Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5959

precise consequences of a regulatory 

option may not be known with 

certainty, in many cases the probability 

of their occurrence can be developed. 

By examining the uncertainty of several 

key variables used in the analysis (by 

way of evaluating the probability of 

their occurrence), analysts and decision 

makers can become better informed as 

to which variables most significantly 

affect the benefit and cost results and 

where additional information or data 

collection (to reduce uncertainty) would 

be most beneficial. 

As such, a primary benefit of an 

uncertainty analysis is that it highlights 

which variables in the analysis are the 

most important, and where additional 

information for given variables would 

most contribute to the accuracy of 

results. In the present analysis, FMCSA 

developed uncertainty distributions for 

20 key variables. Examples include (1) 

the percent of long-haul drivers with 

‘‘intense’’ schedules (or those drivers in 

long-haul operations who are fully 

utilizing the daily and weekly driving 

limits on a consistent basis), (2) the 

percentage of hours worked by 

commercial drivers in excess of allowed 

hours, and (3) the percent of all truckrelated crashes where commercial driver 

fatigue was determined to be a factor. A 

complete list of the variables examined 

is included in the Addendum filed in 

the docket. It should be noted here that 

the original RIA examined the economic 

impacts of the 2003 final rule from two 

sets of baseline assumptions: the first, 

termed the ‘‘Current Rules/100%’’

option, assumed full compliance by 

commercial drivers with the pre-2003 

HOS rules when estimating the 

economic impacts of the regulatory 

change, while the second, termed the 

‘‘Status Quo’’ option, assumed less than 

full compliance with the pre-2003 rules 

prior to estimating economic impacts. 

However, the uncertainty analysis 

conducted here was limited only to the 

‘‘Status Quo’’ (or less than full 

compliance) baseline assumption, since 

only under this set of assumptions did 

the annual costs of the rulemaking rise 

above the dollar threshold (i.e., greater 

than $1 billion in annual costs) outlined 

in OMB Circular A–4 that requires such 

an analysis. As such, when reporting on 

the range of possible cost, benefit, and 

net cost outcomes of this uncertainty 

analysis, all results are measured 

relative to the point estimates derived 

from the original RIA under the ‘‘Status 

Quo’’ baseline assumption. 

Regarding total costs of the NPRM, the 

uncertainty analysis revealed that there 

was an 80 percent chance that total 

annual costs of this rulemaking would 

fall between $1 and $1.5 billion. Under 

the ‘‘Status Quo’’ baseline, the original 

RIA derived a point estimate of total 

annual costs equal to $1.3 billion. As 

such, the distribution of cost results 

derived from the uncertainty analysis 

closely tracked the point estimate of 

costs derived under the original RIA. 

Regarding total annual benefits of the 

NPRM, the uncertainty analysis 

revealed that there is about an 80 

percent chance that annual benefits 

would fall between $0.5 and $0.8 

billion. Under the ‘‘Status Quo’’

baseline, the original RIA had derived a 

point estimate of total annual benefits 

equal to $0.7 billion. Regarding net 

costs, the uncertainty analysis indicated 

about an 80 percent chance that net 

costs of the NPRM would fall between 

$0.3 and $0.8 billion, and about a five 

percent chance that net benefits would 

accrue from implementation of the 

proposed rule. Under the ‘‘Status Quo’’

baseline, the original RIA had derived a 

point estimate of total net annual costs 

equal to $0.6 billion. 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis 

The cost effectiveness of a regulatory 

action is typically measured as a ratio of 

the change in costs occasioned by the 

action compared to its positive results 

(i.e., lives saved). A primary value of 

cost-effectiveness analysis is its ability 

to identify regulatory options that 

achieve the most effective use of the 

resources available without requiring 

monetization of all of the relevant 

benefits or costs. Regarding the results 

of the cost effectiveness analysis, the 

implementation of the NPRM was 

estimated to result in a total annual cost 

of $10.8 million for each fatality 

prevented, and $0.4 million for each 

injury prevented. It must be noted here 

that the CEA results presented here will 

tend to exaggerate the costs of 

preventing injuries and fatalities, 

because implementation of the NPRM 

would not just prevent injuries and 

fatalities, but would also prevent truckrelated crashes limited to propertydamage only. Additionally, the rule is 

expected to result in time savings as a 

result of the prevention of truck-related 

crashes. Full details regarding the 

results of these analyses may be found 

in Docket FMCSA–2004–19608.

Issued on: February 1, 2005. 

Annette M. Sandberg, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–2185 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List Ptilagrostis porteri

(Porter feathergrass) as Threatened or 

Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding for a petition to list 

Ptilagrostis porteri (Porter feathergrass) 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (the Act). We find that the 

petition and additional information in 

Service files do not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing this species may 

be warranted. We will not be initiating 

a further status review in response to 

this petition. The public may submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of or 

threats to the species.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on January 28, 

2005. New information concerning this 

species may be submitted for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

petition finding should be submitted to 

the Western Colorado Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services Field Office, 764 Horizon 

Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, 

Colorado 81506. The petition finding 

and supporting information are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. The petition 

and finding are available on our Web 

site at http://r6.fws.gov/plants/

feathergrass.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allan R. Pfister, Supervisor, Western 

Colorado Ecological Services Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 

(970) 243–2778; facsimile (970) 245–

6933).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

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

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

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

make a finding on whether a petition to 

5960 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information to demonstrate 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. This finding is to be based 

on all information available to us at the 

time the finding is made. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we make 

this finding within 90 days of the date 

the petition was received, and notice of 

the finding must be published promptly 

in the Federal Register. 

We received a petition, dated March 

5, 2002, to list the plant Ptilagrostis 

porteri (Porter feathergrass) as 

threatened or endangered within its 

historic range. The petition was 

submitted by Jacob Smith, Executive 

Director of the Center for Native 

Ecosystems, and by the Colorado Native 

Plant Society, Joshua Pollock, Southern 

Rockies Ecosystem Project, and the 

American Lands Alliance. We received 

the petition on March 7, 2002. Action 

on this petition was precluded due to 

other priority actions and because 

funding in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 

was not sufficient to process a 

preliminary finding. The petitioners 

filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue on 

June 26, 2002, alleging that the Service 

violated the Act by failing to prepare a 

90-day petition finding. A lawsuit was 

filed in the Federal District Court for the 

District of Arizona on September 17, 

2003. An agreement was reached on 

May 24, 2004, specifying that the 

Service would submit for publication in 

the Federal Register on or before 

January 31, 2005, a determination 

whether the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted. 

Species Information 

Ptilagrostis porteri is a small, 

perennial bunchgrass with a tuft of fine, 

narrow basal leaves 2–12 centimeters 

(cm) (0.8–4.7 inches (in)) long. Stems 

are 20–35 cm (7.9–13.8 in) tall with 

single-flowered spikelets in a terminal 

panicle about 5–10 cm (2–4 in) long. 

Panicle branches can be closed or open. 

Awns are 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) long, 

feathery, and bent below the middle. 

Ptilagrostis porteri has very specific 

soil hydration requirements. It grows on 

the shoulders and sides of elevated 

hummocks that have formed in peat 

fens. The hummocks are elevated above 

the water table, providing a moist but 

not saturated peat substrate. Most of the 

species’ habitat is classified as rich or 

extreme-rich calcareous fen. The pH of 

these fens is high (7.4–8.6) compared to 

other montane fens, and the peat 

accumulates at a much slower rate, 

about 11 cm (4 in) per thousand years 

(Sanderson and March 1996). Fens are 

considered a category 1, irreplaceable 

resource in the Service’s Region 6 

(Hartmann 1999). 

The fens where P. porteri grows are 

found at elevations from 2,800 to 3,400 

meters (m) (9,200 to 11,200 feet (ft)) in 

the north end of South Park and 

surrounding Tarryall, Mosquito, and 

Kenosha mountain ranges in Park 

County, Colorado, about 130 kilometers 

(km) (80 miles (mi)) southwest of 

Denver. One small population occurs in 

neighboring Summit County, and one 

small outlier population occurs about 56 

km (35 mi) to the southeast in El Paso 

County. Extreme-rich fens with a similar 

flora are found elsewhere in the United 

States in only a few locations in 

Wyoming and California.

Ptilagrostis porteri is the only 

Ptilagrostis species in North America. 

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

(CNHP) ranks P. porteri as imperiled 

globally (G2) and in the State of 

Colorado (S2). It was a Federal category 

2 candidate species until 1996 when the 

candidate categories were discontinued 

(61 FR 64481). It is designated as a 

sensitive species on the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) Region 2 list for 

Colorado. 

Twenty-two populations of 

Ptilagrostis porteri are recorded with 

data in the CNHP data system; three 

additional records have no available 

information and two historical records 

have not been relocated. The CNHP has 

determined that there are 284 hectares 

(ha) (702 acres (ac)) of occupied habitat, 

based on field survey maps of the 

populations recorded in their 

geographic information system (CNHP 

2004). Other estimates from field 

observations compiled by Johnston 

(2004) indicate that the total occupied 

habitat could be 650 ha (1,600 ac). For 

this finding, we use the acreage 

determined by CNHP. Available plant 

inventory records are too inconsistent to 

provide reliable estimates of population 

sizes or trends (CNHP 2004, Johnston 

2004, and Sanderson 2000). 

Fourteen of the 22 known populations 

are on USFS land, primarily in Pike 

National Forest. They contain more than 

50 percent of the plants on 183 ha (451 

ac) of habitat. The remaining 8 

populations are in private or mixed 

ownership, and contain less than 50 

percent of the plants on 104 ha (258 ac) 

of the known habitat (CNHP 2004). 

Each P. porteri population is ranked 

by CNHP for quality and viability. Six 

populations are ranked A (relatively 

large, intact, defensible and viable). Five 

A-ranked populations occur on USFS 

land, covering about 137 ha (338 ac) of 

occupied habitat; the remaining Aranked population occupies an 

estimated 7 ha (18 ac) of private land. 

Seven populations are ranked B (small 

but in good condition, or large but 

disturbed and/or not viable or 

defensible). Five B-ranked populations 

occur on 44 ha (108 ac) of USFS land, 

and one B-ranked population occurs on 

54 ha (134 ac) of private land. Eight 

populations are ranked C (small, in poor 

condition, possibly not viable). Three Cranked populations occur on 2 ha (5 ac) 

of USFS land, three C-ranked 

populations occur on 36 ha (89 ac) of 

USFS and private lands, and two Cranked populations occur on 6 ha (15 

ac) of mostly private lands. One 

population is ranked D (degraded or not 

viable); it occurs on 0.8 ha (2 ac) of 

private land (CNHP 2004). 

The 13 A- and B-ranked populations 

occur in 2 separate watersheds (CNHP 

2004). Eight populations are in the 

South Platte Headwaters watershed. 

They occur along two headwater 

tributaries flowing down from the rim of 

South Park on the west and north sides 

to the South Platte River, one via the 

Middle Fork of the South Platte and the 

other one via Tarryall Creek. Five 

populations are in the Upper South 

Platte watershed. Within this watershed, 

the populations are located in two 

separate drainages. One drainage runs 

east into the North Fork of the South 

Platte; the other exits through 

underground aquifers (von Ahlefeldt 

1989). This distribution across two 

watersheds and four headwater sources 

reduces the potential impact to the total 

population that may result from one 

water project. 

Conservation Status 

Pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA, 

we may list a species of a plant taxon 

on the basis of any one of the following 

factors—(A) Present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other manmade or 

natural factors affecting its continued 

existence. The petitioners cite threats 

under factors A, D, and E. The 

petitioners did not mention any threats 

due to overutilization (factor B). This 

grass is not easily harvested for hay, nor 

is it currently of commercial or 

horticultural interest. Therefore, 

overutilization is not considered to be a 

threat to this species. The petitioners 

likewise did not cite any threats due to 

disease or predation (factor C). 

Predation from grazing is not considered 

to be a threat to the species because it 

is not known to be palatable to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5961

livestock, and no diseases or pests are 

known to have any effect on the species 

(Johnston 2004; von Ahlefeldt 1989; 

CNHP 2004). Therefore, disease and 

predation are not considered to be 

threats to this species. 

In regard to factor A (The Present or 

Threatened Destruction, Modification, 

or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range), the petition states that 

Ptilagrostis porteri habitat is threatened 

by: (1) Water diversions and other 

hydrological alterations; (2) peat mining 

and other mining; (3) residential 

development; (4) livestock grazing; (5) 

motorized vehicle use; (6) hiking and 

other non-motorized recreation; and (7) 

beaver activity. 

Potential impacts to the moisture 

regime for Ptilagrostis porteri arise from 

water projects that would draw down 

the ground water level and projects that 

would divert surface water from 

wetlands and irrigated agricultural 

lands. The water is purchased by 

municipalities in the Denver 

Metropolitan area. The South Park 

Conjunctive Use Project proposal, cited 

by the petitioners and active at the time 

of the petition, would have drawn water 

from creeks upstream of P. porteri

populations and from the water table 

under the wetlands in South Park to 

supply the city of Aurora in the Denver 

Metro area with 2,500 hectare-meters 

(ha-m) (20,000 acre-feet (ac-ft)) of water 

per year. Water was to be delivered as 

stream flow in a main tributary creek to 

the South Platte River (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2002). The project would have 

impacted two of the four major 

drainages where high-quality P. porteri

populations are found, and may, 

therefore, have constituted a threat to 

the species. Lowering the water table in 

the fen habitat would create conditions 

too dry for P. porteri, whereas 

construction of recharge reservoirs 

could over-water the microhabitat for P. 

porteri and could destroy the fen 

vegetation community. Petitioners state 

that the project threatened to severely 

impact 50 to 75 percent of the total 

habitat occupied by P. porteri, based on 

an assessment by Sanderson (2000). 

The South Park Conjunctive Use 

Project proposal was rejected in District 

Court for Water Division No. 1 in 1998 

in favor of the plaintiff, the Park County 

Water Preservation Coalition, based on 

augmentation modeling that showed 

that available water was insufficient. 

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected 

an appeal after the date this listing 

petition was submitted (Colorado Bar 

Association 2002). No other major water 

draw-down projects are currently being 

proposed in Park County (G. Nichols 

2004, Eiseman 2004).

The City of Aurora recently purchased 

900 ha-m (7,000 ac-ft) of water per year 

from an existing City of Thornton 

project that has been diverting water 

from 11 South Park ranches for about 20 

years (McHugh 2004). There are no 

available data to indicate whether 

Ptilagrostis porteri habitat has been 

impacted by this ongoing diversion. The 

City of Centennial in the metropolitan 

Denver area has purchased surface 

water from another ranch that has a 35-

ha (86-ac) C-ranked population of P. 

porteri. Two other populations 

described by the petitioners have been 

ditched and partially drained in the 

past. Both of these populations are 

ranked C because they are small, but the 

remaining habitat still has a water level 

sufficient to support the species (CNHP 

2004). The town of Fairplay is no longer 

depending on Beaver Creek water that 

flows through two P. porteri

populations; they are now using well 

water (G. Nichols 2004). 

Conservation easement agreements 

including water rights have recently 

been completed for three private 

ranches as part of the South Park Basin 

Legacy Project. Completed easements 

now protect a 7-ha (18-ac) A-ranked 

population and a 0.8-ha (2-ac) D-ranked 

population (CNHP 2004). 

Based on the foregoing, we have 

concluded that neither the petition nor 

our files contain substantial information 

indicating that listing this species may 

be warranted based on impacts from 

water diversions and other hydrological 

alterations. 

Petitioners state that there is a 

moratorium on peat mining in Park 

County and that the threat is primarily 

the possibility that the moratorium 

could be rescinded. Park County 

regulations allow peat mining to 

continue if it was permitted before the 

new policy was adopted, but the County 

has no record of current activity, nor is 

there any expectation that new 

operations will be allowed (Eiseman 

2004). Sanderson and March (1996) 

reported that nearly 20 percent of the 

total extreme rich fen area in South Park 

has been permanently lost due to past 

mining of peat. At least four populations 

of Ptilagrostis porteri have been 

partially destroyed by peat mining in 

the past. The remaining portions of 

these fens survive in good condition 

because they have subsurface water 

sources (CNHP 2004). The hypothetical 

possibility of repeal of protective 

regulations is not substantial 

information. Therefore, we conclude 

that there is not substantial information 

to indicate that listing the species may 

be warranted as a consequence of 

impacts from peat mining. 

Placer mining has occurred in the 

past, and continues at one Ptilagrostis 

porteri location under a USFS permit 

issued in 1993. The permit covers smallscale recreational mining, comprising 

about 30 dredging days per year and 

other activities by about 20 people on 

weekends and 4 people on weekdays 

between May and October. A draft 

Biological Evaluation by the USFS in 

2000 (Howard 2000) found no effect to 

sensitive plant species, although P. 

porteri is known to occur within the 

project area. The petition and our files 

do not contain substantial information 

indicating that placer mining might be 

a threat to the species. 

Petitioners state that residential 

development alters local hydrology and 

removes wetland habitat by infilling 

and, therefore, is a threat to Ptilagrostis 

porteri. Based on private land 

ownership (CNHP 2004), about 7 of the 

22 populations may be vulnerable to 

this threat; 2 of the 7 have recently been 

placed in conservation easements. 

These populations are located in the 

South Platte Headwaters watershed in 2 

of the 4 main drainage systems that 

support the species. More new 

residential development has occurred in 

South Park in the last 5 years than in the 

20 years from 1980 to 2000 (G. Nichols 

2004). There are 4 centers of new 

residential development in South Park 

along Sacramento Creek and the Middle 

Fork of the South Platte, at Warm 

Springs Ranch and in the Silver Hills 

area, all of which are close to 

populations of P. porteri. No substantial 

information is provided in the petition 

or available in our files on actual 

impacts of the existing developments on 

nearby wetlands. Although there are 

potential cumulative effects on 

hydrology and physical structure of the 

fens, we conclude that there is no 

substantial information in the petition 

or our files indicating that these might 

warrant a listing proposal. 

Petitioners state that excessive 

livestock grazing can cause trampling 

damage to the fen habitat of Ptilagrostis 

porteri. Grazing pressures have 

fluctuated historically. Records kept by 

the USFS for allotments where the 

largest P. porteri populations now occur 

show that cattle grazing was intense 

during the 1920s and 1930s. Since 1968, 

major changes in management have 

been implemented on the National 

Forest. Photographs taken in 1939 and 

1989 show a dramatic increase in 

vegetation cover on the fens (von 

Ahlefeldt 1989), and von Ahlefeldt 

considered moderate grazing to have a 

minor impact on P. porteri because 

cattle find it unpalatable and they 

usually walk between the hummocks 

5962 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

without trampling the plants. Field 

observations of grazing impacts on P. 

porteri populations over the past 35 

years indicate a significant change in 

grazing management and consequent 

improvement in the visible condition of 

vegetation on the fens (CNHP 2004, 

Johnston 2004). We conclude that 

neither the petition nor information in 

our files provides substantial 

information that grazing is, or is likely 

to be in the foreseeable future, a threat 

to the species. 

Petitioners state that evidence of offroad vehicle use, including 

snowmobiles, has been observed at five 

of the Ptilagrostis porteri populations. 

Similar observations have been recorded 

by CNHP (2004). There is no available 

additional documentation of the effects 

of such impacts on this species or its 

habitat. Thus we conclude that there is 

no substantial information to indicate 

that off-road vehicle use presents a 

threat to the species. 

Petitioners state that trail widening 

and erosion damage nearby peat bogs. 

Only minor impacts of this type have 

been recorded by field surveyors (CNHP 

2004). Neither the petition nor our files 

provides additional information to 

support the petition’s contention that 

this is a threat to the species. In 

addition, petitioners cite beaver activity 

as a potential threat, but state that it is 

not currently threatening any known 

populations of Ptilagrostis porteri. We 

have no information to contradict 

petitioner’s statement that beaver 

activity is not currently threatening any 

known populations. 

In regard to factor D (The Inadequacy 

of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms), 

petitioners state that existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to ensure 

protection and recovery for Ptilagrostis 

porteri. The USFS currently manages P. 

porteri as a sensitive species and the 

habitat is managed as wetlands, in 

accordance with the USFS Region 2 

Policy on protection of fens (Hilliard 

2002) and the Watershed Conservation 

Practices Handbook for Region 2 (2001). 

The USFS manages about 65 percent of 

the P. porteri habitat. The largest known 

population, A-ranked by CNHP, is in a 

Federal Wilderness Area on the Pike 

National Forest. The management 

practices under these regulations are 

discussed under Listing Factor A. Just as 

we determined that there is not 

substantial information in the petition 

or our files that the effects of these 

regulations may warrant listing, there is 

also no substantial information that the 

regulations themselves are inadequate 

and might warrant a listing.

Petitioners cite the lack of regulations 

to prevent impacts caused by water 

diversions as a threat. However, as 

discussed above, existing law and 

regulatory mechanisms have resulted in 

termination of the project cited by 

petitioners as the greatest threat to the 

species. The petition does not present, 

nor do we have, substantial information 

on other specific threats related to water 

diversions. Hypothetical possibilities do 

not constitute substantial scientific 

information indicating a listing may be 

warranted. Thus we conclude that the 

petition has not presented substantial 

information to indicate that lack of 

adequate regulatory mechanisms is a 

threat to the species. 

In regard to factor E (Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors Affecting the 

Continued Existence of Ptilagrostis 

porteri), the petitioners consider the 

species to be vulnerable due to the small 

size of most of its populations. They 

report that only 9 populations have 

more than 300 plants, 9 have 100 or 

fewer plants, and 5 populations have 20 

or fewer plants. The CNHP (2004) 

reports 9 recorded populations smaller 

than 2 ha (5 ac); 1 is ranked A, 1 is 

ranked B, 6 are ranked C, and 1 is 

ranked D (the C and D populations are 

so ranked primarily because they are 

small). The size of these small 

populations refers to the extent of 

occupied habitat within fens that are 

more extensive. Therefore, size of the 

population may not be related to size or 

condition of the habitat or age or 

susceptibility to drying out. Size also 

may not indicate ability to reproduce, 

because the plants can self-fertilize. 

Thus available information is not 

substantial enough to indicate that small 

numbers of plants or acreage by itself

pose a threat to this species. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and its 

supporting documentation, as well as 

information in our files and other 

readily available information. On the 

basis of this review, we find that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that listing of 

Ptilagrostis porteri may be warranted, 

nor do we have such information. The 

petition is based primarily on the threat 

of habitat destruction by major water 

draw-down and diversion projects. The 

major water draw-down project that was 

imminent at the time of petition 

submission (2002) is no longer 

proposed. No water projects are 

currently planned on Federal land 

within the species’ range. Likewise, 

substantial information is not available 

to indicate that the other potential 

impacts cited by the petitioners rise to 

a level that threatens the species. 

In making this finding we rely on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and that readily available to us, and 

evaluate that information in accordance 

with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The contents of 

this finding summarize information 

included in the petition and information 

that was available to us at the time of 

the petition review. Our review for the 

purposes of a so-called ‘‘90-day’’ finding 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and 

§ 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited 

to a determination of whether the 

information in the petition constitutes 

‘‘substantial scientific or commercial 

information’’ indicating that listing may 

be warranted. Available information 

indicates that the primary threat cited in 

the petition has been eliminated, and 

the information relating to it is 

accordingly no longer applicable. We 

found that the petition did not provide 

substantial information on the other 

threats cited, many of which by the 

petition’s own wording are potential or 

hypothetical threats rather than existing 

ones. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available upon request 

from the Grand Junction Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Ellen Mayo, Grand Junction 

Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (see

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Marshall P. Jones, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 05–2133 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P