Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30757 

The Pacific Junction allotment was 

added to the FM Table of Allotment in 

2000. See 65 FR 41377, published July 

5, 2000. However, the allotment was 

later removed as a result of MB Docket 

05–210. See 71 FR 76208, published 

December 20, 2006. In this regard, 

Channel 299A was included in Auction 

37 and acquired by Connoisseur Media, 

LLC as the winning bidder. 

The complete text of this decision 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 

SW, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, 800–378–3160 or via the 

company’s website, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply 

to this proceeding. 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comment may 

be filed using: (1) the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1988). 

Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For submitting 

comments, filers should follow the 

instructions provided on the website. 

For ECFS filer, if multiple docket or 

rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filer must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e–mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an e– 

mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

For Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rule making number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first–class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand–delivered or messenger– 

delivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

All hand deliveries must be held 

together with rubber bands or fasteners. 

Any envelope must be disposed of 

before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first–class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e–mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Government Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) , 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13135 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2008-0114] 

[92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C5] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to Delist Cirsium vinaceum 

(Sacramento Mountains thistle) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 12–month 

finding on a petition to remove Cirsium 

vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains 

thistle) from the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

After reviewing the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that delisting C. vinaceum is not 

warranted. However, we ask the public 

to submit to us any new information 

that becomes available concerning the 

status of, or threats to, the species or its 

habitats at any time. This information 

will help us monitor and encourage the 

conservation of this species. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on June 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket # FWSR2-ES-2008-0114 and http:// 

www.fws.gov/New Mexico. Supporting 

documentation we used to prepare this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Office, 2105 Osuna 

NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 

(505) 346-2525; facsimile (505) 346- 

2542. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 

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

make a finding on whether a petition to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30758 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial information to 

indicate the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 

requires that within 12 months after 

receiving a petition to revise the Lists of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) that contains 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted, 

the Secretary shall make one of the 

following findings: (a) The petitioned 

action is not warranted; (b) the 

petitioned action is warranted; or (c) the 

petitioned action is warranted but 

precluded by pending proposals to 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered or threatened species as 

long as expeditious progress is being 

made to add qualified species to, and 

remove species from, the Lists. Such 

12–month findings are to be published 

promptly in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) proposed to list Cirsium 

vinaceum as a threatened species with 

critical habitat under the Act on May 16, 

1984 (49 FR 20735), and listed the 

species on June 16, 1987 (52 FR 22933). 

A recovery plan for C. vinaceum was 

signed on September 27, 1993. The 

proposed critical habitat rule was not 

adopted in the final determination to 

list C. vinaceum as a threatened species. 

The proposed critical habitat rule was 

withdrawn, because the initial area 

proposed was considered too large to be 

essential for C. vinaceum’s 

conservation; the secondary option of 

designating small, separated parcels 

around each population was deemed 

not prudent because of the potential for 

vandalism and the absence of net 

benefit to the species (52 FR 22935). 

On April 30, 2004, we received a 

petition from Mr. Doug Moore, County 

Commissioner of Otero County, New 

Mexico, to delist Cirsium vinaceum. In 

response to the petitioner’s request to 

delist C. vinaceum, we sent a letter to 

the petitioner dated August 31, 2005, 

explaining that the Service would 

review the petition and information in 

our files and determine whether or not 

the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that delisting C. 

vinaceum may be warranted. We 

concluded in our 90–day finding that 

the information presented in the 

petition and information in our files was 

not substantial to indicate that delisting 

the species may be warranted; however, 

the Service initiated a 5–year status 

review of the species (71 FR 70479; 

December 5, 2006). 

On August 13, 2007, we received a 

petition from the Board of County 

Commissioners of Otero County, New 

Mexico, to delist Cirsium vinaceum. On 

August 31, 2007, the Service 

acknowledged receipt of Otero County’s 

complete petition. On November 6, 

2008, we published a 90–day finding 

with the conclusion that the petition 

and information in our files presented 

substantial information indicating that 

delisting C. vinaceum may be warranted 

(73 FR 66003). That document also 

initiated a review of the species’ status 

within its range. 

Species and Habitat Information 

E.O. Wooton and P.C. Standley first 

described Cirsium vinaceum in 1913, 

and originally named it Carduus 

vinaceus, in accordance with generic 

concepts at that time. In 1915, Wooten 

and Standley combined the thistle with 

Cirsium, a common genus in the New 

Mexico flora. 

Cirsium vinaceum is a stout plant, 3.3 

to 5.9 feet (ft) (1 to 1.8 meters (m)) tall 

when mature. Cirsium vinaceum stems 

are brown-purple and highly branched. 

The basal leaves are green, 12 to 20 

inches (in) (30 to 50 centimeters (cm)) 

long, and up to 8 in (20 cm) wide, with 

ragged edges. Cirsium vinaceum is a 

short-lived perennial. It lives as a rosette 

(a circular arrangement of leaves close 

to the ground) for one or more years, 

and eventually a stem bolts upward 

producing flower and seed. Flowering, 

the vehicle for reproduction, occurs 

only once, from late June through 

August, when pink-purple flower heads 

form at the tips of stems. 

Seeds are usually produced through 

cross-pollination, a form of sexual 

reproduction requiring genes from 2 or 

more separate Cirsium vinaceum 

individuals; however, this species is 

capable of reproducing asexually, using 

genetic material from a single individual 

to produce a clone. Pollen is carried by 

a variety of animal vectors, including 

several species of native bees, flies, 

butterflies, and hummingbirds 

(Tepedino 2002, pp. III.5-7). Burks 

(1994, pp. 72-78) studied pollen 

movement between C. vinaceum flowers 

and found that native bees were less 

active as pollinators in small sites 

(fewer than 100 flowering individuals) 

than in large sites (greater than 1,000 

flowering individuals), although she 

concluded that this disparity did not 

limit the overall reproductive success of 

smaller sites. Burks did find, however, 

that the reproductive success of smaller 

sites may be limited by the relative 

abundance of heterospecific versus 

conspecific pollen on stigmas. 

Heterospecific pollen is pollen from 

other species and does not lead to 

successful fertilization, whereas 

conspecific pollen is pollen from other 

individuals of the same species, and 

when deposited on the stigma structures 

of flowers, can successfully fertilize that 

flower. Burks found that there was more 

conspecific pollen on the stigmas of 

flowers in larger sites than in smaller 

sites simply as a function of there being 

more C. vinaceum individuals in the 

area. This suggests that larger sites have 

a better chance of receiving enough of 

the appropriate type of pollen to ensure 

successful fertilization and persistence 

of that site. 

Cirsium vinaceum is an obligate 

wetland species that requires saturated 

soils with surface or subsurface water 

flow. Cirsium vinaceum habitats occur 

in mixed conifer forests and open 

valleys. Waters at these sites are rich in 

calcium carbonate, from limestone 

sources, that often precipitates out to 

create large areas of travertine (calcium 

carbonate) deposits, which occasionally 

become large bluffs or hills. Travertine 

deposits are the most common habitat of 

the species. 

Distribution and Range 

Cirsium vinaceum occurs in Otero 

County, New Mexico, mostly on the 

eastern slope of the Sacramento 

Mountains, with a few sites on the 

western slope. The range extends from 

about 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)) 

northeast to about 17 mi (27 km) south 

of Cloudcroft in an area of about 150 

square mi (390 square km) (Service 

1993, p. 3). Plants occur in meadows 

and partly shaded forested areas in the 

mixed conifer zone at 7,500–9,200 ft 

(2,300–2.743 m) (USFS 2003, p. 42). 

More than 95 percent of the known 

Cirsium vinaceum sites occur on the 

Lincoln National Forest. There are two 

additional C. vinaceum sites near the 

southern boundary of the Mescalero 

Apache Reservation, and one known 

site on a private property seep in 

Fresnal Canyon that is visible from State 

Highway 82 (Sivinski 2006, pp. 8-9). 

The extent of C. vinaceum habitat on 

private property inholdings (privately 

owned land within the boundaries of a 

protected area that is federally or 

publicly owned) within the Lincoln 

National Forest is unknown. 

Craddock and Huenneke (1997, p. 

218) studied water dispersal of seed and 

determined that resultant Cirsium 

vinaceum establishment in streamside 

habitats was sufficient to genetically 

link some discrete patches of plants. 

They also found C. vinaceum seed on 

the surface of snow and hypothesized 

that snowpack may provide large areas 

of smooth, unobstructed surface for 

wind transport of seed to adjacent C. 

vinaceum patches. Burks (1994, pp. 75- 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30759 

77) states that discrete patches of C. 

vinaceum sites, interconnected by 

pollen and seed dispersal, could 

collectively be identified as a 

metapopulation. A metapopulation is 

defined as group of populations 

separated geographically, but 

interconnected through patterns of 

exchange of genes (Pulliam and 

Dunning 1994, pp. 189-190). Cirsium 

vinaceum habitats occur in relatively 

close proximity and may be sufficiently 

connected genetically to form one or 

more metapopulations. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

catalogs Cirsium vinaceum occurrences 

as habitat locations or sites. New 

occupied sites have been documented 

on the Lincoln National Forest since C. 

vinaceum was listed as a threatened 

species in 1987. By 1993, a total of 62 

sites was identified, of which 58 were 

on USFS land (Service 1993, p. 2). In 

1995, there were 77 sites known to 

occur on the Lincoln National Forest 

(Service 2005, p. 697). In 2005 and 

2007, the USFS cataloged 104 extant, 

historic, or potential C. vinaceum sites 

included in a monitoring program 

(Barlow-Irick 2007, p. 1); however, most 

of these sites are subdivisions of the 

original 20 populations described at 

listing. Some sites are sporadically 

occupied by a few plants during wet 

years, and unoccupied or dormant 

during droughts (Sivinski 2006, p. 8). 

We conclude, therefore, that the 104 C. 

vinaceum sites currently identified by 

the USFS cannot be meaningfully 

compared numerically to the original 20 

populations identified in the listing 

rule; most of the newly indentified sites 

do not represent true populations, but 

subdivisions of the original 20 

populations which were identified 

through the increased survey effort. 

The known geographic range of 

Cirsium vinaceum has not significantly 

expanded since 1987. All but one of the 

newly documented sites occur within 

the 155-square-mi (401.45-square-km) 

critical habitat area identified in the 

1984 listing proposal (49 FR 20739; May 

16, 1984). The newly occupied site in 

Fresnal Canyon extends the range by 

less than 1 mi (1.6 km) (Sivinski 2009a, 

p. 1). It was believed to be extirpated 

when this species was listed, and is 

thought to be the type locality 

(representative location where the first 

specimen was found) for the species 

(Sivinski 2009a, p. 1). This site has 

recently been reoccupied due to a USFS 

road management action that increased 

water supply to the site (USFS 2004, p. 

626). Cirsium vinaceum plants occur in 

small, dense groupings covering less 

than 100 acres (ac) (40 hectares (ha)) 

(Service 2005, p. 695). Within the range 

of the species, sites vary in size from 5 

square m (54 square ft) to several 

thousand square meters. 

Population Abundance 

At the time of listing as a threatened 

species in 1987, surveys of USFS land 

estimated Cirsium vinaceum to be a 

species with 10,000 to 15,000 sexually 

reproducing individuals (June 16, 1987; 

52 FR 22933). Most of these individuals 

occur in sites on USFS lands; however, 

several are on private lands and the 

Mescalero Indian Reservation (June 16, 

1987; 52 FR 22933). Both the Service 

and the USFS noted at the time that 

accurate counts of the plant had not 

been made, and that the actual number 

of plants was likely much larger than 

the best available data indicated. A 1990 

inventory of Lincoln National Forest 

habitats located 196,000 total plants, 

including mature and juvenile rosettes 

(Service 1993, p. 2). This inventory was 

conducted primarily within the original 

20 populations described at the time of 

listing. The survey method used 

reflected all age classes of plants in their 

habitats, rather than methods used in 

subsequent inventories in which only 

flowering stems were counted. The 1990 

inventory also determined that C. 

vinaceum is capable of sporadic root 

sprouting to produce multiple rosettes, 

or clones, per individual. 

Six additional inventories of Cirsium 

vinaceum on the Lincoln National 

Forest have been conducted, beginning 

in 1995, by Dr. Laura Huenneke, and in 

subsequent years by Dr. Patricia BarlowIrick. These inventories consistently 

followed the survey protocol of 

counting only flowering plants, rather 

than all plants of various age classes, at 

most of the Lincoln National Forest 

locations known at the time. Surveyed 

sites consisted of historically occupied, 

currently occupied, and potentially 

suitable sites within the known range of 

C. vinaceum. Total numbers of 

flowering individuals were 34,228 in 

1995; 39,849 in 1998; 34,710 in 2000; 

30,460 in 2003; 28,063 in 2005; and 

24,124 in 2007 (Barlow-Irick 2008, p. 1). 

Total numbers of habitat sites assessed 

were: 76 sites in 1995, 81 sites in 1998, 

82 sites in 2000, 85 sites in 2003, 85 

sites in 2005, and 81 sites in 2007 

(Barlow-Irick 2007, p. 1; Sivinski 2006, 

p. 6). 

Many of the occupied Cirsium 

vinaceum sites included in these 

surveys are only 330 ft (100 m) apart 

and are as small as 54 square ft (5 square 

m). Therefore, we do not consider all of 

these sites to be ‘‘populations’’ in a 

reproductive or genetic sense of the 

term, because many are in close 

proximity to one another (Service 1993, 

p. 4). The 1987 description of C. 

vinaceum as occurring in 20 

populations of discrete patches of 

plants, or clusters of proximate 

occupied habitats that experience 

limited exchange of genes between 

plants in each of the patches because of 

geographic distance, has been revised 

using more complete survey 

information. Subsequent discoveries of 

several additional patches of C. 

vinaceum between these ‘‘populations’’ 

and observations of seed dispersal in 

streams have significantly reduced the 

number of C. vinaceum patches that 

could conform to the traditional 

biological definition of a population 

(Craddock and Huenneke 1997, p. 218); 

however, a revised number of 

populations of C. vinaceum has not 

been determined. 

The Service and USFS estimates of 

total population size of Cirsium 

vinaceum are based on the 1995 

monitoring protocol of multiplying the 

number of flowering individuals by 10 

to account for the numerous juvenile 

rosettes (USFS 2003, pp. 44-45). The 

multiplier of 10 is based on a 1989 

count of all rosettes in four C. vinaceum 

sites, which found that flowering 

individuals ranged from 10 percent to 

13 percent of the rosettes in the four 

sites (Sivinski 2006, p. 6). Therefore, 

this protocol relies on a very limited 

sample in a single year, which may or 

may not be accurate for an entire 

population estimate in any given year 

(Sivinski 2006, p. 6). We currently do 

not have information available to 

determine whether 1989 was a 

representative year, and how other years 

compare to 1989 in terms of total 

numbers of rosettes at a variety of C. 

vinaceum sites. For these reasons, we 

are using actual flowering stem counts 

in this finding, and not estimates of total 

population size, as determined by the 

1995 monitoring protocol. 

In 1998, the survey protocol was 

changed from estimating population 

size to actually counting every flowering 

stem. Additional sites were found in 

this year, leading to a population size 

that would translate to nearly 400,000 

individuals using the old protocol of 

multiplying the number of flowering 

individuals by 10. Barlow-Irick, the 

contractor who completed the 

inventories of Cirsium vinaceum from 

1998 to 2007, states that the reported 

increase in numbers is not the result of 

the species being more abundant within 

populations, but rather is strictly a 

function of finding more sites as well as 

the change in protocol from estimating 

population size to actually counting 

every flowering stem (Barlow-Irick 

2008, p. 1). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30760 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The intensive field monitoring 

described above conducted by 

Huenneke and Barlow-Irick shows a 

downward trend in the number of 

occupied sites, overall population 

numbers, and number of flowering 

stalks from 1998 to 2007. The rate of 

decline in total flowering C. vinaceum 

numbers was 12.9 percent between 1998 

and 2000, 12.2 percent between 2000 

and 2003, 7.9 percent between 2003 and 

2005, and 14 percent between 2005 and 

2007. This decline coincides with a 

severe long-term period of drought with 

higher than average winter temperatures 

across most of New Mexico beginning in 

1999 (Sivinski 2006, pp. 6-7). Five C. 

vinaceum sites were extirpated between 

1995 and 2007. In 2007, another 18 sites 

contained less than 25 percent of the 

average number of plants documented 

in the previous five surveys, and 11 

other sites had between 25 and 50 

percent of their average stem count 

(Barlow-Irick 2008, p. 2). However, a 

declining trend is not completely 

consistent among C. vinaceum sites. 

While most C. vinaceum sites have 

experienced decreasing numbers of 

flowering stems during the monitoring 

period, a few sites have increased in 

stem numbers, likely as a result of 

exclusion of livestock (USFS 2004, p. 

629). 

Sacramento Mountains Thistle (Cirsium 

vinaceum) Recovery Plan 

The main objective of the Sacramento 

Mountains Thistle Cirsium vinaceum 

Recovery Plan (1993) is to protect and 

manage the habitats necessary to sustain 

viable populations of the species. It 

recommends the following three criteria 

to meet the plan’s goal to delist C. 

vinaceum: 

(1) Acquire water rights specifically 

for the maintenance of travertine spring 

habitats at a minimum of 30 percent of 

the occupied spring localities, including 

at least 1 occupied spring locality in 

each of the 20 known canyons of 

occurrence; 

(2) Develop habitat management plans 

to alleviate threats to the species and 

ensure permanent protection of at least 

75 percent of the known occupied 

habitats, according to steps outlined in 

the plans. Sites should include both 

core populations at springs, as well as 

other occupied riparian habitats. 

Unoccupied stream habitat downstream 

of occupied springs should be protected 

for future colonization by Cirsium 

vinaceum; and 

(3) Establish a 10–year monitoring 

and research program to demonstrate 

the effectiveness of management 

implemented under the plans. 

No portion of criterion (1) has been 

met. The State of New Mexico owns the 

State’s water, as determined by the 

United States v. New Mexico case of 

1978 (438 U.S. 696, 98 S. Ct. 3012). 

Federal land managers in New Mexico 

do not own the water located on Federal 

lands, and therefore cannot deny a 

claim of a legitimate beneficial use of a 

water right. However, a land manager 

can designate the point of diversion 

according to a claim of the water right. 

In July 2007, the State of New Mexico 

adopted legislation establishing a 

strategic water reserve to manage water 

for interstate stream augmentation to 

benefit threatened or endangered 

aquatic or obligate riparian species (NM 

ST § 72-14-3.3, 2007). This law may be 

applicable to protect Cirsium vinaceum 

habitats. Federal agencies are eligible to 

acquire such State-based water rights to 

benefit threatened or endangered 

aquatic or obligate riparian species; 

however, to date, no action agency has 

acquired or attempted to acquire water 

rights to benefit C. vinaceum. Where C. 

vinaceum is not exclusively associated 

with riparian habitats and is not located 

within river reaches that involve stream 

augmentation or interstate stream 

compacts, this recent law may not 

apply. This would eliminate most 

occupied C. vinaceum sites, particularly 

at its upland spring and travertine shelf 

habitats. Also, the New Mexico State 

Engineer has the ability to protect a 

water resource to further a ‘‘State 

Conservation Goal,’’ but this has not 

been applied to protect any C. vinaceum 

sites. 

The development of management 

plans to alleviate threats and ensure 

permanent protection of at least 75 

percent of known occupied Cirsium 

vinaceum habitats pursuant to criterion 

(2) has not been achieved. Although 

management plans have been developed 

by the Lincoln National Forest to 

address threats to C. vinaceum from 

forestry practices, livestock grazing, and 

trampling by recreationists, the plans 

have not resulted in permanently 

protecting 75 percent of the species’ 

occupied habitats. As described in the 

‘‘Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors’’ below, exclosures 

designed to protect some habitats 

occupied by C. vinaceum from 

trampling and predation have not been 

consistently maintained and have not 

been used correctly, and livestock 

grazing utilization standards and 

rotation dates have not been 

consistently enforced. As a result, even 

in areas where protection has been 

planned and attempted, C. vinaceum 

has been impacted. In addition, C. 

vinaceum continues to be impacted by 

highway maintenance activities, 

drought, and an emerging threat of 

insect predation. These additional 

threats have not been addressed by 

management plans, and permanent 

protection of at least 75 percent of the 

known occupied habitats has not been 

ensured. 

While criterion (3) has not been 

explicitly met, it has been addressed in 

concept by continuing studies of 

Cirsium vinaceum population 

dynamics, ecology, and response to the 

mitigation of some threats, such as 

livestock grazing and trampling. For 

example, monitoring has shown that 

properly maintained and used 

exclosures increase the numbers of C. 

vinaceum, allowing recovery at sites. 

The recovery plan also recommends 

developing new information for 

biological factor and threat analysis. Of 

relevance here is the need for research 

on measures to control insect predation 

on C. vinaceum. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened based on 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. 

We must consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species. We may 

delist a species according to 50 CFR 

424.11(d) if the best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that the 

species is neither endangered nor 

threatened for the following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; 

(2) The species has recovered and is 

no longer endangered or threatened; or 

(3) The original scientific data used at 

the time the species was classified were 

in error. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range,’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30761 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ For the purposes 

of this analysis, we will evaluate 

whether the currently listed species, 

Cirsium vinaceum, should be 

considered threatened or endangered. 

Then we will consider whether there are 

any portions of the range of C. vinaceum 

in which the status of the species differs 

from that determined for the species 

rangewide. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, in a 

January 16, 2009, memorandum 

addressed to the Acting Director of the 

Service, the Office of the Solicitor, 

Department of the Interior, concluded, 

‘‘* * * as used in the [Act], Congress 

intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to 

describe the extent to which the 

Secretary can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species.’’ In a 

footnote, the memorandum states, ‘‘In 

this memorandum, references to 

‘reliable predictions’ are not meant to 

refer to reliability in a statistical sense. 

Rather, I use the words ‘rely’ and 

‘reliable’ according to their common, 

non-technical meanings in ordinary 

usage. Thus, for the purposes of this 

memorandum, a prediction is reliable if 

it is reasonable to depend upon it in 

making decisions’’ (M–37021, January 

16, 2009). The majority of Cirsium 

vinaceum habitat is on land within the 

Lincoln National Forest. This land is 

publicly owned and managed by the 

USFS. The USFS manages the land for 

multiple uses, including livestock 

grazing and recreation. Consderable data 

are available on the impacts such 

activities have had on C. vinaceum, and 

reliable predictions can be made 

concerning future impacts to the species 

under USFS management. 

In making this finding, we evaluated 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available to determine 

whether delisting Cirsium vinaceum is 

warranted. This information includes 

the updated petition and associated 

documents, data from the 1990 through 

2007 surveys (Barlow-Irick 2005, 2007, 

2008), recent reports by Sivinski (2007, 

2008) and the USFS (2008), as well as 

other information available to us, to 

determine whether delisting C. 

vinaceum is warranted. The following 

analysis examines the five factors 

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

and those activities and conditions 

currently affecting C. vinaceum, or 

likely to affect the species within the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Availability of Water 

Cirsium vinaceum is an obligate 

wetland species that requires surface or 

immediately subsurface water flows. It 

occurs only on water-saturated 

substrates of springs and seeps on 

hillsides and valley bottoms. Loss of 

available water at C. vinaceum sites has 

been observed to lead to retractions of 

occurrence boundaries, a reduction in 

the numbers of individuals, and, in 

some cases, a loss of all plants at sites 

(USFS 2003, pp. 42–43; Barlow-Irick 

2007, pp. 1–2). Study results indicate 

that declining and extirpated C. 

vinaceum sites are more frequently 

found in drier conditions than are sites 

with stable or increasing populations 

(Barlow-Irick 2007, pp. 1-2). Loss of 

water from C.vinaceum habitat occurs 

both naturally and as a result of human 

impacts that cause water diversion 

directly and indirectly. Examples of 

naturally occurring water loss include 

changes in precipitation patterns and 

watershed condition, as well as shifts in 

travertine deposits and slopes (USFS 

2003, pp. 42-43). Water diversion by 

roads, trails, and spring development 

are examples of loss of water flow to 

occupied sites due to human activity 

(USFS 2003. pp. 42-43). 

Natural water loss. In the current 

decade, Cirsium vinaceum has 

experienced some drought conditions. 

Water flow at a number of springs 

occupied by C. vinaceum has declined 

substantially. Monsoonal summer 

precipitation can be very patchy, with 

some areas receiving considerably less 

rainfall than others. While precipitation 

data compiled by the Western Regional 

Climate Center for Cloudcroft indicate 

that there was a shortfall of over 20 

percent in mean rainfall in only 1 of the 

last 15 years (1999) (USFS 2003, pp. 

53—54), the seasonal distribution of 

yearly precipitation is significant and 

can result in temporary drought 

conditions for C. vinaceum. 

Monitoring of Cirsium vinaceum has 

shown a simple and direct relationship 

between water availability in suitable 

habitat and numbers and extent of 

plants in occurrences (Huenneke, 1996, 

pp. 149—150). As water flow has been 

observed to decline at springs, decreases 

in plant numbers and the size of 

occurrences have occurred. The 

situation has been observed to reverse 

when increased water is available 

(USFS 2003, pp. 55-56). Dry periods can 

also increase the effects of livestock 

trampling and herbivory on C. vinaceum 

when other water and forage plants are 

not available. Springs and creeks 

provide a majority of the watering sites 

for both livestock and wildlife species, 

especially elk. These wet sites are 

subject to trampling and hoof damage, 

and receive especially heavy use during 

drought periods, when neither water nor 

green forage are readily available 

elsewhere. At the end of the summer 

grazing season in October, livestock 

water can again be in short supply, and 

impacts to C. vinaceum may increase as 

a result (USFS 2003, p. 56). 

Water diversion due to current 

activities. Appropriation of water rights 

from springs for a use recognized by the 

State of New Mexico as beneficial, such 

as for livestock, farming, domestic, or 

recreational facilities, typically uses 

points of diversion that curtail natural 

surface flows, and thus may negatively 

impact Cirsium vinaceum. Additionally, 

the original C. vinaceum listing rule 

described an unauthorized 1,900 ft (579 

m) long pipeline and cement spring box 

constructed at a C. vinaceum site, which 

negatively impacted nearby plants by 

impeding water flow (52 FR 22933; June 

16, 1987). This unauthorized 

development of a spring near Bluff 

Springs resulted in an 84-percent loss of 

C. vinaceum at one site, from 300 plants 

in 1984 to 47 plants in 1991 (Service 

1993, p. 29). 

Drainage under roads was improved 

in Water Canyon and the Rio Pen ̃ asco in 

a 2001-2002 riparian improvement 

project. Sites that were formerly 

occupied by Cirsium vinaceum were 

returned to conditions suitable for 

reoccupation by the species with the 

increased water availability afforded by 

this alteration, resulting in the 

rehabitation of these areas by the 

species (USFS 2004, p. 626). 

Increased water diversion due to 

future population growth. The human 

population in Otero County, New 

Mexico, increased by 20 percent from 

1990 to 2000, and is expected to 

increase another 17.3 percent between 

the years 2000 and 2030 (University of 

New Mexico 2004, pp. 1-3). An 

increasing human population and its 

associated agricultural and economic 

activities will require additional water 

from this relatively dry region. For 

example, between 2010 and 2040, the 

City of Alamogordo estimates its water 

demand will increase from 7,609 acre 

feet per year to 10,375 acre feet per year 

(Office of the State Engineer 2003, pp. 

3-4). Aquifers in the Sacramento 

Mountains are susceptible to impacts 

from existing water rights. Development 

of additional water rights could 

potentially dewater Cirsium vinaceum 

water sources, and this constitutes a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

threat to the species in the foreseeable 

future. As discussed above, the State of 

New Mexico adopted legislation 

establishing a strategic water reserve to 

manage water for interstate stream 

augmentation to benefit threatened or 

endangered aquatic or obligate riparian 

species (NM ST § 72-14-3.3, 2007). 

Federal agencies are eligible to acquire 

such State-based water rights to benefit 

threatened or endangered aquatic or 

obligate riparian species, which may 

help to mitigate impacts of increased 

water diversion in the future. However, 

to date, no action agency has acquired 

or attempted to acquire water rights to 

benefit C. vinaceum. 

In summary, while water diversion 

due to current activities does not appear 

to be a widespread threat at the current 

time, localized impacts have been 

observed and increased use of water 

constitutes a threat in the foreseeable 

future. Natural loss of water is currently 

a threat to Cirsium vinaceum. We will 

continue to monitor water availability 

for C. vinaceum. 

Trampling by Livestock 

Improper livestock grazing, as it 

relates to trampling of habitat, was 

recognized as a threat to Cirsium 

vinaceum in the 1987 listing rule (52 FR 

22933; June 16, 1987). In that notice, the 

authors report that many sites 

previously occupied by C. vinaceum 

appear to be suitable for habitation by 

the species; however, the populations 

that formerly occurred there had been 

reduced or eliminated by livestock 

impacts (52 FR 22933; June 16, 1987). 

Livestock have the potential for large 

impacts to the species, both by 

trampling, discussed below, and by 

predation through grazing, discussed 

under Factor C. 

Ninety-five percent of Cirsium 

vinaceum localities occur on USFS 

lands within grazing allotments 

accessed by livestock. Cirsium 

vinaceum habitats on travertine springs 

and in the valley bottoms provide the 

majority of watering locations for 

livestock and elk, subjecting this fragile 

habitat to frequent trampling. One site at 

Silver Springs on the James Allotment 

has been closed to livestock since 1995. 

The C. vinaceum population in this 

allotment has grown in response to 

being rested from livestock, and recent 

information indicates that this single 

allotment contained 36 percent of all 

flowering stems for the species (USFS 

2003, p. 44). 

Trampling of Cirsium vinceum and its 

habitat by livestock and humans has 

caused damage to travertine formations 

and outflow creek beds, resulting in 

altered water flow to C. vinaceum 

habitat (USFS 2003, pp. 42-44). Damage 

to travertine crusts can adversely affect 

surfaces critical to the successful 

germination and reproduction of C. 

vinaceum and inhibit C. vinaceum seed 

movement and dispersal by flowing 

water (USFS 2003, pp. 43-44). During 

drought, the effects of compaction and 

trampling in drying travertine C. 

vinaceum sites may be even more 

severe. This damage causes a loss of 

normal soil structure and permeability 

that may inhibit processes necessary for 

the development and establishment of 

new plants when water flows return to 

these sites. Trampling of C. vinaceum 

can reduce tissue needed for 

metabolism, and damage seedlings, 

rosettes, and flowering stalks (USFS 

2003, pp. 43-44). Broken flowering 

stalks render affected C. vinaceum 

incapable of reproduction (USFS 2007, 

pp. 20-21). 

Prior to listing, instances were 

observed in which trampling from 

livestock grazing had severely impacted 

Cirsium vinaceum (USFS 2003, p. 46). 

Todsen (1976, p. 1) reported that the C. 

vinaceum population in Silver Springs 

Canyon had only a few intermittent 

plants on the side of a fence where 

livestock were permitted to graze. In 

1978, the USFS reported that C. 

vinaceum in a wet meadow above Bluff 

Springs occurred only within a small 

fenced-in area that excluded livestock 

and not in the adjacent grazed habitat. 

The USFS later reported in 1984 that 

recent livestock exclusions from some 

habitats at Silver Springs, Bluff Springs, 

and Rio Pen ̃ asco had ‘‘led to a 

remarkable increase in numbers of 

Cirsium vinaceum,’’ while the 

population in Lucas Canyon was 

‘‘considerably smaller’’ because of 

livestock (USFS 2003, p. 44). In a Lucas 

Canyon study, C. vinaceum rosettes 

were markedly smaller at a site grazed 

by livestock (mean rosette diameter 

approximately 4.85 to 8.87 in (12.3 to 

22.5 cm)) adjacent to an excluded 

population subject only to grazing by 

elk (mean rosette diameter 

approximately 20.27 to 29.17 in (51.5 to 

74.1 cm)). Furthermore, this 

discrepancy was observed for 24 months 

after grazing pressure had been 

alleviated (Thomson and Huenneke 

1990, pp. 9-10). 

The effects of trampling have resulted 

in declines or disappearance of Cirsium 

vinaceum at sites (Fletcher 1979, p. 3; 

52 FR 22933; June 16, 1987). The USFS 

has minimized some of the trampling 

impacts of concentrated use by livestock 

and elk by enclosing C. vinaceum 

habitats with fences; however, no new 

fences or protected areas have been 

created since 1999. Exclosures currently 

cover approximately 290 ac (120 ha) on 

USFS lands. These exclosures protect 

about one-half of the habitat occupied 

by C. vinaceum from negative impacts 

associated with livestock use and have 

resulted in increased numbers of C. 

vinaceum within many fenced sites 

(Service 2005, p. 698). Fences that are 

part of livestock exclosures are 

occasionally knocked down or left open, 

resulting in trampling of C. vinaceum 

(USFS 2007, p. 4). Additionally, several 

exclosures were never finished after 

their construction was initiated, and 

others have not been maintained, 

allowing livestock access to C. 

vinaceum habitats (Barlow-Irick 2008, p. 

1). 

The USFS has excluded livestock 

from many Cirsium vinaceum habitats 

with fencing, often aiding in the 

recovery of those populations. For 

example, a site in Hubbell Canyon that 

contained no known C. vinaceum in 

1984 was able to support approximately 

500 plants shortly after an exclosure 

was constructed in 1991 (USFS 2003, p. 

62). A grazing exclosure was built 

around a site in Lucas Canyon that 

contained 350 plants in 1984, but 

expanded to 3,414 C. vinaceum by 1991. 

A wet meadow above Bluff Springs that 

contained only one C. vinaceum plant 

in 1976 has supported hundreds of C. 

vinaceum since 1984, when a livestock 

exclosure was built (USFS 2003, p. 62). 

At present, 40 of 86 sites located within 

the Lincoln National Forest have been 

fenced to exclude livestock or are 

considered to be inaccessible to 

livestock due to steep slopes or cliffs 

(Todsen 1976, p. 1; Service 2005, p. 

698). 

As previously discussed, exclosures 

protect Cirsium vinaceum from several 

grazing impacts, including trampling of 

plants and habitat, and herbivory of 

rosettes, flowering stalks, and seedlings. 

They have allowed C. vinaceum 

populations to recover inside and even 

expand beyond fenced areas in a few 

cases (Service 2005, p. 698). However, 

livestock exclosures around C. 

vinaceum habitats have not been 

consistently maintained. Due to 

unmaintained fences, some exclosures 

are available for the gathering or 

relocation of cattle (USFS 2003, p. 53; 

2007, p. 20; Barlow-Irick 2008, p. 1). 

Two of the larger fenced areas 

containing C. vinaceum habitats have 

been and continue to be used as grazing 

exclosures during the grazing season, 

and then used to gather cattle at 

season’s end (USFS 2003, p. 53; Service 

2010, p. 1). Such practices have had 

adverse impacts on C. vinaceum plants 

and sites by way of increased grazing 

and presence of livestock which destroy 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30763 

seedlings, fragile travertine habitat, and 

the flowering stalks of plants, thereby 

preventing reproduction by affected 

plants (Service 2010). 

In summary, although many sites 

have been protected, up to 50 percent of 

sites are still subject to grazing 

pressures, and those that are fenced may 

be impacted into the future as fences fall 

into disrepair or are vandalized (Service 

2010, p. 1). Furthermore, if Cirsium 

vinaceum were to be delisted, there is 

little likelihood that maintenance and 

construction of exclosures would 

continue in the future. Therefore, 

livestock trampling is a significant, 

ongoing threat to C. vinaceum that is 

expected to continue in the foreseeable 

future. 

Recreation 

Cirsium vinaceum at Bluff Springs are 

impacted by trampling due to human 

recreation. The Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Lincoln 

National Forest (2004, p. 628) prescribes 

managing Bluff Springs for dispersed 

recreation, while providing for C. 

vinaceum management. Cirsium 

vinaceum stands in this area have been 

fenced and foot trails rerouted since 

1983 to protect this population (USFS 

2003, p. 46). Soon after construction of 

the fence, C. vinaceum increased at this 

location, but since 1995, the number of 

individuals has fluctuated, with an 

overall downward trend. In 2005, the 

number of flowering stems was 486, less 

than one-third of the 1,600 plant total in 

1995. Recreational users at Bluff Springs 

continue to impact C. vinaceum 

annually as users trespass into the 

fenced area and vandalize plants and 

trample habitat (Barlow-Irick 2008, p. 

1). Impacts from recreational users 

continue to be a threat to C. vinaceum 

at Bluff Springs, but are not known to 

be impacting other populations. Thus, 

recreation is not considered a threat to 

the species rangewide now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Logging 

Cirsium vinaceum sites have been 

subjected to direct and indirect impacts 

from land uses that damage travertine 

substrates and their hydrological 

characteristics. Some of the roads and 

trails that support regional access for 

timber harvest and management, 

ranching operations, recreation, and 

residential developments occur in, or 

adjacent to, C. vinaceum habitats. Prior 

to, and at the time of listing, there was 

concern that ground disturbance from 

road construction and logging could 

potentially impact C. vinaceum habitats 

if project planning for logging 

operations did not consider avoiding or 

reducing impacts to the species 

(Fletcher 1979, p. 3; 52 FR 22933; June 

16, 1987). Indirect effects from logging, 

such as road construction, siltation, 

alteration of hydrologic flows, increased 

surface water runoff, decreased 

infiltration, and higher sediment loads 

in streams, are additional potential 

impacts to C. vinaceum habitat that can 

result from forestry activities (Service 

1993, p. 28). At present, our information 

indicates that the USFS applies a 

minimum 200 ft (61-m) protective buffer 

around C. vinaceum occurrences during 

forest management activities and 

excludes all equipment from wetland 

areas with C. vinaceum habitat (Service 

2002, p. 3; Service 2004, pp. 4–13). 

These buffers are in accordance with the 

guidelines of the Lincoln National 

Forest’s Interim Management Plan 

(USFS 1989, p. 4). This active 

management by the USFS has mitigated 

effects of ground disturbance on USFS 

lands, where 95 percent of the species 

is located. We do not consider ground 

disturbance from logging or its 

associated direct and indirect effects to 

be a current threat to C. vinaceum. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) states that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal based on observations of 

increases in global average air and ocean 

temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average 

sea level (2007a, p. 5). For the next two 

decades, a warming of about 0.4 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (0.2 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

per decade is projected (IPCC 2007a, p. 

12). Temperature projections for the 

following years increasingly depend on 

specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007a, 

p. 13). Various emissions scenarios 

suggest that average global temperatures 

are expected to increase by between 

1.1°F and 7.2°F (0.6°C and 4.0°C) by the 

end of the 21st century, with the 

greatest warming expected over land 

(IPCC 2007a, p. 13). Warming in western 

mountains is projected to cause 

decreased snowpack, more winter 

flooding, and reduced summer flows, 

exacerbating competition for overallocated water resources (IPCC 2007b, 

p. 14). The IPCC reports that it is very 

likely that hot extremes, heat waves, 

and heavy precipitation and flooding 

will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007b, 

p. 18). Because Cirsium vinaceum 

occupies a relatively small area of 

specialized habitat, it may be vulnerable 

to climatic changes that could decrease 

suitable habitat. 

We find that there are limitations in 

currently available data and climate 

models. The information available on 

climate change indicates that New 

Mexico will be impacted by the effects 

of climate change (Agency Technical 

Work Group 2005, p. 1). However, 

reliable predictive models have not yet 

been developed for use at the local scale 

in New Mexico’s Sacramento 

Mountains, and there is little certainty 

regarding the timing and magnitude of 

the resulting impacts. There is currently 

no information specific to the effects of 

climate change on Cirsium vinaceum or 

its habitat; however, based on 

projections made by the IPCC, we 

consider climate change to be a 

potential exacerbating factor, worsening 

the impacts of other known threats. 

These threats include habitat 

degradation from water loss resulting 

from prolonged periods of drought and 

increased temperature, and the 

allocation of water for use by the human 

population and livestock in the area, as 

well as any number of unforeseen 

compounding effects. In summary, we 

do not currently consider climate 

change itself to be a factor affecting C. 

vinaceum’s persistence, because the 

information available on the subject is 

insufficiently specific to the species. 

However, we consider climate change to 

be a potential exacerbating factor and 

will continue to evaluate new 

information on the subject as it becomes 

available. 

In summary for Factor A, we continue 

to consider water availability and 

trampling caused by livestock to be 

threats to Cirsium vinaceum and its 

habitat currently and in the foreseeable 

future. We find the information 

available on climate change to be 

insufficiently specific to C. vinaceum to 

indicate with certainty that it is 

affecting the species and its habitat at 

this time; however, we will continue to 

evaluate the most up-to-date 

information on the subject as it becomes 

available. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

We do not have any data suggesting 

that Cirsium vinaceum is, or may be, 

overutilized for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. Cirsium vinaceum seeds and 

seed heads have been collected for 

research projects intended to 

understand and improve the status of 

the species. The species’ current level of 

State and Federal protection requires 

permits from the Service, USFS, and the 

State of New Mexico for such research. 

At current levels of collection, we do 

not consider overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes to be a threat 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30764 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

currently or in the foreseeable future. If 

the species were delisted, permits for 

collection would continue to be 

required by the USFS and the State of 

New Mexico. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Insect Predation 

Native insect population fluctuations 

and invasions of nonnative insects may 

impact the condition, reproduction, and 

distribution of Cirsium vinaceum. 

Cirsium vinaceum is host to an 

undetermined number of native and 

nonnative insect species that prey upon 

the plant and its flower heads. Native 

insect seed predators can consume from 

17 to 98 percent of C. vinaceum’s seed 

production within a population. 

Observed seed predators include 

Paracantha gentilis, a native specialist 

Tephritid gall fly; Platyptilia 

carduidactyla, the native Pterophorid 

artichoke plume moth; Euphoria inda, a 

native generalist Scarabaeid bumble 

flower beetle; and Rhinocyllus conicus, 

an introduced Curculionid seed-head 

weevil (Sivinski 2007, pp. 2-14; Sivinski 

2008, pp. 1-11). A fifth insect predator, 

Lixus pervestitus, the native 

Curculionid stem borer weevil, was first 

detected during field surveys in 2006 

and 2007 (Sivinski 2007, pp. 8-13; 

Sivinski 2008, pp. 7-11). Thus far, L. 

pervestitus has not been found on C. 

vinaceum outside of the Silver Springs 

population, and little is known about 

this insect species in New Mexico 

(Sivinski 2008, pp. 10-11). Sivinski 

studied insect seed predation and 

herbivory of C. vinaceum in September 

of 2006, 2007, and 2008 in four 

populations: Silver Springs, Bluff 

Springs, Upper Rio Pen ̃ asco, and Scott 

Able Canyon. These insect species 

damaged flower heads or caused 

premature stem death in all years of the 

study. By September 2007, these insects 

had collectively damaged flowering 

stalks in significant proportions—up to 

98 percent within the Silver Springs 

site, 80 percent of the Bluff Springs site, 

up to 66 percent in the Upper Rio 

Pen ̃ asco site, and 90 percent of the Scott 

Able Canyon site (Sivinski 2007, p. 12). 

After predation by these insects, seed 

production was significantly reduced in 

2007, particularly as a result of L. 

pervestitus in the Silver Springs 

population. 

Lixus pervestitus is likely a recent 

immigrant to the Sacramento Mountains 

and represents a significant new threat 

to the long-term persistence of the 

species (Sivinski 2007, p. 13). Lixus 

pervestitus was responsible for killing 

thousands of Cirsium vinaceum at Silver 

Springs in September of 2006, 2007, 

2008, and 2009, before most of the 

flowers had set seed, resulting in nearly 

complete die-off of flowering stems each 

of these years (Sivinski 2008, p. 9; 

2009b, p. 1). Insect damage to the Silver 

Springs population was two-fold; 

Rhinocyllus conicus and Paracantha 

gentilis reduced seed production earlier 

in the flowering season, then L. 

pervestitus damaged flowering stems 

into early fall (Sivinski 2007, p. 13). The 

population totaled 8,727 stems in the 

summer of 2007, and by the end of 

September of the same year, 98 percent 

of these stems were prematurely dead or 

dying. The timing of L. pervestitus’ 

attack left seed maturity and production 

to only the earliest blooming flower 

heads, greatly reducing this 

population’s reproductive output for the 

season. Immature C. vinaceum rosettes 

were not significantly affected by any 

native or nonnative insects during the 

study (Sivinski 2007, p. 14). However, 

this recent addition of this invasive seed 

predator, L. pervestitus, will likely 

further decrease seed production and 

increase the threat to the persistence of 

some C. vinaceum populations. Small C. 

vinaceum sites may be more likely to be 

extirpated because of seed limitations, 

and some sites could remain 

unoccupied if adjacent sites of C. 

vinaceum are producing and dispersing 

fewer seeds. 

The recovery plan for C. vinaceum 

identified Rhinocyllus conicus as a 

potential threat to the species (Service 

1993, p. 6). Rhinocyllus conicus, 

indigenous to Eurasia, was intentionally 

introduced to North America in 1969 as 

a biological control agent for the 

noxious weed Carduus nutans (musk 

thistle). It subsequently spread to at 

least 26 States on both C. nutans and 

native thistle species, and is also 

frequently distributed by deliberate 

introduction on both private and public 

lands (Dodge 2005, p. 6). The ability of 

R. conicus to attack native thistle 

species and decrease their seed 

production has been documented 

(Dodge 2005, pp. 15-38). A preliminary 

field study of the presence and damage 

of R. conicus in the Silver Springs area 

found the weevil using 63.8 percent of 

C. vinaceum flower heads in mid-July 

2007 (Sivinski 2008, p. 9). 

The reduction of seed production due 

to seed predators could have long-term 

effects on the viability of populations. 

Although Cirsium vinaceum can 

reproduce asexually, that is, without the 

genetic contribution of another C. 

vinaceum individual, it is not known 

how long a site can persist with little or 

no seed production (Sivinski 2009a, p. 

1). Asexual reproduction can be 

advantageous in a stable environment 

because it requires less energy; however, 

with this form of reproduction, genetic 

material from only one plant is required, 

so clones are produced. Populations that 

are reduced to recruitment via only 

asexual reproduction could suffer from 

loss of genetic variation. The resulting 

clones may not be able to adapt to even 

moderate changes to their environment, 

including the arrival of new insect 

predators or diseases. Many C. 

vinaceum sites are small or occur on 

marginal habitats where they can 

disappear during extreme conditions. If 

insect predation eliminates seed 

production in larger populations, such 

as Silver Springs, the smaller patches 

that temporarily disappear may not be 

re-established. In addition, genetic 

exchange through sexual reproduction 

between sites would discontinue and 

further reduce genetic variability of the 

species. 

In summary, insect seed predation 

and herbivory of Cirsium vinaceum 

eliminated seed production in the 

majority of plants at all of the study 

sites in all 3 years of the study. This 

condition is either very likely to spread 

to other C. vinaceum sites, or is already 

occurring at other sites. For these 

reasons, we find that insect predation, 

even within sites containing large 

numbers of C. vinaceum, represents a 

significant new category of threat 

currently and in the foreseeable future. 

Livestock Grazing 

Grazing of Cirsium vinaceum by 

livestock and elk was described as 

minimal in the 1987 listing 

determination (52 FR 22933). 

Subsequent monitoring of herbivore 

impacts at several C. vinaceum sites has 

determined that this species is a forage 

plant for livestock and, although not 

preferred, appears to be part of the cattle 

diet throughout its range (USFS 2003, p. 

49). C. vinaceum rosettes that have been 

grazed by livestock early in the growing 

season have the ability to make 

compensatory growth if grazing ceases; 

however, flower stems that are 

destroyed or severely damaged by 

grazing later in the season do not 

recover, and the plant dies without 

producing seeds (USFS 2003, p. 49). 

Grazing can adversely impact growth, 

vigor, seedling establishment, and 

reproductive output, and small C. 

vinaceum sites may be more vulnerable 

and at a higher risk of extirpation than 

larger sites (USFS 2003, p. 55). 

Although Cirsium vinaceum 

populations have been documented to 

recover within a few weeks from light 

grazing on fewer than 10 percent of 

plants, grazing of the plants’ flowering 

stalk and leaves of rosettes can cause 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30765 

total loss of reproduction and can lead 

to the loss of the affected population 

(USFS 2003, p. 55). Cirsium vinaceum’s 

low tolerance for freezing and drought 

may compound the effects of livestock 

grazing. Herbivory of seedlings, 

particularly in spring, may reduce the 

density of plants and leave seedlings 

more exposed to low temperatures. 

Livestock grazing during periods of 

long-term drought may also affect C. 

vinaceum’s ability to recover 

reproductive capability. Barlow-Irick 

(2005, p. 1) surveyed 85 C. vinaceum 

monitoring sites in the late summer of 

2005, after the first wet season following 

several years of drought. The overall 

number of flowering C. vinaceum was 

still decreasing, but five sites exhibited 

increased numbers of flowering 

individuals. These five sites were 

excluded from livestock. Furthermore, 

long-term monitoring trends show 

correlations between C. vinaceum, 

herbivores, and water availability. 

Cirsium vinaceum populations with 

above-average numbers of reproductive 

individuals are associated with sites 

that exhibit consistently greater levels of 

water flow and lower levels of livestock 

grazing, compared to sites with lower 

average water flows and increased levels 

of grazing (Barlow-Irick 2007, p. 1). 

Livestock grazing in USFS allotments 

containing Cirsium vinaceum habitats is 

permitted from May to October, and 

herbivory on C. vinaceum occurs in all 

of these months (USFS 2007, p. 20). 

During a 1992 study of livestock grazing 

on C. vinaceum, use peaked in June, 

with 76 percent of accessible rosettes 

grazed, and again in September and 

October, with over 90 percent of 

accessible rosettes grazed (USFS 2003, 

p. 48). Although C. vinaceum may be 

able to persist under this grazing regime, 

there are recognized adverse effects to 

the species (USFS 2003, pp. 54—57). 

Adverse effects include significant 

differences between rosette size and leaf 

length between grazed and ungrazed 

occurrences, with the smaller 

measurements for both found in 

occurrences grazed by livestock. A 

reduction of plant tissue and size can 

adversely impact growth, vigor, 

reproductive potential, and the ability of 

the plants to compete with invasive 

weeds. C. vinaceum has also been 

observed to only make one attempt per 

rosette at producing a flowering stalk. If 

that stalk is lost to herbivory, 

reproductive potential for that plant is 

lost (USFS 2003, pp. 54—57). 

Grazing practices in the Sacramento 

Allotment are sufficiently significant to 

influence the general status of Cirsium 

vinaceum because this allotment 

contains the majority of C. vinaceum 

sites and individuals. In 2001, the 

Sacramento Grazing Allotment 

contained 74 of 86 occupied C. 

vinaceum sites found on the Lincoln 

National Forest. This represented a total 

of 96 percent of all C. vinaceum in 2001 

(USFS 2003a, p. 53). Thirty-eight of 

these 74 sites are either fenced to 

exclude livestock or are considered to 

be inaccessible to livestock (USFS 2003, 

p. 53). As of 2007, 68 of the 75 occupied 

sites were within the Sacramento 

Grazing Allotment, with approximately 

62 percent of the total number of C. 

vinaceum stems for the species (BarlowIrick 2007, p. 1). In March 2007, the 

USFS proposed to extend the grazing 

rotation to allow cattle to be present 

throughout the entire summer growing 

season (May to October) on portions of 

the allotment containing C. vinaceum. 

The previous arrangement placed 

livestock in one pasture from May to 

August, and then deferred the same 

livestock to another pasture from 

August to October, thus reducing C. 

vinaceum’s exposure to livestock 

approximately one-half of the time. 

Season-long presence of livestock 

within both pastures would increase 

livestock impacts to C. vinaceum during 

times when the species could benefit 

from grazing deferral. The extended 

presence of livestock may adversely 

affect seedlings and their rate of 

successful establishment and 

recruitment into the population (USFS 

2007, p. 20). Moreover, broken or 

consumed flowering stems render 

affected C. vinaceum incapable of 

reproduction (USFS 2003, p. 55). As 

described under Factor A, longer 

exposure to livestock also increases the 

chances of damage to travertine 

substrates, water flow channels, and 

wetlands upon which C. vinaceum 

depends (USFS 2007, p. 20). As of 

publication date, this proposal is under 

consultation with the Service. 

Established thresholds for forage of 

Cirsium vinaceum have been exceeded 

on USFS lands many times, especially 

during drought years when livestock 

congregate in wetland C. vinaceum 

habitats or where forage production is 

greater than in dry uplands (USFS 2003, 

pp. 59-67). Very dry conditions early in 

the summer of 1996 led to an emergency 

consultation with the Service that 

resulted in use of temporary electric 

fencing to minimize impacts to C. 

vinaceum (USFS 2003, p. 63). At other 

times, the USFS has allowed grazing 

permittees 30 days or more to remove 

their livestock after use thresholds had 

been reached or exceeded (USFS 2003, 

pp. 59-60). Exceeding threshold levels 

can have adverse effects to C. vinaceum 

plants and sites, as increased grazing 

pressure further destroys the flowering 

stalks of plants and thereby prevents 

successful reproduction by affected 

plants. 

In summary, although many Cirsium 

vinaceum sites have been protected, up 

to 50 percent of sites are still subject to 

livestock herbivory, and those that are 

fenced may be impacted into the future 

as fences fall into disrepair or are 

vandalized (Service 2010, p. 1). 

Furthermore, if C. vinaceum were to be 

delisted, past history indicates there is 

little reason to expect that adequate 

maintenance and construction of 

exclosures would continue in the future. 

Therefore, livestock herbivory is a 

significant, ongoing threat to C. 

vinaceum that will continue in the 

foreseeable future. 

Disease 

Barlow-Irick (2007, p. 1; 2008, p. 1) 

recently reported that the large 

population of Cirsium vinaceum in 

Firman Canyon and isolated individuals 

in other populations appeared to have 

unspecified symptoms of disease during 

2007. This potential disease was not 

identified, nor had any positively 

identified disease been reported in any 

C. vinaceum population. No specific 

assessment of potential disease threats 

has been conducted. We do not 

currently consider disease to be a threat 

to C. vinaceum; however, we intend to 

continue monitoring populations for 

impact due to this factor. 

In summary for Factor C, we consider 

predation by insects and livestock to be 

threats to Cirsium vinaceum currently 

and in the foreseeable future. We do not 

currently consider disease to be a threat 

to the species; however, we need to 

continue monitoring for impacts due to 

this factor. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Cirsium vinaceum is currently listed 

as threatened under the Act. The Act 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 17.71 and 17.72 establish a series 

of general prohibitions and exceptions 

that apply to all threatened plants. All 

trade prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of 

the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.71, 

apply. These prohibitions, in part, make 

it illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

import or export, to transport in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity, or to 

sell or offer for sale this species in 

interstate or foreign commerce, or to 

remove and reduce to possession the 

species from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction. In addition, for plants 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30766 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

listed as endangered, the Act prohibits 

malicious damage or destruction on 

areas under Federal jurisdiction and 

further prohibits the removal, cutting, 

digging up, or damaging or destroying of 

such plants in knowing violation of any 

State law or regulation, including State 

criminal trespass laws. Section 4(d) 

allows for the provision of such 

protection to threatened species through 

regulation. This protection does not 

currently apply to C. vinaceum. 

As with all federally listed plants, 

Federal land management actions and 

other project proposals that use Federal 

funding or require a Federal permit that 

may affect C. vinaceum must be 

evaluated by the Federal action agency 

in consultation with the Service under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Through 

consultation, the Federal action agency 

ensures that an action will not likely 

jeopardize C. vinaceum or destroy or 

adversely modify critical its designated 

critical habitat. If the proposed project 

is likely to jeopardize the species, the 

Service will provide the Federal action 

agency reasonable and prudent 

alternatives for implementing the 

action. Regardless of the outcome of this 

determination, the Service will also 

provide discretionary conservation 

recommendations that would eliminate 

the impacts to C. vinaceum or its 

habitat. Adoption of these measures 

may also contribute to a Federal action 

agency’s requirements under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize their 

authorites to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. These 

procedures would not be required if C. 

vinaceum were delisted, and significant 

reductions in recovery effort and 

protection would likely result. As a 

delisted species, C. vinaceum would 

continue to be protected by the Lacey 

Act (83 Stat. 279–281, 18 U.S.C. 42–44 

et seq; as amended), which prohibits 

trade in wildlife and plants that have 

been illegally taken, possessed, 

transported, or sold. However, the Lacey 

Act does not afford protection of habitat, 

and were it delisted, C. vinaceum would 

lose its current level of habitat 

protection. 

The State of New Mexico lists Cirsium 

vinaceum as endangered under the New 

Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act, 

9-10-10 New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

(NMSA). This law prohibits the taking, 

possession, transportation, exportation, 

selling, or offering for sale any listed 

plant species. Under this act, listed 

species can only be collected under 

permit from the State of New Mexico for 

scientific studies and impact mitigation; 

however, this law does not provide 

protection for C. vinaceum habitat. 

If Cirsium vinaceum were delisted, it 

would continue to be designated a USFS 

sensitive species, as described in USFS 

Manual 2670 (USFS 2008). The USFS 

Manual 2672.1 provides the following 

direction for the management of 

sensitive species: ‘‘Sensitive species of 

native plant and animal species must 

receive special management emphasis to 

ensure their viability and to preclude 

trends toward endangerment that would 

result in the need for Federal listing.’’ 

USFS biologists review all USFS 

planned, funded, executed, or permitted 

programs and activities for possible 

effects on endangered, threatened, 

proposed, or sensitive species. 

It is prohibited to remove from USFS 

lands any plant that is classified as a 

threatened, endangered, sensitive, rare, 

or unique species (36 CFR Part 

261.9(d)). Therefore, Cirsium vinaceum 

is protected from ‘‘taking’’ in the 

National Forest by these Federal 

regulations (Service 1987, p. 22935). 

Exceptions to these prohibitions are 

available through permits (36 CFR Part 

261.1a). If C. vinaceum were delisted, 

permits for its collection for scientific or 

conservation purposes on USFS lands 

would continue to be required. These 

permits provide additional oversight 

and limit impacts from potential overcollection. 

If delisted, Cirsium vinaceum would 

be monitored for at least 5 years to 

ensure that the species would not be at 

risk of extinction during that time. A 

post-delisting monitoring plan would 

likely include thresholds indicating 

when a status review would be 

warranted. If delisted, C. vinaceum 

could also benefit from regulatory 

protection as a USFS sensitive species, 

but there would likely be less impetus 

to implement and maintain protective 

measures for a sensitive species than for 

a Federally listed species. Under its 

current status, the species is impacted 

by livestock trampling and herbivory, 

and impacts resulting from 

noncompliance on USFS lands. These 

activities have affected the species’ 

reproductive success and overall 

viability. Therefore, we conclude that 

regulatory mechanisms are not adequate 

to support removing the protections of 

the Act. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Hybridization 

The range of another native thistle 

species, Cirsium parryi (Parry’s thistle), 

overlaps with that of Cirsium vinaceum, 

and it is capable of crossbreeding with 

C. vinaceum to produce hybrid offspring 

(Sivinski 2006, p. 7). Cirsium parryi is 

relatively common through much of the 

Sacramento Mountains and has been 

found to occasionally hybridize with C. 

vinaceum at a few locations (BarlowIrick 2007, p. 1). Cirsium wrightii 

(Wright’s marsh thistle) is another 

wetland thistle that overlaps with C. 

vinaceum at Silver Springs; hybrid 

offspring are uncommon (Sivinski 2006, 

p. 7). Huenneke (1996, pp. 148-149) 

hypothesized that hybridization 

between C. vinaceum and C. parryi was 

a potential threat to C. vinaceum. It has 

been hypothesized that Cirsium species 

of remarkably different morphologies 

are able to hybridize, but only the 

presence of a complex collection of 

hybrids, produced when there is a 

breakdown of isolating barriers between 

two species with overlapping 

distributions, would indicate 

hybridization had reached the level of a 

threat (Kiel 2006, p. 1). During the 2007 

surveys, hybrids between C. vinaceum 

and C. parryi were found at many sites 

(Barlow-Irick 2007, p. 1). Above-average 

precipitation in 2007 may have favored 

the germination and survival of these 

hybrids. It is unknown if the hybrid 

plants are viable and if incorporation of 

genes through repeated crossing from C. 

parryi into the C. vinaceum population 

is possible (Barlow-Irick 2007, p. 1). 

Neither the viability of these hybrid 

offspring, nor their ability to hybridize 

with the parent species, has been 

studied. Therefore, it is not known at 

this time whether hybridization with 

other Cirsium species could become a 

threat in the foreseeable future; 

however, it does not appear to be a 

threat at present. The potential for 

hybridization to become a threat to C. 

vinaceum in the future needs to 

continue to be monitored and evaluated. 

Herbicide Use 

In 2000, a biological assessment for 

noxious weed management prepared by 

the USFS proposed to use only selective 

spot application of herbicides, handpulling, or use of various hand tools to 

experimentally treat noxious weeds 

within some selected Cirsium vinaceum 

sites (Sivinski 2006, p. 21). Herbicides 

are not considered a threat to C. 

vinaceum sites on USFS lands; 

however, if herbicides are applied to C. 

vinaceum on private land, the site could 

be impacted. For example, in June 2007, 

on Federal Highway 82 in Otero County, 

many C. vinaceum rosettes on private 

land were injured or killed by 

misapplication of herbicide during a 

road maintenance project conducted by 

the State of New Mexico Department of 

Transportation (Tonne 2007, p. 1). 

Similarly, maintenance of the Federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30767 

Highway 82 right-of-way by a State 

highway crew also reportedly impacted 

C. vinaceum plants and habitat on nonUSFS lands between Cloudcroft and 

High Rolls prior to 2007 (USFS 2003, p. 

22). Potential solutions for such 

accidental misapplication of herbicide 

to C. vinaceum plants are under 

development among staff of the New 

Mexico Department of Transportation 

and Department of Forestry, New 

Mexico Natural Heritage Program, 

USFS, and the Service (Tonne 2007, p. 

1). Effects from herbicide use continue 

to impact C. vinaceum along highways 

and on non-Federal land, but are not 

known to be impacting most sites. Thus, 

herbicides are not considered a threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Exotic Weeds 

Exotic plant species associated with 

Cirsium vinaceum habitats include 

Dipsacus fullonum (teasel), Carduus 

nutans (musk thistle), Conium 

maculatum (poison hemlock), Cirsium 

arvense (Canada thistle), Cirsium 

vulgare (bull thistle), Daucus carota 

(Queen Anne’s lace), Taraxicum 

officinale (dandelion), Nasturtium 

officinale (watercress), Tragopogon 

pratensis (salsify), and Verbascum 

thapsus (mullein) (Huenneke 1996, pp. 

146-147; Sivinski 2006, pp. 9-10). Of 

these, the exotic species that may have 

the capacity to compete with the C. 

vinaceum for light and possibly for 

water under drier conditions include D. 

fullonum, C. nutans, C. vulgare, and C. 

maculatum (Huenneke and Thomson 

1995, p. 423; Huenneke 1996, pp. 146- 

147). The presence of these four 

invasive plant species in and near C. 

vinaceum habitat has been observed and 

monitored for many years. Of these, 

only C. maculatum is an obligate 

wetland species; however, it does not 

appear to compete well with C. 

vinaceum (Barlow-Irick 2005, p. 1). The 

three other weed species require some 

soil moisture, but cannot tolerate the 

continuously saturated substrates that 

are typical in C. vinaceum patches on 

spring habitats. These weeds can grow 

side by side with C. vinaceum in drier 

habitat margins and in sediment 

deposited by flowing water, where C. 

vinaceum is subirrigated (irrigated from 

beneath the ground surface) and the root 

systems of these weeds occupy the drier 

surface soils near the surface (Sivinski 

2006, p. 15). As of September 2007, C. 

nutans was infesting much of the 

Lincoln National Forest and continued 

to mix with C. vinaceum without 

directly impacting the survival of C. 

vinaceum through competition (Gardner 

and Thompson 2007, p. 8). 

The Sacramento Mountains presently 

lack large, aggressive, exotic wetland 

weeds, such as Lythrum salicaria 

(purple loosestrife), which could 

dominate Cirsium vinaceum habitat. 

Lythrum salicaria is a Eurasian species 

that has been modifying wetlands and 

outcompeting native species in North 

America for many decades (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2006, p. 

2). Lythrum salicaria appeared in New 

Mexico in the 1990s and is extant in the 

Mimbres Mountains of Grant County 

and Sandia Mountains of Bernalillo 

County. The Sandia Mountains 

occurrence of this invasive weed covers 

an alkaline spring seep similar to C. 

vinaceum habitats in the Sacramento 

Mountains (Sivinski 2006, p. 15). If it 

also spreads to the Sacramento 

Mountains, this aggressive wetland 

weed could impact C. vinaceum habitat. 

At the time of listing, it was thought 

that competition with exotics Dipsacus 

fullonum and Carduus nutans had 

reduced or eliminated populations of 

Cirsium vinaceum at sites where it had 

formerly grown (52 FR 22933; June 16, 

1987). These two weed species have 

invaded some C. vinaceum sites, but 

they occupy slightly drier habitat (USFS 

2004, p. 625). Dipsacus fullonum and C. 

nutans occurrences are being monitored 

on USFS lands. At this time, we have no 

information suggesting that competition 

among C. vinaceum and these exotic 

plants is a significant threat. Similarly, 

we have no information establishing 

Conium maculatum, Cirsium arvense, or 

Cirsium vulgare as immediate threats to 

C. vinaceum. However, C. nutans may 

be serving as a vector for Rhinocyllus 

conicus, the exotic seed head weevil, 

discussed under Factor C (Sivinski 

2006a, pp. 6, 13; Gardner and 

Thompson 2008, p. 1). Future 

interactions among C. nutans, R. 

conicus, and C. vinaceum are unclear at 

this time. Based on possible interactions 

with water availability, climate change, 

and preference for similar growth 

conditions, these exotic weeds could 

potentially threaten C. vinaceum in the 

future; however, we do not believe they 

pose a threat at present. 

In summary for Factor E, we do not 

currently consider hybridization or 

herbicide use as threats to the species; 

however, these may become threats in 

the future. Similarly, we do not consider 

exotic weeds as a threat to the species 

now; however, they could potentially 

threaten Cirsium vinaceum in the 

foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether 

Cirsium vinaceum is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We have 

carefully examined the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by C. vinaceum. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized C. vinaceum experts and 

other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. 

In our review of the status of Cirsium 

vinaceum, we identified a number of 

potential threats to this species, 

including water diversion, trampling by 

livestock and recreationists, predation 

by livestock and insects, disease; 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, 

hybridization; herbicide use, and exotic 

weeds. To determine whether these 

factors individually or collectively put 

the species in danger of extinction 

throughout its range, or are likely to do 

so in the foreseeable future, we first 

considered whether the risk factors 

significantly affected C. vinaceum, or 

were likely to do so in the future. 

We found natural loss of water, 

trampling by livestock, predation by 

livestock and insects, and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to be significant threats to 

C. vinaceum. We found lack of ensured 

water availability, increased water 

diversion, and the spread of insect 

predators by exotic weeds may threaten 

C. vinaceum in the foreseeable future. 

We also considered the ways in which 

the effects of climate change are likely 

to exacerbate the impacts caused by the 

above factors in the foreseeable future. 

As a wetland obligate species, Cirsium 

vinaceum occurs exclusively at springs, 

seeps, and drainage areas that are often 

widely dispersed and collectively 

comprise the significant portions of C. 

vinaceum’s range. Recent declines in 

reproducing C. vinaceum numbers and 

population sites, combined with the 

lack of ensured water availability, 

harmful levels of herbivory and 

trampling from noncompliant grazing 

practices, predation by insects, and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, lead us to conclude that C. 

vinaceum should retain its current 

listing status as a threatened species. We 

have determined that Cirsium vinaceum 

is not now in danger of extinction, but 

is likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future based on the expected 

persistence of these threats, including 

increased water diversion and increased 

insect predation in the foreseeable 

future. 

Our evaluation of the five factors does 

not support the assertion that threats 

have been removed or that their 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30768 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

imminence, intensity, or magnitude has 

been reduced sufficiently to prevent 

substantial losses of population 

distribution or viability of Cirsium 

vinaceum. We find that C. vinaceum is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range and should remain 

classified as a threatened species. 

Therefore, delisting the species as 

threatened under the Act is not 

warranted at this time. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Having determined that Cirsium 

vinaceum is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, we must next 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of its range that are 

currently in danger of extinction. The 

Act defines an endangered species as 

one ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range,’’ 

and a threatened species as one ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

term ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is 

not defined by the statute. For the 

purposes of this finding, a significant 

portion of a species’ range is an area that 

is important to the conservation of the 

species because it contributes 

meaningfully to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

The contribution must be at a level such 

that its loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. 

On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion 

was issued by the Solicitor of the 

Department of the Interior, ‘‘The 

Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction 

Throughout All or a Significant Portion 

of Its Range,’’ (USDI 2007c). We have 

summarized our interpretation of that 

opinion and the underlying statutory 

language below. A portion of a species’ 

range is significant if it is part of the 

current range of the species and it 

contributes substantially to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

In determining whether a species is 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range, we first 

identify any portions of the range of the 

species that warrant further 

consideration. The range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that: (1) The portions may be 

significant, and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

species’ range that are not significant, 

such portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify portions that warrant 

further consideration, we then 

determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered in these 

portions of its range. Depending on the 

biology of the species, its range, and the 

threats it faces, the Service may address 

either the significance question or the 

status question first. Thus, if the Service 

considers significance first and 

determines that a portion of the range is 

not significant, the Service need not 

determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered there. 

Likewise, if the Service considers status 

first and determines that the species is 

not threatened or endangered in a 

portion of its range, the Service need not 

determine if that portion is significant. 

However, if the Service determines that 

both a portion of the range of a species 

is significant and the species is 

threatened or endangered there, the 

Service will specify that portion of the 

range as threatened or endangered 

under section 4(c)(1) of the Act. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ ‘‘redundancy,’’ 

and ‘‘representation’’ are intended to be 

indicators of the conservation value of 

portions of the range. Resiliency of a 

species allows the species to recover 

from periodic disturbance. A species 

will likely be more resilient if large 

populations exist in high-quality habitat 

that is distributed throughout the range 

of the species in such a way as to 

capture the environmental variability 

found within the range of the species. A 

portion of the range of a species may 

make a meaningful contribution to the 

resiliency of the species if the area is 

relatively large and contains particularly 

high-quality habitat, or if its location or 

characteristics make it less susceptible 

to certain threats than other portions of 

the range. When evaluating whether or 

how a portion of the range contributes 

to resiliency of the species, we evaluate 

the historical value of the portion and 

how frequently the portion is used by 

the species, if possible. In addition, the 

portion may contribute to resiliency for 

other reasons—for instance, it may 

contain an important concentration of 

certain types of habitat that are 

necessary for the species to carry out its 

life-history functions, such as breeding, 

feeding, migration, dispersal, or 

wintering. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is 

necessarily a significant portion of the 

range of a species. The idea is to 

conserve enough areas of the range such 

that random perturbations in the system 

act on only a few populations. 

Therefore, each area must be examined 

based on whether that area provides an 

increment of redundancy that is 

important to the conservation of the 

species. 

Adequate representation ensures that 

the species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species. The loss of genetically 

based diversity may substantially 

reduce the ability of the species to 

respond and adapt to future 

environmental changes. A peripheral 

population may contribute meaningfully 

to representation if there is evidence 

that it provides genetic diversity due to 

its location on the margin of the species’ 

habitat requirements. 

Based upon factors that contribute to 

our analysis of whether a species or 

subspecies is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and in consideration of the 

status of, and threats to, C. vinaceum 

discussed previously, we find that the 

primary threats to the continued 

existence of C. vinaceum occur 

throughout all of its range. We do not 

have any data suggesting that the 

identified threats to the species are 

concentrated in any portion of the range 

such that C. vinaceum may be in danger 

of extinction in that portion. Therefore, 

it is not necessary to conduct further 

analysis with respect to the significance 

of any portion of its range. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the magnitude and imminence 

of threats indicate that Cirsium 

vinaceum is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range and should remain classified as a 

threatened species. Therefore, we find 

that delisting C. vinaceum is not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30769 

warranted throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range at this time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, Cirsium vinaceum to our New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES section) whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor C. vinaceum and 

encourage its conservation. If an 

emergency situation develops for C. 

vinaceum or any other species, we will 

act to provide immediate protection. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available upon request 

from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the New Mexico Ecological Services 

Field Office staff members (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: May 17, 2010 

Gregory E. Siekaniec, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12909 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

RIN 0648–AY49 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Listing of Nine Distinct 

Population Segments of Loggerhead 

Sea Turtles as Endangered or 

Threatened; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce; United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period; Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: NMFS and USFWS hereby 

extend the comment period on the 

proposed listing of nine distinct 

population segments of loggerhead sea 

turtles as endangered or threatened, 

which was published on March 16, 

2010, until September 13, 2010. In 

addition, NMFS and USFWS will hold 

a public hearing in Berlin, MD, on June 

16, 2010 to answer questions and 

receive public comments. 

DATES: Comments and information 

regarding this proposed rule must be 

received by September 13, 2010. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the 

specific date, time and location of the 

public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–AY49, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: NMFS National Sea Turtle 

Coordinator, Attn: Loggerhead Proposed 

Listing Rule, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13657, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or 

USFWS National Sea Turtle 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 

200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. 

• Fax: To the attention of NMFS 

National Sea Turtle Coordinator at 301– 

713–0376 or USFWS National Sea 

Turtle Coordinator at 904–731–3045. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS and USFWS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. The proposed 

rule is available electronically at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Schroeder, NMFS (ph. 301– 

713–1401, fax 301–713–0376, e-mail 

barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov), Sandy 

MacPherson, USFWS (ph. 904–731– 

3336, e-mail 

sandy_macpherson@fws.gov), Marta 

Nammack, NMFS (ph. 301–713–1401, 

fax 301–713–0376, e-mail 

marta_nammack@noaa.gov), or Emily 

Bizwell, USFWS (ph. 404–679–7149, fax 

404–679–7081, e-mail 

emily_bizwell@fws.gov). Persons who 

use a Telecommunications device for 

the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

16, 2010, NMFS and USFWS issued a 

proposed rule to list nine distinct 

population segments (DPSs) for the 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

that qualify as ‘‘species’’ for listing as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the 

Services proposed to list two as 

threatened and seven as endangered. 

NMFS and USFWS subsequently 

received several requests to extend the 

public comment period for an 

additional 60–120 days. NMFS and 

USFWS have determined that an 

extension of 90 days, until September 

13, 2010, making the full comment 

period 180 days, will allow adequate 

time for the public to thoroughly review 

and thoughtfully comment on the 

proposed rule. 

NMFS and USFWS received a request 

for a public hearing to be held in 

Maryland. In response to that request, 

the date, time and location of the public 

hearing is as follows: 

Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 6 p.m. to 

9 p.m., Berlin, MD: Worcester County 

Library Ocean Pines Branch, 11107 

Cathell Road, Berlin, MD 21811; 

Meeting Room. 

This hearing will be physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Sara McNulty, 

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–713–2322, at least five business 

days prior to the hearing date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Gary Frazer, 

Assistant Director for Endangered Species, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13190 Filed 5–27–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS