar sand 

exploration activities. The 2014 CA 

affords protections to 306 plants and 97 

ac (39 ha) within the State lands portion 

of the lease area and we do not 

anticipate tar sand exploration and 

development activities to occur within 

designated conservation areas because 

of the caps on surface disturbance. 

There are no tar sand leases within 

Graham’s beardtongue habitat. 

Based on past and current exploration 

and commercial development activities, 

expert opinion, and the best available 

information, we consider exploration of 

tar sands from 2020–2030 to be likely on 

State and private lands including the PR 

Springs South area (Service 2021b, pp. 

24–26). However, we consider 

commercial development of tar sands to 

be about as likely as not on State and 

private lands including the PR Springs 

South area, and unlikely on Federal 

lands (Service 2021b, pp. 24–28) within 

the species ranges. 

Traditional Oil and Gas 

Traditional oil and gas exploration 

and development activities are 

occurring on private, State, and BLM 

lands within Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues habitat (Service 2021a, pp. 

49–53). Traditional oil and gas 

exploration and development activities 

have the potential to destroy 

beardtongue habitat, plants, and 

populations. The best available 

information indicates that no loss of 

beardtongue plants from these activities 

has occurred. However, traditional oil 

and gas exploration and development 

activities have resulted in the loss of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2117 

less than one percent of the total 

pollinator habitat area for both species 

(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

2012, pp. 24, 25; Lewinsohn 2019, 

entire; Moore 2019, entire). 

Approximately 56 percent of Graham’s 

beardtongue pollinator habitat and 39 

percent of White River beardtongue 

pollinator habitat on State and BLM 

lands are leased for traditional oil and 

gas development. Within traditional oil 

and gas lease areas, conservation areas 

under the 2014 CA afford protections to 

34 percent and 42 percent of the 

Graham’s beardtongue habitat and 

plants under lease, and 36 percent and 

32 percent of the White River 

beardtongue habitat and plants under 

lease. Overall, traditional oil and gas 

exploration and development have 

resulted in a low amount of habitat loss 

for the two beardtongues to date. The 

majority of beardtongue pollinator 

habitat within lease areas is relatively 

intact and undisturbed. 

Based on past and current exploration 

and commercial development activities, 

expert opinion, and the best available 

information, we consider exploration of 

traditional oil from 2020–2030 to be 

likely on Federal, State, and private 

lands within Uintah County in a 

Mancos shale deposit (the Mancos B 

play), and do not expect exploration of 

natural gas to occur, as it is already 

complete (Service 2021b, pp. 32–33). 

However, we consider commercial 

development of natural gas to be likely 

on Federal, State, and private lands, and 

commercial development of oil to be 

unlikely within the species’ ranges 

(Service 2021b, pp. 32–34). 

Road Construction and Maintenance 

Many unpaved county roads cross 

through Graham’s and White River 

beardtongue habitat, and most of these 

roads have existed for decades (Service 

2021a, pp. 53–54). Road construction 

and maintenance activities have the 

potential to destroy beardtongue habitat, 

plants, and populations. Plants and 

populations located near development 

activities are prone to the effects of dust, 

weed encroachment, habitat 

fragmentation, and pollinator 

disturbance. To date, existing roads and 

road construction have been the cause 

of the majority of the loss of 

beardtongue pollinator habitat. 

Approximately 1 percent and 1.5 

percent of the total pollinator habitat for 

Graham’s and White River beardtongue, 

respectively, have been lost to road 

construction. Road construction and 

paving projects occur infrequently, and 

we are not aware of other road 

construction or maintenance projects 

that are proposed to occur in areas 

where they would impact Graham’s 

beardtongue or White River beardtongue 

(Baldwin 2019, entire; Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) 2020, entire; 

UDOT 2020, entire). 

Herbivory 

Invertebrates, wildlife, and livestock 

graze individuals of Graham’s and 

White River beardtongues (Sibul and 

Yates 2006, p. 9; Dodge and Yates 2010, 

p. 9; 2011, pp. 9, 12; UNHP 2012, entire; 

78 FR 47590, August 6, 2013; 79 FR 

46042, August 6, 2014; Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2015b, entire). 

Herbivory is primarily due to native 

grazers rather than livestock (Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2019a, p. 8). 

Presumably, beardtongues are adapted 

to herbivory by native grazers, which 

may explain why monitored 

populations continue to remain stable 

despite occasional high levels of 

herbivory by native grazers. Most of the 

Graham’s and White River beardtongue 

populations (99 percent) occur within 

BLM livestock grazing allotments, 

except for where the two species occur 

on private lands (Service 2021a, p. 55). 

As part of the 2014 CA, the conservation 

team developed a livestock grazing 

management plan (Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2015b, entire), and 

BLM is monitoring and implementing 

corrective actions (Service 2021a, pp. 

55–56). For example, following a heavy 

sheep grazing incident at Raven Ridge 

in Colorado, BLM conducted a site visit 

with the permittee, reviewed maps of 

avoidance areas for sheep trailing and 

bedding, and repaired a fence at the 

Raven Ridge ACEC boundary. These 

actions appear to be effective, and sheep 

grazing has not been detected within the 

ACEC since 2014 (Service 2021a, p. 56). 

Overall, herbivory and livestock 

grazing are not primary drivers of the 

beardtongues’ current and future 

condition. The best available 

information does not indicate that 

future herbivory impacts would result 

in any negative population-level impact 

to the beardtongues. There is the 

potential for herbivory impacts to 

increase in populations on non-Federal 

lands that may be impacted by energy 

development, because herbivory from 

native grazers and livestock may 

increase where available forage is 

reduced as a result of energy 

development (Service 2021b, pp. 38– 

39). We expect future herbivory impacts 

would be addressed by land 

management actions and would not 

increase in beardtongues’ populations 

on Federal lands, where the BLM has 

committed to take corrective actions. 

However, there is no commitment to 

take corrective actions within 

beardtongue populations affected by 

development on non-Federal lands if 

future herbivory impacts increase 

(Service 2021b, pp. 38–39). 

Invasive Weeds and Wildfire 

Invasive weeds are present but not 

extensive across most of the 

beardtongues’ pollinator habitat, and the 

primary weed is cheatgrass. Invasive 

weeds have the potential to negatively 

impact seedling recruitment, plant 

abundance, and population trends of the 

beardtongues and other native plants 

through competitive exclusion, niche 

displacement, and changes in insect 

predation. Beardtongue populations 

with high cheatgrass cover (i.e., 

introduced annual grasslands greater 

than 20 percent of habitat area) may be 

at risk of an altered wildfire regime 

(Link et al. 2006, p. 116). Based on our 

review of the existing vegetation types, 

most beardtongue populations contain 

low amounts of cheatgrass (less than 5 

percent of habitat area), which is 

consistent with monitoring reports for 

both species (Service 2021a, pp. 13–20, 

57–59; SWCA Environmental 

Consultants 2014, p. 16). We expect 

weed levels to remain low in intact 

beardtongue occupied habitat and 

increase in disturbed occupied habitat 

(Service 2021a, pp. 57–59; Service 

2021a, pp. 8–11, Appendix B). The 

effects of invasive weeds may increase 

in populations that overlap with energy 

development (Service 2021b, p. 39). As 

part of the 2014 CA, the conservation 

team developed a weed management 

plan. To date, BLM and Uintah County 

have surveyed for weeds along roads in 

conservation areas, but no new 

occurrences of noxious weed species 

have been detected (Penstemon 

Conservation Team 2017, p. 1; 

Penstemon Conservation Team 2018a, p. 

1; Sheppard and Wheeler 2020, p. 6). 

The best available information does 

not provide evidence of an altered 

wildfire regime within the 

beardtongues’ ranges, although decades 

of fire suppression have increased the 

risk of high severity, stand-replacing 

wildfires (BLM 2008b, pp. 3–21). We 

also considered the exposure and 

impacts of wildfire to the beardtongues. 

One recent wildfire (Wolf Den Fire) 

occurred within the beardtongues’ 

ranges. Overall, the wildfire appeared to 

have a low or minor negative impact to 

Graham’s beardtongue, while White 

River beardtongue plants and habitat 

were not affected (Brunson 2012, 

entire). To address wildfire, the 2014 

CA provides that the Penstemon 

Conservation Team will coordinate with 

land managers regarding wildfire and 

post-wildfire management activities and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

mitigation for impacts in conservation 

areas. For our analysis, we assumed that 

wildfire frequency and extent in 

beardtongue populations would 

generally not change from current levels 

over the next 10 years. 

Small Population Size 

Based on results of a PVA, for 

Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues, we consider small 

populations to be those that have greater 

than 10 percent extinction risk (see 

Service 2021a, pp. 59–62). This 

threshold is equivalent to Graham’s 

beardtongue populations with fewer 

than 67 plants and White River 

beardtongue populations with fewer 

than 200 individuals. Graham’s 

beardtongue has a lower threshold than 

White River beardtongue because its 

populations were more stable over the 

monitoring period that informed the 

PVA. Populations in this size category 

are more prone to extinction from 

stochastic events than larger 

populations based on their life-history 

characteristics and stable demographic 

pattern (McCaffery 2013b, p. 1). We 

considered large populations of 

Graham’s and White River beardtongues 

to be those with low (less than 5 

percent) extinction risk, and medium 

populations to be those with moderate 

(6–10 percent) extinction risk. Large 

populations of Graham’s beardtongue 

have more than 130 plants, and large 

White River beardtongue populations 

have more than 370 plants (Service 

2021a, pp. 59–62; Service 2021a, p. 7, 

Appendix A). Graham’s beardtongue has 

12 small populations and 15 large 

populations distributed across its range, 

and the small populations comprise less 

than one percent of all known 

individuals. White River beardtongue 

has 6 small populations and 11 large 

populations distributed across its range, 

and the small populations comprise less 

than one percent of all known 

individuals. As part of the 2014 CA, the 

Penstemon Conservation Team 

developed designated conservation 

areas to protect large populations of 

Graham’s and White River beardtongues 

as well as moderate and small 

populations across both species’ ranges 

to support population connectivity. 

While not a primary driver of either 

species’ current or future condition, we 

considered the potential cumulative 

impacts of small population size with 

other stressors in our analysis. 

Climate Change 

Climate change has the potential to 

impact Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues (78 FR 47590, August 6, 

2013; 79 FR 46042, August 6, 2014). We 

do not have a clear understanding of 

how Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues have responded to 

precipitation changes, although plant 

numbers have been documented as 

remaining fairly stable during drought 

years. There is also no association 

between regional precipitation patterns 

and population demographics for either 

species (McCaffrey 2013a, p. 16). As 

part of the 2014 CA, BLM recently 

installed weather monitoring equipment 

adjacent to eight monitoring sites to 

collect local climate data in Range Units 

1–5 (McCulley and Hornbeck 2017, p. 2; 

Penstemon Conservation Team 2019a, p. 

8; Sheppard and Wheeler 2020, pp. 17– 

22). The data collected from weather 

monitoring can be correlated with 

demography data to determine basic 

species responses to climate patterns. 

Because we are not aware of a 

downscaled climate model for the range 

of Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues, we used climate change 

data from the Multivariate Adaptive 

Constructed Analogs (MACA) website. 

We used two different emission 

scenarios, a stabilization emission 

scenario using Representative 

Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and a 

rising greenhouse gas emissions 

scenario using RPC 8.5 developed by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. The results of our 

‘‘downscaled’’ climate evaluation 

indicate future climate conditions will 

be warmer in all seasons under both 

emission scenarios (Lindstrom 2019, 

entire). The difference in temperature 

increase between the two scenarios is 

within 3.2 °F through 2070. 

Precipitation for all seasons is expected 

to increase under both scenarios. In 

order to evaluate a more integrated 

measure of the combined effect of 

increased temperature and precipitation 

levels, we considered a measure of 

evaporative deficit instead of 

precipitation alone for our predictions 

of drought conditions (Lindstrom 2019, 

entire), using the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) National Climate Change 

Viewer. Both scenarios indicate the 

range of Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues may be drier in the future 

(through 2070) compared to historical 

conditions (Service 2021b, pp. 40–41). 

Overall, climate change presents 

substantial uncertainty regarding the 

future environmental conditions in the 

range of Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues, but it may place an added 

stress on the species and its habitat, 

particularly where other stressors are 

present. When we considered 

characteristics that contribute to 

vulnerability to climate change such as 

dispersal ability, highly specific habitat 

requirements, and ability to shift 

distribution in response to 

environmental conditions, Graham’s 

and White River beardtongues would 

likely rank moderate or high on the 

vulnerability index at the species level 

(Young et al. 2012, pp. 133–139). 

Despite characteristics that make the 

two species vulnerable to climate 

change, our climate evaluation is too 

speculative to determine the severity of 

this stressor to Graham’s and White 

River beardtongues at the population 

level. Long-lived perennial plants 

exhibit a range of drought and 

temperature sensitivities based on 

physiological, morphological, and 

inherent genetic variability (Warwell 

and Shaw 2017, p. 1205), which all 

contribute to a species’ tolerance 

(Hoover et al. 2015, pp. 7–11). 

Additional information regarding each 

species’ drought and temperature 

tolerance is needed for us to be able to 

assess the species’ responses to future 

climate changes. For our analysis, we 

assumed that climate conditions would 

generally not change over the next 10 

years from current levels in beardtongue 

populations, but may contribute to 

stronger effects of herbivory and 

invasive weeds to all beardtongue 

populations. Over a longer timeframe 

(through 2070), we expect temperatures 

and drought conditions to increase, but 

there is substantial uncertainty 

regarding their impact to the 

beardtongues. 

Stressors Considered but Not Carried 

Forward 

We considered the potential impacts 

from off-highway vehicle use, disease, 

and collection. The best available 

information indicates that these are lowlevel stressors and do not impact the 

beardtongues either by themselves, or 

cumulatively with any other stressors 

(Service 2021a, p. 63). 

Summary of Factors Influencing 

Viability 

Overall, we consider the primary 

drivers of the status of Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue to be energy development 

and the protections provided by the 

2014 CA and other regulatory 

mechanisms on Federal and State lands. 

Energy development activities, 

including oil shale, tar sands, and 

traditional oil and gas, have collectively 

had minimal impacts to both species to 

date but have the greatest potential of 

the stressors we evaluated for future 

impacts. Other stressors are not 

expected to have population- or specieslevel impacts by themselves but may 

have the potential for cumulative 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2119 

impacts on the species when considered 

together with energy development and 

other stressors. The protections 

provided by the 2014 CA and other 

regulatory mechanisms are expected to 

reduce the negative effect of energy 

development on the beardtongues’ 

population resiliency. 

Summary of Current Condition 

In our Biological Report of current 

condition (Service 2021a, entire), we 

describe Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues’ viability by characterizing 

their current condition in terms of the 

3Rs. We evaluate resiliency at the 

population level, and redundancy and 

representation at the species level. This 

analysis is described in detail in the 

Biological Report (Service 2021a, 

entire), and is briefly summarized here. 

We evaluated the current resiliency of 

each beardtongue population by scoring 

relevant demographic (population size) 

and habitat factors for the species for 

which information is available (Service 

2021a, pp. 66–70). For population size, 

we incorporated two factors, population 

extinction risk (based on a PVA) and the 

presence of high-density clusters of 

plants within populations, into our 

calculation. For habitat, we 

incorporated three factors, pollinator 

habitat quality (measured as percent 

nonnative plant cover), pollinator 

habitat area, and pollinator habitat loss, 

into our calculation. We included 

pollinator habitat area because this 

factor is associated with plant 

abundance and biodiversity (Krauss et 

al. 2004, entire) and may change in a 

predictable way to estimate future 

population size. Each population’s 

overall resiliency score is the average of 

all individual factor scores, which 

translates to an overall current 

condition category of low, moderate, or 

good. 

Graham’s Beardtongue 

Fourteen Graham’s beardtongue 

populations are in good current 

condition (i.e., the most resilient) due to 

their large population size and habitat 

quality ranks (Service 2021a, pp. 68– 

69). These factors likely provide 

Graham’s beardtongue the ability to 

withstand stochastic events such as 

drought or wildfire. The remaining 13 

populations are in moderate condition 

based on the habitat and demographic 

factors contributing to resiliency 

(Service 2021a, pp. 68–69). The 

moderate condition of these populations 

may result in a lower ability to 

withstand stochastic events than the 

populations in good condition. The low 

levels of habitat loss to date have not 

changed the overall current condition of 

any population. Only one population 

(population 11) had a reduction in the 

overall condition because of higher 

weed presence; the remaining 

populations retain the same condition 

as they did historically (Service 2021a, 

pp. 68–69). 

Unlike many other narrow endemic 

species, the redundancy of Graham’s 

beardtongue is quite high despite its 

limited geographical range. The species’ 

27 populations are spread across the 

Uinta Basin on different topographic 

features, which likely provides the 

ability to withstand more localized 

catastrophic events (e.g., wildfire), and 

may provide a limited ability to 

withstand rangewide catastrophic 

events (e.g., drought) (Service 2021a, pp. 

70–72). Maintaining redundancy to 

reduce the risk from catastrophic events 

is dependent upon maintaining 

sufficiently resilient populations of 

Graham’s beardtongue in 

topographically diverse habitat 

conditions. 

We do not have meaningful 

information on the genetic diversity of 

Graham’s beardtongue. Therefore, we 

considered other types of representative 

diversity, such as population size and 

ecological settings, that could indicate 

some ability to adapt to change within 

the species’ range (Service 2021a, pp. 

72–77). Graham’s beardtongue has 15 

large populations distributed across its 

range with at least 1 large population 

within each of the five range units. 

There are three medium populations 

within the two western-most range 

units; the remaining nine populations 

are small. We assume the 15 large 

populations contain the majority of 

genetic variation within the total 

population because they contain 99.5 

percent of all individuals (Service 

2021a, p. 73). Graham’s beardtongue 

populations and metapopulations occur 

in a high diversity of ecological settings, 

suggesting a high level of genetic 

variation within each range unit 

(Service 2021a, p. 76). In addition, the 

species exhibits a gradient of 

morphological and phenological 

differences across its range. Preserving 

the species’ representation requires 

maintaining medium and large 

populations, connectivity between 

populations, and a diversity of 

ecological settings across its range. The 

current distribution is the same as the 

historical distribution, and the best 

available information does not indicate 

that a reduction in genetic diversity or 

connectivity among populations has 

occurred. 

Overall, Graham’s beardtongue 

exhibits high levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation that 

have allowed populations to persist 

throughout the species’ range. The 

species contains a high number of 

populations in good or moderate 

condition, and levels of redundancy and 

representation are similar to its 

historical condition. Graham’s 

beardtongue is stable despite localized 

weed encroachment and some loss of 

occupied habitat and pollinator habitat. 

The current condition of Graham’s 

beardtongue populations is a direct 

result of the low levels of habitat loss 

and degradation to date and habitat 

protections afforded to the species 

under the 2014 CA. For further 

explanation of our analysis of the 

current condition of Graham’s 

beardtongue, see our Biological Report 

(Service 2021a, pp. 63–80). 

White River Beardtongue 

Seven White River beardtongue 

populations are in good current 

condition (i.e., the most resilient) due to 

their large population size and habitat 

factors (Service 2021a, pp. 68–70). 

These factors likely provide White River 

beardtongue the ability to withstand 

stochastic events such as drought or 

wildfire. There are nine populations in 

moderate condition based on the habitat 

factors (habitat area and quality) 

contributing to resiliency (Service 

2021a, pp. 68–70). The moderate 

condition of these populations may 

result in a lower ability to withstand 

stochastic events compared to 

populations in good condition. One 

population (Population 8) is in low 

condition and is the least likely to 

withstand stochastic events (Service 

2021a, pp. 68–70). 

The low overall level of pollinator 

habitat loss for all populations to date 

does not change the overall current 

condition of any population because 

habitat loss does not exceed the low 

habitat loss condition threshold of five 

percent habitat loss, and effects to 

populations remain small and localized. 

Two populations (Populations 8 and 13) 

had a reduction in their overall 

condition because of higher weed 

presence; the remaining 15 populations 

retain the same condition as they did 

historically (Service 2021a, pp. 68–70). 

Unlike many other narrow endemic 

species, the redundancy of White River 

beardtongue is fairly high despite its 

limited geographical range (Service 

2021a, pp. 70–72). The species includes 

17 populations spread across the Uinta 

Basin on different topographic features, 

which likely provides the ability to 

withstand more localized catastrophic 

events (e.g., wildfire) and may provide 

a limited ability to withstand rangewide 

catastrophic events (e.g., drought). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2120 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Maintaining redundancy to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic events is dependent 

upon maintaining sufficiently resilient 

populations of White River beardtongue 

in topographically diverse habitat 

conditions. 

We considered population size and 

ecological settings that could indicate 

some ability to adapt to change within 

the species’ range (Service 2021a, pp. 

72–77). White River beardtongue has 11 

large populations distributed across its 

range with at least 1 large population 

within each of the five range units. The 

remaining six populations are small. We 

assume these 11 large populations 

contain the majority of genetic variation 

within the total population, because 

they contain 99.7 percent of all 

individuals (Service 2021a, p. 76). There 

is a high diversity of ecological settings 

within White River beardtongue 

metapopulations, suggesting a high level 

of genetic variation within each range 

unit. One White River beardtongue 

range unit has a distinctly different 

composition of vegetation types than the 

other range units, which we consider a 

different ecological setting for the 

species (Service 2021a, p. 76). We 

assume this is an indication that this 

range unit has a slightly different 

genetic composition than the other 

range units. The preliminary genetic 

information and opinions from our 

expert panel support this assumption 

(Stevens 2019, attachments a, b, c; 

Service 2017a, p. 4). Preserving the 

species’ representation requires 

maintaining large populations, 

connectivity between populations, and a 

diversity of ecological settings across its 

range. The current distribution is the 

same as the historical distribution, and 

the best available information does not 

indicate that a reduction in genetic 

diversity or connectivity among 

populations has occurred. 

Overall, White River beardtongue 

exhibits high levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation, which 

have allowed populations to persist 

throughout the species’ range. The 

species contains a high number of 

populations in good or moderate 

condition, and levels of redundancy and 

representation are similar to its 

historical condition. White River 

beardtongue is stable despite localized 

weed encroachment and some loss of 

pollinator habitat. The current condition 

of White River beardtongue populations 

is a direct result of the low levels of 

habitat loss and degradation to date and 

habitat protections afforded to the 

species under the 2014 CA. For further 

explanation of our analysis of the 

current condition of White River 

beardtongue, see our Biological Report 

(Service 2021a, pp. 63–80). 

Summary of Future Condition 

Using the 3Rs, we evaluated the 

future viability of the beardtongues 

based on the presence of multiple 

(redundancy), self-sustaining 

(resiliency) populations distributed 

across the range of the species, and their 

contributions to adaptive capacity 

(representation) in the face of changing 

environmental conditions. We relied on 

our characterization of each species’ 

current condition, stressors, and effects 

of stressors as the baseline from which 

to evaluate future changes to those 

factors considered important to the 

beardtongues (Service 2021a, entire). 

Our analysis of the projected future 

condition of Graham’s and White River 

beardtongues is described in detail in 

our Biological Report of future 

condition (Service 2021b, entire), and is 

briefly summarized here. 

Based on input received from Federal 

and State agencies, private industry, and 

the best available information, we 

developed two plausible future 

scenarios—moderate and high energy 

development (Service 2021b, pp. 48– 

56). We used reliable projections of 

future events and the future locations of 

stressors based on the best available 

information and expert opinion. 

Published literature evaluates energy 

development at a coarser scale (e.g., the 

Uintah Basin, State of Utah, or countylevel) than what we needed for our 

analysis within the beardtongues’ 

ranges. Therefore, we relied on expert 

opinion to evaluate energy development 

specifically within the ranges of the two 

species and assign likelihoods to future 

exploration and development activities 

(Service 2021b, pp. 12, 13). 

Based on this information, our two 

scenarios considered impacts to the 

beardtongues through 2030, because we 

have sufficient information to project 

out to 10 years for energy development 

(oil shale, tar sands, and oil and gas 

development), which is the primary 

future stressor for the beardtongues 

(Service 2021b, p. 49). Beyond 10 years, 

there is too much uncertainty about the 

fluctuating market price of oil and gas, 

the possibility of future technological 

advances that could lower extraction 

costs and favor certain industries, and 

the results of planned oil exploration to 

project the level or distribution of 

energy development within the 

beardtongues’ populations and ranges, 

such that projections would become 

speculative (Service 2019, entire; 

Service 2020, entire). Expert panel 

likelihood estimates and the best 

available information from published 

literature and technical reports 

informed our 10-year energy 

development (oil shale, tar sands, and 

oil and gas development) projection 

timeframe. Our 10-year energy 

development timeframe is generally 

consistent with long-term economic 

forecasts for oil shale, tar sands, and 

traditional oil and gas that are based on 

the market price of oil and natural gas 

(Service 2021b, pp. 17, 25, 33, 34). In 

addition, future oil exploration and 

development within the beardtongues’ 

ranges will depend of the results of 

planned exploration within Uintah 

County (Service 2021b, pp. 32—35). We 

note that we do have certainty through 

2034 that the protections of the 2014 CA 

will remain in place, which will limit 

where energy development could occur. 

For more information on how these 

projection timeframes relate to our 

evaluation of the ‘‘foreseeable future’’, 

see Consideration of Foreseeable Future 

below. 

In the locations where energy 

stressors occurred for the two scenarios, 

our analysis included the following 

assumptions: Commercial development 

activities for oil shale and tar sands will 

occur in the next 10 years on nonFederal (private and state) lands within 

each forecast; and a total loss of plants 

and habitat will occur where oil shale 

and tar sands development are projected 

(Service 2021b, pp. 15–31; 49–56). 

These assumptions allowed us to 

evaluate potential worst-case impacts 

from energy development in 

combination with other stressors, to 

bracket the full range of impacts to the 

beardtongues that may occur, because 

actual future impacts may range 

anywhere from their current condition 

to the future scenarios evaluated here, 

or may fall in between. We did not 

develop a scenario that considered 

‘‘exploration-only’’ activities for oil 

shale and tar sands, with a smaller 

surface disturbance extent, even though 

this would also be a plausible future 

forecast for oil shale and tar sands, 

because the impacts under an 

exploration-only scenario would fall in 

between the current condition and the 

energy development scenarios we 

developed. Our evaluation of effects 

from energy development accounted for 

the protections afforded to the 

beardtongues from the 2014 CA that are 

in place through 2034. 

For the two future scenarios, we 

forecasted the species’ biological 

condition based on conservation efforts 

and the following stressors: Oil shale, 

tar sands, and traditional oil and gas 

exploration and development activities; 

road construction and maintenance; 

herbivory; invasive weeds; small 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2121 

population size; and climate change. 

Our future scenarios varied based on 

two forecasts for oil shale (moderate, 

high). For each of the other stressors (tar 

sands, traditional oil and gas, road 

construction and maintenance, 

herbivory, invasive weeds, small 

population size, and climate change) we 

developed only one future forecast 

(these forecasts were used in both future 

scenarios) because their future, 

plausible extents are not expected to 

vary much within the beardtongues’ 

ranges independent of the oil shale 

stressor (Service 2021b, pp. 49–56). 

In the moderate energy development 

scenario (Scenario 1), we projected that 

oil shale exploration and commercial 

development would occur on lands 

identified as having a high potential for 

both activities (Service 2021b, pp. 49– 

52). The effects of herbivory and 

invasive weeds may increase in 

populations that overlap with energy 

development. Climate change may 

increase the effects from herbivory and 

invasive weeds to all beardtongue 

populations. In the high energy 

development scenario (Scenario 2), we 

projected that oil shale exploration and 

commercial development would occur 

over a larger area that included the same 

lands as the moderate scenario, plus 

other lands identified as likely or about 

as likely as not to support these 

activities (Service 2021b, pp. 52–55). 

The potential effects of the other 

stressors to all beardtongue populations 

remained the same as evaluated for the 

moderate energy development scenario. 

Under each of these future scenarios, 

we assessed future resiliency by 

evaluating relevant habitat and 

demographic factors to calculate an 

overall condition score for each plant 

population. We evaluated population 

size, habitat area, habitat quality, and 

habitat loss to project the future 

resiliency of each population. Based on 

the results of these evaluations, we rated 

population condition as good, moderate, 

low, or extirpated. To assess future 

redundancy, we evaluated the projected 

number and distribution of populations 

within the species’ range relative to the 

current condition. To assess future 

representation, we evaluated the 

projected demographic (population size) 

and ecological (ecological settings) 

surrogates of genetic diversity relative to 

the current condition. For more detailed 

information on our methodology for 

evaluating future conditions, see the 

Biological Report (Service 2021b, pp. 

49–56). 

Graham’s Beardtongue 

Under the moderate energy 

development scenario, oil shale and 

traditional oil and gas are the main 

stressors for Graham’s beardtongue, and 

these stressors are projected to result in 

loss of individual plants and habitat in 

the center of the species’ range (Service 

2021b, Figure 11, pp. 50, 56). In this 

scenario, there is a projected loss of 34 

percent of the total number of plants 

from energy development, with a 

remaining total population size of 

37,350 individuals in 24 populations 

(Service 2021b, p. 57). Remaining 

occupied habitat and pollinator habitat 

are projected to be 7,642 ac (3,093 ha) 

and 72,455 ac (29,321 ha), respectively. 

The main stressors result in the 

extirpation of three populations and a 

decline in the condition of four 

populations compared to their current 

condition. The current population 

condition is maintained in the other 20 

populations. The species continues to 

occupy the extent of its current range, 

and all five range units continue to 

support populations in good or 

moderate condition. Fourteen 

populations in good and moderate 

condition are large in size and have a 

low extinction risk (Service 2021b, pp. 

57–58). 

Despite the extirpation of some 

populations under the moderate energy 

development scenario, levels of 

redundancy remain high, with Graham’s 

beardtongue maintaining 24 populations 

(Service 2021b, p. 60). Our evaluation of 

representation under this scenario 

indicates that Graham’s beardtongue 

maintains a level of ecological diversity 

within the 24 remaining populations 

that is similar to its current condition 

and should have the adaptive capacity 

to tolerate projected, future climate and 

habitat conditions (Service 2021b, p. 

60). The best available information does 

not indicate that the projected loss of 

the three Graham’s beardtongue 

populations and projected plant loss in 

other populations would result in 

significant impacts to Graham’s 

beardtongue’s representation. 

Under the high energy development 

scenario, the main stressors remain the 

same for Graham’s beardtongue, but oil 

shale impacts result in more extensive 

plant and habitat loss in the center of 

the species’ range than in the moderate 

energy development scenario (Service 

2021b, Figure 13, pp. 53, 60–62). In this 

scenario, there is a projected loss of 45 

percent of the total number of plants 

from energy development, with a 

remaining total population size of 

30,794 individuals in 24 populations. 

Remaining occupied habitat and 

pollinator habitat are projected to be 

6,037 ac (2,443 ha) and 63,580 ac 

(25,730 ha), respectively. The main 

stressors result in the extirpation of 

three populations and a decline in the 

condition of six populations compared 

to their current condition. The current 

population condition is maintained in 

the other 18 populations. Fourteen 

populations in good and moderate 

condition are large in size and have a 

low extinction risk. The species 

continues to occupy the extent of its 

current range, and all five range units 

continue to support populations in good 

or moderate condition (Service 2021b, 

pp. 60–62). 

Despite the extirpation of 

populations, levels of redundancy 

remain high with Graham’s beardtongue 

maintaining 24 populations (Service 

2021b, p. 64). Our evaluation of 

representation indicates that Graham’s 

beardtongue maintains a level of 

ecological diversity within the 24 

remaining populations that is similar to 

its current condition and should have 

the adaptive capacity to tolerate future 

climate and habitat conditions (Service 

2021b, p. 64). The best available 

information does not indicate that the 

projected loss of the three Graham’s 

beardtongue populations and projected 

plant loss in other populations would 

result in significant impacts to Graham’s 

beardtongues’ representation. 

White River Beardtongue 

Under the moderate energy 

development scenario, oil shale is the 

main stressor for White River 

beardtongue, and this stressor is 

projected to result in loss of individual 

plants and habitat in the center of the 

species’ range (Service 2021b, Figure 12, 

pp. 51, 57–59). In this scenario, there is 

a projected loss of 1 percent of the total 

number of plants from energy 

development, with a remaining total 

population size of 29,686 individuals in 

16 remaining populations. Remaining 

occupied habitat and pollinator habitat 

are projected to be 3,218 ac (1,302 ha) 

and 26,959 ac (10,910 ha), respectively 

(Service 2021b, pp. 57–59). The main 

stressor results in the extirpation of one 

population and a decline in the 

condition of one population compared 

to their current condition. The current 

population condition is maintained in 

the other 15 populations. The species 

continues to occupy the extent of its 

current range, and all five range units 

continue to support populations in good 

or moderate condition. Eleven 

populations in good and moderate 

condition are large in size and have a 

low extinction risk (Service 2021b, pp. 

57–59). 

Despite the extirpation of one 

population under the moderate energy 

development scenario, levels of 

redundancy remain high with White 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

River beardtongue maintaining 16 

populations (Service 2021b, p. 60). Our 

evaluation of representation indicates 

that White River beardtongue maintains 

a level of ecological diversity within the 

16 remaining populations that is similar 

to its current condition and should have 

the adaptive capacity to tolerate future 

climate and habitat conditions (Service 

2021b, p. 60). The best available 

information does not indicate that the 

projected loss of the one White River 

beardtongue population and projected 

plant loss in other populations would 

result in significant impacts to White 

River beardtongue’s representation. 

Under the high energy development 

scenario, the main stressor remains the 

same for White River beardtongue, but 

oil shale impacts result in more 

extensive plant and habitat loss in the 

center of the species’ range than in the 

moderate energy development scenario 

(Service 2021b, Figure 14, pp. 54, 61– 

63). In this scenario, there is a projected 

loss of 24 percent of the total population 

from energy development, with a 

remaining total population size of 

22,695 individuals in 15 populations. 

Remaining occupied habitat and 

pollinator habitat are projected to be 

2,317 ac (938 ha) and 20,099 ac (8,134 

ha), respectively (Service 2021b, pp. 61– 

63). The main stressor results in the 

extirpation of two populations and a 

decline in the condition of two 

populations compared to their current 

condition. The current population 

condition is maintained in the other 13 

populations. Nine populations in good 

and moderate condition are large in size 

and have a low extinction risk. The 

species continues to occupy the extent 

of its current range, and all five range 

units continue to support populations in 

good or moderate condition (Service 

2021b, pp. 61–63). 

Despite the extirpation of 

populations, levels of redundancy 

remain high with White River 

beardtongue maintaining 15 populations 

(Service 2021b, p. 64). Our evaluation of 

representation indicates that White 

River beardtongue maintains a level of 

ecological diversity within the 15 

remaining populations that is similar to 

its current condition and should have 

the adaptive capacity to tolerate future 

climate and habitat conditions (Service 

2021b, p. 64). The best available 

information does not indicate that the 

projected loss of the two White River 

beardtongue populations and projected 

plant loss in other populations would 

result in significant impacts to White 

River beardtongue’s representation. 

The 2014 CA provides protections for 

the beardtongues on Federal and State 

lands until 2034. During this time, the 

beardtongues are afforded the same 

level of protections on Federal and State 

lands within designated conservation 

areas. The 2014 CA identifies 42,993 ac 

(17,399 ha) of designated conservation 

areas that protect 41 percent of the 

Graham’s beardtongue population in 13 

populations, and 66 percent of the 

White River beardtongue population in 

11 populations (Service 2021b, pp. 43– 

46). Within designated conservation 

areas, protections include an avoidance 

buffer of 300 ft (91.4 m) between 

disturbance and beardtongue plants, as 

well as surface disturbance caps to 

restrict development. Surface 

disturbance caps would allow a limited 

amount of new construction for roads 

and traditional oil and gas development 

but would prohibit future oil shale and 

tar sand exploration and development 

(Service 2021b, pp. 43–46). 

The beardtongues are also afforded 

protections on Federal lands outside of 

designated conservation areas, 

including a 300-ft (91.4-m) avoidance 

buffer, surface disturbance restrictions 

on steep slopes, areas that are 

unavailable for leasing or have NSO 

stipulations, and designated ACECs 

(Service 2021b, pp. 47–48). In total, the 

2014 CA designated conservation areas 

and other conservation measures on 

Federal lands provide protections to 51 

percent and 76 percent of the Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue total population, 

respectively (Service 2021b, p. 48). 

Determination of Species Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an endangered species as a species that 

is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range,’’ 

and a threatened species as a species 

that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether a species meets the 

definition of endangered species or 

threatened species because of any of the 

following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Since the publication of the August 6, 

2013, proposed listing rule (78 FR 

47590), and the subsequent 

reinstatement of that proposed rule 

following litigation, we prepared a 

comprehensive assessment of the 

current and future status of Graham’s 

beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue as presented in the 

Biological Reports (Service 2021a, 

entire; 2021b, entire). The Biological 

Reports reexamined the threats 

identified in the 2013 proposed listing 

rule (energy exploration and 

development, as well as the cumulative 

impacts of livestock grazing, invasive 

weeds, small populations sizes, and 

climate change) using concepts from the 

Service’s SSA framework (Service 2016, 

entire; Smith et al. 2018, entire). The 

Biological Reports also incorporate new 

information into our analysis that has 

become available since 2013, including 

updated monitoring information and the 

final 2014 CA and its 2018 addendum. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Graham’s and 

White River beardtongues, including: 

Energy exploration and development: 

Oil shale, tar sands, and traditional oil 

and gas drilling (Factor A); road 

construction (Factor A); herbivory 

(Factor C); invasive weeds (Factor A); 

small population size (Factor E); and 

climate change (Factors A and E). We 

also evaluated how existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) and other 

conservation measures (primarily the 

2014 CA and 2018 addendum) may 

lessen the impacts of these stressors. 

The best available information does not 

indicate that overutilization (Factor B) is 

a threat to either beardtongue species. 

Consideration of Cumulative Effects 

Threats can work in concert with one 

another to cumulatively create 

conditions that may impact the 

Graham’s and White River beardtongues 

or their habitat beyond the scope of each 

individual threat. We note that by using 

concepts from the SSA framework to 

guide our analysis of the scientific 

information documented in the 

Biological Reports, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our analysis when we characterize the 

current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2123 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because our analysis considers 

not just the presence of the factors, but 

to what degree they collectively 

influence risk to the entire species, our 

assessment integrates the cumulative 

effects of the factors and replaces a 

standalone cumulative effects analysis. 

Consideration of Foreseeable Future 

In considering the foreseeable future 

for Graham’s beardtongue and White 

River beardtongue, we considered the 

available data regarding the factors that 

may influence both species into the 

future, including stressors, and 

conservation efforts or regulatory 

mechanisms that may provide 

protections. The primary driver of both 

species’ condition into the future is 

energy development. We are able to 

make reliable predictions about the 

range of plausible future impacts of oil 

shale, tar sands, and traditional oil and 

gas through approximately 2030. 

Beyond 2030, based on input from 

experts, the impacts of energy 

development become too speculative to 

predict. Other stressors, including 

roads, livestock grazing, invasive weeds, 

and small population size, exert a 

cumulative effect on the beardtongues 

where they occur with energy 

development, and, therefore, we are 

similarly able to reliably predict their 

impacts on the species through 

approximately 2030. Climate change has 

the potential to exacerbate the effect of 

other stressors, including livestock 

grazing and invasive weeds, where they 

are present on the landscape. We have 

information on climate change, 

including projected changes in 

temperature, precipitation, and 

evaporative deficit out to 2070. 

However, we are not able to make 

reliable predictions about the species’ 

responses to these changes out to 2070, 

since the species’ expected responses to 

these variables are uncertain, and will 

depend on the presence and impacts of 

other stressors. 

We also have information on various 

timescales to make reliable predictions 

about future protections that may be in 

place for both Graham’s and White 

River beardtongues. The 2014 CA 

provides protections through designated 

conservation areas on Federal and State 

lands through 2034. Regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to provide for 

the State conservation areas (Utah Code 

53C–2–202 and Utah Administrative 

Code R850–150) through 2034. Federal 

regulatory mechanisms, including a 

BLM sensitive species designation, and 

BLM RMP designations and 

stipulations, provide protections for the 

species through at least 2038. The 2014 

CA conservation areas on private lands 

are expected to expire sooner, in 2029. 

A Uintah County Ordinance that 

provides for those areas also expires in 

2029. Therefore, we did not include 

these private land conservation areas in 

our analysis of future conditions. 

Overall, the primary drivers of the 

future status of Graham’s beardtongue 

and White River beardtongue are energy 

development and the protections 

provided by the 2014 CA and other 

regulatory mechanisms on Federal and 

State lands. We have information to 

make reliable predictions about these 

factors, and the species’ responses to 

them, through: 2030 for the threat of 

energy development, 2034 for the 

protections of the 2014 CA on Federal 

and State conservation areas, and 2038 

for regulatory mechanisms on BLM 

lands. Therefore, the foreseeable future 

for this determination ranges from 

approximately 2030 to 2034, for the 

stressors and 2014 CA protections 

included in our future scenarios, to 

approximately 2038 for BLM regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Graham’s Beardtongue: Determination 

of Status Throughout All of Its Range 

Our evaluation of the current 

condition of Graham’s beardtongue 

found that there are currently tens of 

thousands of individual plants 

distributed across many populations 

that have good or moderate resilience to 

stochastic events. The species currently 

has a sufficient level of redundancy and 

representation to withstand catastrophic 

events and adapt to changes, with 

populations distributed across five 

range units. While some stressors have 

impacted individuals in localized areas, 

none are currently having populationlevel impacts individually or 

cumulatively. Therefore, we find that 

the species is not in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Our evaluation of the projected future 

condition of Graham’s beardtongue 

found that there is very high uncertainty 

about the future likelihood of oil shale 

development. The future condition of 

Graham’s beardtongue in 2030 may 

range anywhere from its current 

condition to the impacts projected in 

the high energy development scenario. 

However, the impacts projected under 

the high energy development scenario 

represent a worst-case scenario, which 

we expect is less likely to occur than the 

impacts projected under the moderate 

energy development scenario, or a 

continuation of current conditions. 

Although unlikely, even if we assume 

the high energy development scenario 

were to occur, the impacts of the 

stressors on Graham’s beardtongue 

would be limited to three range units. 

Those three impacted range units would 

still have several populations in good or 

moderate condition, and over 30,000 

individual plants would remain. In this 

scenario, Graham’s beardtongue would 

also retain over 6,000 ac (2,428 ha) of 

occupied habitat and 63,000 ac (25,495 

ha) of pollinator habitat. The 2014 CA 

would cap the total level of habitat that 

could be impacted within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, even in 

this worst-case scenario, we anticipate 

that Graham’s beardtongue would retain 

sufficient levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation in the 

foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the Graham’s beardtongue 

is not in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range nor is it likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. 

Graham’s Beardtongue: Determination 

of Status Throughout a Significant 

Portion of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that the Graham’s beardtongue is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range, we now consider 

whether it may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which it is true that both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. Depending on the case, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the ‘‘significance’’ question or the 

‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to 

address either question first. Regardless 

of which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

Graham’s beardtongue, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. For the Graham’s 

beardtongue, we considered whether the 

threats are geographically concentrated 

in any portion of the species’ range at 

a biologically meaningful scale. We 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

examined the following threats: Energy 

development (oil shale, tar sands, and 

traditional oil and gas drilling) and the 

additional cumulative impacts of road 

construction, herbivory, invasive weeds, 

small population size, and climate 

change with energy development 

(Service 2021a, entire; 2021b, entire). 

We acknowledge that there are three 

range units (Units 2, 3, and 4) with 

potentially greater levels of impacts 

projected from oil shale in the 

foreseeable future, although the worstcase impacts of the high energy 

development scenario are less likely to 

occur than the impacts under the 

moderate energy development scenario 

or a continuation of current conditions. 

However, even if these worst-case 

projected impacts were to occur in 

Range Units 2, 3, and 4, several 

populations would remain in good or 

moderate condition in Range Units 2 

and 3, and the one population in Range 

Unit 4 would remain in good condition. 

Based on the resiliency of these 

remaining populations, and their spread 

across these range units, we expect that 

adequate levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation would 

remain in these units to protect again 

stochastic and catastrophic events and 

to adapt to future changes, and so, this 

portion of the range would not meet the 

definition of endangered or threatened. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range can provide a basis for 

determining that the species is in danger 

of extinction now or likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range, and we find the 

species is not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This is consistent 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 

No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 

4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018) and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 

2017). 

White River Beardtongue: Determination 

of Status Throughout All of Its Range 

Our evaluation of the current 

condition of White River beardtongue 

found that there are currently nearly 

30,000 individual plants distributed 

across many populations that have good 

or moderate resilience to stochastic 

events. The species currently has a 

sufficient level of redundancy and 

representation to withstand catastrophic 

events and adapt to changes, with 

populations distributed across five 

range units. In addition, the recent 

discovery of a new population in the 

Book Cliffs has expanded the species’ 

known range. While some stressors have 

impacted individuals and habitat in 

localized areas, none are currently 

having population-level impacts. 

Therefore, we find that the species is 

not in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range. 

Our evaluation of the projected future 

condition of White River beardtongue 

found that there is very high uncertainty 

around the future of oil shale 

development. The future condition of 

White River beardtongue in 2030 may 

range anywhere from its current 

condition, to the impacts projected in 

the high energy development scenario. 

However, the impacts projected under 

the high energy development scenario 

represent a worst-case scenario, which 

we expect is less likely to occur than the 

impacts projected under the moderate 

energy development scenario, or a 

continuation of current conditions. 

Although unlikely, even if we assume 

the high energy development scenario 

were to occur, the impacts of the 

stressors on White River beardtongue 

are projected to be limited. Under this 

worst-case scenario, we expect that 

White River beardtongue would retain 

over 75 percent of individual plants and 

maintain the resiliency of the large 

populations. The 2014 CA is expected to 

protect the majority (66 percent) of 

plants across 11 populations into the 

foreseeable future. We also expect 

sufficient levels of redundancy and 

representation to remain across the 

range units, even though 2 out of 17 

populations could be lost. Therefore, 

even in this worst-case scenario, we 

anticipate that White River beardtongue 

would retain sufficient levels of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation in the foreseeable future. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that White 

River beardtongue is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range nor 

is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. 

White River Beardtongue: Determination 

of Status Throughout a Significant 

Portion of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that the White River beardtongue is not 

in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range, we now 

consider whether it may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which it is true that both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. Depending on the case, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the ‘‘significance’’ question or the 

‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to 

address either question first. Regardless 

of which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

White River beardtongue, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. For the White River 

beardtongue, we considered whether the 

stressors are geographically 

concentrated in any portion of the 

species’ range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. We examined the 

following stressors: Energy development 

(oil shale, tar sands, and traditional oil 

and gas drilling) and the additional 

cumulative impacts of road 

construction, herbivory, invasive weeds, 

small population size, and climate 

change with energy development 

(Service 2021a, entire; 2021b, entire). 

All of these potential stressors are 

relatively evenly distributed 

geographically throughout the range of 

the White River beardtongue. Our 

analysis projected that small areas of 

disturbance will occur within most 

range units but are expected to be 

spread throughout the range. We found 

no concentration of stressors in any 

portion of the White River 

beardtongue’s range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion 

of the species’ range can provide a basis 

for determining that the species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range, and we 

find the species is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This is consistent 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 

No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 

4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 

2017). 

Determination of Status 

We have reviewed the best available 

scientific and commercial information 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2125 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats to the Graham’s beardtongue and 

White River beardtongue, and we have 

determined that these species do not 

meet the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) 

of the Act. Because of this 

determination, we are withdrawing our 

August 6, 2013, proposed rule to list the 

Graham’s beardtongue and White River 

beardtongue as threatened species (78 

FR 47590). Accordingly, we are also 

withdrawing our August 6, 2013, 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the species (78 FR 47832). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this document and the Graham’s and 

White River beardtongues Biological 

Reports are available on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and upon 

request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Utah 

Ecological Services Office and the 

Mountain-Prairie Regional Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00485 Filed 1–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1