2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 10166; Centralized Library; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10166-10203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3675]

[[Page 10165]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 36

February 23, 2011

Part IV

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum
soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or
Threatened; Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10166]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Docket No. [FWS-R6-ES-2010-0087; MO 92210-0-008]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii,
Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as
Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list Astragalus hamiltonii (Hamilton
milkvetch), Penstemon flowersii (Flowers penstemon), Eriogonum soredium
(Frisco buckwheat), Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass), and
Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover) as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. After review of
all available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing A. hamiltonii and P. flowersii is not warranted at this time.
However, we ask the public to submit to us new information that becomes
available concerning the threats to A. hamiltonii and P. flowersii or
their habitat at any time. We find that listing E. soredium, L.
ostleri, and T. friscanum as threatened or endangered is warranted.
However, currently listing E. soredium, L. ostleri, and T. friscanum is
precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this
12-month petition finding, we will add E. soredium, L. ostleri, and T.
friscanum to our candidate species list. We will develop proposed rules
to list E. soredium, L. ostleri, and T. friscanum as our priorities
allow. We will make determinations on critical habitat during
development of the proposed listing rules. In the interim period, we
will address the status of the candidate taxa through our annual
Candidate Notice of Review.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on February 23,
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2010-0087. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119; by telephone
at 801-975-3330; or by facsimile at 801-975-3331mailto:. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing a species
may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of
receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will determine that the
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of
the ESA requires that we treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on
the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be
made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

On July 30, 2007, we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), requesting that the
Service: (1) Consider all full species in our Mountain Prairie Region
ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, except those that
are currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing;
and (2) list each species as either endangered or threatened. The
petition included the five plant species addressed in this finding. The
petition incorporated all analysis, references, and documentation
provided by NatureServe in its online database at http://www.natureserve.org/. The document clearly identified itself as a
petition and included the petitioners' identification information, as
required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a letter to the petitioners,
dated August 24, 2007, acknowledging receipt of the petition and
stating that, based on preliminary review, we found no compelling
evidence to support an emergency listing for any of the species covered
by the petition.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its
mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on their two
multiple species petitions--one for mountain-prairie species and one
for southwest species.
On June 18, 2008, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians,
dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list 32 species under the
Administrative Procedure Act and the ESA. Of those 32 species, 11 were
included in the July 24, 2007, petition to be listed on a nonemergency
basis. Although the ESA does not provide for a petition process for an
interested person to seek to have a species emergency listed, section
4(b)(7) of the ESA authorizes the Service to issue emergency
regulations to temporarily list a species. In a letter dated July 25,
2008, we stated that the information provided in both the 2007 and 2008
petitions and in our files did not indicate that an emergency situation
existed for any of the 11 species.
On February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), we published a 90-day finding on
165 species from the petition to list 206 species in the mountain-
prairie region of the United States as endangered or threatened under
the ESA. We found that the petition did not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing was
warranted for these species and, therefore, did not initiate further
status reviews in response to the petition. Two additional species were
reviewed in a concurrent 90-day finding and again, we found that the
petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing was warranted for these species.
Therefore we did not consider these two species further. For the
remaining 39 species, we deferred our findings until a later date. One
species of the 39 remaining species, Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch

[[Page 10167]]

mallow), was already a candidate species for listing; therefore, 38
species remained for consideration. On March 13, 2009, the Service and
WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated settlement in the District of
Columbia Court, agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal
Register a finding as to whether WildEarth Guardians' petition
presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted for 38 mountain-prairie species by August 9, 2009
(WildEarth Guardians vs. Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a notice of 90-day finding (74 FR
41649) on 38 species from the petition to list 206 species in the
mountain-prairie region of the United States as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Of the 38 species, we found that the petition
presented substantial scientific and commercial information for 29
species, indicating that listing may be warranted for those 29 species.
The 5 species we address in this 12-month finding were included in
these 29 species. We initiated a status review of the 29 species to
determine if listing was warranted. We also opened a 60-day public
comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to
provide information on the status of the 29 species. The public comment
period closed on October 19, 2009. We received 224 public comments. Of
these, two specifically addressed Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon
flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium
friscanum. All information received has been carefully considered in
this finding. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July
24, 2007, petition to list five species (A. hamiltonii, P. flowersii,
E. soredium, L. ostleri, and T. friscanum) as endangered or threatened.

Species Information--Astragalus hamiltonii

Taxonomy and Species Description
Astragalus hamiltonii is a bushy perennial plant in the bean family
(Fabaceae) that can grow up to 24 inches (in) (60 centimeters (cm))
tall (Welsh et al. 2003, p. 374). It has several sparsely leafed stems,
with three to five (sometimes seven) leaflets per leaf, each 0.8 to 1.6
in (2 to 4 cm) long and 0.2 to 0.4 in (5 to 10 millimeters (mm)) wide
(Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 6). The terminal leaflet (at the tip of the
leaf) is typically the largest leaflet (NatureServe 2009a, p. 3). In
May and June, a single A. hamiltonii plant will produce many flowering
stalks, with each stalk bearing 7 to 30 cream-colored flowers (Welsh et
al. 2003, p. 374; NatureServe 2009a, p. 3). The fruits are hanging pods
and usually mature by the end of June (NatureServe 2009a, p. 3).
Astragalus hamiltonii was first described in 1952 (Porter 1952, pp.
159-160). Although it was once considered a variety of A. lonchocarpus
(Isely 1983, p. 422), A. hamiltonii is currently accepted as a distinct
species, based on leaflet characteristics and geographic segregation
(Barneby 1989, p. 72; Welsh et al. 2003, p. 374).
Distribution and Population Status
Astragalus hamiltonii occurs generally west and southwest of
Vernal, Utah. The species is found on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
land, the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation (hereafter ``Tribal'')
lands, State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) lands, and private lands across an approximate
area 10 mile (mi) (16.1 kilometer (km)) by 20 mi (32.2 km) (Figure 1).
We do not have comprehensive survey information for A. hamiltonii.
Therefore, we do not know the full extent of the species' distribution
or if the distribution has changed over time.
The Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP) designates 11 element
occurrences for Astragalus hamiltonii (UNHP 2010a, entire). Element
occurrences are the specific locations, or sites, where plants are
documented. Distinct element occurrences are identified if there is
either 0.6 mi (1 km) of unsuitable habitat or 1.2 mi (2 km) of
unoccupied, suitable habitat separating them (NatureServe 2004, p. 14).
Astragalus hamiltonii element occurrences are based on collections
of herbarium specimens. Two of the element occurrences identified by
the UNHP were from Colorado and the southeast corner of the Uinta
Basin, but we believe these locations are likely A. lonchocarpus, based
on leaf characteristics and geographic distribution (NatureServe 2009a,
p. 1; Goodrich 2010a, entire), so they are not considered further in
this finding. Hereafter, we base our analysis on the remaining nine
element occurrences (Table 1; Goodrich 2010b, entire).
To determine the currently known distribution of Astragalus
hamiltonii, we mapped the nine UNHP element occurrences (Figure 1). The
UNHP records element occurrences using the public land survey system to
the nearest quarter-quarter of the township, range, and section (UNHP
2010a, entire). These element occurrences were the basis for our
``population areas,'' but the population areas' boundaries were
expanded to the nearest quarter-quarter of the township, range, and
section, to encompass the location data from the 2010 surveys (Table 1;
Goodrich 2010b, entire). This mapping approach resulted in some of the
newly created population areas' perimeters eventually abutting adjacent
population areas (Table 1; Figure 1). Large areas of potential habitat
remain unsurveyed, so it is possible that the species is continuous
across its range, or occurs outside of our identified population areas
(Figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 10169]]

Table 1--Astragalus hamiltonii Plants Counted in 2010 Surveys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent land ownership
Population area ---------------------------------------------------- Number of Astragalus hamiltonii plants
BLM SITLA Tribal Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................. 11 54 0 35 Not counted.
2.............................................. 76 13 1 11 4,863.
3.............................................. 44 56 0 0 544.
4.............................................. 0 0 10 90 15.
5.............................................. 0 0 89 11 60.
6.............................................. 57 5 0 38 10.
7.............................................. 0 0 52 48 345.
8.............................................. 13 62 0 25 Not counted.
9.............................................. 0 0 81 19 Not counted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 30 18 23 28 5,837.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do not have long-term population count or trend information. The
total population of Astragalus hamiltonii was estimated at 10,000 to
15,000 plants in 1995 (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 13). However, we do
not know how this estimate was derived. In 2010, the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) counted over 5,800 A. hamiltonii individuals on BLM
lands in areas west of Vernal in the vicinity of six of the element
occurrences (numbers 2 to 7) (Table 1; Goodrich 2010b, entire). These
were partial surveys that included revisits to six element occurrences.
Astragalus hamiltonii is distributed sparsely across the landscape
at low densities, but in optimum habitat A. hamiltonii can grow at
densities of one to two plants per square yard (yd\2\) (square meter
(m\2\)) (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 13). Because A. hamiltonii is
scattered across the landscape with unsurveyed, potential habitat
between known sites, we believe the known element occurrences may be
linked by contiguous habitat, and may either be one large population or
a series of populations within a metapopulation.
Habitat
Astragalus hamiltonii is a narrow endemic that grows on soils of
the Duchesne River formation (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 10; Goodrich
2010c, pp. 13, 15). Less frequently, it is found in Mowry Shale and
Dakota formations (Welsh et al. 2003, p. 374). A. hamiltonii is
typically found on benches and steep slopes at elevations of 4,900 to
6,200 feet (ft) (1,500 to 1,900 meters (m)). A. hamiltonii grows in
red, erosive, sandy clay loam soils (Heil and Melton 1995a, pp. 10, 16;
NatureServe 2009a, p. 3; Brunson 2010a, p. 1), and is associated with
low-density desert shrub and juniper communities (Goodrich et al. 1999,
p. 263; NatureServe 2009a, p. 3).
Astragalus hamiltonii grows in old road cuts and road beds,
sometimes quite robustly and producing abundant flowers and fruit
(Goodrich et al. 1999, p. 263). Therefore, we believe the species may
be able to tolerate moderate soil disturbances (Neese and Smith 1982,
p. 36; Goodrich et al. 1999, p. 263).
Life History
Astragalus hamiltonii growth, seedling establishment, and juvenile
mortality are probably correlated with rainfall (Heil and Melton 1995a,
p. 14). We do not know the reproductive system for this species, but it
is assumed to reproduce mainly by outcrossing (cross-fertilization)
(Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 14). Plants that are obligate outcrossers
are self-incompatible, meaning they cannot fertilize themselves and,
therefore, rely on other individuals of differing genetic make-up to
reproduce (Stebbins 1970, p. 310).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors--Astragalus
hamiltonii

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, 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.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to Astragalus hamiltonii for the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined
in the ESA. However, the identification of factors that could impact a
species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the
species warrants listing. The information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats that act
on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of
endangered or threatened under the ESA.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The following factors may affect the habitat or range of Astragalus
hamiltonii: (1) Conversion to agricultural use, (2) livestock grazing,
(3) recreational activities, (4) oil and gas exploration and
development, (5) nonnative invasive species, and (6) tar sands
extraction.
(1) Conversion to Agricultural Use
Astragalus hamiltonii grows on private and Tribal lands that can be
used for agriculture. Agricultural land conversion is a change in land
use to an agricultural use, including crops and pastures. The
conversion to agricultural use results in the loss and fragmentation

[[Page 10170]]

of native plant habitats, including habitats of A. hamiltonii.
Conversion of natural lands to agriculture historically impacted
populations of Astragalus hamiltonii (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 16),
particularly in the four population areas where land ownership is
private or Tribal. However, most of this development was limited to
lower-lying areas outside of A. hamiltonii habitat (National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2009, entire). It is likely that
most of the suitable land in Uintah County, where irrigation water was
available, was converted to agricultural use by 1970 (Hilton 2010, p.
1). Major changes in the amount of agricultural land in Uintah County
are not expected in the future (Hilton 2010, p. 2). Although historical
conversion to agricultural use may have negatively impacted A.
hamiltonii, we have no evidence to indicate that this factor is a
threat to this species now or for the foreseeable future.
(2) Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing may result in the direct loss or damage to plants
and their habitat through trampling, soil compaction, increased
erosion, invasion of noxious weeds, and disturbance to pollinators
(Kauffman et al. 1983, p. 684; Fleischner 1994, entire; Kearns et al.
1998, p. 90; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257). All BLM lands where Astragalus
hamiltonii is documented are within grazing allotments, including
portions of population areas 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 (see Table 1). In 2010,
of all A. hamiltonii counted, 5,417 individuals (93 percent) occur in
existing grazing allotments. We have no information on the extent of
grazing on private or Tribal lands.
We do not have any information concerning how grazing may affect
this species. However, cattle tend to spend more time on gentle slopes
(Van Buren 1982 in Fleischner 1994, p. 637). Astragalus hamiltonii
grows on steep, erosive hillsides, and we believe this habitat
preference offers some protection from livestock grazing and trampling.
In addition, the grazing allotments that overlap A. hamiltonii sites on
BLM land are fall and winter allotments (BLM 2008a, Appendix J); thus,
A. hamiltonii is not actively growing or palatable when livestock are
grazing these areas.
In summary, the species occurs in areas that are subject to
livestock grazing. However, the fall-winter season of grazing greatly
reduces the chance that the plants are eaten by livestock. Astragalus
hamiltonii typically grows on steep slopes and can occur on disturbed
soils, which minimizes negative effects from livestock trampling within
A. hamiltonii habitat. Therefore, we do not believe that livestock
grazing is a threat to A. hamiltonii now or for the foreseeable future.
(3) Recreational Activities
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) and recreational trail use (e.g.,
mountain bikes and motorized bikes) may result in direct loss or damage
to plants and their habitat through soil compaction, increased erosion,
invasion of noxious weeds, and disturbance to pollinators and their
habitat (Eckert et al. 1979, entire; Lovich and Bainbridge 1999, p.
316; Ouren et al. 2007, entire; BLM 2008a, pp. 4-94; Wilson et al.
2009, p. 1).
The OHV and recreational trail use occurs across the landscape
where Astragalus hamiltonii grows. The OHV use is largely limited to
existing roads and trails on BLM lands, which account for approximately
a third of A. hamiltonii's known range (Table 1) (BLM 2008b, p. 46).
There are no OHV restrictions on private or Tribal lands, but the
species' association with steep, erosive hillsides likely minimizes OHV
use in the species' habitat.
Unauthorized off-road use occurs in Astragalus hamiltonii habitat
in population area 2 (Brunson 2010a, p. 3). However, we observed plants
growing directly next to these recreational trails (Brunson 2010a, p.
3). As previously described, A. hamiltonii grows along road cuts and
other disturbed areas, suggesting it can persist with some level of
disturbance. We do not believe that the observed unauthorized off-road
use is negatively impacting A. hamiltonii.
In summary, the species' habitat preference for steep slopes, its
ability to grow in disturbed soils, and off-road restrictions on BLM
lands minimize the impacts of recreational use to Astragalus
hamiltonii. Thus, we do not believe that recreational activities are a
threat to A. hamiltonii now or for the foreseeable future.
(4) Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
The effects of oil and gas exploration and development include
increased vehicle traffic and removal of soil and vegetation when
wells, roads, and associated infrastructure are built (BLM 2008c, pp.
448-449). These disturbances can affect rare plant species through
habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, soil disturbance, spread of
invasive weeds, and production of fugitive dust (particulate matter
suspended in the air by wind and human activities) (BLM 2008c, pp. 448-
449).
Energy exploration and development occurs across Astragalus
hamiltonii's known range, but only in localized areas with small
numbers of wells (Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM) 2010,
p. 1). Only one well is producing in A. hamiltonii habitat, and another
well is currently being drilled. Seventeen wells were plugged and
abandoned, most prior to 1976 (Gordon 2010a, pers. comm.; UDOGM 2010,
p. 1). Plugged and abandoned wells are no longer in use and are usually
recontoured and revegetated to match the surrounding landscape (Gordon
2010b, pers. comm.). Plugged and abandoned wells also do not receive
regular truck traffic like producing wells, so fugitive dust is less of
an issue (Gordon 2010b, pers. comm.). Occasionally, plugged and
abandoned wells may be reopened, disturbing areas that were previously
reclaimed. If all the plugged and abandoned wells in A. hamiltonii
habitat were reopened, this is still a small number of wells throughout
the species' range.
Large portions of population areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (Table 1)
are overlapped by oil and gas leases on state, Tribal, and BLM land.
Two BLM oil and gas leases in population area 2 overlap more than 4,000
known Astragalus hamiltonii individuals (UDOGM, 2010, p. 2). However,
no oil or gas is being produced under these leases (UDOGM 2010, p. 2).
The lack of oil and gas development in Astragalus hamiltonii
habitat is most likely because there is not enough of those products
currently obtainable to be economically feasible using current
extraction technology (Doyle 2010, pers. comm.; Sparger 2010, pers.
comm.) rendering dense energy developments unlikely in this area for
the next 20 years (BLM 2008c, p. 486). Although some oil and gas
development may occur in A. hamiltonii habitat, we would not expect it
at densities that would significantly impact the species. Furthermore,
A. hamiltonii is adapted to at least some disturbance and may be
afforded additional protection by its tendency to grow on steep slopes
that may be unsuitable for energy development. Therefore, oil and gas
development is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future at densities
that would significantly impact the species.
In summary, there is little oil and gas development within
Astragalus hamiltonii habitat. Based on current technologies and low
economic feasibility, we do not anticipate substantial development in
the foreseeable future that would meaningfully impact the species.
Therefore, we do not believe that oil and

[[Page 10171]]

gas exploration and development is a threat to A. hamiltonii now or in
the foreseeable future.
(5) Nonnative Invasive Species
The spread of nonnative invasive species is considered the second
largest threat to imperiled plants in the United States (Wilcove et al.
1998, p. 608). Invasive plants--specifically exotic annuals--negatively
affect native vegetation, including rare plants. One of the most
substantial effects is the change in vegetation fuel properties that,
in turn, alter fire frequency, intensity, extent, type, and seasonality
(Menakis et al. 2003, pp. 282-283; Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; McKenzie
et al. 2004, p. 898). Shortened fire return intervals make it difficult
for native plants to reestablish or compete with invasive plants
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73).
Invasive plants can exclude native plants and alter pollinator
behaviors (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75; DiTomaso 2000, p.
257; Mooney and Cleland 2001, p. 5449; Levine et al. 2003, p. 776;
Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. 211-213). For example, Bromus
tectorum outcompetes native species for soil nutrients and water
(Melgoza et al. 1990, pp. 9-10; Aguirre and Johnson 1991, pp. 352-353).
Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) is a particularly problematic
nonnative invasive annual grass in the Intermountain West. If already
present in the vegetative community, B. tectorum increases in abundance
after a wildfire, increasing the chance for more frequent fires
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75). In addition, B. tectorum
invades areas in response to surface disturbances (Hobbs 1989, pp. 389,
393, 395, 398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 381-383; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, pp.
324-325, 329, 330; Evans et al. 2001, p. 1308). B. tectorum is likely
to increase due to climate change (see Factor E) because invasive
annuals increase biomass and seed production at elevated levels of
carbon dioxide (Mayeux et al. 1994, p. 98; Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80-
81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1328).
Bromus tectorum occurs in Astragalus hamiltonii habitat (Brunson
2010a, p. 1). However, B. tectorum and other invasive species are
uncommon in many of the erosive red soils that A. hamiltonii prefers
(Brunson 2010a, p. 1; Goodrich 2010c, p. 59). We do not anticipate a
high degree of surface disturbances in A. hamiltonii habitats in the
foreseeable future from other factors, such as livestock grazing or oil
and gas development (Factor A).
In summary, we know that invasive species can impact plant
communities by increasing fire frequencies, outcompeting native
species, and altering pollinator behaviors. These factors could be
exacerbated by climate change patterns. However, invasive species do
not occur in high densities in Astragalus hamiltonii habitat. Based on
this fact and the limited amount of surface-disturbing activities
within the species' habitat, we do not anticipate that nonnative
invasive species densities will increase significantly, even with
climate change. Therefore, we do not believe nonnative invasive
species, or associated fires, are a threat to A. hamiltonii now or for
the foreseeable future.
(6) Tar Sands Extraction
The Duchesne River Formation, where most known Astragalus
hamiltonii individuals occur, would be one of the formations targeted
by tar sands extraction (BLM 2008d, p. 9). Tar sands extraction
disturbs the soil surface and removes existing vegetation (BLM 2008d,
p. 27). Impacts are similar to those described above in the Oil and Gas
Exploration and Development section. Tar sands mining could result in
the loss of A. hamiltonii individuals and their habitats.
Tar sands leases are proposed for sale on BLM and State Lands along
Asphalt Ridge southwest of Vernal, Utah (UDOGM 2010, p. 3). These lease
parcels do not overlap known Astragalus hamiltonii sites, but they
overlap with unsurveyed potential habitat within portions of population
area 1.
Tar sands leases are still in the proposal phase and there are
currently no commercial tar sands operations on public lands in Utah
(BLM 2008d, p. 4). High production costs and environmental issues are
barriers to tar sands development in the United States (Bartis et al.
2005, pp. 15, 53; Engemann and Owyang 2010, entire). Tar sands
extraction may be feasible if the cost of crude oil becomes high enough
in the future, but these high price projections are not expected to be
realized until at least 2030 (Engemann and Owyang 2010, p. 2), and even
then the environmental issues will need to be resolved.
In summary, tar sands leases do not overlap a majority of
Astragalus hamiltonii habitat. Large-scale, commercially viable
development is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Therefore,
tar sands development is not considered a threat to A. hamiltonii now
or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the best available information, we have concluded that
conversion to agricultural use, livestock grazing, recreational
activities, nonnative invasive species, oil and gas exploration and
development, or tar sands extraction do not threaten Astragalus
hamiltonii now or in the foreseeable future. Conversion to agricultural
use probably resulted in historical loss of some A. hamiltonii habitat,
but we do not anticipate ongoing conversions to agricultural use in the
future. In addition, most agricultural use occurs in low-lying areas
outside of the species' distribution. A. hamiltonii is protected from
livestock grazing due to its habitat preference for steep hillsides and
the fall-winter grazing season of the associated allotments.
Recreational use is not a threat to A. hamiltonii because BLM restricts
off-trail use. Where off-trail use occurs on private, State, and Tribal
lands, the adaptation of A. hamiltonii to steep slopes and disturbed
soils allows it to persist with moderate habitat disturbance. A.
hamiltonii soils do not appear to support invasive plant species at
densities needed to sustain wildfires. We also do not anticipate
increased surface disturbances that could encourage the establishment
of invasive species in A. hamiltonii habitat. Although energy
development leases overlap A. hamiltonii habitat, it is unlikely that
current technologies and economic conditions will support oil and gas
or tar sands development in this area in the foreseeable future. Thus,
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the habitat or range is not a threat to A. hamiltonii now or in the
foreseeable future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Astragalus hamiltonii is not a plant of horticultural interest. We
are not aware of any instances where A. hamiltonii was collected from
the wild other than as voucher specimens to document occurrences (UNHP
2010a, entire). Therefore, we do not consider overutilization a threat
to the species now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

We do not have any information indicating that disease impacts
Astragalus hamiltonii. We also do not have information on the effects
of herbivory (eating) by livestock (see the Livestock Grazing section
above), wildlife, or insects. However, we do not

[[Page 10172]]

believe herbivory from livestock is a concern due to the steepness of
the terrain on which the plant is located and the time of year grazing
occurs in A. hamiltonii habitat (see Factor A, Livestock Grazing).
Based on the best available information, we do not believe A.
hamiltonii is threatened by disease or predation now or for the
foreseeable future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no laws protecting plants on private, State, or Tribal
lands in Utah. A third of Astragalus hamiltonii individuals are found
on BLM land. A. hamiltonii is listed as a bureau sensitive plant for
the BLM. Limited policy-level protection by the BLM is afforded through
the Special Status Species Management Policy Manual 6840
which forms the basis for special status species management on BLM
lands (BLM 2008e, entire).
Despite the lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect Astragalus
hamiltonii, we found that there are no threats to the species (Factors
A, B, C, and E) that require regulatory mechanisms to protect the
species. Therefore, we do not consider the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms a threat to this species now or for the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Natural and manmade factors affecting Astragalus hamiltonii
include: (1) Small population size and (2) climate change and drought.
(1) Small Population Size
We lack information on the population genetics of Astragalus
hamiltonii, and as a probable outcrosser, this species could
potentially be subject to the negative effects of small population
size. As previously described (see Life History, above), plants that
are obligate outcrossers cannot fertilize themselves and rely on other
individual plants of differing genetic make-up to reproduce (Stebbins,
1970, p. 310). Therefore, the fewer plants that are located at a site
(i.e., small population size), the less chance exists for sufficient
cross-fertilization.
Small populations and species with limited distributions are
vulnerable to relatively minor environmental disturbances (Given 1994,
pp. 66-67). Small populations also are at an increased risk of
extinction due to the potential for inbreeding depression, loss of
genetic diversity, and lower sexual reproduction rates (Ellstrand and
Elam 1993, entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 275). Lower genetic
diversity may, in turn, lead to even smaller populations by decreasing
the species' ability to adapt, thereby increasing the probability of
population extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 360).
We do not believe small population size is a concern for Astragalus
hamiltonii. A. hamiltonii grows robustly and in high densities with
many flowers and fruits (Goodrich 2010b, entire; Goodrich 2010c, p.
26). Although the species exists in a relatively small area (known
distribution is 200 square miles (mi\2\) (518 square kilometers
(km\2\)), it occurs across its range in a scattered--and potentially
continuous--distribution. There are also large areas of suitable
habitat that remain unsurveyed, so the species may be more widely
distributed.
Astragalus hamiltonii's scattered distribution may contribute to
its overall viability and potential resilience (Goodrich 2010b, p. 89).
For example, small-scale stochastic events, such as the erosion of a
hillside during a flood event, would probably destroy only a small
portion of the known individuals of A. hamiltonii. It is possible that
a landscape-level event, such as a wildfire, could destroy most known
A. hamiltonii individuals, but the sparseness of the vegetation and the
lack of fine fuels in A. hamiltonii habitat makes this event unlikely
(Wright and Bailey 1982, p. 1; Olmstead 2010, pers. comm.). The lack of
other surface-disturbing threats (see Factor A) also leads us to
believe that the species' current distribution and population size will
remain intact.
In the absence of information identifying threats to the species
and linking those threats to the rarity of the species, we do not
consider rarity alone to be a threat. A species that has always been
rare, yet continues to survive, could be well equipped to continue to
exist into the future. This may be particularly true for Astragalus
hamiltonii, which is adapted to recolonize disturbed sites. Many
naturally rare species have persisted for long periods within small
geographic areas, and many naturally rare species exhibit traits that
allow them to persist, despite their small population sizes.
Consequently, the fact that a species is rare does not necessarily
indicate that it may be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future.
Based on Astragalus hamiltonii's apparently robust reproductive
effort, scattered distribution, and lack of other threats, we believe
that small population size is not a threat to this species now or for
the foreseeable future.
(2) Climate Change and Drought
Climate change is likely to affect the long-term survival and
distribution of native species, such as Astragalus hamiltonii, through
changes in temperature and precipitation. Hot extremes, heat waves, and
heavy precipitation will increase in frequency, with the Southwest
experiencing the greatest temperature increase in the continental
United States (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 28, 129). Approximately 20 to 30
percent of plant and animal species are at increased risk of extinction
if increases in global average temperature exceed 2.7 to 4.5 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius ([deg]C))
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 48). In the
southwestern United States, average temperatures increased
approximately 1.5 [deg]F (0.8 [deg]C) compared to a 1960 to 1979
baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). By the end of this century,
temperatures are expected to warm a total of 4 to 10 [deg]F (2 to 5
[deg]C) in the Southwest (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129).
Annual mean precipitation levels are expected to decrease in
western North America and especially the southwestern States by mid
century (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). Throughout
Astragalus hamiltonii's range, precipitation is predicted to increase
10 to 15 percent in the winter, decrease 5 to 15 percent in spring and
summer, and remain unchanged in the fall under the highest emissions
scenario (Karl et al. 2009, p. 29). The levels of aridity of recent
drought conditions and perhaps those of the 1950s drought years will
become the new climatology for the southwestern United States (Seager
et al. 2007, p. 1181). Much of the Southwest remains in a 10-year
drought, ``the most severe western drought of the last 110 years''
(Karl et al. 2009, p. 130). Although droughts occur more frequently in
areas with minimal precipitation, even a slight reduction from normal
precipitation may lead to severe reductions in plant production.
Therefore, the smallest change in environmental factors, especially
precipitation, plays a decisive role in plant survival in arid regions
(Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084).
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are expected to double before
the end of the 21st century, which may increase the dominance of
invasive grasses leading to increased fire frequency and severity
across western North America (Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 3; IPCC 2002, p.
32; Walther et al. 2002, p. 391).

[[Page 10173]]

Elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to increased invasive annual
plant biomass, invasive seed production, and pest outbreaks (Smith et
al. 2000, pp. 80-81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1328)
and will put additional stressors on rare plants already suffering from
the effects of elevated temperatures and drought.
No population trend data are available for Astragalus hamiltonii,
but drought conditions led to a noticeable decline in survival, vigor,
and reproductive output of other rare plants in the Southwest during
the drought years of 2001 through 2004 (Anderton 2002, p. 1; Van Buren
and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren and Harper 2004, entire; Hughes 2005,
entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 2008a, entire; Roth 2008b, pp.
3-4).
As discussed in the Life History section above, Astragalus
hamiltonii seedling establishment is probably correlated with rainfall
(Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 14); therefore, reduced precipitation may
reduce seedling establishment. Additionally, the relatively localized
distribution of A. hamiltonii may make this species more susceptible to
landscape-level stochastic extinction events, such as regional drought.
Despite these potential vulnerabilities, A. hamiltonii appears well-
adapted to a dry climate and can quickly colonize after disturbance.
Plants growing in high-stress landscapes are adapted to stress, and
drought-adapted species may experience lower mortality during severe
droughts (Gitlin et al. 2006, pp. 1477, 1484).
In summary, climate change is affecting and will affect temperature
and precipitation events in the future. We expect that Astragalus
hamiltonii, like other narrow endemics, may be negatively affected by
climate change related drought. However, we believe that A.
hamiltonii's adaptation to growing in high-stress environments renders
this species less susceptible to negative effects from climate change.
Although we believe climate change will impact plants in the future,
the available information is too speculative to determine the
likelihood of this potential threat to A. hamiltonii. Therefore, based
on the best scientific and commercial information available, we
conclude that climate change is not a threat to A. hamiltonii now or
for the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
We assessed the potential risks of small population size, climate
change, and drought to Astragalus hamiltonii. There is no evidence that
the species' small population size is a threat to A. hamiltonii.
Rather, small, scattered populations are likely an evolutionary
adaptation of this species. Climate change and resulting drought may
affect A. hamiltonii's growth and reproductive success. However, A.
hamiltonii is adapted to a landscape where drought naturally occurs and
is able to rapidly colonize after disturbance. In addition, as
described in Factor A, there are no threats to the species that would
result in significant loss or fragmentation of available habitat, and
thus there are no cumulative effects to exacerbate the threat of
climate change. We currently lack sufficient information that other
natural or manmade factors rise to the level of a threat to A.
hamiltonii now or for the foreseeable future.

Finding

As required by the ESA, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether Astragalus
hamiltonii is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by A. hamiltonii. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with recognized A. hamiltonii experts and
other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies.
The primary factor potentially impacting Astragalus hamiltonii is
future energy development (oil, gas, and tar sands). However, energy
development is not likely to occur on a broad scale throughout this
species' range in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the best
available information shows that A. hamiltonii can tolerate some
habitat disturbances. Other factors affecting A. hamiltonii--including
land conversion to agricultural use, grazing, recreation, nonnative
invasive species, and small population size--are either limited in
scope, or we do not have evidence that supports these factors adversely
impacting the species as a whole. We have no evidence that
overutilization, disease, and predation are affecting this species.
Although climate change will likely impact plants in the future, we do
not have enough information to determine that climate change will
elicit a species-level response from A. hamiltonii. Finally, because
none of these factors rises to the level of a threat, the inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms does not negatively affect A. hamiltonii.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the factors
analyzed above are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude
to indicate that Astragalus hamiltonii is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout its range. Therefore, we find that
listing A. hamiltonii as a threatened or endangered species throughout
its range is not warranted.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that Astragalus hamiltonii does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must next consider
whether there are any significant portions of the range where A.
hamiltonii is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future.
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 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

[[Page 10174]]

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 ESA.
We have no evidence that any particular population or portion of
the range of Astragalus hamiltonii is critical to the species'
survival. Although population area 2 appears to have a majority of the
known Astragalus hamiltonii individuals, this area has received a
majority of the search effort. A. hamiltonii may actually occur
continuously across its known range, but range-wide surveys have not
been done. The population areas delineated in this document were
derived from existing data and information; however, information on the
species' distribution and numbers may change with more survey effort.
Additionally, potential threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range. Therefore, we do not find that A. hamiltonii is
in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Therefore, listing A. hamiltonii as threatened or
endangered under the ESA is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, Astragalus hamiltonii to our Utah Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever such information
becomes available. New information will help us monitor A. hamiltonii
and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for
A. hamiltonii, or any other species, we will act to provide immediate
protection.

Species Information--Penstemon flowersii

Taxonomy and Species Description
Penstemon flowersii is an herbaceous plant in the figwort family
(Scrophulariaceae) (Welsh et al. 2003, p. 624). This perennial plant
can grow up to 14 in (36 cm) tall, with many branches that bloom dusty
pink in May and June (Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 6-7). It has dry,
multi-part fruits less than 0.4 in (1 cm) long that split open when
mature to release seeds (Neese and Welsh 1983, p. 429). P. flowersii
has a poorly developed or absent basal rosette (a dense radiating
cluster of leaves at the base of the plant) and smooth, thick leaves
(Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 6-7).
Penstemon flowersii was first described in 1983 by Neese and Welsh,
and is an accepted taxonomic entity (Welsh et al. 2003, p. 624). P.
flowersii resembles other species in the genus and is closest
vegetatively to P. carnosus (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 8), but P.
flowersii is distinguished by its smaller stature and dusty pink
flowers (Neese and Welsh 1983, pp. 429-431). P. flowersii is closely
related to P. immanifestus, a species that grows elsewhere in Nevada
and Utah but has a more prominently bearded staminode (sterile male
reproductive part found in the flower) (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 8).
Distribution and Population Status
Penstemon flowersii is found only in the Uinta Basin near
Roosevelt, Utah. Its distribution straddles the Duchesne-Uintah County
line (Figure 2). The species occurs across an area approximately 20 mi
(32 km) by 4 mi (6.4 km) from Bridgeview to Randlett, Utah, in seven
element occurrences (UNHP 2010b, entire) (see Distribution and
Population Status section for Astragalus hamiltonii above for a
complete definition of element occurrence). These seven element
occurrences are not numbered consecutively because the UNHP combined
previously disjunct element occurrences based on available information.
As with A. hamiltonii, the element occurrences are recorded to the
nearest quarter-quarter of the township, range, and section. This
method of recording species locations gives the impression that element
occurrences either overlap or join to form a continuous population.
However, comprehensive surveys have not been done for all suitable
habitats within an element occurrence, so we do not know if the
population is continuous throughout the species' range.
Penstemon flowersii was recently identified north of element
occurrence 9 (Spencer 2010a, entire). We refer to this location as the
``new site'' because it is not yet assigned to an element occurrence.
At this time, we are unsure as to whether or not this new site will be
designated as a new element occurrence or if it will be included in an
existing element occurrence.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.001

[FNP]BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Penstemon flowersii's distribution is patchy, although some sites
can have moderately dense distribution with up to 10 plants in 1 yd\2\
(1 m\2\) (Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 12-14). We do not know if the
distribution of P. flowersii has changed over time because
comprehensive surveys were not conducted for this species.
Penstemon flowersii is found almost completely on private and
Tribal lands (Table 2), with the exception of element occurrence 19,
which is on property managed by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) (UNHP
2010b, entire).

[[Page 10176]]

Table 2--Estimated Number of Penstemon flowersii Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent land ownership Year of
Element occurrence --------------------------------- Number of penstemon last
Private Tribal BOR flowersii plants survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 75 25 0 2,000-13,000.............. 2001
5....................................... 94 6 0 101-1,000................. 1995
6....................................... 78 22 0 No count.................. 1982
8....................................... 71 29 0 61-71..................... 2004
9....................................... 91 9 0 51-100.................... 2001
16...................................... 100 0 0 4......................... 2001
19...................................... 44 21 35 552....................... 2001
New site................................ 100 0 0 29........................ 2010
Total............................... 79 19 2 2,798-14,756..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total number of Penstemon flowersii individuals in Table 2 was
derived from actual counts or estimates provided for each element
occurrence. However, these counts do not include all known locations
(e.g., private lands or BOR lands) for the species. The total number of
P. flowersii individuals was previously estimated from 15,000 to 20,000
on private lands alone, not including Tribal land (Heil and Melton
1995b, p. 13; Franklin 2005, p. 131). We do not know how this estimate
was derived.
We cannot make a more accurate estimate for the total number of
Penstemon flowersii because many sites on private and Tribal lands are
inaccessible, and P. flowersii population numbers fluctuate widely from
year to year (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 16; Prevedel 2001 pers. comm.
in Franklin 2005, p. 131). Therefore, we do not have accurate
population counts or trend information for this species.
Habitat
Penstemon flowersii is a narrow endemic that grows in Atriplex
confertifolia (shadscale) communities on semibarren, gravelly clay
slopes of the Uinta Formation (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 9) at
elevations ranging from 4,890 to 5,410 ft (1,490 to 1,650 m)
(NatureServe 2009b, p. 2). It is found on both disturbed and
undisturbed sites (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 10).
Life History
We know little of Penstemon flowersii's life history. Plant growth,
seedling establishment, and juvenile mortality for this species are
probably correlated with rainfall (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 14).
Reproduction and recruitment were noted at multiple sites across all
element occurrences (UNHP 2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). One site
had an estimated age structure of 4 percent seedlings and 96 percent
mature adults, indicating that recruitment is occurring (UNHP 2010b,
entire). Pollinators observed visiting P. flowersii include species of
the order Hymenoptera: Anthophora affabilis, A. bomboides, and a
species in the genus Osmia (Tepedino 2007, pers. comm. in Frates 2010,
p. 32).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors--Penstemon
flowersii

In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to Penstemon flowersii in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (see the full description of
these five factors in the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section for Astragalus hamiltonii above).

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The following factors may affect the habitat or range of Penstemon
flowersii: (1) Conversion to agricultural use/livestock grazing, (2)
recreational activities, (3) oil and gas exploration and development,
(4) nonnative invasive species, and (5) rural residential development.
(1) Conversion to Agricultural Use/Livestock Grazing
For Penstemon flowersii, we combined two factors, conversion to
agricultural use and livestock grazing, into one discussion because
both of these factors occur on private lands. Historically, conversion
of natural lands to agricultural use likely impacted Penstemon
flowersii populations (Heil and Melton 1995b, pp. 8, 16), resulting in
lower population numbers and habitat fragmentation. We believe the
species was historically distributed in the low-lying areas because
those areas that were not converted to agricultural use still contain
P. flowersii plants (Franklin 2005, p. 131).
Most of the suitable land in Duchesne and Uintah Counties was
converted to agricultural use by 1970 (NAIP 2009, p. 2; Hilton 2010,
p.1). Major changes in the amount of agricultural land in these
counties are not expected in the future (Hilton 2010, p. 2). Therefore,
we would not expect future agricultural conversion in these areas at a
level that would threaten the species as a whole.
The upper benches on private land where Penstemon flowersii now
grows appear as nonirrigated terrain in digital imagery (NAIP 2009, p.
2), and thus these areas are not likely used for agriculture. It is
possible that most of these nonirrigated lands are used for rangeland
grazing. Heavy grazing was noted at one site (UNHP 2010b, entire), and,
as previously described, livestock can graze and trample plants (BLM
2008c, p. 485). However, anecdotal observations indicate that this
plant is not a preferred browse species by grazing livestock (Holmgren
2009 pers. comm. in Frates 2010, p. 35), and the species can tolerate
some level of soil disturbances (see Habitat). P. flowersii was noted
as thriving in pastures (Holmgren 2009 pers. comm. in Frates 2010, p.
35), so it appears that livestock grazing does not negatively impact
the species. In summary, we have no information suggesting that
conversion of habitat to agricultural use or livestock grazing are
threats to P. flowersii now or for the foreseeable future.
(2) Recreational Activities
Recreational activities (e.g., mountain bikes and motorized bikes)
and OHV use can impact Penstemon flowersii and its habitat. The OHV use
was documented within three element occurrences of P. flowersii to
varying degrees (UNHP 2010b, entire). Two of these sites were listed in
marginal condition, although plant vigor and reproduction at these
sites was good (UNHP 2010b, entire). Disturbance occurred at a third
site in 1995, and a population decline for this site was attributed to
OHV activity (Heil and Melton 1995b, p. 17). However, vigorous plants
were observed at this site with

[[Page 10177]]

ample flower production (UNHP 2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). The
OHV use was not documented for the five remaining element occurrences
or in the new P. flowersii site, but this does not necessarily mean OHV
use does not occur there. Additionally, no other recreational uses were
documented at P. flowersii sites.
In summary, OHV use may be negatively affecting individual plants
at some sites, but this impact is localized and not rangewide. We
identified OHV use in the species' habitat, but the plants are vigorous
and retaining their ability to reproduce. Therefore, we believe that
recreational activities are not threats to Penstemon flowersii now or
for the foreseeable future.
(3) Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
Oil and gas exploration and development can impact Penstemon
flowersii plants and their habitat (BLM 2008c, pp. 448-449). Within all
mapped element occurrences of P. flowersii, there are four plugged and
abandoned wells. All existing wells were plugged prior to 1999. As
mentioned previously, plugged and abandoned wells involve surface
disturbance for roads and well pads when they are constructed and
during operation, but when they are abandoned they are reclaimed and do
not receive regular traffic or disturbance (see Astragalus hamiltonii,
Factor A, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development). There are two new
proposed well locations within the species' mapped element
occurrences--one well location that has an approved permit to drill and
one well location that is not yet approved. Approved permits allow for
well drilling, which will have associated negative impacts to
vegetation, and potentially P. flowersii, during construction and
drilling operations. These impacts have historically been localized and
small in scale. We expect these impacts to continue to be minimal,
considering that oil and gas development has occurred only minimally in
P. flowersii habitat.
The lack of oil and gas development in Penstemon flowersii habitat
is most likely because there is not enough product to be economically
feasible with current technology (Doyle 2010, pers. comm.; Sparger
2010, pers. comm.) rendering dense energy developments unlikely in this
area (BLM 2008c, p. 486). Although oil and gas development could
potentially expand throughout P. flowersii habitat, substantial
development is not likely for the next 20 years (BLM 2008c, p. 486),
nor is it likely to occur across the entire range of P. flowersii.
Thus, oil and gas exploration and development is not a threat to P.
flowersii now or in the foreseeable future.
(4) Nonnative Invasive Species
We have limited information regarding the distribution of nonnative
invasive species in Penstemon flowersii habitat. We know that invasive
species, particularly Bromus tectorum, occur within P. flowersii
habitat (Frates 2010, pp. 29-30). However, we do not have any
information indicating that B. tectorum or other nonnative invasive
species impact P. flowersii.
Soil disturbances can increase invasive species (see Astragalus
hamiltonii, Factor A, Nonnative Invasive Species) (Evans et al. 2001,
p. 1308). As noted above, B. tectorum, a major invasive plant species
in the West, invades areas in response to surface disturbances (Hobbs
1989, pp. 389, 393, 395, 398; Rejmanek 1989, pp. 381-383; Hobbs and
Huenneke 1992, pp. 324-325, 329, 330; Evans et al. 2001, p. 1308).
Therefore, we assessed the potential for soil disturbances to increase
nonnative invasive species in the foreseeable future in Penstemon
flowersii habitat.
Agricultural use, livestock grazing, and oil and gas exploration
and development are the predominant activities that disturb soils
across the range of Penstemon flowersii. We determined that these
activities are not extensive enough to threaten P. flowersii now or in
the foreseeable future (see Agricultural Use/Livestock Grazing and Oil
and Gas Exploration and Development). Thus, we also do not expect that
these activities will increase surface disturbance to the point where
invasive species will become established and impact P. flowersii to a
significant degree. At this time, we have no information suggesting
that nonnative invasive species are a threat to P. flowersii now or for
the foreseeable future.
(5) Rural Residential Development
Conversion of land for rural residential development can result in
the permanent loss and fragmentation of habitat for many species,
including Penstemon flowersii. Impacts include, but are not limited to,
crushed vegetation, compacted soils, introduced exotic plant species,
reduced available habitat, and increased habitat fragmentation (Hansen
et al. 2005, entire). For the purpose of this analysis, we define rural
residential development as the expansion of rural towns and surrounding
rural areas through low-density housing construction and related
business and industrial development.
Duchesne and Uintah Counties, where Penstemon flowersii is found,
had the highest (3.6 percent) and fourth highest (1.8 percent)
population growth rates in Utah from 2008 to 2009, respectively (Utah
Population Estimates Committee 2009, p. 2). The average population
increase across the state of Utah was 1.5 percent over the same
timeframe (Utah Population Estimates Committee 2009, p. 4). Roosevelt
is the largest municipality that occurs near known P. flowersii
habitat, and two smaller municipalities, Ballard and Myton, are nearby.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population of Roosevelt
increased approximately 12 percent from 2000 to 2009, with Ballard and
Myton increasing 34 and 17 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau
2010a, entire). Human population growth can destroy and fragment
habitat as municipalities grow and incorporate more of what was once
natural land.
Over the next 50 years, Duchesne and Uintah Counties are projected
to grow at a slower rate of 1.1 percent (Utah Governor's Office of
Planning and Budget (Utah GOPB) 2008, entire). At this growth rate,
Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties (which are grouped together by
the Utah Population Estimates Committee) are expected to increase from
a current total population of 49,707 to 80,319 by 2060 (Utah GOPB 2008,
entire). The City of Roosevelt projects a population of 6,600 by 2030,
but they anticipate the population could be higher (City of Roosevelt
2010, p. 7). Much of the urban and rural development in the Uinta Basin
is influenced by the boom and bust cycles of energy development, and
another boom cycle could increase population growth over predictions.
Although municipalities are growing and are projected to increase
near Penstemon flowersii habitat, they are not likely to impact a
substantial amount of the known habitat of this species. The southern
edge of Roosevelt's municipal boundary is approximately 0.2 mi (0.3 km)
north of the northern boundary of element occurrence 1 (see Figure 2).
The city limits of Ballard and Myton are immediately adjacent to
element occurrences 1 and 9, with Ballard city limits overlapping
element occurrence 6. None of these municipalities overlap with known
sites of P. flowersii. Roosevelt will likely expand into an area
already defined as an annexation area (City of Roosevelt 2010, p. 42),
and this area is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) north of element
occurrence 9 and the

[[Page 10178]]

new site of P. flowersii on private land. Roosevelt and Ballard city
limits are constrained by geography and Tribal boundaries, and neither
are likely to expand substantially southward toward known P. flowersii
sites (Eschler 2010, pers. comm.; Hyde 2010, pers. comm.).
In summary, rural residential development is occurring now and is
likely to increase in the future, but most of this development would
occur outside of Penstemon flowersii known sites. Therefore, we do not
believe rural residential development is a significant threat to the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the best available information, we do not believe that
conversion to agricultural use/livestock grazing, recreational
activities, nonnative invasive species, oil and gas exploration and
development, or rural residential development threaten Penstemon
flowersii now or in the foreseeable future. Conversion to agricultural
use most likely had an appreciable negative impact on P. flowersii
historically, but we have no evidence that conversion to agricultural
use continues today at a level that threatens the species. Likewise,
livestock grazing is not widely noted across P. flowersii sites, and
where it occurs it does not appear to negatively impact individuals.
The OHV use, the only documented recreational activity in P.
flowersii's habitat, is localized, and we do not have evidence that P.
flowersii is considerably compromised or threatened by OHV use. We do
not have information to support that nonnative invasive species are
currently threatening P. flowersii or will be likely to do so in the
foreseeable future. It is unlikely that current technologies and
economic conditions will support substantial oil and gas development
across P. flowersii habitat in the foreseeable future. Finally, rural
residential development is unlikely to expand substantially into P.
flowersii habitat. We find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is not a threat to
P. flowersii now or for the foreseeable future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

We are not aware of threats from overutilization or collection of
Penstemon flowersii for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, nor do we expect overutilization in the
foreseeable future. P. duchesnensis, which is geographically near P.
flowersii, is used horticulturally (Frates 2010, p. 75). However, P.
flowersii is more obscure, and we have no evidence that this species is
sought out for horticultural purposes (Frates 2010, p. 75). Therefore,
we do not consider overutilization a threat to P. flowersii now or in
the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease and herbivory by insects, wildlife, or livestock was
documented for Penstemon flowersii on only one occasion: Caterpillars
were feeding on P. flowersii plants near Midview Reservoir (Spencer
2010b, pers. comm.). We do not know how widespread this herbivory was
or if it had detrimental effects on P. flowersii; caterpillars
naturally feed on many plant species. The UNHP data did not note
disease or herbivory for the species (UNHP 2010b, entire). With no data
indicating otherwise, we do not consider disease or predation to be a
threat to P. flowersii now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no Federal or State laws that protect Penstemon
flowersii. P. flowersii is found mostly on non-Federal lands, where no
known regulatory mechanisms exist. However, we found that there are no
threats to the species that warrant additional regulatory mechanisms
(see Factors A, B, C, and E). Therefore, we do not consider the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as a threat to this
species now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Natural and manmade threats to Penstemon flowersii's survival
include: (1) Small population size and (2) climate change and drought.
(1) Small Population Size
Penstemon flowersii grows across an area of 80 mi\2\ (207 km\2\).
P. flowersii individuals occur in well-defined populations that are
geographically isolated from one another. Thus, this species may be
prone to the negative effects of small population size, in part because
historical fragmentation of habitat (e.g., agricultural use) may have
resulted in small populations with limited gene flow. P. flowersii also
appears to have episodic growth patterns with large fluctuations in
numbers from year to year (Franklin 2005, p. 131; 2010, p. 79). This
fluctuation and patchy distribution may make P. flowersii more
vulnerable to the impacts of small population size, limiting its
ability to survive periods of low growth or recruitment.
The species' biology, distribution, and even our information gaps
indicate that small population sizes may not significantly impact
Penstemon flowersii. For example, P. flowersii grows vigorously and in
moderate densities with evidence of good reproduction and recruitment
(UNHP 2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). Although we still consider
P. flowersii a narrow endemic, it occurs across a relatively large
range. In addition, there are relatively large amounts of unsurveyed
potential habitat between known sites that could result in an expanded
species distribution and range.
Finally, we have not identified other surface-disturbing threats to
this species that would cumulatively increase the risk of small
population size. As previously discussed under Factor E for Astragalus
hamiltonii (above), with no threats linked to a species' rarity, we do
not consider rarity alone to be a threat. A species that has always
been rare, yet continues to survive, could be well equipped to continue
to exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have persisted
for long periods within small geographic areas, and many naturally rare
species exhibit traits that allow them to persist despite their small
population sizes. Consequently, the fact that a species is rare does
not necessarily indicate that it may be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future. Thus, we believe that small population size is not
a threat to P. flowersii.
(2) Climate Change and Drought
Potential impacts of climate change and drought to the geographic
area are characterized in the Climate Change and Drought section under
Factor E for Astragalus hamiltonii (above). Penstemon flowersii occurs
within the same geographic vicinity as A. hamiltonii and, therefore,
will be exposed to similar changes in climate and drought.
No trend data are available for Penstemon flowersii that would
elucidate the relationship between the species' stability and climate
variables. We do not know what causes fluctuations in P. flowersii
abundance, but if it is due to environmental factors like precipitation
or temperature, climate change could negatively affect this species.
However, because of the lack of available data, any predictions are
speculative.

[[Page 10179]]

We expect that Penstemon flowersii, like other narrow endemics, may
be negatively affected by climate change and drought. However, despite
climate changes that have occurred over the past 30 years, we have no
evidence that P. flowersii populations are declining, and we have no
basis to predict how this species will respond in the future to climate
change. Over the past 30 years, plant health remains normal to
vigorous, and reproduction and recruitment continue to occur at some P.
flowersii element occurrences (UNHP 2010b, entire). We have not
identified other threats to this species, such as mining, that would
cumulatively exacerbate the threat of climate change. Based upon the
best available information, we do not believe that climate change is a
threat now or is likely to become one in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
We assessed the potential risks of small population size, climate
change, and drought to Penstemon flowersii. There is no evidence that
the species' small population size is a threat to P. flowersii. The
species is adapted to a landscape where drought naturally occurs, and
we have no information indicating that the species is threatened by
climate change. In addition, as described in Factor A, there are no
threats to the species that would result in significant loss or
fragmentation of available habitat, and thus there are no cumulative
effects to exacerbate the threat of climate change or small population
sizes. Therefore, based on the best scientific and commercial
information available at this time, we conclude that natural or manmade
factors are not threats to P. flowersii now or for the foreseeable
future.

Finding

As required by the ESA, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether Penstemon
flowersii is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by P. flowersii. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, other available published and unpublished information,
and we consulted with recognized P. flowersii experts and other
Federal, State, and Tribal agencies.
The factor with potentially the most impact on Penstemon flowersii
was historical agricultural development. Site visits show plants
persist in pasture lands (Holmgren 2009 pers. comm. in Frates 2010, p.
35; Brunson 2010b, p. 1), and we have little evidence that conversion
to agricultural use is an ongoing threat to this species. Livestock do
not appear to forage on P. flowersii, and the species occurs in grazing
pastures. Rural residential development is another factor that could
potentially destroy and fragment this species and its habitat in the
future, but it is unlikely to occur at a high level across P.
flowersii's known range. Other factors affecting P. flowersii--
including recreational activities, nonnative invasive species, oil and
gas development, and small population size--are either limited in
scope, or we do not have evidence that supports these factors adversely
impacting the species as a whole. We have no evidence that
overutilization, disease, and predation are affecting this species.
Although climate change will likely impact the species, we do not have
any information that indicates it threatens the continued existence of
P. flowersii. Finally, because none of these factors rises to the level
of a threat that would warrant additional regulatory mechanisms, the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms does not negatively affect P.
flowersii.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the factors
analyzed above are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude
to indicate that Penstemon flowersii is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we find that listing P. flowersii as threatened or
endangered species is not warranted throughout its range.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that Penstemon flowersii does not meet the
definition of threatened or endangered species, we must next consider
whether there are any significant portions of the range where P.
flowersii is in danger of extinction or are likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future. See the Significant Portion of the Range
section under Astragalus hamiltonii (above) for a summary of our
interpretation of the meaning of ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.''
We have no evidence that any particular population or portion of
the range of Penstemon flowersii is critical to the species' survival.
Because our understanding of the species' distribution is incomplete
and population counts fluctuate widely, we cannot determine that any
one element occurrence is more critical to the species' survival (i.e.,
has a significant portion of individuals) than another. Additionally,
potential threats to the species appear to be uniform throughout P.
flowersii's range. Therefore, we do not find that P. flowersii is in
danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, listing P. flowersii as threatened or endangered
under the ESA is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, Penstemon flowersii to our Utah Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever such information
becomes available. New information will help us monitor P. flowersii
and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for
P. flowersii, or any other species, we will act to provide immediate
protection.

Species Information--Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri occur in the same habitat
and have the same distribution. Therefore, we discuss these species
together for purposes of this finding.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Eriogonum soredium
Eriogonum soredium is a low mound-forming perennial plant in the
buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) that is 0.8 to 1.6 in (2 to 4 cm) tall
and 3.9 to 19.7 in (10 to 50 cm) across (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 588).
The leaves are 0.08 to 0.2 in (2 to 5 mm) long, 0.03 to 0.08 in (0.7 to
2 mm) wide, round to oval, and covered on both surfaces by short,
white, wooly hairs (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 588). The numerous flowers
are arranged in tight clusters resembling drumsticks. Individual
flowers are white or partially pink and 0.08 to 0.12 in (2 to 3 mm)
long (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 588). Flowering generally occurs from June
to August. The seeds, which are 0.08 to 0.10 in (2 to 2.5 mm) long,
mature from July through September (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 588).
Eriogonum soredium was first described in 1981 by James Reveal
based on a collection by Stan Welsh and Matt Chatterly (Reveal 1981,
entire; Kass 1992a, p. 1). E. soredium has not undergone any taxonomic
revisions since it was originally described. Therefore, we accept the
current taxonomy as an indication that the

[[Page 10180]]

species constitutes a listable entity under the ESA.
Lepidium ostleri
Lepidium ostleri is a long-lived perennial herb in the mustard
family (Brassicaceae). It grows in dense cushion-like tufts up to 2 in
(5 cm) tall (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328). The grayish-green hairy leaves
are 0.16 to 0.59 in (4 to 15 mm) long, generally linear, and entire or
with lobed basal leaves (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328). Flowering stalks
are approximately 0.39 in (1 cm) long with 5 to 35 flowers that are
white or have a purple tint (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328). Flowering
generally occurs from June to early July, followed by fruit set from
July to August (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 328).
Lepidium ostleri was first described in 1980 by Stan Welsh and
Sherel Goodrich based on a collection by Stan Welsh and Matt Chatterly
(Welsh and Goodrich 1980, entire; Kass 1992b, p. 1). L. ostleri has not
undergone any taxonomic revisions since it was originally described. We
are accepting the current taxonomy and consider L. ostleri a listable
entity under the ESA.
Distribution and Population Status
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are each known from four
distinct, overlapping populations on private lands in the southern San
Francisco Mountains in Beaver County, Utah--the Grampian Hill, Cupric
Mine, Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen populations (Figure 3; Miller
2010g, p. 6; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2). We are not aware of any additional
populations. Surveys were conducted on BLM lands adjacent to the known
populations in 2010, and no plants or habitat were found (Miller 2010g,
Appendix B and p. 6; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-3); these adjacent areas do not
contain Ordovician Limestone, the substrate that supports both E.
soredium and L. ostleri (see Habitat section below) (Miller 2010g, p.
6). Similarly, no additional populations of either species were found
during surveys of the San Francisco Mountains and surrounding ranges
(including the Wah Wah Mountains, Crystal Peak, the Confusion Range,
and the Mountain Home Range) (Kass 1992a, p. 5; Kass 1992b, p. 4;
Evenden 1998, p. 5; Robinson 2004, p. 16; Miller 2010c, entire; Roth
2010a, pp. 2-3).
There were reports of two populations of E. soredium in the Wah Wah
Mountains; however, we do not believe these reports are accurate--one
report appears to have incorrect location information (Kass 1992a, p.
5; Franklin 2005, p. 85) and the other report appears to be a species
misidentification (Robinson 2004, p. 16; Roth 2010a, p. 3). Therefore,
reports of these two populations are thought to be erroneous and are
not discussed further in this finding.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are distributed across a
total range of less than 5 mi \2\ (13 km \2\). Previous estimates of
the species' total occupied habitat ranged from 170 acres (ac) (69
hectares (ha)) (Evenden 1998, Appendix C) to 400 ac (160 ha) (Kass
1992a, pp. 7-8; 1992b, p. 7). However, we now have more accurate global
positioning system information that shows the two species' total
occupied habitat is approximately 52 ac (21 ha)

[[Page 10182]]

(based on Miller 2010g, Appendix B). For both species, each of the four
known populations are estimated to occupy habitat ranging between 5 ac
(2 ha) and 29 ac (12 ha), with localized high densities of plants
(Evenden 1989, Appendix C; Miller 2010g, Appendix B).
All known Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri populations are
located on private lands (Miller 2010g, p. 6; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2).
Their occurrence on these private lands hinders our ability to collect
accurate long-term population count or trend information because of
access limitations. The populations were visited sporadically over the
last couple of decades; however, we have no information on sampling
methods used by individual surveyors. Common field techniques used to
estimate population size tend to be highly subjective in the absence of
actual population counts. Population estimates also may be skewed by
how the species grow. Both species grow in low, mound-forming clusters,
making it difficult to distinguish individual plants--some observers
may assume each cluster is one plant and other observers might apply a
multiplier to each cluster to count them as multiple plants; therefore,
using either of these methods would greatly skew the resulting
population estimate. We believe these biases help explain the seemingly
large fluctuations in numbers of plants observed during different
surveys (see below); E. soredium and L. ostleri are robust, long-lived
perennial plants that are unlikely to exhibit such extreme population
fluctuations (Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 260-261).
Accordingly, the available population estimates are highly variable
and probably not accurate. For Eriogonum soredium, available population
estimates range from a low of 10 to 100 plants in 2004 to a high of
76,000 to 81,000 individuals in 2010 (Kass 1992a, p. 8; Evenden 1998,
Appendix C; Robinson 2004, pp. 11-15; Miller 2010a, pers. comm.; Miller
2010b, pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 2-5; Roth 2010a, p. 4). For
Lepidium ostleri, available population estimates range from a total of
700 individuals (Kass 1992b, p. 8) to approximately 17,000 individuals
in the 1990s (Evenden 1998, Appendix C). Currently, the total number of
L. ostleri plants is estimated at approximately 43,000 (Miller 2010a,
pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 2-5; Roth 2010a, p. 4). However, due to
the aforementioned survey inaccuracies, we are not able to determine
accurate population estimates or trends for either species. In 2010,
both species were documented at all four known populations (Miller
2010g, entire).
We lack demographic information, which is measured by studying the
size, distribution, composition, and changes within a specified
population over time.
Habitat
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are narrow endemics
restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops (Evenden
1998, p. 5). There are approximately 845 ac (342 ha) of Ordovician
limestone outcrops in the San Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g,
Appendix F). In addition, there are 719 ac (291 ha) of Cambrian
dolomite substrates in the San Francisco Mountains; there is the
potential for small ``islands'' of Ordovician limestone outcrops to
occur within these substrates (Miller 2010g, Appendix F, p. 7).
Ordovician limestone is rare within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the
San Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g, Appendix F). Cambrian dolomite
substrates are present in the Wah Wah Mountains to the west of the San
Francisco Mountains (Miller 2010g, Appendix F). However, as previously
described (see Distribution and Population Status), there is no
indication that additional populations of either species occur in these
areas.
We do not know if there are other limiting factors associated with
the limestone formations that restrict the habitat use and distribution
of these species--these species occupy only a fraction of the available
habitat and are known to occur on only 52 ac (21 ha), or just 6
percent, of the available Ordovician limestone outcrops.
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are associated with pinion-
juniper and sagebrush communities between 6,200 and 7,228 ft (1,890 and
2,203 m) in elevation. They are typically found on sparsely vegetated
exposed slopes with Ephedra sp. (Mormon tea), Gutierrezia sarothrae
(snakeweed), Cercocarpus intricatus (dwarf mountain-mahogany), and
Petradoria pumila (rock goldenrod). Associated rare species include
Trifolium friscanum.
Life History
We do not have a clear understanding of the reproductive biology or
life history of Eriogonum soredium, but recruitment appears to be low
or perhaps episodic (Kass 1992a, p. 7; Roth 2010a, p. 1). Juvenile
plants and seedlings have been observed in only two of the four
populations (Miller 2010g, p. 4). In 2010, dead or partially dead
plants were found throughout all populations, but we have no
information on the cause of death or the approximate number of dead
plants (Miller 2010g, p. 4).
No information is available on the life history of Lepidium
ostleri.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors--Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri

In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri in relation to
the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (see the full
description of these five factors in the Summary of Information
Pertaining to the Five Factors--Astragalus hamiltonii, above). E.
soredium and L. ostleri co-occur in the same habitat and, therefore,
are addressed together in the Five Factor Analysis below.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Their Habitat or Range

The following factors may affect the habitat or range of Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri: (1) Livestock grazing, (2) recreational
activities, (3) mining, and (4) nonnative invasive species.
(1) Livestock Grazing
Potential impacts of livestock grazing to plants are discussed
above in the Livestock Grazing section under Factor A for Astragalus
hamiltonii. As previously stated, all populations of Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri occur on private lands.
We have no information on livestock grazing management on private
lands, but adjacent BLM lands belong to active grazing allotments
(Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). Adjacent private lands are subject to
the same grazing practices as the allotted BLM land if they are not
fenced (Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). Private lands in the San
Francisco Mountains are only partially fenced; hence, livestock may
have access to areas where E. soredium and L. ostleri occur. However,
impacts to E. soredium or L. ostleri from livestock grazing have not
been documented (Kass 1992a and 1992b, entire; Evenden 1998, entire;
Miller 2010g, p. 5; Roth 2010a, p. 1).
Based on our review of the available information, there is no
indication that grazing impacts the species now or will impact the
species in the foreseeable future at a level that threatens E. soredium
or L. ostleri.
(2) Recreational Activities
Potential impacts of recreational activities to plants are
discussed above

[[Page 10183]]

in the Recreational Activities section under Factor A for Astragalus
hamiltonii. There are no known impacts of OHV use in Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri occupied habitats (Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth
2010a, pp. 1-2). Access to the majority of the occupied habitat, which
occurs on private lands, is posted as closed to all vehicles, including
OHVs (Miller 2010g, p. 5). The OHV use does not appear to impact
adjacent BLM lands in the San Francisco Mountains (Pontarolo 2009,
pers. comm.). Therefore, we have no information indicating that
recreational activities threaten E. soredium and L. ostleri now nor do
we anticipate these activities will become a threat in the foreseeable
future.
(3) Mining
Mining activities occurred historically throughout the range of
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri and continue to impact these
species. Mining activities can impact E. soredium and L. ostleri by
removing habitat substrate, increasing erosion potential, fragmenting
habitat through access road construction, degrading suitable habitat,
and increasing invasive plant species (Brock and Green 2003, p. 15; BLM
2008c, pp. 448-449). Impacts to E. soredium and L. ostleri individuals
include crushing and removing plants, reducing plant vigor, and
reducing reproductive potential through increased dust deposits,
reduced seedbank quantity and quality, and decreased pollinator
availability and habitat (Brock and Green 2003, p. 15; BLM 2008c, pp.
448-449).
The San Francisco Mountains have an extensive history of precious
metal mining activity (Evenden 1998, p. 3). All four of the known
populations and much of the species' potential habitat were impacted by
precious metal mining activities in the past, as evidenced by a high
density of mine shafts, tailings, and old mining roads throughout the
habitat of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri (Table 3; Kass
1992a, p. 10; Evenden 1998, p. 3; Roth 2010a, p. 2).
The eastern part of the Grampian Hill population surrounds old mine
shafts associated with the King David Mine, which is part of the
historical Horn Silver Mine. The Horn Silver Mine was one of the
largest silver mines in the country until it collapsed in 1885 (Murphy
1996, p. 1; Evenden 1998, p. 3). The Cupric Mine population is located
immediately above a mine shaft associated with the Cupric Mine, a
historical copper mine. Old mine shafts are located within 0.3 mi (0.5
km) of the Copper Gulch population; these mine shafts are associated
with the Cactus Mine, also a historical copper mine. Two mine shafts
are located within the Indian Queen population and three additional
mine shafts are located immediately adjacent to this population. These
mine shafts also are part of the historical Cactus Mine.

Table 3--Mining Activities in the Habitat of Eriogonum Soredium and Lepidium Ostleri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining activity
Population -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Current Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grampian Hill..................... silver, lead, copper, zinc None................. silver, lead, copper,
(Horn Silver Mine). zinc, landscape gravel
quarrying.
Cupric Mine....................... silver, lead, copper, gravel quarrying..... silver, lead, copper,
zinc, gravel quarrying zinc, landscape gravel
(Cupric Mine). quarrying.
Copper Gulch...................... silver, lead, copper, gravel quarrying..... silver, lead, copper,
zinc, gravel quarrying zinc, landscape gravel
(Cactus Mine). quarrying.
Indian Queen...................... silver, lead, copper, gravel quarrying..... silver, lead, copper,
zinc, gravel quarrying landscape gravel
(Cactus Mine). quarrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large-scale precious metal mining ceased decades ago. However, all
precious metal mining claims in the southern San Francisco Mountains
are patented (a claim for which the Federal Government has passed its
title to the claimant, making it private land) and continued occasional
explorations for silver, zinc, and copper deposits are reported for the
area (Bon and Gloyn 1998, p. 12; Franconia Minerals Corporation 2002,
p. 1; Rupke 2010, pers. comm.). In fact, in 1998 this area was one of
the most active precious metal exploration areas in the State (Bon and
Gloyn 1998, pp. 11-12). In addition, exploration activities were
reinitiated at the Horn Silver Mine in 2002, confirming that extensive
amounts of sphalerite (the major ore of zinc) remain in the mine
(Franconia Minerals Corporation 2002, p. 1).
We expect the demand for silver and copper to increase in the
future (Crigger 2010, pp. 1-2; Murdoch 2010, pp. 1-2). The price for
silver nearly tripled over the last decade (Stoker 2010, p. 2). The
market for silver is expected to grow in the future due to its high
demand for industrial uses in solar panel construction, wood
preservatives, and medical supplies (Ash 2010, p. 1). Since 2009, the
value of copper increased more than 140 percent (Crigger 2010, pp. 1-2;
Murdoch 2010, pp. 1-2). The market for copper, one of the world's most
widely used industrial metals, is expected to increase in the future
due to demand for electrical wiring, plumbing, and car fabrication
(Crigger 2010, pp. 1-2; Murdoch 2010, pp. 1-2). In Utah, precious
metals accounted for approximately 14 percent of the total value of
minerals produced in 2009 (up from 8 percent in 2008) (Utah GOPB 2010,
pp. 195-196). Utah's precious metal gross production value increased
$221 million (57 percent) compared to 2008, due to increased production
of both gold and silver (Utah GOPB 2010, p. 196). Because the San
Francisco Mountains area was one of the most productive areas during
the last large-scale precious metal mining efforts, it is reasonable to
assume that it will become important again, particularly given the
ongoing exploration activities at the mines.
As previously described, Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri
are endemic to soils derived from Ordovician limestone. In addition to
precious metals, this formation is mined for crushed limestone. The
limestone is removed from quarry sites and sold for marble landscaping
gravel.
Marble landscaping gravel quarries in Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri's range are open-pit mines that result in the removal
of the habitat substrate for these species. Four active limestone
quarry sites occur within a couple hundred feet of three of the
species' populations--Cupric Mine, Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen
populations (Table 3).
A limestone quarry is considered active from the time quarrying
begins until the site is reclaimed. Generally, gravel pits are
maintained below 5 ac (2 ha) of surface disturbance to avoid

[[Page 10184]]

large mine status, which requires permitting (Munson 2010, pers.
comm.). Hence, an area may contain many quarries at or below the 5-ac
(2-ha) threshold, all of which may be considered active (Munson 2010,
pers. comm.). A mine also may stay below 5 ac (2 ha) as long as
previously disturbed areas at the quarry site are reclaimed prior to
expanding quarrying operations (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). The Cupric
Mine, Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen populations of Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri all have small individual gravel pits--resulting
in a lack of environmental analyses and potential mitigation
opportunities (see Factor D, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms).
As stated in the Distribution and Population Status section above,
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri occur in the same overlapping
locations, each occupying a total of 52 ac (21 ha) in four populations.
We estimate the quarries at the three population sites (Cupric Mine,
Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen) historically resulted in the loss of 26
ac (11 ha) of suitable habitat adjacent to currently known plant
locations (Table 4; Darnall et al. 2010, entire). Based on habitat
similarities and proximity, it is likely that the plant occupied the
entire 26 ac (11 ha) that are now being quarried. There are 23 ac (9
ha) of remaining occupied habitat in the three populations (Table 4;
Darnall et al. 2010, entire), but these areas are at risk of being
impacted by the gravel pits. The only population not impacted by gravel
pits--the Grampian Hill population--is 29 ac (12 ha) in size. Even so,
the Grampian Hill population is only 1 mi (1.6 km) away from the
nearest gravel pit and, as previously discussed, it is impacted by
precious metal mining.

Table 4--Areas of Surface Disturbance Associated With Gravel Mining in the Vicinity of Eriogonum Soredium and
Lepidium Ostleri populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Occupied area Adjacent surface disturbance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Queen.......................... 9 ac (3.6 ha)............ 14 ac (5.7 ha).
Copper Gulch.......................... 5 ac (2.0 ha)............ 5 ac (2.0 ha).
Cupric Mine........................... 9 ac (3.6 ha)............ 7 ac (2.8 ha).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 23 ac (9.2 ha)........... 26 ac (10.5 ha)............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quarrying is occurring in the immediate vicinity of the Cupric Mine
population (Evenden 1998, p. 5; Robinson 2004, p. 8; Frates 2006, pers.
comm.; Roth 2010a, p. 2; Miller 2010e, pers. comm.; Munson 2010, pers.
comm.); we anticipate this mining activity will continue to impact this
population in the near future (Roth 2010a, p. 2). The estimated area of
occupied habitat of the Cupric Mine population in the vicinity of this
gravel pit is 9 ac (4 ha) (Table 4; Darnall et al. 2010, entire), while
gravel mining has resulted in surface disturbance of approximately 7 ac
(3 ha) (Table 4; Darnall et al. 2010, entire). No quarrying activity
was observed in the vicinity of the Copper Gulch and Indian Queen
populations in 2010; however, the gravel pits are still considered
active and thus additional gravel mining could occur at any time. For
both of these populations (Copper Gulch and Indian Queen), adjacent
surface disturbance is equal to or greater than the remaining occupied
habitat (Table 4; Darnall et al. 2010, entire).
It is important to note that all of the active quarries are near or
above the 5-ac (2-ha) regulatory limit. Thus, we anticipate that the
operators will file for large mine permits, partially restore the
disturbed areas to be below the 5-ac (2-ha) limit, or will begin new
gravel pits (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). Under any of these scenarios,
it is likely that occupied habitats of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri will be impacted, particularly given the ongoing need for
limestone gravel in nearby communities, as described below.
Between 1995 and 2001, the production of building and landscaping
stones in Utah jumped nearly 700 percent (Stark 2008, p. 1).
Construction sand, gravel, and crushed stone production rank as the
second most valuable commodity produced among industrial minerals in
Utah (Bon and Krahulec 2009, p. 5). The use of landscape gravel will
likely continue to increase in nearby Washington County, which is one
of the fastest growing counties in the United States and Utah (U.S.
Census Bureau 2010b, entire; Utah GOPB 2010, p. 48). The Washington
County population has doubled every 10 years since 1970. In 2009, there
were 145,466 people estimated to live in Washington County (Utah GOPB
2010, p. 49). Over 700,000 people are expected to live in Washington
County by 2050 (Utah GOPB 2008, entire). Based on the projected
population growth for Washington County, we believe that the regional
demand for landscape gravel will continue to increase in southwestern
Utah in the foreseeable future.
Much of the rock quarried in Utah does not travel far because of
the associated high cost of transport (Stark 2008, p. 1). The quarries
of the southern San Francisco Mountains are the closest quarries
providing crushed limestone for southwestern Utah, including Washington
County (Mine Safety and Health Administration 2010, p. 1). In addition
to regional distribution, crushed limestone quarried from the vicinity
of the Copper Gulch, Indian Queen, and Cupric Mine populations is
transported to a distribution center for the Home Depot in the nearby
town of Milford, where it is packaged and shipped nationwide (Munson
2010, pers. comm.).
To summarize, mining throughout Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri's range reduced available habitat and impacted the species'
populations in the past (Table 3; Table 4). All four populations of
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri co-occur with precious metal
mining activities. For both species, three of the four populations--the
Cupric Mine, Copper Gulch, and Indian Queen populations--co-occur with
active gravel mining pits.
Available information suggests that all populations are likely to
be impacted by precious metal and gravel mining in the foreseeable
future based on mineral availability and market projections. Therefore,
we have determined that mining is a threat to E. soredium and L.
ostleri now and in the foreseeable future.
(4) Nonnative Invasive Species
Potential impacts of nonnative invasive species to native plants
and their habitat are discussed above in the Nonnative Invasive Species
section under Factor A for Astragalus hamiltonii. Bromus tectorum is

[[Page 10185]]

considered the most ubiquitous invasive species in the Intermountain
West due to its ability to rapidly invade native dryland ecosystems and
outcompete native species (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack and Pyke, 1983, p.
88; Thill et al. 1984, p. 10).
Bromus tectorum is a dominant species on the lower slopes of the
Grampian Hill population and is present in all populations of Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri (Miller 2010g, p. 5; Roth 2010a, p. 1).
Surface disturbances can increase the occurrence and densities of B.
tectorum (see Nonnative Invasive Species section under Factor A for
Astragalus hamiltonii). As previously described, increased mining
activities and associated surface disturbances are expected to occur in
the occupied habitat for E. soredium and L. ostleri, (see Mining,
above), providing conditions allowing B. tectorum to expand into and
increase density within E. soredium and L. ostleri habitat.
Invasions of annual, nonnative species, such as Bromus tectorum,
are well documented to contribute to increased fire frequencies (Brooks
and Pyke 2002, p. 5; Grace et. al 2002, p. 43; Brooks et. al 2003, pp.
4, 13, 15). The disturbance caused by increased fire frequencies
creates favorable conditions for increased invasion by B. tectorum. The
end result is a downward spiral where an increase in invasive species
results in more fires, more fires create more disturbances, and more
disturbances lead to increased invasive species densities. The risk of
fire is expected to increase from 46 to 100 percent when the cover of
B. tectorum increases from 12 to 45 percent or more (Link et al. 2006,
p. 116). In the absence of exotic species, it is generally estimated
that fire return intervals in xeric sagebrush communities range from
100 to 350 years (Baker 2006, p. 181). In some areas of the Great Basin
(Snake River Plain), fire return intervals due to B. tectorum invasion
are now between 3 and 5 years (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Most plant
species occurring within a sagebrush ecosystem are not expected to be
adapted to frequent fires, as evidenced in the lack of evolutionary
adaptations found in other shrub-dominated fire adapted ecosystems like
chaparral (Baker, in press, p. 17).
In the absence of Bromus tectorum, Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri grow in sparsely vegetated communities unlikely to carry fires
(see Habitat section). Thus, the species are unlikely to be adapted to
survive fires. As described in the distribution section, the total
range of these species are less than 5 mi\2\ (13 km\2\) and each of the
four populations occupy relatively small areas ranging between 5 ac (2
ha) and 29 ac (12 ha). A range fire could easily impact, or eliminate,
one or all populations. Therefore, the potential expansion of invasive
species and associated fire is a threat to the species, especially when
considering the limited distribution of the species and the high
potential of stochastic extinctions (as discussed in the Small
Population Size section under Factor E below).
In summary, nonnative invasive species and fire are threats to both
species. Bromus tectorum occurs in all four Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri populations. Given the ubiquitous nature of B.
tectorum in the Intermountain West and its ability to rapidly invade
dryland ecosystems (Mack 1981, p. 145, Mack and Pyke, 1983, p. 88,
Thill et al. 1984, p. 10), we expect it to increase in the future in
response to surface disturbances from increased mining activities and
global climate change (see the Climate Change and Drought section under
Factor E for Astragalus hamiltonii). An increase in B. tectorum is
expected to increase the frequency of fires in E. soredium and L.
ostleri's habitat, and the species are unlikely to survive increased
wildfires due to their small population sizes. Therefore, we determine
that nonnative invasive species and associated wildfires constitute a
threat to all populations of E. soredium and L. ostleri now and into
the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
At this time, based on best available information, we do not
believe that grazing and recreational activities significantly threaten
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri now or in the foreseeable
future. However, we determine that mining and nonnative invasive
species are threats to E. soredium and L. ostleri.
Mining activities impacted Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri
habitat in the past and continue to be a threat to the species and its
habitat throughout its range. All of the populations and the majority
of habitat are located on private lands with an extensive history and
recent successful exploration activities for precious metal mining.
Three of the four populations are located in the immediate vicinity of
gravel mining. Gravel mining is expected to continue and expand in the
near future (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). Considering the small acreages
of occupied habitat immediately adjacent to existing gravel pits,
continued mining may result in the loss of these populations in the
foreseeable future. We anticipate an increase in the demand for
precious metals and landscape rock based on the economic outlook for
these commodities and the lack of alternative sources for crushed
limestone in southwestern Utah which will result in increased impacts
to E. soredium and L. ostleri and their habitat.
Bromus tectorum is documented to occur in all four populations of
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri. The threat of fire caused by
annual nonnative species invasions is exacerbated by mining activities
and global climate change (see the Climate Change and Drought section
under Factor E). The small population sizes and extremely limited
distribution make this species especially vulnerable to stochastic
extinction events, including localized mining activities and wildfires
caused by increased invasions of nonnative species (see the Small
Population Size section under Factor E, below).
Therefore, we find that Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are
threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range, now and in the
foreseeable future, based on impacts from mining activities and
nonnative invasive species.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are considered attractive
rock garden plants. In particular, Eriogonum soredium is considered
``one of the most fantastic of its genus'' by a major rock garden seed
distributor (Alplains Seed Catalog 2010b, pp. 2 and 12). Seeds for both
species are available commercially and they are harvested from wild
populations (Alplains Seed Catalog 2010b, pp. 2 and 12).
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri plants are located on
private lands, which may provide some protection from collectors, as
access is restricted on these private lands. Despite the attractiveness
of the two species to horticultural enthusiasts, we have no information
indicating that collection in the wild is a threat to the species.
In summary, overutilization for commercial purposes could be a
concern to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri due to their
desirability to collectors; however, we do not have information that
leads us to believe that overutilization for commercial purposes is a
threat now or is likely to become one in the foreseeable future.

[[Page 10186]]

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease and herbivory of the species are unknown. We do not have
any information indicating that disease is impacting either Eriogonum
soredium or Lepidium ostleri. We also do not have any information
indicating herbivory is occurring from livestock (see the Livestock
Grazing section under Factor A), wildlife, or insects (Kass 1992a, p.
9; Evenden 1998, entire; Miller 2010a, entire; Miller 2010b, entire;
Miller 2010c, entire; Roth 2010a, entire). Thus, we do not consider
disease and predation to be threats to these species.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no endangered species laws protecting plants on private,
State, or Tribal lands in Utah. Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri
are listed as bureau sensitive plants for the BLM. Should the species
be located on BLM lands, limited policy-level protection by the BLM is
afforded through the Special Status Species Management Policy Manual
6840, which forms the basis for special status species
management on BLM lands (BLM 2008e, entire).
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are predominantly
threatened by mining related activities (see Factor A). Over 90 percent
of the species' known potential habitat and all of the known
populations are located on lands with private, patented mining claims
(Kass 1992a, p. 9; Evenden 1998, p. 9; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2). Mineral
mining is subject to the Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act of 1975, which
includes mineral mining on State and private lands, including lands
with patented mining claims (Utah Code Title 40, Chapter 8). The ESA
applies to all surface activities associated with the exploration,
development, and extraction of mineral deposits.
The Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act mandates the preparation of
State environmental impact assessments for large mining operations,
which are defined as mining operations which create more than 5 ac (2
ha) of surface disturbance (UDOGM 2010b, p. 1). The existing gravel
mining activities within the range of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri (see Factor A, Mining) are approaching the 5-ac (2-ha)
regulatory threshold. Thus, we anticipate that the operators will file
for large mine permits, partially restore the disturbed areas to be
below the 5-ac (2-ha) limit, or will begin new gravel pits (Munson
2010, pers. comm.).
State environmental impact assessments must address, at a minimum,
the potential effects on State and federally listed species (Baker
2010, pers. comm.). Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri are not
State listed but are on the BLM sensitive species list. If UDOGM is
made aware of these rare species being impacted by mining activities,
they could consider minimizing and mitigating impacts; however, there
is no requirement to address species that are not federally listed in
the mine permitting process (Baker 2010, pers. comm.).
In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to
protect Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri from becoming
threatened or endangered by gravel mining on private lands. The active
gravel pits are approaching the 5-ac (2-ha) threshold that would
normally incur regulatory environmental impact assessments; however, no
assessments are completed for these mines. Even if an environmental
impact assessment is completed for any of the mines, the existing
mining laws do not necessarily apply to BLM sensitive species: They
recommend, and do not mandate, species protection or mitigation. Thus,
we find that the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to regulate mining
activities on private lands is a threat to all populations of E.
soredium and L. ostleri now and in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Natural and manmade threats to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri's survival include: (1) Small population size and (2) climate
change and drought.
(1) Small Population Size
General potential impacts of small population sizes to plants are
discussed above in the Small Population Size section under Factor E for
Astragalus hamiltonii.
As previously described (see the Distribution and Population Status
section), the entire ranges of both species are located in an area of
less than 5 mi\2\ (13 km\2\). Within this range, each of the four
individual populations' occupied habitat areas are very small, ranging
from 5 ac (2 ha) to 29 ac (12 ha) (based on Miller 2010g, Appendix B).
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri can be dominant in small
areas of occupied habitat, containing thousands of individuals.
However, the small areas of occupation and the narrow overall range of
the species make it highly susceptible to stochastic extinction events
and the effects of inbreeding depression.
Despite the overall lack of information on the population ecology
of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri, we know that small
populations are at an increased risk of extinction due to the potential
for inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity, and lower sexual
reproduction rates (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, entire; Wilcock and
Neiland 2002, p. 275). We do not have a clear understanding of the
reproductive biology of E. soredium and L. ostleri, but recruitment
appears to be low or episodic for E. soredium (Kass 1992a, p. 7; Roth
2010a, p. 1). Low levels of recruitment in small populations may be due
to inbreeding depression caused by the lack of genetic diversity and
low levels of genetic exchange between populations (Ellstrand and Elam
1993, entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 275).
Mining, or a single random event such as a wildfire (see Factor A),
could extirpate an entire or substantial portion of a population given
the small acreages of occupied habitat. Species with limited ranges and
restricted habitat requirements also are more vulnerable to the effects
of global climate change (see the Climate Change and Drought section
below; IPCC 2002, p. 22; Jump and Penuelas 2005, p. 1016; Machinski et
al. 2006, p. 226; Krause 2010, p. 79).
Overall, we consider small population size an intrinsic
vulnerability to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri that may not
rise to the level of a threat on its own. However, the small population
sizes rise to the level of a threat because of the combined effects of
small population sizes, limited distribution, and narrow overall range,
compounded by the effects of global climate change (see below) and the
potential for stochastic extinction events such as mining and invasive
species (see Factor A). Therefore, we consider small localized
population size, in combination with mining, invasive species, and
climate change, to be a threat to both species now and in the
foreseeable future.
(2) Climate Change and Drought
Potential impacts of climate change and drought to the geographic
area are characterized under Factor E for Astragalus hamiltonii. As
discussed above, Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri have a limited
distribution and populations are localized and small. In addition,
these populations are restricted to very specific soil types. Global
climate change exacerbates the risk of extinction for species that are
already vulnerable due to low population numbers and restricted habitat
requirements (see the

[[Page 10187]]

Climate Change and Drought section under Factor E for Astragalus
hamiltonii).
Predicted changes in climatic conditions include increases in
temperature, decreases in rainfall, and increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide in the American Southwest (Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC
2007, p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have no information
on how Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri will respond to effects
related to climate change, persistent or prolonged drought conditions
are likely to reduce the frequency and duration of flowering and
germination events, lower the recruitment of individual plants,
compromise the viability of populations, and impact pollinator
availability (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 263; Harrison 2001, p. 78).
The smallest change in environmental factors, especially precipitation,
plays a decisive role in plant survival in arid regions (Herbel et al.
1972, p. 1084).
Drought conditions led to a noticeable decline in survival, vigor,
and reproductive output of other rare and endangered plants in the
Southwest during the drought years of 2001 through 2004 (Anderton 2002,
p. 1; Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren and Harper 2004,
entire; Hughes 2005, entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 2008a,
entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3-4). Similar responses are anticipated to
adversely affect the long-term persistence of E. soredium and L.
ostleri.
Climate change is expected to increase levels of carbon dioxide
(Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p.
129). Elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to increased invasive
annual plant biomass, invasive seed production, and pest outbreaks
(Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80-81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et al.
2005, p. 1328) and will put additional stressors on rare plants already
suffering from the effects of elevated temperatures and drought.
The actual extent to which climate change itself will impact
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri is unclear, mostly because we
do not have long-term demographic information that would allow us to
predict the species' responses to changes in environmental conditions,
including prolonged drought. Any predictions at this point on how
climate change would affect these species would be speculative.
However, as previously described, the species are threatened by mining
activities (see Mining, Factor A) which will likely result in the loss
of large numbers of individuals and maybe even entire populations.
Increased surface disturbances associated with mining activities also
will likely increase the extent and densities of nonnative invasive
species and with it the frequencies of fires (see Nonnative Invasive
Species section under Factor A). Given the cumulative effects of the
potential population reduction and habitat loss (of already small
populations) associated with mining, invasive species, and fire, we are
concerned about the impacts of future climate change to Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri.
In summary, we find it difficult to analyze the potential effects
of global climate change on Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri in
the absence of demographic trend data for the species which would allow
us to analyze how they respond to climate change over time. However,
because of the threats of mining, nonnative species, and small
population size, the cumulative effects of climate change may be of
concern for these species in the future. At this time, we believe that
the state of knowledge concerning the localized effects of climate
change is too speculative to determine whether climate change is a
threat to these species in the foreseeable future. However, we will
continue to assess the potential of climate change to threaten the
species as better scientific information becomes available.
Summary of Factor E
We assessed the potential risks of small population size, climate
change, and drought to Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri
populations. E. soredium and L. ostleri have a highly restricted
distribution and exist in four populations scattered over an area that
is less than 5 mi\2\ (13 km\2\). Individual populations occupy very
small areas with large densities of plants. Even in the absence of
information on genetic diversity, inbreeding depression, and
reproductive effort, we believe a random stochastic event could impact
a significant portion of a population. Small populations that are
restricted by habitat requirements also are more vulnerable to the
effects of climate change, such as prolonged droughts and increased
fire frequencies.
While naturally occurring droughts are not likely to impact the
long-term persistence of the species, an increase in periodic prolonged
droughts due to climate change could impact the species across their
entire range in the future. Global climate change, particularly when
assessed cumulatively with small population sizes and threats from
mining activities, could increase the density of invasive annual
plants, which are already present in the habitat of Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri (see Factor A). Increased nonnative species in the
habitat of E. soredium and L. ostleri can increase fire frequency and
severity. Because E. soredium and L. ostleri are not likely adapted to
persist through fires, wildfires can have a significant impact on these
small populations.
Although small population size and climate change make the species
intrinsically more vulnerable, we are uncertain whether they would rise
to the level of threat by themselves. However, when combined with the
threats listed under Factor A (mining and nonnative invasive species),
small population size is likely to rise to the level of threat in the
foreseeable future. At this time, we are uncertain of the degree to
which climate change constitutes a threat to the species.

Finding

As required by the ESA, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri are endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of their range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by E. soredium and L. ostleri. We
reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with
E. soredium and L. ostleri experts and other Federal and State
agencies.
This status review identified threats to the species attributable
to Factors A, D, and E. The primary threat to the species is habitat
destruction from precious metal and gravel mining on private lands
(Factor A). All populations are located in the vicinity of historical
precious metal mining activities, at which ongoing exploration
activities show the potential for continued mining activities in the
foreseeable future. Three of the four populations are in the immediate
vicinity of limestone quarries, all of which are considered active. We
expect an increase in precious metal and limestone mining at these
locations in the foreseeable future, with associated loss and
fragmentation of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri populations.
Bromus tectorum occurs within all four Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri populations. It is a highly invasive nonnative species
that spreads quickly in response to surface disturbances such as
mining. As previously discussed, both species

[[Page 10188]]

occur in the immediate vicinity of precious metal and limestone mines--
mines inherently cause surface disturbances from excavation activities
and the construction of roads and other infrastructure. Global climate
change is expected to increase drought conditions in the Southwest and
increase the spread of nonnative invasive species. The biggest concern
associated with the increase in invasive species is the threat of
increased wildfire (Factor A), particularly when considering the small
population sizes and small occupied habitat area associated with these
species.
The magnitude of the biological threats posed by the species' small
population sizes and limited ranges are not well understood due to the
lack of information available on the ecology of Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri. Future studies may provide us with a more thorough
understanding of threats posed by pollinator limitation, inbreeding
depression, and the potential lack of genetic diversity over the
species' range. However, the small areas of occupied habitat make the
species highly vulnerable to habitat destruction through mining-related
activities as well as random extinction events, including invasive
species (and the inherent risk of increased fires) and the potential
future effects of global climate change (Factor E).
The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri from the primary threat of
mining, particularly because both species occur entirely on private
lands. The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) on private
land, combined with the economic and commercial value of the limestone
and precious metals, poses a serious threat to the continued existence
of E. soredium and L. ostleri. Ongoing mining in the habitat of E.
soredium and L. ostleri has the potential to extirpate one of the four
populations in the near future; all populations have the potential to
be extirpated by mining-related activities in the foreseeable future
(Factor A; Table 3).
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri as endangered or threatened is warranted.
We will make a determination on the status of the species as endangered
or threatened when we do a proposed listing determination. However, as
explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing this action is precluded by higher priority listing
actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified species
from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. We determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is
not warranted at this time because there is no emergency posing a
significant risk to the well-being of Eriogonum soredium or Lepidium
ostleri. We do not believe that any of the potential threats are of
such great immediacy and severity that would threaten all of the known
populations with the imminent risk of extinction. However, if at any
time we determine that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri is warranted, we will
initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a system for utilizing available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to the Lists of Endangered or
Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species listed as
threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled ``Endangered
and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines,''
address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as the level of
taxonomic distinctiveness, by assigning priority in descending order to
monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and subspecies
(or equivalently, DPS of vertebrates). We assigned Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri each a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based
on our finding that both species face threats of moderate magnitude
that are imminent. These threats include the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment of their habitat, the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other manmade factors
affecting their continued existence. These threats are ongoing and, in
some cases (such as nonnative species), are considered irreversible,
because, in the case of nonnative species invasions, large-scale
invasions cannot be recovered to a native functioning ecosystem. Our
rationale for assigning E. soredium and L. ostleri an LPN of 8 is
outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We
consider the threats that Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri face
to be moderate in magnitude because the major threats (mining,
nonnative species, small population size, climate change, and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), while serious and
occurring rangewide, do not collectively rise to the level of high
magnitude. For example, active mining is currently impacting only one
of the four populations.
The magnitude of Factor A is considered moderate, because, although
we think that all populations have been impacted by mining in the past
and three of the four populations occur in the immediate vicinity of
gravel pits, mining activities are currently ongoing in one of these
gravel pits. Ongoing mining in the habitat of E. soredium and L.
ostleri is expected to increase the density of Bromus tectorum, thereby
facilitating the spread of fire. B. tectorum is currently documented in
all populations.
We considered the magnitude of Factor D to be moderate. All
populations are located on private lands with patented mining claims,
where existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri from the impacts of mining. All
populations have the potential to be impacted by gravel and precious
metal mining in the future; however, because only one population is
currently impacted by gravel mining, we consider this threat to be
moderate.
We consider the magnitude of Factor E to be moderate, because
although small population size and climate change make the species
intrinsically more vulnerable, we are uncertain of whether they would
rise to the level of threat by themselves. However, when collectively
analyzed with the threats listed under Factor A, they may rise to the
level of threat in the foreseeable future. Although we are uncertain
about the direct impacts of global climate change on Eriogonum soredium
and Lepidium ostleri, we expect the species to respond negatively to
changed environmental conditions and drought, primarily from an
increase in nonnative invasive species and wildfire (see Factor A). The
threats of nonnative invasive species and wildfire could result in the
extirpation of all populations, especially because the populations are
small in size.

[[Page 10189]]

Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such threats. We consider all of the
threats to be imminent because we have information that the threats are
identifiable and that the species are currently facing them across
their entire range. These actual, identifiable threats are covered in
greater detail in Factors A, D, and E of this finding. The majority of
threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent, although gravel mining is
currently impacting only one of the populations. In addition to their
current existence, we expect these threats to continue and likely
intensify in the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri are valid taxa at the species level and, therefore, receive a
higher priority than subspecies, but a lower priority than species in a
monotypic genus. Therefore, we assigned E. soredium and L. ostleri an
LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the threats to Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri and the species' status on an annual basis, and should
the magnitude or the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit
our assessment of the LPN.
While we conclude that listing Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri is warranted, an immediate proposal to list this species is
precluded by other higher priority listings, which we address in the
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section below. Because we have
assigned Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri an LPN of 8, work on a
proposed listing determination for Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and
final listing determinations for those species that were proposed for
listing with funds from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. This work includes all
the actions listed in the tables included in the section on Preclusion
and Expeditious Progress, below.

Species Information--Trifolium friscanum

Taxonomy and Species Description
Trifolium friscanum is a dwarf mat-forming or tufted perennial herb
in the legume family (Fabaceae). Plants have a taproot and thick woody
stem. T. friscanum is up to 1.2 in (3 cm) tall and has silver hairy
leaves composed of three leaflets (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 486). Its
flowers resemble those of other clover species and are arranged in
heads of four to nine reddish-purple flowers with pale wings (Welsh et
al. 2008, p. 486). Flowering occurs from late May to June, followed by
fruit set in June through July (Welsh et al. 2008, p. 486).
Trifolium friscanum was originally described by Stanley Welsh as T.
andersonii var. friscanum from specimens collected on Grampian Hill in
the southern San Francisco Mountains in Beaver County, Utah (Welsh
1978, p. 355). The variety was elevated to species level in 1993 (Welsh
1993, p. 407). We accept the current taxonomy and consider T. friscanum
to be a valid species and a listable entity under the ESA.
Distribution and Population Status
Trifolium friscanum is a narrow endemic known from five small
populations containing nine sites on private, SITLA, BLM, and USFS
lands in Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah (Figure 4; Table 5; Kass
1992c, pp. 4-5; Evenden 1998, pp. 6-7, Appendix C; Evenden 1999, pp. 2-
3; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; Miller 2010e, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, p.
4). Populations are defined as groups of sites located in the same
geographic vicinity. Sites are defined as occurrence records or
locations recorded by one or more researcher over time within an
individual population. Despite additional searches in the San Francisco
Mountains and surrounding areas (including the Wah Wah Mountains, the
Confusion Range, the Mountain Home Range, and the Tunnel Springs
Mountains), no other populations are known to occur (Kass 1992c, pp. 4-
5; Evenden 1998, pp. 6-7, Appendix C; Evenden 1999, pp. 2-3; Miller
2010c, pp. 1, 4; Miller 2010e, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, p. 4).
The five populations occur within three mountain ranges in
southwestern Utah (see Figure 4 and Table 5). The two largest
populations, the Grampian Hill and San Francisco Populations, occur on
the southern tip on the San Francisco Mountains in Beaver County. East
of the San Francisco Mountains are the Beaver Lake Mountains, where the
Lime Mountain Population occurs on Lime Mountain. West and south of the
San Francisco Mountains are the Wah Wah Mountains. Along the
southeastern edge of the Wah Wah Mountains is the southernmost
population, the Blue Mountain population, which occurs along the
Beaver-Iron County boundary line on Blue Mountain. The Tunnel Springs
Population occurs on Tunnel Springs Mountains in Millard County. The
Tunnel Springs Mountains are west and north of the Wah Wah Mountains.
Two of the five Trifolium friscanum populations overlap to some
degree with the previously described Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri populations. The Grampian Hill populations of all three species
occur on Grampian Hill on the southern tip of the San Francisco
Mountains in the same habitat. The San Francisco population of T.
friscanum overlaps with the Indian Queen populations of E. soredium and
L. ostleri. The remaining three populations of T. friscanum--Blue
Mountain, Lime Mountain, and Tunnel Springs--are located in nearby
mountain ranges as described above.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10190]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Table 5--Estimated Number of Trifolium friscanum Plants
(Evenden 1998, Appendix C; Miller 2010a, pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; 2010d, p. 1; Roth 2010a, p. 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of Trifolium friscanum
Population Land ownership/sites plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Mountain......................... SITLA (1 site)............... 250.

[[Page 10191]]

Grampian Hill......................... Private (1 site)............. Many 1,000s.
San Francisco......................... BLM (Copper Gulch) (1 site).. 1,000.
Private (Cactus Mine) (1 300.
site).
Private (Indian Queen) (1 3,000.
site).
Lime Mountain......................... BLM (1 site)................. at least 125.
Tunnel Springs Mountains.............. BLM (1 site)................. 500.
USFS (2 sites)*.............. 2,000.
ESTIMATED TOTAL................... ............................. 13,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Last surveyed in 1992. All other survey data from 2010.

Trifolium friscanum populations extend about 40 mi (64 km) from the
San Francisco Mountains and stretch across 650 mi\2\ (1,684 km\2\)
(Figure 4). Within that area, the five populations are scattered in
small, disjunct areas of occupied habitat (Figure 4; Table 5).
The majority of plants (71 percent of the estimated populations)
are located in the San Francisco and Grampian Hill populations (Miller
2010g, Appendix B). Total occupied habitat for these two populations
(four sites) is approximately 35 ac (14 ha), each site ranging between
approximately 1 ac (0.4 ha) and 12 ac (5 ha) (Darnall et al. 2010,
entire). The Blue Mountain population occupies an area of approximately
0.33 ac (0.13 ha) (Darnall et al. 2010, entire). We do not have
population estimates for the areas of occupied habitat for the Tunnel
Springs sites (Tunnel Springs population) or the Lime Mountain
population, but we assume the area of occupied habitat to be similar to
or smaller than the San Francisco, Grampian Hill, and Blue Mountain
populations, because these populations contain fewer than or similar
numbers of plants as those estimated for the other sites (Table 5).
The total number of Trifolium friscanum individuals in Table 5 was
derived from observational counts or estimates. For the Grampian Hill
population, the estimate was ``many thousands'' (Miller 2010a, pers.
comm.). For the purpose of this finding, ``many thousands'' is
interpreted as approximately 5,000 individuals. Four of the 9 sites
contain 500 or fewer plants (Table 5).
The population estimates were not based on actual counts of plants
but on cursory observations with inherent observer biases. Similar to
Eriogonum sorenium and Lepidium ostleri, the plants grow in dense mat-
forming clusters, making it difficult to determine the number of
individuals within a cluster. Because individual plants are difficult
to distinguish, we do not believe that the variation in population
estimates reflects variation in population sizes, but is rather an
artifact in survey effort and methods used. Many of the sites occur on
private lands where access is restricted, so population counts are
estimated from observations.
Accordingly, the available population estimates are highly variable
and probably not accurate. During the 1990s, population estimates
ranged from 3,500 individuals (Evenden 1998, Appendix C) to
approximately 6,000 individuals (Kass 1992c, p. 8). In 2010, the total
number of plants was estimated at roughly 13,000 (Table 5; Miller
2010a, pers. comm.; Miller 2010c, pp. 1, 4; Miller 2010d, p. 1; Roth
2010a, p. 4). Thus, we do not have accurate population estimates or
trends for this species.
Habitat
Trifolium friscanum is a narrow endemic restricted to soils derived
from volcanic gravels, Ordovician limestone, and dolomite outcrops.
Soils are shallow, with gravels, rocks, and boulders on the surface
(Kass 1992c, p. 3; Miller 2010d, p. 1).
In the southern San Francisco Mountains, where the majority of
plants are located, there are 845 ac (342 ha) of Ordovician limestone
and 719 ac (291 ha) of dolomite outcrops (Darnall et al. 2010, entire).
Ordovician limestone is rare within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the San
Francisco Mountains, but dolomite outcrops are common in the Wah Wah
Mountain Range to the west (Miller 2010g, Appendix F). We have no
information on the extent of volcanic gravels in the area. As
previously described (see Distribution and Population Status), we are
not aware of any additional populations of the species, despite
additional potentially suitable habitats.
We do not know if there are other limiting factors associated with
the limestone and dolomite formations that restrict the habitat use and
distribution of the species; the species occupies only a fraction of
the available habitat. The two largest populations--Grampian Hill and
San Francisco--occupy an estimated 35 ac (14 ha) (2.3 percent) of the
available limestone and dolomite outcrops (Darnall et al. 2010,
entire). We do not have occupied habitat area totals for the remaining
three populations, but we believe they are smaller, based on field
evaluations and the lower number of individuals in these populations
(Kass 1992c, p. 3; Miller 2010d, p. 1; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2).
Trifolium friscanum is typically found within sparsely vegetated
pinion-juniper-sagebrush communities between 5,640 and 8,440 ft (1,720-
2,573 m) in elevation. Associated species include Ephedra spp. (Mormon
tea), Gutierrezia sarothrae (snakeweed), Cercocarpus intricatus (dwarf
mountain-mahogany), and Petradoria pumila (rock goldenrod). Associated
rare species in the southern San Francisco Mountains include Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri, which generally grow on the same
substrate in similar but more open habitats adjacent to T. friscanum.
Life History
No information is available on the life history of this species.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors--Trifolium
friscanum

In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to Trifolium friscanum in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (see the full description of
these five factors in the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors--Astragalus hamiltonii, above).

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The following factors may affect the habitat or range of Trifolium
friscanum:

[[Page 10192]]

(1) Livestock grazing, (2) recreational activities, (3) mining, and (4)
nonnative invasive species.
(1) Livestock Grazing
Potential impacts of livestock grazing to plants are discussed
above in the Livestock Grazing section under Factor A for Astragalus
hamiltonii.
All Trifolium friscanum populations on BLM lands are located on
active grazing allotments (Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). Adjacent
habitats on SITLA and private lands are subject to the same grazing
practices as the allotted BLM land if the habitats are not fenced
(Galbraith 2010, pers. comm.). The SITLA and private lands are only
partially fenced in these areas; thus we can assume that grazing
occurs. The USFS sites of the Tunnel Springs population are not grazed
(Kitchen 2010, pers. comm.).
The Trifolium friscanum population on BLM lands in the Tunnel
Springs Mountains was likely impacted by the construction of an
allotment boundary fence 10 years ago (Evenden 1999, p. 7; Roth 2010a,
p. 2). The fence runs along a ridge and through approximately 500 ft
(150 m) of T. friscanum habitat (Roth 2010b, p.1). The construction of
the fence may have impacted approximately 10 percent of the species'
habitat in the area (Roth 2010b, p.1). Livestock and wildlife trailing
occur along the fence, resulting in trampling of individual plants and
soil compaction (Roth 2010a, p. 2). No plants occur within 100 ft (30
m) of either side of the fence (Roth 2010a, p. 2).
Although much of the species' habitat is accessible to livestock,
we are not aware of any other disturbances or loss of plants from
grazing (Kass 1992, entire; Evenden 1998, entire, Evenden 1999, entire;
Pontarolo 2009, pers. comm.; Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, p.
3). Available information suggests that livestock grazing is not
occurring at a level that is impacting the species (Pontarolo 2009,
pers. comm.; Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, p. 3). Therefore,
we have no information suggesting that grazing impacts the species now
or will impact the species in the foreseeable future at a level that
threatens Trifolium friscanum.
(2) Recreational Activities
Potential impacts of recreational activities to plants are
discussed above in the Recreational Activities Section, Factor A, for
Astragalus hamiltonii. Because we know that OHV use is widespread
across the southwestern landscape, we analyzed its occurrence in
Triolium friscanum's habitat for this finding.
Access to the majority of occupied habitat on private lands is
closed to all vehicles, including OHVs (Miller 2010g, p. 5). There are
no known impacts of OHV use in Trifolium friscanum's occupied habitat
on private lands (Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2). The
OHV use also does not appear to impact T. friscanum's habitat on SITLA,
BLM, or USFS lands (Pontarolo 2009, pers. comm.; 2010, pers. comm.;
Miller 2010f, pers. comm.; Roth 2010a, pp. 1-2). Therefore, we do not
believe that recreational activities threaten T. friscanum now, nor do
we anticipate that these activities will become a threat in the
foreseeable future.
(3) Mining
As previously described (see Distribution and Population Status),
Trifolium friscanum occurs in five population areas: Blue Mountain,
Grampian Hill, San Francisco, Lime Mountain, and Tunnel Springs
Mountains. For purposes of the following analysis, it is important to
note that the Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations occur in the
southern San Francisco Mountains in the same vicinity and habitat as
Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri. The other three populations
are located in nearby mountain ranges.
The San Francisco Mountains have an extensive history of mining of
precious metals and limestone gravel (Table 6; Evenden 1998, p. 3). We
described this mining history, the likelihood of future mining
activities, and effects to the species under Eriogonum soredium and
Lepidium ostleri, Factor A, Mining. This analysis applies to the
Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations of Trifolium friscanum,
because the three species co-occur (see Distribution and Population
Status). In addition, we evaluated mining activity and its impacts to
the remaining three populations of T. friscanum.
To review, precious metal mining in the southern San Francisco
Mountains is likely to impact the Grampian Hill and San Francisco
populations of Trifolium friscanum (Table 6). The Grampian Hill
population is located in the area of the King David Mine, which is part
of the historical Horn Silver Mine. The San Francisco population (which
overlaps the Indian Queen population of Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri) is in the vicinity of mine shafts near the Cactus Mine, an
historical copper mine (see E. soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A,
Mining). Although large-scale precious metal mining in the area ceased
decades ago, we believe mining is likely to occur again in the
foreseeable future due to patent rights and ongoing exploration for
silver, zinc, and copper deposits--including recent exploration
activities at the Horn Silver Mine (see E. soredium and L. ostleri,
Factor A, Mining). Precious metal mining in the vicinity of the
Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations is of concern because these
populations comprise the species' largest known populations, containing
the vast majority of known individuals (9,300 individuals, or 71
percent of the species' estimated total population) (Table 5).
The Lime Mountain population has experienced precious metal mining
activity in the past (Table 6; Miller 2010h, pp. 6-7). The last mining
activity occurred in the early 1980s. We do not anticipate additional
mining, due to the small amounts of minerals that were extracted
(Miller 2010h, p. 7). We are not aware of precious metal mining
activities in the vicinity of the Blue Mountain or Tunnel Springs
populations.

Table 6--Mining activities in the habitat of Trifolium friscanum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Activity
Population --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Current Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Mountain........................ gravel quarrying....... active................. gravel quarrying.
Grampian Hill........................ silver, lead, copper, none................... silver, lead, copper,
zinc (Horn Silver zinc, landscape gravel
Mine). quarrying.
San Francisco........................ silver, lead, copper, active................. silver, lead, copper,
zinc, gravel quarrying zinc, landscape gravel
(Cactus Mine). quarrying.

[[Page 10193]]

Lime Mountain........................ silver, lead, copper, none................... unknown.
zinc, native gold,
iron (Skylark,
Independence & Galena
Mines).
Tunnel Springs Mountains............. unknown................ none................... unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gravel mining is known to occur within the range of Trifolium
friscanum, particularly in the San Francisco Mountains and Wah Wah
Mountains. Impacts to T. friscanum from gravel mining in the southern
San Francisco Mountains is similar to those analyzed for Eriogonum
soredium and Lepidium ostleri, because of their co-occurrence (see E.
soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A, Mining, above).
Gravel mining in the southern San Francisco Mountains is likely to
impact the San Francisco population of T. friscanum and possibly the
Grampian Hill population (Table 6). We estimate that 19 ac (8 ha) of
suitable habitat is disturbed by gravel mining activities near the San
Francisco population of Trifolium friscanum. Two quarries are located
within 1,000 ft (300 m) of two sites (Cactus Mine and Copper Gulch) of
the San Francisco population of T. friscanum. Based on habitat
similarities and proximity, we believe the plant may have occupied
these areas prior to the mining activity. Gravel pits in this area are
considered active because they are not reclaimed--given their close
proximity to known T. friscanum plants, these gravel pits could impact
the remaining occupied habitat of the species through additional
quarrying activities (i.e., removal of the entire substrate) or when
roads and other infrastructure are constructed. The San Francisco
population currently occupies only 15 ac (6 ha) of habitat, distributed
in three sites (Copper Gulch, Cactus Mine, and Indian Queen) (Table 5;
Darnall et al. 2010, entire).
Gravel mining also may impact the Grampian Hill population of
Trifolium friscanum in the future. Although gravel mining is not
actively occurring at Grampian Hill, gravel pits exist within 1 mi (1.6
km) of this T. friscanum population--near the Cupric Mine (see E.
soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A, Mining, above). We do not know if
gravel mining will definitely occur at the Grampian Hill population.
However, mining operations are expected to either expand from the
vicinity of the Cupric Mine or be moved to a new location within the
species' habitat in the near future (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). Due to
the limited extent of the Ordovician limestone deposits across the
landscape (see Habitat), it is plausible that mining activities could
occur at the Grampian Hill population. Even if gravel mining does not
occur at the Grampian Hill population, we previously established that
this population is likely to be impacted by precious metal mining.
A similar overlap in habitat types and gravel quarrying (Table 6)
occurs for this species in the Blue Mountain population. The Blue
Mountain population, which is less than 1 ac (0.4 ha) in size, is
located on SITLA lands within a couple hundred feet (meters) of a
gravel pit (Evenden 1998, p. 9; Roth 2010a, p. 4). This mine is not
reclaimed and, therefore, is considered active (Darnall et al. 2010,
entire). Therefore, we assume that continued gravel mining will
ultimately impact this population if it has not already occurred. The
need for gravel sources is expected to increase, because an increasing
human population growth (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, entire; Utah GOPB
2010, p. 48) will result in the need for increased road construction
and maintenance in the future. Although the gravel in the Blue Mountain
is mined for road construction projects, the effects analysis under E.
soredium and L. ostleri (see Factor A, Mining) is relevant; i.e.,
mining for gravel will lead to the degradation and loss of suitable
habitat for Trifolium friscanum.
As previously discussed (see Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium
ostleri, Factor A, Mining, above), construction sand, gravel, and
crushed stone together rank as the second most valuable commodity
produced among industrial minerals in Utah (Bon and Krahulec 2009, p.
5). Gravel, stone, and rock are generally mined for local and regional
distribution due to the high cost of transport. The quarries in the San
Francisco Mountains are the closest crushed limestone quarries to
Washington County, one of the fastest growing counties in Utah (see E.
soredium and L. ostleri, Factor A). In general, there has been a net
loss of local sand and gravel supply pits in the Washington County area
due to ongoing urban development and the lack of available gravel pit
operations on surrounding Federal lands (Blackett and Tripp 1999, p.
33). Thus, the Blue Mountain population area could become a primary
source of gravel for Washington County and other nearby communities,
especially because the pit's location on SITLA lands limits the need
for environmental regulations. Overall, it is likely that an increasing
human population growth in Washington County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b,
entire; Utah GOPB 2010, p. 48) will result in an increased demand for
the limestone and gravel resources at and nearby known populations of
T. friscanum.
To summarize, mining throughout large portions of Trifolium
friscanum's range has impacted available habitat. Three of the five
known populations are located at historical precious metal mines or
gravel mines on private and SITLA lands (Table 5; Table 6; see Factor
D). Two of these populations (San Francisco and Grampian Hill) comprise
the vast majority (71 percent) of the known estimated population of T.
friscanum (Table 5). Precious metal mining is likely to impact
populations of T. friscanum in the foreseeable future, particularly in
the vicinity of the large Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations.
Gravel mining is expected to increase in the future in response to
increased population growth and limited availability of active gravel
pits in nearby Washington County (see E. soredium and L. ostleri,
Factor A). Available information suggests that three of five
populations will be significantly impacted by either precious metal or
gravel mining in the foreseeable future (see E. soredium and L.
ostleri, Factor A, Mining). Therefore, we have determined that mining
is a threat to T. friscanum now and in the foreseeable future.
(4) Nonnative Invasive Species
Potential impacts of nonnative invasive species to native plants
and their habitat are discussed above in Astragalus hamiltonii, Factor
A, Nonnative Invasive Species. The annual nonnative invasive grass,
Bromus tectorum, is considered the most

[[Page 10194]]

ubiquitous invasive species in the Intermountain West due to its
ability to rapidly invade native dryland ecosystems and outcompete
native plant species (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack and Pyke 1983, p. 88;
Thill et al. 1984, p. 10).
Bromus tectorum occurs in the habitat and vicinity of the Grampian
Hill and San Francisco Trifolium friscanum populations, which also is
where the majority of plants occur (Table 5; Miller 2010c, pp. 2-5;
Roth 2010a, p. 1). We do not know whether B. tectorum occurs in the
other three populations, but given the ubiquitous distribution of B.
tectorum in the Intermountain West, we expect it occurs in the vicinity
of all populations (Novack and Mack, 2001, p. 115).
Surface disturbances increase the occurrence and densities of B.
tectorum (see Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri, Factor A,
Nonnative Invasive Species; Mack 1981, p. 145). As previously
described, increased mining activities and associated surface
disturbances are expected to occur in and adjacent to the occupied
habitat for T. friscanum in the San Francisco and Blue Mountains (see
Mining, above), consequently encouraging B. tectorum to expand into the
species' habitat.
Invasions of annual nonnative species, such as Bromus tectorum, are
well documented to contribute to increased fire frequencies (Brooks and
Pyke 2002, p. 5; Grace et al. 2002, p. 43; Brooks et al. 2003, pp. 4,
13, 15). The risk of fire is expected to increase from 46 to 100
percent when the cover of B. tectorum increases from 12 to 45 percent
or more (Link et al. 2006, p. 116). In the absence of exotic species,
it is generally estimated that fire return intervals in xeric sagebrush
communities range from 100 to 350 years (Baker 2006, p. 181). In some
areas of the Great Basin (Snake River Plain), fire return intervals due
to B. tectorum invasion are now between 3 and 5 years (Whisenant 1990,
p. 4). Most plant species occurring within a sagebrush ecosystem are
not expected to be adapted to frequent fires, as evidenced in the lack
of evolutionary adaptations found in other shrub-dominated fire-adapted
ecosystems like chaparral. Examples of such adaptation would include
re-sprouting and heat-stimulated seed germination (Baker, in press, p.
17).
In the absence of annual nonnative species, T. friscanum grows in
sparsely vegetated communities that are unlikely to carry fires (see
Habitat section). Thus, T. friscanum is unlikely to be adapted to fire
and, therefore, unlikely to persist through a fire. Therefore, the
potential expansion of invasive species and associated fire is a threat
to the species, especially when considering the limited distribution of
the species and the high potential of stochastic extinctions (as
discussed in the Small Population Size, Factor E, below). As described
in the Distribution section, the majority of plants are located within
the Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations, where occurrences of
B. tectorum are documented. Occupied habitat in these populations
ranges from 1 to 12 ac (0.4 to 5 ha).
In summary, Bromus tectorum occurs in the two largest Trifolium
friscanum populations (Grampian Hill and San Francisco populations,
Table 5). Given the ability of B. tectorum to rapidly invade dryland
ecosystems (Mack 1981, p. 145; Mack and Pyke, 1983, p. 88; Thill et al.
1984, p. 10), we expect it to increase in the future in response to
surface disturbance from increased mining activities and global climate
change (see the Climate Change and Drought section under Factor E for
Astragalus hamiltonii). An increase in nonnative species is expected to
increase the frequency of fires in T. friscanum's habitat. Therefore,
we determine that nonnative invasive species are a threat to two of
five populations of T. frsicanum and the majority of individuals now,
and may impact all populations in the foreseeable future when evaluated
cumulatively with mining activities (and associated surface
disturbances), climate change, and fire.
Summary of Factor A
At this time, based on best available information, we do not
believe that grazing or recreational activities significantly threaten
Trifolium friscanum now or in the foreseeable future. However, we
determine that mining and nonnative invasive species are threats to T.
friscanum.
Mining activities impacted Trifolium friscanum habitat in the past
and continue to be a threat to the species and its habitat throughout
large portions of its range. Two of the five populations and the
majority of individuals are located on lands with an extensive history
of precious metal mining; ongoing exploration activities indicate that
precious metal mining is likely to threaten the species in the
foreseeable future. The main threat to the majority of T. friscanum
plants is gravel mining (Table 6). Three of the five populations are
located in the vicinity of gravel pits that are mined for road and
landscaping gravel. The three populations located in the vicinity of
gravel mines contain the majority of plants and may be mined for gravel
in the future (Table 6). We anticipate an increase in the demand for
precious metals and landscape rock based on the economic outlook for
these commodities, regional availability, and the proximity of these
gravel mines to a rapidly expanding urban area and, therefore, an
increase in impacts to T. friscanum.
Bromus tectorum is documented to occur in the two largest of the
five populations of Trifolium friscanum. The threat of fire caused by
annual nonnative species invasions is exacerbated by mining activities
and global climate change (see the Climate Change and Drought section
under Factor E). Small population sizes and extremely limited
distribution of this species make it especially vulnerable to
stochastic extinction events, including mining activities and wildfires
caused by increased invasions of nonnative species (see the Small
Population Size section under Factor E).
Therefore, we find that Trifolium friscanum is threatened by the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
species' habitat or range, now and in the foreseeable future, based on
impacts from mining activities and nonnative invasive species.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Trifolium friscanum is not a plant of horticultural interest. We
are not aware of any overutilization or collection of T. friscanum.
Therefore, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes does not appear to pose a significant threat to
the species now nor is it likely to become a threat in the foreseeable
future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease and herbivory on the species are unknown. We do not have
any information indicating that disease is impacting Trifolium
friscanum. We also do not have any information indicating that
herbivory is occurring from livestock (see the Livestock Grazing
section under Factor A), wildlife, or insects (Kass 1992c, p. 10;
Evenden 1998, entire; Evenden 1999, entire; Miller 2010a, p. 1; Miller
2010c, entire; Roth 2010a, entire). Thus, we do not consider disease or
predation to be threats to this species.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no endangered species laws protecting plants on private,
State, or Tribal lands in Utah. The majority of individual plants are
located on SITLA

[[Page 10195]]

or private lands (Table 5). Trifolium friscanum is listed as a bureau-
sensitive plant for the BLM. Limited policy-level protection by the BLM
is afforded through the Special Status Species Management Policy Manual
6840, which forms the basis for special status species
management on BLM lands (BLM 2008e, entire). The two sites on USFS
lands are located within the Desert Experimental Range in the Tunnel
Springs Mountains (Tunnel Springs population) and appear to be secure,
although the population has not been visited since 1992 (Kass 1992c, p.
11; Evenden 1998, Appendix C; Evenden 1999, p. 3).
This species is predominantly located on private or SITLA lands
(Table 5), where it is threatened by mining-related activities (see
Factor A). There are limited regulatory mechanisms in place that may
protect Trifolium friscanum from mining on private or State lands. As
described under Eriogonum soredium and Lepidium ostleri, Factor D,
State environmental impact assessments are required for large mining
operations for all mineral exploration, development, and extraction,
including gravel pits and precious metal mining (UDOGM 2010b, p.1;
Baker 2010, pers. comm.). T. friscanum is not State listed, but it is
on the BLM sensitive species list. If UDOGM is made aware of impacts to
these species, they could consider minimizing and mitigating impacts;
however, there is no requirement to address species that are not
federally listed in the mine permitting process (Baker 2010, pers.
comm.).
The existing mining activities (see Factor A, Mining) are under the
5-ac (2-ha) regulatory threshold and, therefore, not subject to
permitting laws (Munson 2010, pers. comm.). A few of the gravel mine
pits almost exceed the 5-ac (2-ha) limit, and the operators may need to
apply for permits (Munson 2010, pers. comm.); however, they also could
choose to begin new gravel pits, or reclaim portions of the existing
pits to remain below the 5-ac (2-ha) limit (Munson 2010, pers. comm.).
In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to
protect T. friscanum from becoming threatened or endangered by precious
metal or gravel mining on SITLA and private lands. The active gravel
pits are below the 5-ac (2-ha) threshold that would automatically
trigger regulatory environmental impact assessments. Even if an
environmental impact assessment is completed for any of the mines, the
existing mining laws only recommend, and do not mandate, the species'
protection or mitigation. Thus, we find that the inadequacy of existing
mechanisms to regulate mining activities on private and State lands is
a threat to three of five populations and the majority of individuals,
and thus to T. friscanum now and into the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Natural and manmade threats to Trifolium friscanum's survival
include: (1) Small population size and (2) climate change and drought.
(1) Small Population Size
General potential impacts of small population sizes in plants are
discussed above in the Small Population Size section under Factor E for
Astragalus hamiltonii.
As previously discussed (see Distribution and Population Status,
above), the entire species' range is restricted to highly specialized
habitat niches, distributed in 5 populations (and 9 sites) with a total
population estimate of 13,000 plants. Four of the 9 sites contain 500
or fewer individuals (Table 5). Only a fraction of the entire species'
range is occupied habitat. The majority of plants are located in two
populations containing four sites of occupied habitat, ranging from an
estimated 1 ac (0.4 ha) to a maximum of 12 ac (5 ha) (Darnall et al.
2010, entire; Miller 2010g, Appendix B).
Despite the overall lack of information on the population ecology
of Trifolium friscanum, we know that small populations are at an
increased risk of extinction due to the potential for inbreeding
depression, loss of genetic diversity, and lower sexual reproduction
rates (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, entire; Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p.
275). No information is available on the population genetics,
pollination, or reproductive effort and success of T. friscanum.
However, the small areas of occupation and the narrow overall range of
the species make it highly susceptible to stochastic extinction events
and the effects of inbreeding depression.
Mining or a single random event, such as a wildfire from invasive
species (see Factor A, Nonnative Invasive Species), could extirpate an
entire or at least a substantial portion of a population, given the
small areas of occupied habitat. Species with limited ranges and
restricted habitat requirements also are more vulnerable to the effects
of global climate change (see Climate Change and Drought, below) (IPCC
2002, p. 22; Jump and Penuelas 2005, p. 1016; Machinski et al. 2006, p.
226; Krause 2010, p. 79). Overall, we consider small population size an
intrinsic vulnerability to Trifolium friscanum, which may not rise to
the level of a threat on its own. However, the small population sizes
rise to the level of a threat because of the combined effects of having
only five highly localized small populations with the effects of global
climate change (see below) and the potential for stochastic extinction
events such as mining, and fire induced by invasive species (see Factor
A). Therefore, we consider small localized population size, in
combination with mining, invasive species, and climate change, to be a
threat to the species now and in the foreseeable future.
(2) Climate Change and Drought
Potential impacts of climate change and drought to the geographic
area are characterized in the Climate Change and Drought section under
Factor E for Astragalus hamiltonii. As discussed in the Small
Population Size section above, Trifolium friscanum has a limited
distribution and populations are localized and small. In addition,
these populations are restricted to very specific soil types. Global
climate change exacerbates the risk of extinction for species that are
already vulnerable due to low population numbers and restricted habitat
requirements (see Climate Change and Drought, Factor E for Astragalus
hamiltonii, above).
Predicted changes in climatic conditions include increases in
temperature, decreases in rainfall, and increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide in the American Southwest (Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC
2007, p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have no information
on how Trifolium friscanum will respond to effects related to climate
change, persistent or prolonged drought conditions are likely to reduce
the frequency and duration of flowering and germination events, lower
the recruitment of individual plants, compromise the viability of
populations, and impact pollinator availability (Tilman and El Haddi
1992, p. 263; Harrison 2001, p. 78). The smallest change in
environmental factors, especially precipitation, plays a decisive role
in plant survival in arid regions (Herbel et al. 1972, p. 1084).
Drought conditions led to a noticeable decline in survival, vigor,
and reproductive output of other rare and endangered plants in the
Southwest during the drought years of 2001 through 2004 (Anderton 2002,
p. 1; Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 3; Van Buren and Harper 2004,
entire; Hughes 2005, entire; Clark and Clark 2007, p. 6; Roth 2008a,
entire; Roth 2008b, pp. 3-4). Similar responses are anticipated to

[[Page 10196]]

adversely affect the long-term persistence of T. friscanum.
Climate change is expected to increase levels of carbon dioxide
(Walther et al. 2002, p. 389; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Karl et al. 2009, p.
129). Elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to increased invasive
annual plant biomass, invasive seed production, and pest outbreaks
(Smith et al. 2000, p. 80-81; IPCC 2002, pp. 18, 32; Ziska et al. 2005,
p. 1328), and will put additional stressors on rare plants already
suffering from the effects of elevated temperatures and drought.
The actual extent to which climate change itself will impact
Trifolium friscanum is unclear, mostly because we do not have long-term
demographic information that allows us to predict the species' response
to changes in environmental conditions, including prolonged drought.
However, as previously described, the species is threatened by mining
activities (see Mining, Factor A, above), which will likely result in
the loss of large numbers of individuals or even entire populations.
Increased surface disturbances associated with mining activities also
will likely increase the extent and densities of nonnative invasive
species and, with these, the frequencies of fires (see Nonnative
Invasive Species, Factor A, above). The cumulative effects of the
potential reduction in population numbers and habitat loss (of already
small populations) associated with mining and increased invasive
species (and fire) are likely to increase the risk of the species being
impacted by changes in climate.
In summary, we find it difficult to analyze the potential effects
of global climate change on Trifolium friscanum in the absence of
demographic trend data for the species which would allow us to analyze
how the species responds to climate change through time. However, the
cumulative effects posed by the threats of mining, nonnative species
and small population size may exacerbate the effects of climate change
on T. friscanum in the future. However, at this time, we believe that
the state of knowledge concerning the localized effects of climate
change within the habitat occupied by T. friscanum is too speculative
to determine whether climate change is a threat to this species in the
foreseeable future. We will continue to assess the potential of climate
change to threaten the species as better scientific information becomes
available.
Summary of Factor E
We assessed the potential risks of small population size, climate
change, and drought to Trifolium friscanum populations. T. friscanum
has a highly restricted distribution and is known from five small,
localized populations. Even in the absence of information on genetic
diversity, inbreeding depression, and reproductive effort, a random
stochastic event could impact a significant portion of a population.
Small populations that are restricted by habitat requirements are also
more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as prolonged
droughts and increased fire frequencies.
While naturally occurring droughts are not likely to impact the
long-term persistence of the species, an increase in periodic prolonged
droughts due to climate change is likely to impact the species across
its entire range in the future. Global climate change, particularly
when assessed cumulatively with small population size and threats from
mining activities, is expected to increase the density of invasive
annual grasses, which are already present in the habitat of Trifolium
friscanum within the populations that contain the majority of the
plants (see Factor A). Increased nonnative species in the habitat of T.
friscanum can increase fire frequency and severity. Because T.
friscanum is not likely adapted to persist through fires, wildfires can
have a significant impact on these small populations.
Although small population size and climate change make the species
intrinsically more vulnerable, we are uncertain whether they would rise
to the level of threat by themselves. However, when combined with the
threats listed under Factor A, we believe that small population size is
likely to rise to the level of threat in the foreseeable future. At
this time, we are uncertain of the degree to which climate change
constitutes a threat to the species.

Finding

As required by the ESA, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether Trifolium
friscanum is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by T. friscanum. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, as well as other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with species experts and other Federal
and State agencies.
This status review identified threats to the species attributable
to Factors A, D, and E. The primary threat to the species is habitat
destruction from precious metal and gravel mining on private and SITLA
lands (Factor A). The largest populations containing the majority of
Trifolium friscanum plants are located on private lands with active
mining claims. These populations were likely impacted by historical
precious metal mining. Another population is located on SITLA lands in
the immediate vicinity of a gravel pit. We expect an increase in
precious metal and gravel mining in the foreseeable future, with the
associated loss and fragmentation of T. friscanum populations.
Bromus tectorum occurs in the vicinity of the two largest
populations of the five known Trifolium friscanum populations. It is a
highly invasive species and is expected to increase in areas where
surface disturbance such as mining occurs. As previously discussed, the
species occurs in the vicinity of gravel and precious metal mines.
Mines inherently cause surface disturbances from excavation activities
and the construction of roads and other infrastructure. Global climate
change is expected to increase drought conditions in the Southwest and
increase the spread of nonnative invasive species. The biggest concern
associated with the increase in invasive species is the threat of
increased wildfire (Factor A), particularly when considering the small
population sizes and small occupied habitat acreages associated with
the species.
The magnitude of the biological threats posed by the small
population size and limited species range are not well understood due
to the lack of information available on the ecology of Trifolium
friscanum. Future studies may provide us with a more thorough
understanding of threats posed by pollinator limitation, inbreeding
depression, and the potential lack of genetic diversity over the
species' range. Even without detailed knowledge on how small population
sizes are impacting the biology and ecology of T. friscanum, the small
areas of occupied habitat make the species highly vulnerable to habitat
destruction through mining-related activities as well as random
extinction events, including fires and the effects of global climate
change (Factor E).
The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect
Trifolium friscanum from the primary threat of mining, particularly
because the

[[Page 10197]]

majority of individuals are located on private lands (Factor D). The
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) on private and State
lands, combined with the high economic and commercial value of much of
the substrate this species depends on, poses a serious threat to T.
friscanum. A large portion of the species' individuals have the
potential to be extirpated by mining activities in the foreseeable
future (Factor A; Table 6). Ongoing mining in the habitat of T.
friscanum has the potential to extirpate three of the five populations
in the foreseeable future, two of which contain the majority of plants
(Factor A, Table 5).
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list Trifolium
friscanum as endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the species as endangered or threatened
when we do a proposed listing determination. However, as explained in
more detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing
this action is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is warranted. We determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is
not warranted at this time because there is no emergency posing a
significant risk to the well being of Trifolium friscanum. We do not
believe that any of the potential threats are of such great immediacy
and severity that would threaten all of the known populations with the
imminent risk of extinction. However, if at any time we determine that
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing Trifolium friscanum
is warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

Pursuant to our guidelines, titled ``Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines'' (described above),
we have assigned Trifolium friscanum a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of
8, based on our finding that the species faces threats that are of
moderate magnitude and are imminent. These threats include the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat,
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. These threats are
ongoing and, in some cases (such as nonnative species), are considered
irreversible because large-scale invasions cannot be recovered to a
native functioning ecosystem. Our rationale for assigning T. friscanum
an LPN of 8 is outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We
consider the magnitude of Factor A moderate. While current mining
activities are ongoing in the habitat of T. friscanum, they are not
ongoing in the immediate vicinity of any of the populations. Mining in
the habitat of these populations is expected to increase the density of
B. tectorum, thereby facilitating the spread of fire. B. tectorum
occurs in two of the five populations, which also contain the largest
number of individuals. We have no documentation on the density of B.
tectorum within these populations but we are expecting it to increase
in the future.
We consider the magnitude of Factor D to be moderate. Three of the
five populations are located on private or SITLA lands. The majority of
individuals are located on private lands with active patented mining
claims. Existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect
Trifolium friscanum from the impacts of mining on private lands. The
majority of individuals (3 populations) have the potential to be
impacted by mining in the future. However, because none of the
populations are directly impacted by current mining levels on SITLA or
private lands, we consider threats under Factor D to be moderate at
this time.
We consider the magnitude of Factor E moderate, because, although
small population size and climate change make the species intrinsically
more vulnerable, we are uncertain of whether they would rise to the
level of threat by themselves. However, when collectively analyzed with
the threats listed under Factor A, they may rise to the level of threat
in the foreseeable future. Although we are uncertain about the direct
impacts of global climate change on Trifolium friscanum, we expect the
species to respond negatively to changed environmental conditions and
drought, especially when combined with the effects of small population
size and the threat of increased mining activities.
Therefore, we consider the threats that Trifolium friscanum faces
to be moderate in magnitude because the major threats (mining,
nonnative invasive species, small population size, plus inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms), while serious and occurring rangewide,
do not collectively rise to the level of high magnitude.
Under our LPN guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or those that are intrinsically vulnerable but are
not known to be presently facing such threats. We consider all of the
threats to be imminent because we have factual information that the
threats are identifiable and that the species is currently facing them
in many portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are
covered in greater detail in Factors A, D, and E of this finding. The
majority of threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent, although
mining is currently ongoing in the habitat of only one of the
populations. In addition to their current existence, we expect these
threats, except for inadequate regulations, to continue and likely
intensify in the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Trifolium friscanum is a valid
taxon at the species level and, therefore, receives a higher priority
than subspecies, but a lower priority than species in a monotypic
genus. Therefore, we assigned T. friscanum an LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the threats to Trifolium friscanum and
the species' status on an annual basis, and, should the magnitude or
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of
the LPN.
While we conclude that listing Trifolium friscanum is warranted, an
immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher
priority listings, which we address in the Preclusion and Expeditious
Progress section below. Because we have assigned T. friscanum an LPN of
8, work on a proposed listing determination for T. friscanum is
precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with

[[Page 10198]]

funds from FY 2010. This work includes all the actions listed in the
tables below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year, multiple factors
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is
warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Services' Listing Program is available to support work involving
the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day
and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
determinations on prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical habitat
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach
regarding listing and critical habitat).
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating
relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions
that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions
generally are more costly. For example, during the past several years
the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a 12-month
finding, without a proposed rule, has ranged from approximately $11,000
for one species with a restricted range and involving a relatively
uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for another species that is wide
ranging and involving a complex analysis.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each FY since then,
Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be expended for
the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that FY. This cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery
funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other Service
programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see House Report
105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species
already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program
appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in
FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some
funds are available for other work in the Listing Program: ``The
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is
available to address other listing activities'' (House Report No. 107-
103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and each
year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the entire
critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of
critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap
funds have been available for other listing activities. In FY 2007, we
were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In
FY 2009, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap
funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this
money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby
being more efficient in our work. In FY 2010, we are using some of the
critical habitat subcap funds to fund actions with statutory deadlines.
Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on
our petition finding determinations.
Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the
key element in deciding, when making a 12-month petition finding,
whether we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or instead make a
``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The Conference
Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current
statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in
a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also
covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any
reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals
to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make
allocation of resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-
ranking species] unwise.''
In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations
for species that are already listed). However, these funds are not
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered and statutory listing
actions in FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of our critical habitat
subcap funds in order to work on all of our required petition findings
and listing determinations. This brings the total amount of funds we
have for listing actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417.
Starting in FY 2010, we also are using our funds to work on listing
actions for foreign species, because that work was transferred from the
Division of Scientific Authority, International Affairs Program, to the
Endangered Species Program. Our process is to make our determinations
of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in
need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate
our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 is being used
to fund work in the following categories: Compliance with court orders
and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition
findings or listing determinations be completed by a specific date;
section 4 (of the ESA) listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines; essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing
program-management functions; and high-priority listing actions for
some of our candidate species. The allocations for each specific
listing action are identified

[[Page 10199]]

in the Service's FY 2010 Allocation Table (part of our administrative
record).
In FY 2007, we had more than 120 species with an LPN of 2, based on
our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each
candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high vs. moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, DPS, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the
higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would
have the highest listing priority). Because of the large number of
high-priority species, we further ranked the candidate species with an
LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and
species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer
populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically
endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer
than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, comprised a group of
approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a
proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and final
listing rules for these 40 candidates, we are applying the ranking
criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species.
To be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed
rules for these species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, available staff
resources also are a factor in determining high-priority species
provided with funding. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of
threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since as listed
species, they are already afforded the protection of the ESA and
implementing regulations.
We assigned Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri and Trifolium
friscanum an LPN of 8. This is based on our finding that the species
face immediate and moderate magnitude threats from the present or
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or man-
made factors affecting their continued existence. These threats are
ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered
irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a ``species'' facing imminent
moderate-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 7, 8, or 9 depending
on its taxonomic status. Because E. soredium, L. ostleri and T.
friscanum are species, we assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore, work
on a proposed listing determination for E. soredium, L. ostleri and T.
friscanum is precluded by work on higher priority candidate species
(i.e., species with LPN of 7); listing actions with absolute statutory,
court ordered, or court-approved deadlines; and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from previous FYs. This work includes all the actions listed in
the tables below under expeditious progress.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded also must demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in
detail here, we also are making expeditious progress in removing
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As
explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing
Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them
cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the
Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the
resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Given
that limitation, we find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the
Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the
following determinations:

FY 2010 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions Federal Register pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009................. Listing Lepidium Final Listing, 74 FR 52013-52064.
papilliferum (Slickspot Threatened.
Peppergrass) as a
Threatened Species
Throughout Its Range.
10/27/2009................. 90-day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 55177-55180.
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
American Dipper in the Not substantial.
Black Hills of SD as
Threatened or Endangered.
10/28/2009................. Status Review of Arctic Notice of Intent to 74 FR 55524-55525.
Grayling (Thymallus Conduct Status
arcticus) in the Upper Review.
Missouri River System.
11/03/2009................. Listing the British Proposed Listing 74 FR 56757-56770.
Columbia DPS of the Queen Threatened.
Charlotte Goshawk Under
the ESA: Proposed rule.
11/03/2009................. Listing the Salmon-Crested Proposed Listing 74 FR 56770-56791.
Cockatoo as Threatened Threatened.
Throughout Its Range with
Special Rule.
11/23/2009................. Status Review of Gunnison Notice of Intent to 74 FR 61100-61102.
sage-grouse (Centrocercus Conduct Status
minimus). Review.
12/03/2009................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 63343-63366.
Petition to List the petition finding,
Black-tailed Prairie Dog Not warranted.
as Threatened or
Endangered.
12/03/2009................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 63337-63343.
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Sprague's Pipit as Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
12/15/2009................. 90-Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66260-66271.
Petitions To List Nine Petition Finding,
Species of Mussels From Substantial.
TX as Threatened or
Endangered With Critical
Habitat.
12/16/2009................. Partial 90-Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66865-66905.
a Petition to List 475 Petition Finding,
Species in the Not substantial &
Southwestern U.S. as Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered
With Critical Habitat.

[[Page 10200]]

12/17/2009................. 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 66937-66950.
Petition To Change the petition finding,
Final Listing of the DPS Warranted but
of the Canada Lynx To precluded.
Include NM.
01/05/2010................. Listing Foreign Bird Proposed Listing, 75 FR 605-649.
Species in Peru & Bolivia Endangered.
as Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
01/05/2010................. Listing Six Foreign Birds Proposed Listing, 75 FR 286-310.
as Endangered Throughout Endangered.
Their Range.
01/05/2010................. Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule, 75 FR 310-316.
Rule to List Cook's withdrawal.
Petrel.
01/05/2010................. Final Rule to List the Final Listing, 75 FR 235-250.
Galapagos Petrel & Threatened.
Heinroth's Shearwater as
Threatened Throughout
Their Ranges.
01/20/2010................. Initiation of Status Notice of Intent to 75 FR 3190-3191.
Review for Agave Conduct Status
eggersiana & Solanum Review.
conocarpum.
02/09/2010................. 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 6437-6471.
Petition to List the petition finding,
American Pika as Not warranted.
Threatened or Endangered.
02/25/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 8601-8621.
Petition To List the petition finding,
Sonoran Desert Population Not warranted.
of the Bald Eagle as a
Threatened or Endangered
DPS.
02/25/2010................. Withdrawal of Proposed Withdrawal of 75 FR 8621-8644.
Rule To List the Proposed Rule to
Southwestern Washington/ List.
Columbia River DPS of
Coastal Cutthroat Trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki
clarki) as Threatened.
03/18/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13068-13071.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Berry Cave Salamander as Substantial.
Endangered.
03/23/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13717-13720.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Southern Hickorynut Not substantial.
Mussel (Obovaria
jacksoniana) as
Endangered or Threatened.
03/23/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13720-13726.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Striped Newt as Substantial.
Threatened.
03/23/2010................. 12-Month Findings for Notice of 12-month 75 FR 13910-14014.
Petitions to List the petition finding,
Greater Sage-Grouse Warranted but
(Centrocercus precluded.
urophasianus) as
Threatened or Endangered.
03/31/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 16050-16065.
Petition to List the petition finding,
Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake Warranted but
(Chionactis occipitalis precluded.
klauberi) as Threatened
or Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
04/05/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17062-17070.
Petition To List Thorne's Petition Finding,
Hairstreak Butterfly as Substantial.
or Endangered.
04/06/2010................. 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17352-17363.
Petition To List the petition finding,
Mountain Whitefish in the Not warranted.
Big Lost River, ID, as
Endangered or Threatened.
04/06/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17363-17367.
Petition to List a Petition Finding,
Stonefly (Isoperla Not substantial.
jewetti) and a Mayfly
(Fallceon eatoni) as
Threatened or Endangered
with Critical Habitat.
04/07/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17667-17680.
Petition to Reclassify petition finding,
the Delta Smelt From Warranted but
Threatened to Endangered precluded.
Throughout Its Range.
04/13/2010................. Determination of Final Listing, 75 FR 18959-19165.
Endangered Status for 48 Endangered.
Species on Kauai &
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
04/15/2010................. Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation 75 FR 19591-19592.
Review of the North of Status Review.
American Wolverine in the
Contiguous U.S.
04/15/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 19592-19607.
Petition to List the petition finding,
Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Not warranted.
Endangered or Threatened
with Critical Habitat.
04/16/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 19925-19935.
Petition to List a DPS of Petition Finding,
the Fisher in Its U.S. Substantial.
Northern Rocky Mountain
Range as Endangered or
Threatened with Critical
Habitat.
04/20/2010................. Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation 75 FR 20547-20548.
Review for Sacramento of Status Review.
splittail (Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus).
04/26/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 21568-21571.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Harlequin Butterfly as Substantial.
Endangered.
04/27/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 22012-22025.
Petition to List Susan's petition finding,
Purse-making Caddisfly Not warranted.
(Ochrotrichia susanae) as
Threatened or Endangered.
04/27/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 22063-22070.
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Mohave Ground Squirrel as Substantial.
Endangered with Critical
Habitat.
05/04/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 23654-23663.
Petition to List Hermes Petition Finding,
Copper Butterfly as Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
06/01/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 30313-30318.
Petition To List Castanea Petition Finding,
pumila var. ozarkensis. Substantial.
06/01/2010................. 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 30338-30363.
Petition to List the petition finding,
White-tailed Prairie Dog Not warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
06/09/2010................. 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 32728-32734.
Petition To List van Petition Finding,
Rossem's Gull-billed Tern Substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 but have not yet been completed to date. These
actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table are
being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in the middle
section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory timelines,
that is, timelines required under the ESA. Actions in the bottom
section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and selection of
these species is

[[Page 10201]]

partially based on available staff resources, and when appropriate,
include species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or
have the same threats as the species with the high priority. Including
these species together in the same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and funding, as compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them in the future.

Actions Funded in FY 2010 but Not Yet Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement
Agreement:
6 Birds from Eurasia...................... Final listing determination.
Flat-tailed horned lizard................. Final listing determination.
Mountain plover........................... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru......................... Proposed listing determination.
Sacramento splittail...................... Proposed listing determination.
Gunnison sage-grouse...................... 12-month petition finding.
Wolverine................................. 12-month petition finding.
Montana Arctic grayling................... 12-month petition finding.
Agave eggersiana.......................... 12-month petition finding.
Solanum conocarpum........................ 12-month petition finding.
Mountain plover........................... 12-month petition finding.
Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly............. 12-month petition finding.
Hermes copper butterfly................... 12-month petition finding.
Actions With Statutory Deadlines:
Casey's june beetle....................... Final listing determination.
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and Final listing determination.
rough hornsnail.
2 Hawaiian damselflies.................... Final listing determination.
African penguin........................... Final listing determination.
3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Final listing determination.
Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest
thrush).
5 Penguin species......................... Final listing determination.
Southern rockhopper penguin--Campbell Final listing determination.
Plateau population.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador.. Final listing determination.
7 Bird species from Brazil................ Final listing determination.
Queen Charlotte goshawk................... Final listing determination.
Salmon crested cockatoo................... Proposed listing determination.
Black-footed albatross.................... 12-month petition finding.
Mount Charleston blue butterfly........... 12-month petition finding.
Least chub \1\............................ 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\............. 12-month petition finding.
Pygmy rabbit (rangewide) \1\.............. 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population \1\.... 12-month petition finding.
Delta smelt (uplisting)................... 12-month petition finding.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\.......... 12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog..................... 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander.............. 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero............................. 12-month petition finding.
White-sided jackrabbit.................... 12-month petition finding.
Jemez Mountains salamander................ 12-month petition finding.
Dusky tree vole........................... 12-month petition finding.
Eagle Lake trout \1\...................... 12-month petition finding.
29 of 206 species......................... 12-month petition finding.
Desert tortoise--Sonoran population....... 12-month petition finding.
Gopher tortoise--eastern population....... 12-month petition finding.
Amargosa toad............................. 12-month petition finding.
Pacific walrus............................ 12-month petition finding.
Wrights marsh thistle..................... 12-month petition finding.
67 of 475 southwest species............... 12-month petition finding.
9 Southwest mussel species................ 12-month petition finding.
14 parrots (foreign species).............. 12-month petition finding.
Berry Cave salamander \1\................. 12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\.......................... 12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain Range \1\. 12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\................ 12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly........... 12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern.................. 12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. 12-month petition finding.
ozarkensis).
Southeastern population of snowy plover 90-day petition finding.
and wintering population of piping plover
\1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\...................... 90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\..................... 90-day petition finding.
Bay Springs salamander \1\................ 90-day petition finding.
32 species of snails and slugs \1\........ 90-day petition finding.
Calopogon oklahomensis \1\................ 90-day petition finding.
White-bark pine........................... 90-day petition finding.
42 snail species (Nevada and Utah)........ 90-day petition finding.
HI yellow-faced bees...................... 90-day petition finding.
Red knot roselaari subspecies............. 90-day petition finding.

[[Page 10202]]

Honduran emerald.......................... 90-day petition finding.
Peary caribou............................. 90-day petition finding.
Plains bison.............................. 90-day petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm................... 90-day petition finding.
Mexican gray wolf......................... 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly.... 90-day petition finding.
Spring pygmy sunfish...................... 90-day petition finding.
San Francisco manzanita................... 90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper............................... 90-day petition finding.
Unsilvered fritillary..................... 90-day petition finding.
Texas kangaroo rat........................ 90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard................ 90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat.................. 90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat................... 90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub.............................. 90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin butterfly....... 90-day petition finding.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles.............. 90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler..................... 90-day petition finding.
Sand-verbena moth......................... 90-day petition finding.
Aztec (beautiful) gilia................... 90-day petition finding.
Arapahoe snowfly.......................... 90-day petition finding.
High-Priority Listing Actions: \3\
19 Oahu candidate species \3\ (16 plants, Proposed listing.
3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with
LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 9).
17 Maui-Nui candidate species \3\ (14 Proposed listing.
plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2,
2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).
Sand dune lizard \3\ (LPN = 2)............ Proposed listing.
2 Arizona springsnails \3\ (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing.
bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
trivialis (LPN = 2).
2 New Mexico springsnails \3\ (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing.
chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
thermalis (LPN = 11).
2 mussels \3\ (rayed bean (LPN = 2), Proposed listing.
snuffbox (No LPN).
2 mussels \3\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2), Proposed listing.
spectaclecase (LPN = 4)).
Ozark hellbender \2\ (LPN = 3)............ Proposed listing.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\ (LPN = 2)........ Proposed listing.
5 southeast fish \3\ (rush darter (LPN = Proposed listing.
2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), yellowcheek
darter (LPN = 2), Cumberland darter (LPN
= 5), laurel dace (LPN = 5).
8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
(LPN = 5), & tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)).
3 Colorado plants \3\ (Pagosa skyrocket Proposed listing.
(Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), Parchute
beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) (LPN =
2), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica)
(LPN = 8)).
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress Proposed listing.
(Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
River rose mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 5)).
Florida bonneted bat (LPN = 2)............ Proposed listing.
Kittlitz's murrelet (LPN = 2)............. Proposed listing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
\2\ We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because
the threats to the species were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we
were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 2008.
\3\ Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009.

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the ESA, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum will
be added to the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-
month finding. We will continue to monitor the status of these species
as new information becomes available. This review will determine if a
change in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for Eriogonum soredium,
Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum will be as accurate as
possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information
and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
finding.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Utah Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Utah Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

[[Page 10203]]

Dated: February 2, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3675 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P