30860 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(i) The North Fork Holston River

Watershed NEP Area is within the

species’ historic range and is defined as

follows: The North Fork Holston River

watershed, Washington, Smyth, and

Scott Counties, Virginia; South Fork

Holston River watershed upstream to Ft.

Patrick Henry Dam, Sullivan County,

Tennessee; and the Holston River from

the confluence of the North and South

Forks downstream to the John Sevier

Detention Lake Dam, Hawkins County,

Tennessee. This site is totally isolated

from existing populations of this species

by large Tennessee River tributaries and

reservoirs. As the species is not known

to inhabit reservoirs, and it is unlikely

that the fish could move 100 river miles

through these large reservoirs, the

possibility of this population contacting

extant wild populations is unlikely.

(ii) The Tellico River NEP Area is

within the species’ historic range and is

defined as follows: The Tellico River,

between the backwaters of the Tellico

Reservoir (approximately Tellico River

mile (TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers (km)))

and TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the Tellico

Ranger Station, in Monroe County,

Tennessee. This species is not currently

known to exist in the Tellico River or

its tributaries. Based on the habitat

requirements of this species, we do not

expect the fish to become established

outside this NEP Area. However, if they

do move upstream or downstream or

into tributaries outside of the designated

NEP Area, we will presume that the fish

came from the reintroduced

populations. We will amend this rule

and enlarge the boundaries of the NEP

Area to include the entire range of the

expanded population.

(iii) We do not intend to change the

NEP designations to ‘‘essential

experimental,’’ ‘‘threatened,’’ or

‘‘endangered’’ within the NEP Areas.

Additionally, we will not designate

critical habitat for these NEPs, as

provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).

(2) What activities are not allowed in

the NEP Area?

(i) Except as expressly allowed in this

paragraph (e), all the prohibitions of

§ 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the fish

identified in this paragraph.

(ii) Any manner of take not described

under paragraph (e)(3) of this section is

prohibited in the NEP Area. We may

refer unauthorized take of these species

to the appropriate authorities for

prosecution.

(iii) You may not possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever any of

the identified fish, or parts thereof, that

are taken or possessed in violation of

this paragraph or in violation of the

applicable State fish and wildlife laws

or regulations or the Act.

(iv) You may not attempt to commit,

solicit another to commit, or cause to be

committed any offense defined in this

paragraph.

(3) What take is allowed in the NEP

Area? Take of this species that is

accidental and incidental to an

otherwise lawful activity, such as

fishing, boating, trapping, wading, or

swimming, is allowed.

(4) How will the effectiveness of these

reintroductions be monitored? We will

prepare periodic progress reports and

fully evaluate these reintroduction

efforts after 5 and 10 years to determine

whether to continue or terminate the

reintroduction efforts.

* * * * *

4. Amend § 17.84 by adding

paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates.

* * * * *

(m) Spotfin chub (=turquoise shiner)

(Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha),

duskytail darter (Etheostoma

percnurum), smoky madtom (Noturus

baileyi).

(1) Where are these fish designated as

nonessential experimental populations

(NEPs)?

(i) The NEP Area for the three fishes

is within the species’ probable historic

ranges and is defined as follows: The

Tellico River, from the backwaters of the

Tellico Reservoir (approximately Tellico

River mile (TRM) 19 (30.4 kilometers

(km))) to TRM 33 (52.8 km), near the

Tellico Ranger Station, in Monroe

County, Tennessee.

(ii) None of the fish named in this

paragraph (m) are currently known to

exist in the Tellico River or its

tributaries. Based on the habitat

requirements of these fish, we do not

expect them to become established

outside the NEP Area. However, if any

of the species move upstream or

downstream or into tributaries outside

of the designated NEP Area, we will

presume that the fish came from the

reintroduced populations. We will

amend this paragraph and enlarge the

boundaries of the NEP Area to include

the entire range of the expanded

population.

(iii) We do not intend to change the

NEP designations to ‘‘essential

experimental,’’ ‘‘threatened,’’ or

‘‘endangered’’ within the NEP Area.

Additionally, we will not designate

critical habitat for these NEPs, as

provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).

(2) What activities are not allowed in

the NEP Area?

(i) Except as expressly allowed in this

paragraph, all the prohibitions of

§ 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the fish

identified in this paragraph.

(ii) Any manner of take not described

under paragraph (m)(3) of this section is

prohibited in the NEP Area. We may

refer unauthorized take of these species

to the appropriate authorities for

prosecution.

(iii) You may not possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever any of

the identified fish, or parts thereof, that

are taken or possessed in violation of

this paragraph or in violation of the

applicable State fish and wildlife laws

or regulations or the Act.

(iv) You may not attempt to commit,

solicit another to commit, or cause to be

committed any offense defined in this

paragraph.

(3) What take is allowed in the NEP

Area? Take of these species that is

accidental and incidental to an

otherwise lawful activity, such as

fishing, boating, trapping, wading, or

swimming, is allowed.

(4) How will the effectiveness of these

reintroductions be monitored? We will

prepare periodic progress reports and

fully evaluate these reintroduction

efforts after 5 and 10 years to determine

whether to continue or terminate the

reintroduction efforts.

Dated: March 20, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–14454 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH56

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove

Potentilla robbinsiana (Robbins’

cinquefoil) From the Endangered and

Threatened Plant List

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

remove Potentilla robbinsiana,

commonly called Robbins’ cinquefoil,

from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Plants. We propose this

action because the available data

indicate that this species has met the

goals for delisting. The main population

of the species currently has more than

14,000 plants, and the 2 transplant

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30861

populations have reached or surpassed

minimum viable population size. The

proposed action, if finalized, would

remove Potentilla robbinsiana as an

endangered species from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Plants and

would remove the designation of critical

habitat.

This proposed rule includes a

proposed 5-year post-delisting

monitoring plan as required for species

that are delisted due to recovery. The

plan will include monitoring of

population trends of natural and

transplant populations.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties on the Potentilla robbinsiana

delisting proposal must be received by

August 7, 2001. Public hearing requests

must be received by July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and other

information concerning this proposal to

remove Robbins’ cinquefoil from the list

of endangered species should be sent to

Diane Lynch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300

Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,

Massachusetts 01035 (facsimile: 413–

253–8482). Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection by appointment during

normal business hours at the above

address.

Comments and suggestions on

specific information collection

requirements should be sent to the

Service Information Collection

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, MS 224 ARLSQ, 1849

C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Lynch at the above address, or at

413–253–8628. To request a copy of the

information collection request,

explanatory information, and related

forms, contact 703–358–2287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Although its discovery was not

formalized until 1840 (Torrey and Gray,

1840), the first recorded collection of

Potentilla robbinsiana (Robbins’ or

dwarf cinquefoil) by Thomas Nuttall in

1824 generated a strong interest among

botanists and others in this diminutive

member of the rose family (Rosaceae).

Initially, there was confusion as to its

taxonomic status, and it was designated

as a variety of various European

cinquefoils, but it was eventually

recognized as a distinct species

(Rydberg, 1896).

Potentilla robbinsiana is a long-lived

perennial herb. Its hairy three-part

compound leaves are deeply toothed,

and mature plants form a dense 2–4

centimeter (1–1.5 inch) rosette.

Individual plants develop a deep central

taproot, which helps to anchor them

and resists frost heaving. Potentilla

robbinsiana is one of the first plants to

bloom in the alpine zone where it is

found, flowering soon after the snows

recede, from late-May to mid-June.

Adult plants produce from 1 to 30, 5-

petalled yellow flowers on individual

stems. The achenes mature by late July,

and disperse on dry windy days. These

seeds seldom disperse more than 20 cm

from the parent plant, which limits

natural reestablishment (Kimball and

Paul, 1986). The seeds remain dormant

for at least one winter, and germination

begins the following year during June

and July. Although seed viability is

generally high, seedling survival is low

(Iszard-Crowly and Kimball, 1998).

Various experiments have shown that

Potentilla robbinsiana produces seed

asexually so that seedlings are

genetically identical (Lee and Greene,

1986). This species has the chromosome

number 49 that allows it to maintain

itself through asexual reproduction,

which partially explains the low genetic

variability found within the sampled

population (David O’Malley, personal

communication, 2000).

Potentilla robbinsiana is endemic to

the White Mountains of New Hampshire

and is restricted to two small, distinct

areas on lands administered by the

White Mountain National Forest.

Herbaria collections suggest that

historically there may have been a

number of small populations in close

proximity to these two areas. Currently

there are only two natural populations.

Reports of occurrences outside of New

Hampshire have been discounted

(Cogbill, 1993), and records indicate

that Potentilla robbinsiana has always

had a very narrow geographic

distribution.

The largest natural population of

Potentilla robbinsiana occurs on

Monroe Flats located just above treeline

on a col between Mt. Monroe and Mt.

Washington on the Presidential Range.

Within this small area (less than 1

hectares (ha) (2 acres)), the population

is well established with more than

14,000 plants at present. Considering its

local abundance and density at this one

location, it is assumed that some of the

unique features of Monroe Flats are

important habitat requirements for

Potentilla robbinsiana. Monroe Flats

(elev. 1,550 meters (m) (5,115 feet (ft.))

consists of an exposed low dome that is

covered with alternating bands of

relatively barren small-stoned terraces

and thickly vegetated mats. Blowing

winds keep the Monroe Flats mostly

free of snow and ice throughout the

winter, leaving the vegetation exposed

to the abrasive action of blowing snow

and ice and desiccating winds. The

moist barren soils are also susceptible to

frost disturbance from freeze-thaw

cycles for much of the year. In this

extreme environment of moderate

solifluction and exposed topography,

Potentilla robbinsiana fills a narrow

niche: it is likely a poor competitor with

other species, but is able to thrive in a

harsh environment where few other

species can survive (Cogbill, 1987).

The second extant natural population

occurs on Franconia Ridge, 30

kilometers (km) (8.6 miles (mi)) to the

west of the Monroe Flats population.

Although still within the alpine zone,

the habitat here is markedly different. A

handful of plants grow at a site on the

south end of the Franconia Ridge in

crevices along the side of a vertical cliff

just below the ridgeline. Although

records indicate that the Franconia

population was never very large, it is

likely that these few plants are the

remnants of a larger population from

more suitable habitat that previously

existed along the top of the ridge. The

habitat has long since eroded and the

plants have disappeared due to hiking

activity along a ridgeline trail.

Potentilla robbinsiana was listed as

endangered on September 17, 1980, and

critical habitat encompassing the

Monroe Flats population was designated

at that time. Overzealous specimen

collecting and unregulated hiker

disturbance were the reasons for listing.

At the time, the extent of the Monroe

Flats population was shrinking (Graber

and Brewer, 1985) and the Franconia

Ridge population was thought to be

extirpated.

The first Robbins’ Cinquefoil

Recovery Plan, completed in 1983,

featured two main objectives: to protect

the existing Monroe Flats colony,

encouraging its expansion to previously

occupied habitat; and to establish selfmaintaining populations in at least four

additional potential habitats not

occupied at the time.

To accomplish the first objective, a

scree wall surrounding the Monroe Flats

population was constructed and posted

with ‘‘closed to entry’’ signs, and two

hiking trails that had previously

traveled through the Monroe Flats

population were relocated away from

the population. Plants have since been

successfully transplanted back into the

habitat where the trails had resulted in

the localized demise of the plants,

primarily at the highest locations of the

Monroe Flats population. The ability of

seed to move downhill from this

recolonized site should benefit the

Monroe Flats population. In addition,

personnel from the White Mountain

30862 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

National Forest and Appalachian

Mountain Club continue to provide

stewardship, enforcement, and

educational resources on site.

Several tasks were necessary to meet

the second objective of establishing four

additional self-maintaining transplant

populations: (1) Protocols were

developed to monitor the Monroe Flats

population to better understand its

demographic trends and natural rates of

recruitment and mortality, and to collect

data to model minimum viable

population size; (2) the Franconia Notch

population (rediscovered in 1984) was

annually monitored; (3) micro-habitat

components were identified and used to

locate unoccupied, potentially suitable

habitat; and (4) effective propagation

and transplant techniques were

developed. Transplant techniques

varied over the years. However, the

most successful efforts used 2-year-old

plants germinated from seed, and

transplanted with the soil media intact

in mid-June to early July. Each year a

portion of the seed collected for use in

transplants is placed in cold storage at

the New England Wildflower Society to

establish a seed bank for this species.

Prior to listing, there had been a

number of attempts to establish

transplant populations at approximately

20 locations throughout the White

Mountains (Graber, 1980). Although

some of these efforts showed signs of

initial success, all but one eventually

failed due to unsuitable habitat or

because patches of suitable habitat were

too small to support viable populations.

The Appalachian Mountain Club

Research Department reviewed these

efforts, and, using the lessons learned,

narrowed recovery efforts to four

potential sites as outlined in the

updated 1991 recovery plan: two used

in the previous transplant efforts and

two new ones.

The experience gained from previous

transplant efforts and the additional life

history and demographic information

gathered from ongoing research were

used to determine the four most

appropriate transplant sites. Two of

these chosen sites had previously

established transplant populations

(Camel Patch and the Viewing Garden),

both located on or near Mt. Washington,

and two of the sites were unoccupied

sites, one on Boott’s Spur and one on

the Franconia Range near what was

thought potentially to be a historic site.

Transplant efforts at these 4 locations

began in 1986 with the introduction of

160 plants over 3 years at the Boott’s

Spur site. The site showed some initial

promise, but by 1991 mortality was

100%. Although the Boott’s Spur

location was recognized as suboptimal

habitat and had failed in a previous

transplant effort, another 27 plants were

transplanted in 1995, but survival was

0% after the first year. The new

Franconia population was established in

1988 with 61 plants transplanted over 2

years and an additional 108 plants

through 1996, the date of the last

transplant efforts. Like the natural

populations, this transplant population

has fluctuated over the years, but now

appears well established with over 331

plants counted in 1999 and good natural

recruitment occurring. Of the transplant

populations created prior to this species

listing, one continues to persist (Camel

Patch) and has been supplemented with

additional transplants. The transplant

records for the Camel Patch by Graber

from the 1980s to 1991 were not

available, but the Appalachian

Mountain Club inventoried this site

starting in 1984 when they located 84

plants. Only one of the transplant zones

in this habitat showed viable natural

reproduction occurring. An additional 6

transplants were done at this location in

1999, which boosted this population to

23 adults, 60 juveniles, and 6 new

transplant adults. The Viewing Garden

had received 19 known adult

transplants from about 1980 through

1997. Though the adults survived for

some time, viable natural reproduction

was problematic and these individuals

died out over time.

The Robbins’ Cinquefoil Recovery

Plan: First Update, published in 1991,

retained recovery criteria for the

protection of existing natural

populations and establishing additional

transplant populations, contained minor

changes to incorporate the rediscovered

natural Franconia population, and

acknowledged that suitable additional

unoccupied habitat may be a limiting

factor. In addition to the protection of

the natural populations, this plan

determined that a historically occupied

zone within the Monroe Flats should be

recolonized. Transplant efforts began in

1996 to meet this objective, and

successful juvenile recruitment has

since been observed.

To delist Potentilla robbinsiana, longterm demographic evidence must show

that the Monroe Flats population is

stable or increasing in size. Although

counts were undertaken in 1973, 1983,

and 1992, the methodology used to

count the plants differed. The most

reliable comparison between the three

prior censuses and the most recent

census (1999) is the number of plants

found that were greater than 14

millimeters (mm.) (0.5 in.) in

stemdiameter. Comparing the number of

plants greater than 14 mm. in diameter

for censuses in 1983, 1992, and 1999

clearly demonstrates that the Monroe

Flats population has dramatically

increased (Table 1). Transplant efforts in

three different zones historically

occupied by Potentilla robbinsiana

began in 1996, and juvenile recruitment

has been established in two of the

zones.

TABLE 1.—MONROE FLATS CENSUS

COUNTS FOR POTENTILLA ROBBINSIANA

Year

Number of

plants with

stems greater than 14

mm. in diameter

Increase

from previous count

(Percent)

1999 .................. 4,575 36

1992 .................. 3,368 118

1983 .................. 1,547 ¥14

1973 .................. 1,801 ....................

While the 1991 recovery plan still

calls for the establishment of four

transplant populations, it also

recognizes that suitable habitat may be

a limiting factor, and requires that only

two of the four transplant populations

need to be viable. Boott’s Spur has

subsequently been dropped as a result

of the unsuccessful transplant efforts

resulting in 100% mortality. The

Viewing Garden also reached 100%

mortality in 1998. There are no plans to

reestablish a population at this location

because the suitable habitat is very

limited and cannot support more than a

few individual plants that are unlikely

to persist under natural population

fluctuations. Biologists familiar with

this species are confident that little if

any suitable habitat in the White

Mountains remains to be discovered (K.

Kimball, Appalachian Mountain Club,

pers. comm. 2000). Therefore, given that

the discovery of additional suitable

habitat for the establishment of new

transplant attempts is unlikely, recent

efforts have focused on ensuring viable

populations at the two remaining

transplant locations.

Both the Camel Patch and Franconia

Ridge transplant populations have

persisted for more than 10 years. Both

have juvenile recruitment and

successful second generation seedling

establishment. Transplant and/or

monitoring efforts for these populations

continue on a near annual basis

(Kimball, 1998). The high level of soil

movement throughout Camel Patch

makes much of the site unsuitable for

transplant efforts, nevertheless a

population located along the edge of the

encircling vegetation is well established.

The Franconia Ridge population has

increased dramatically in recent years

and is now well established. Although

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30863

precise historic records are lacking,

even if the present Franconia transplant

population happens to be located at a

historical location, the amount of

suitable habitat would eventually limit

the population size.

An 11-year demographic study,

funded by us, the U.S. Forest Service,

and Appalachian Mountain Club, was

conducted along four permanent

transects within the Monroe Flats

population, in part, to determine a

minimum viable population for the

transplant populations based on the

stage-based survival of the Monroe Flats

population. The study recommended a

minimum viable population of 50 plants

(Iszard-Crowley and Kimball, 1998).

Both the Franconia transplant location

with a current population of 331 plants

and the Camel Patch location with a

current population of 87 plants meet

this criteria.

Previous Federal Action

Section 12 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 directed the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution to prepare a

report on those plants considered to be

endangered, threatened, or extinct. This

report, designated as House Document

No. 94–51, was presented to Congress

on January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, the

Director published a notice in the

Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of his

acceptance of the report of the

Smithsonian Institution as a petition

within the context of section 4(c)(2) of

the Act, and of his intention thereby to

review the status of the plant taxa

named within. On June 16, 1976, the

Service published a proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register (41

FR 24523) to determine approximately

1,700 vascular plant species to be

endangered species pursuant to section

4 of the Act. Comments on this proposal

were summarized in the April 26, 1978,

Federal Register publication of a final

rule, which also determined 13 plants to

be either endangered or threatened

species (43 FR 17909). Potentilla

robbinsiana was included in the

Smithsonian’s report, the July 1, 1975,

notice of review, and the June 16, 1976,

proposal.

The amendment of the Act in 1978

required that all proposals over 2 years

old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period

was give to proposals already over 2

years old. On December 10, 1979, we

published a notice withdrawing the

June 16, 1976, proposal to list Potentilla

robbinsiana.

Based on sufficient new information,

we again proposed Potentilla

robbinsiana for listing on March 24,

1980, and proposed its critical habitat

for the first time (45 FR 19004). A public

meeting was held on this proposal on

April 28, 1980, in Concord, New

Hampshire. On September 17, 1980, we

published a final rule in the Federal

Register (45 FR 61944) listing Potentilla

robbinsiana as endangered and

designating critical habitat.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR part 424) promulgated to

implement the listing provision of the

Act, set forth the procedures for listing,

reclassifying, and delisting species on

the Federal lists. A species may be listed

if one or more of the five factors

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

threatens the continued existence of the

species. A species may be delisted

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the

best scientific and commercial data

available substantiate that the species is

neither endangered nor threatened (1)

because of extinction, (2) because of

recovery, or (3) because the original data

for classification of the species were in

error.

After a thorough review of all

available information, we determined

that substantial Potentilla robbinsiana

recovery has taken place since listing in

1980. We have also determined that

none of the five factors identified in

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and discussed

below, are currently affecting the

species in such a way that the species

is endangered (in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range) or threatened (likely to

become endangered in the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range). These factors and

their application to Robbin’s cinquefoil,

Potentilla robbinsiana (Torrey and Grey,

1840), are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Potentilla robbinsiana utilizes a

substrate described as a shallow loamy

sand topped with a stony, pavementlike surface. This stony surface layer

protects the soil from being either blown

or washed away. The 1980 final listing

rule determined that the plant and its

habitat were damaged by trampling from

hikers. Hiking through the habitat is

unimpeded due to the lack of most

vegetation. Because the plants are small,

it is easy for hiker boots to crush adult,

juvenile, and seedling plants.

Since listing, the threat from

trampling has been reduced by rerouting

trails and protecting habitat. The section

of the Appalachian Trail that bisected

the Monroe Flats population is referred

to locally as the Crawford Path, named

after Abel Crawford who constructed

the path in 1819. In 1915, the

Appalachian Mountain Club

constructed Lakes of the Clouds Hut,

270 m. (295 yards (yd.)) to the north of

the trail. The Crawford Path was

relocated at this time to bring the trail

by the Hut, and although the trail was

no longer directly bisecting Potentilla

robbinsiana habitat, it still went through

the northwest corner of the critical

habitat. In 1983, the Crawford Path and

Dry River Trails were rerouted a second

time in response to the Federal listing,

to move the trails outside of the plant’s

critical habitat. A low scree wall was

constructed in conjunction with the trail

relocation, around the critical habitat,

and has been particularly effective in

places where the trail abuts critical

habitat. Signs posted around the Monroe

Flats population notify hikers that there

is a federally listed species present and

no admittance is allowed without a

permit. These signs are replaced as

needed. Hiker traffic and trespassers

into the critical habitat were recorded

by pressure plates during 1985 to assess

the effectiveness of hiker management.

The plates were operated from June

through October 1985 and checked

several times weekly. Of 4,286 hikers

counted over 115 days the counters

were functional, the trespass rate was 2

percent (Kimball and Paul, 1986). The

target compliance level established by

the 1983 recovery plan was 95 percent

of the hikers not trespassing into the

critical habitat, an objective that has

been maintained or exceeded since

1981. Outreach has also been a strong

recovery component for ensuring hiker

compliance of no trespassing into the

Potentilla robbinsiana habitat. A

naturalist is stationed at the Lakes of the

Clouds Hut throughout the summer. The

Hut naturalist is available during the

day to answer questions and give

interpretive talks regarding Potentilla

robbinsiana. The naturalist and other

Hut staff are also instrumental in

monitoring the Monroe Flats population

for human disturbance.

In 1973, prior to listing, the Monroe

Flats population contained

approximately 1,801 individual plants

larger than 14 mm. As of 1999, this

population included approximately

4,575 individuals of similar size. This

represents a greater than 250% increase

in this population. Counting plants of

all sizes (seedlings to adults) in 1999,

the established population size was

14,195 individuals.

The second natural population is near

the Appalachian Trail on Franconia

Ridge. The location of this population

has been purposefully kept undisclosed

30864 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

and is presently out of the way of the

average hiking public.

Records indicated the extant

Franconia Ridge population was never

very large. Nevertheless, it is considered

to be a reproducing population, with 18

individual plants consisting of 4 adults,

13 juveniles, and 1 seedling, as of 1999.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

The 1980 final listing identified that

the collecting of specimens for herbaria

probably contributed to the loss of

Potentilla robbinsiana and possibly the

cause for the extirpation of one of the

Franconia sites (Steele, 1964). It was

noted that over 40 herbarium sheets

containing nearly 100 plants (6 percent

of the known mature population at the

time of listing) were counted in various

New England herbaria (Graber, 1980).

Cogbill’s more recent paper (1993)

documents the collection of over 850

plants in herbaria collections

worldwide, which represents one of the

most extensive collections known for a

single species. However, collection of

the species has, to date, not been a

threat. Commercial trade in the species

occurred in the early 1900s but has not

occurred since and is not expected to

occur in the future. Import or export of

this species also is not anticipated.

Therefore, taking of Potentilla

robbinsiana for these purposes is not

considered to be a threat.

C. Disease and Predation

This species is not known to be

threatened by disease or predation.

D. The inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms.

Potentilla robbinsiana is currently

afforded limited protection by the

Endangered Species Act. Section 9 of

the Act prohibits the removal and

possession of endangered plants from

lands under Federal jurisdiction and the

malicious damage and destruction of

endangered plants in such areas, and

the damage or destruction of

endangered plants from any other area

in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, or in the course of a

violation of State criminal trespass law.

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal

agencies to ensure that their actions do

not jeopardize the continued existence

of listed species or destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat.

Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal

agencies to carry out programs for the

conservation of threatened and

endangered species. The entire range of

Potentilla robbinsiana occurs on Forest

Service lands. Forest Service regulations

prohibit removing, destroying, or

damaging any plant that is classified as

a threatened, endangered, rare or unique

species (36 CFR 261.9). On December 2,

1994, we, the Forest Service, and the

White Mountain National Forest, signed

a Memorandum of Understanding for

the conservation of Potentilla

robbinsiana. The MOU states that the

Forest Service agrees to carry out

specific management measures, with

our assistance, both through the

recovery period, and if and when

Potentilla robbinsiana is removed from

the list of endangered and threatened

plants. The MOU further states that the

change in the species’ legal status will

not affect the Forest Service’s

commitment to implement management

programs to promote long-term

conservation of this sensitive species

regardless of its standing under the

Federal Act.

Potentilla robbinsiana does appear on

the Forest Service Region 9 list of

‘‘species of concern’’ and on the New

Hampshire State list, although State

legislation currently offers it no

protection. However, the State of New

Hampshire has a cooperative plant

agreement with us as specified under

section 6(c)(2) of the Act that allows the

State to apply for funds from the Service

to aid in the conservation of threatened,

endangered, or rare plants.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting its Continued Existence

Recovery efforts have been directed

toward protection and environmental

education. A number of approaches

have been used to educate the hiking

public and the scientific community

about Potentilla robbinsiana. Providing

information to the public regarding the

species’ biology and management

satisfies their curiosity and increases

their willingness to participate in

protection of this species. These efforts

include a permanent display and

presentations about Potentilla

robbinsiana by the seasonal

Appalachian Mountain Club naturalist

at Lakes of the Clouds Hut.

The 1980 final listing rule mentioned

that Potentilla robbinsiana is vulnerable

to the harsh climate in which it lives.

The weather regime experienced by the

species is highly variable from year to

year. During demographic studies over

the past 16 years it has been observed

that late frosts in June have the potential

to damage flowers and greatly reduce

the seed crop for that year. By virtue of

a deep taproot, the species appears to be

adapted to a moderate level of frostheaving, a stress that may limit

competing species. At the same time, it

cannot tolerate frost induced movement

of more that 18 mm/yr, or frost action

sufficient to produce stone stripes or

other patterned ground (Cogbill, 1987).

Overall, however, this species is now

thriving in a very localized part of the

alpine zone of the White Mountains,

and adapts to the harsh climate

conditions, where few other species

survive.

Summary of Status

Delisting Potentilla robbinsiana, as

described in the 1991 updated recovery

plan, requires that (1) four transplant

colonies are viable, with selfreproducing capability; (2) the Monroe

Flats population demonstrates

population stability for a full generation;

and (3) the two natural existing

populations are protected from human

disturbance. This delisting objective

was based on the best information

available at that time. The habitat of the

two existing natural populations is

protected from human disturbance, and

the Monroe Flats population is

considered viable and increasing.

Though the recovery plan calls for the

establishment of four transplant

populations, it also recognizes that

suitable habitat may be a limiting factor.

We have determined that at the two

sites where transplanting has proven to

be unsuccessful, Boott’s Spur and the

Viewing Garden, no further attempts to

reestablish populations will be

considered. Discovery of additional

suitable habitat for the establishment of

new transplant populations is unlikely,

so recent efforts are focusing on

maintaining viable populations at the

two remaining transplant locations. Two

of the three delisting components have

been met. It is unlikely additional

habitat for future transplants will be

found, and achieving the third

component is improbable. We have

carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available

regarding the past, present, and future

threats faced by this species in

determining to propose this rule: The

threats to the species have been reduced

or removed, the number of plants is

increasing, the species is not in

imminent danger of extinction, and the

species appears unlikely to become

endangered within the foreseeable

future.

Effects of This Rule

If finalized, the proposed action

would remove Potentilla robbinsiana

from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Plants. Furthermore, the

critical habitat for this plant, one

location in the White Mountain

National Forest, New Hampshire (50

CFR 17.96(a)), would be removed. The

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30865

prohibitions and conservation measures

provided by the Act would no longer

apply to this species. Therefore, taking,

interstate commerce, import, and export

of Potentilla robbinsiana would no

longer be prohibited under the Act. In

addition, Federal agencies would no

longer be required to consult with us

under section 7 of the Act to insure that

any action they authorize, fund, or carry

out, is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of Potentilla

robbinsiana or destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat.

The take and use of Potentilla

robbinsiana must comply with

appropriate Forest Service regulations,

since the entire population lies within

the White Mountain National Forest in

New Hampshire.

Future Conservation Measures

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that

the Secretary of the Interior, through the

Service, implement a monitoring

program for not less than 5 years for all

species that have been recovered and

delisted. The purpose of this

requirement is to develop a program

that detects the failure of any delisted

species to sustain itself without the

protective measures provided by the

Act. If at any time during the 5-year

monitoring program, data indicate that

protective status under the Act should

be reinstated, we can initiate listing

procedures, including, if appropriate,

emergency listing.

Monitoring

Our Northeast Region will coordinate

with the Forest Service, the

Appalachian Mountain Club, and State

resource agencies to develop and

implement an effective 5-year

monitoring program to track the

population status of Potentilla

robbinsiana. To detect any changes in

the status of Potentilla robbinsiana, we

will use, to the fullest extent possible,

information routinely collected by the

Appalachian Mountain Club Research

Department and the Forest Service.

During the fifth year of the 5-year

monitoring period, a quantitative

population assessment of the Monroe

Flats population will be conducted

using transects to further evaluate the

stability and health of this population.

It is believed that the two

transplanted sites have reached viable

population status. However, during the

required 5-year monitoring period,

transplants at the Camel Patch site will

continue annually to supplement the

current population or until the habitat is

thought to be saturated with plants.

If we determine at the end of the

mandatory 5-year monitoring period,

and the fifth year population assessment

of Monroe Flats, that recovery is

complete, and factors that led to the

listing of Potentilla robbinsiana, or any

new factors, remain sufficiently reduced

or eliminated, monitoring may be

reduced or terminated. If data show that

the species is declining or if one or more

factors that have the potential to cause

a decline are identified, we will

continue monitoring beyond the 5-year

period and may modify the monitoring

program based on an evaluation of the

results of the initial 5-year monitoring

program, or reinitiate listing if

necessary.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. Comments should be

sent to our Northeast Regional Office

(see ADDRESSES section). We particularly

seek comments concerning; biological,

commercial trade, or other relevant data

concerning any threat, or lack thereof, to

this species; and information and

comments pertaining to the proposed

monitoring program contained in this

proposal.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law.

There may also be circumstances in

which we would withhold from the

rulemaking record a respondent’s

identity as allowable by law. If you wish

us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting information used to

write this rule, will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

The final decision on this proposal for

Potentilla robbinsiana will take into

consideration the comments received by

us during the comment period. Such

communications may lead to a final

regulation that differs from this

proposal.

The Act provides for one or more

public hearings on this proposal, if

requested. Requests must be received

within 45 days of the date of publication

of this proposal. Such requests must be

made in writing and sent to our

Northeast Regional Office identified in

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning

of this proposed rule.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320,

which implement provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, require that

Federal agencies obtain approval from

OMB before collecting information from

the public. The OMB regulations at 5

CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of

information as the obtaining of

information by or for an agency by

means of identical questions proposed

to, or identical reporting, record

keeping, or disclosure requirements

imposed on, 10 or more persons.

Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)

specifies that ‘‘ten or more persons’’

refers to the persons to whom a

collection of information is addressed

by the agency within any 12-month

period. For purposes of this definition,

employees of the Federal Government

are not included.

This rule does not include any

collections of information that require

approval by OMB under the Paperwork

Reduction Act. Potentilla robbinsiana

occurs entirely on lands administered

by the Forest Service and only in one

State, New Hampshire. The information

needed to monitor the status of

Potentilla robbinsiana following

delisting will be collected primarily by

a limited number of personnel from the

Forest Service and the Appalachian

Mountain Club. We do not anticipate a

need to request data or other

information from 10 or more persons

during any 12-month period to satisfy

monitoring information needs. If it

becomes necessary to collect

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or

organizations per year, we will first

obtain information collection approval

from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not

need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

30866 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act. We published a notice

outlining our reasons for this

determination in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

our Northeast Regional Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Diane Lynch, Endangered Species

Biologist (See ADDRESSES section), and

Doug Weihrauch, staff scientist for the

Appalachian Mountain Club Research

Department, provided assistance with

the summary of the biological record for

this species.

Lists of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, we propose to amend part 17,

subpart B of chapter I, title 50 Code of

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.12 [Amended]

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by

removing the entry for ‘‘Potentilla

robbinsiana, Robbins’ cinquefoil’ under

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS,’’ from the List

of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

§ 17.96 [Amended]

Section 17.96(a) is amended by

removing the critical habitat entry for

‘‘Potentilla robbinsiana, (Robbin’s

cinquefoil)’’ which is under Family

Rosaceae.

Dated: May 12, 2001.

Marshall Jones, Jr.,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14453 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[ I.D. 052201E]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of scoping meetings;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene scoping meetings to obtain

public comments on essential fish

habitat (EFH) issues to be discussed in

and potentially added to a

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS) for the Council’s

Generic Essential Fish Habitat

Amendment to the Fishery Management

Plans of the Gulf of Mexico (EFH

Generic Amendment).

DATES: The scoping meetings will be

held in June. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific dates and times

of the scoping meetings.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

scope of issues that should be addressed

in and potentially added to the SEIS

should be sent to and copies of the EFH

Generic Amendment are available from

the Council. The Council’s address is:

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council, The Commons at Rivergate,

3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite

1000, Tampa, FL 33619–7015; telephone

(813) 228–2815; fax (813) 225–7015. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

dates, locations, and times of the

scoping meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist,

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; telephone (813) 228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

scoping meetings will be convened to

obtain public comments on the range of

issues to be discussed in the SEIS for

the EFH Generic Amendment. The

Council is especially interested in

public views on what alternatives

should be considered for the

designation of EFH, the identification of

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

(HAPC), and the recommendation of

management measures to minimize the

adverse impacts of fishing activities and

gear on identified EFH and HAPC areas.

The Council prepared the EFH

Generic Amendment in response to

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The EFH

Generic Amendment identifies and

describes EFH for the species managed

under the Council’s fishery management

plans; it also discusses threats to EFH

from both fishing and non-fishing

activities, discusses EFH conservation

and enhancement opportunities, and

identifies HAPCs. NMFS partially

approved the EFH Generic Amendment

in 1999 after conducting Secretarial

review under Magnuson-Steven Act

procedures. NMFS and the Council

previously published a notice in the

Federal Register (66 FR 15405; March

19, 2001) announcing their intent to

prepare a SEIS for the EFH Generic

Amendment that will supersede the

environmental assessment originally

prepared in support of this amendment.

Meeting Dates, Locations, and Times

The scoping meetings will be held at

the following dates, locations, and

times:

1. Thursday, June 14, 2001, 3 p.m.–5

p.m., Omni Bayfront Hotel, 900 North

Shoreline Boulevard, Corpus Christi, TX

78401; telephone (361) 887–1600

2. Friday, June 15, 2001, 1 p.m.–3

p.m., Courtyard by Marriott, 9190 Gulf

Freeway, Houston, TX 77017; telephone

(713) 910–1700

3. Monday, June 18, 2001, 2 p.m.– 4

p.m., New Orleans Airport Hilton, 901

Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062;

telephone (504) 469–5000

4. Tuesday, June 19, 2001, 3 p.m.–5

p.m., Imperial Palace Hotel, 850

Bayview, Biloxi, MS 39530; telephone

(228) 436–3000

5. Thursday, June 21, 2001, 3 p.m.–5

p.m., National Marine Fisheries Service,

3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama

City, FL 32408; telephone (850) 234–

6541

6. Monday, June 25, 2001, 3 p.m.–5

p.m., Holiday Inn Beachside, 3841

North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West,

FL 33040; telephone (305) 294–2571

7. Thursday, June 28, 2001, 3 p.m.–5

p.m., Tampa Airport Hilton, 2225 Lois

Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone

(813) 877–6688

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Anne Alford at the

Council (see ADDRESSES) by June 8,

2001.