[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52717-52732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21410]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054; FXES11130900000C2-145-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-BA46


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 
Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod) From the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the plant Solidago albopilosa (white-haired goldenrod) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. This determination is 
based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, which indicates that the threats to this 
species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species 
no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We 
seek information, data, and comments from the public regarding this 
proposal to delist S. albopilosa, and on the draft post-delisting 
monitoring plan.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on this 
proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before November 2, 
2015. We must receive requests for public hearings in writing, at the 
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, by October 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule and draft 
post-delisting monitoring plan by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the Docket 
Number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment now!'' Please ensure that you 
have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
     By U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Headquarters, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
    Document availability: A copy of the draft post-delisting 
monitoring plan can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054, or at the Kentucky Ecological Services 
Field Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/frankfort/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological 
Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, 
Kentucky 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468. Individuals who are hearing-
impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

Purpose of Regulatory Action

    We propose to remove the white-haired goldenrod from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants based on its recovery. This 
proposed action is based on a thorough review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information. This document: (1) Proposes to 
delist this endangered plant species; and (2) announces the 
availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan.

Basis for Action

    We may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data 
indicate the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered 
species for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or 
endangered; or (3) the original data used at the time the species was 
classified were in error. Here, we have determined that the species may 
be delisted based on recovery.

[[Page 52718]]

     During the latest range-wide survey for this plant, our 
State partner, the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) 
(2010, p. 6), documented a total of 116 extant occurrences with the 
following ranks: A-rank (11 occurrences), B (26), C (25), and D (54) 
(see Species Information for definitions of each specific rank; ranks 
were based on population size and perceived viability, habitat 
condition, and degree of threat). Of the 116 extant occurrences, only 6 
were located on private land, with the remainder located on the Daniel 
Boone National Forest (DBNF). For all extant occurrences, 79 (68 
percent) were considered to be stable, including ranks of A (10 
occurrences), B (21), C (18), and D (30). For these stable occurrences, 
KSNPC reported an average monitoring period of 10.2 years and an 
average of 3.6 monitoring events for each occurrence (see Table 1).
     From June to October 2013, KSNPC and the Service completed 
additional surveys at 30 widely separated occurrences. These surveys 
increased the number of extant occurrences from 116 to 117 and 
increased the number of stable occurrences from 79 to 81. One new 
occurrence was discovered, and revised status information was generated 
for two unknown occurrences. Occurrences were ranked as ``unknown'' if 
data from only one prior survey was available or prior surveys could 
not be compared to recent surveys due to discrepancies in survey 
methodology. Combining these results with those of previous surveys 
produces a total of 81 stable occurrences with the following 
categorical results: A (11 occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30) 
(see Table 2). The average monitoring period increased from 10.2 to 
11.1 years, with an average of 3.7 monitoring events for each 
occurrence.
     Of the 81 stable occurrences, we consider the A-, B-, and 
C-ranked occurrences (total of 51) to be self-sustaining as defined by 
the recovery plan. We consider these occurrences to be self-sustaining 
because there is evidence of successful reproduction and the number of 
individuals is stable or increasing. Under the recovery plan's 
delisting criteria, S. albopilosa will be considered for delisting when 
40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately 
protected and have been maintained for 10 years. Of the 51 self-
sustaining occurrences, 46 are adequately protected (occupy the DBNF) 
and have been maintained for more than 10 years. Therefore, the 
delisting recovery criteria have been met.
     The total number of stems now stands at approximately 
174,000, and the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain 
approximately 131,000 stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total 
number.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
data, comments, and new information from other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested 
parties concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most 
useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that are 
supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include 
citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please 
make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for 
them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your 
comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data 
you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning 
the following:
    (1) Biological data regarding S. albopilosa;
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to S. 
albopilosa particularly any data on the possible effects of climate 
change to this plant as it relates to its unique habitat types 
(including models and data presented in this rule), as well as the 
extent of Federal and State protection and management that would be 
provided to S. albopilosa as a delisted species;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, 
population size, and trends of S. albopilosa, including the locations 
of any additional populations of this species;
    (4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of S. 
albopilosa colonies that may impact or benefit the species; and
    (5) The draft post-delisting monitoring plan and the methods and 
approach detailed in it.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a 
determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    In issuing a final determination on this proposed action, we will 
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your 
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the Web site. While you can ask us in your comment to 
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please note that 
comments posted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you 
submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the 
comment will not be publically viewable until we post it, which might 
not occur until several days after submission.
    Similarly, if you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review, 
but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that 
the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments 
we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be available 
for public inspection in two ways:
    (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search 
Documents box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054, which is the docket number 
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the 
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the 
Document Type heading.
    (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to 
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Kentucky Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 52719]]

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public 
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in the DATES section of this 
document. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are 
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, 
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal 
Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 24, 1987, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (52 FR 13798) to list S. albopilosa as endangered under 
section 4 of the Act. On April 7, 1988, we published a final rule in 
the Federal Register (53 FR 11612) listing S. albopilosa as a 
threatened species. The final rule identified the following threats to 
S. albopilosa: Loss of habitat due to recreational activities (rock 
climbing, hiking, camping, rappelling, and artifact collection) and a 
proposed reservoir project; overutilization for recreational purposes; 
no State law protecting rare plants in Kentucky; and potential 
vegetational shifts in forests surrounding S. albopilosa habitats. On 
September 28, 1993, we published the White-haired Goldenrod Recovery 
Plan (Service 1993, 40 pp.). On July 26, 2005, we initiated a 5-year 
status review of this species (70 FR 43171). The 5-year status review 
was completed on March 3, 2009 (Service 2009, 15 pp). Although the 
review did not include a recommendation to reclassify or delist this 
plant, it did indicate that the species was showing substantial 
improvement. New occurrences have been located since completion of the 
recovery plan and a significant number of occurrences (51) appear to be 
stable. We shared in this analysis that we anticipated making 
additional progress with partners and we believed that delisting should 
be considered for this species in the near future.
    For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion 
under the Recovery section below. Also see http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html for the species profile for this 
flowering plant.

Species Information

    Solidago albopilosa (Braun 1942) is an upright to slightly arching, 
herbaceous, perennial plant that attains a height of 30 to 100 
centimeters (12 to 39 inches). The long, soft, white hairs that cover 
the leaves and stems are the species' most distinguishing 
characteristic (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123). The alternate 
leaves of S. albopilosa are widest at their base and are prominently 
veined with a dark green upper surface and a pale underside. They vary 
in length from 6 to 10 centimeters (2.5 to 4.0 inches), with the larger 
leaves closer to the base of the stem. Hairs cover both surfaces of the 
leaves and are most dense along the veins. The stem is cylindrical and 
densely covered with fine white hairs. Axillary (positioned along the 
main axis of the plant) clusters of small, fragrant, yellow flowers 
begin blooming in late August. The flower heads are composed of three 
to five ray florets (small flowers in the marginal part of the flower 
head) and more than 15 disk florets (small flowers in the central part 
of the flower head). The ray florets are about 6 mm long (0.24 inch), 
and the disk flowers are about 3 mm long (0.12 inch). The pale brown, 
pubescent, oblong achenes (dry single-seed fruits) appear in October 
(Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123; Service 
1993, p. 1).
    Solidago albopilosa flowers from September through November and 
sets fruit in mid-October through December. The flowers are visited by 
bees, moths, and syrphid flies, which are likely attracted by the 
fragrant, yellow flowers (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Service 1993, p. 6). 
Viability of the species' pollen is reported to be high (Andreason and 
Eshbaugh 1973, pp. 129-130). Seeds are most likely dispersed by wind, 
but germination rates and the extent of vegetative reproduction are 
unknown (Service 1993, p. 6).
    Braun (1942, pp. 1-4) described S. albopilosa based on specimens 
discovered in the summer of 1940 in the Red River Gorge area of Menifee 
County, Kentucky. Solidago albopilosa is in the family Asteraceae, and 
there are no synonyms for the species. Andreasen and Eshbaugh (1973, 
pp. 126-128) studied variation among four separate occurrences 
(populations) of S. albopilosa in Menifee and Powell Counties. Their 
population analysis of characteristics such as plant height, leaf 
length and width, stem pubescence, and number of ray flowers per head 
showed that some morphological characteristics (e.g., plant height, 
leaf shape and size, stem pubescence) can vary widely between 
populations.
    Solidago albopilosa can be distinguished from its closest relative, 
S. flexicaulis (broad-leaf goldenrod), by its shorter height, smaller 
and thinner leaves, and generally downy (hairy) appearance (the leaves 
of S. flexicaulis have a slick, smooth appearance) (Medley 1980, p. 6). 
The two species also differ in habitat preference. Solidago albopilosa 
is restricted to sandstone rock shelters or ledges, while S. 
flexicaulis is a woodland species occurring on the forest floor. 
Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) used molecular and 
morphological analyses to examine the relationship between S. 
albopilosa and S. flexicaulis. They concluded that S. albopilosa is 
most closely related to S. flexicaulis; however, there was no evidence 
that either S. flexicaulis or S. caesia (wreath or blue-stemmed 
goldenrod) is a parent or has a recent close relationship with S. 
albopilosa as was previously speculated by Braun (1942, pp. 1-4). 
Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) also examined genetic 
diversity within S. albopilosa (using Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA 
(RAPD) and isozyme markers) and reported genetic variation both within 
and between populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among 
populations and populations are not very genetically homogenous). The 
highest level of genetic diversity was observed among rather than 
within populations. Consequently, Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-
256) recommended that conservation efforts include the maintenance of 
as many populations as possible to capture the full genetic diversity 
of the species.
    Solidago albopilosa is restricted to outcroppings of Pottsville 
sandstone in a rugged, highly dissected area known as the Red River 
Gorge in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky (Service 1993, 
p. 2; White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River Gorge is well known 
for its scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities, and much 
of the area is located within the DBNF, an approximate 2,860-km\2\ 
(706,000-acre) area in eastern Kentucky that is owned and managed by 
the U.S. Forest Service (White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River 
Gorge lies within the Northern Forested Plateau Escarpment of the 
Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002, p. 1). The 
hills and ridges of this region are characterized as rugged and highly 
dissected, with erosion-resistant, Pennsylvanian quartzose sandstone 
(contains 90 percent quartz) capping the ridges and exposed layers of 
Mississippian limestone, shale, and siltstone on lower slopes and in 
the valleys.
    White-haired goldenrod typically occurs on the floors of sandstone 
rock shelters (natural, shallow, cave-like formations) and on sheltered 
cliffs (cliffs with overhanging ledges) at elevations

[[Page 52720]]

of between 243 and 396 m (800 and 1,300 ft) (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 
1973; Service 1993, p. 5). The species may also be found on ledges or 
cracks in the ceiling or vertical walls of these habitats, but, 
regardless of the specific location, white-haired goldenrod is 
restricted to areas of partial shade behind the dripline (53 FR 11612) 
and typically does not grow in the deepest part of rock shelters 
(Harker et al. 1981, p. 4). Campbell et al. (1989, p. 40) noted that 
this plant species is known from all possible moisture regimes and 
aspects in these habitats, but plants on northern exposures appeared to 
be smaller than average. Seven of nine occurrences examined by Nieves 
and Day (2014, pp. 8-9) were located in easterly or northerly facing 
shelters, which receive minimal direct sunlight. Nieves and Day 
examined only a small percentage of the species' 117 known occurrences 
(8 percent), so further study is required to determine the importance 
of solar aspect on the species' biology and distribution. Ten rock 
shelter habitats examined by Nieves and Day (2014, p. 7) were 
significantly cooler and more humid than the surrounding environment 
(areas outside and above the rock shelter), but the species' 
requirements with respect to air temperature and relative humidity are 
unknown.
    Typical herbaceous associates of white-haired goldenrod include 
roundleaf catchfly (Silene rotundifolia) and alumroot (Heuchera 
parviflora) and less commonly white baneberry (Actaea pacypoda), 
maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), fourleaf yam (Dioscorea 
quaternata), intermediate woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), Indian 
cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium 
vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rhododendron 
(Rhododendron maximum), and little mountain meadow-rue (Thalicturm 
mirabile) (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 128; 
Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40; White and Drozda 2006, 
p. 124). Associated woody species of the mixed mesophytic forest 
adjacent to S. albopilosa occurrences include red maple (Acer rubrum), 
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), 
American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), tulip 
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia 
macrophylla), umbrella magnolia (M. tripetala), black gum (Nyssa 
sylvatica), oaks (Quercus spp.), basswood (Tilia americana), and 
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 
128; Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40).
    When the species' recovery plan was completed in 1993, 90 extant 
occurrences were known (Service 1993, p. 2), containing an estimated 
45,000 stems (Service 1993, p. 2). All of these locations were situated 
within the proclamation boundary of the DBNF, and 69 occurrences 
(approximately 76 percent) were in Federal ownership. The remaining 
occurrences (21) were located on private property. Rather than try to 
determine what constituted a population, the recovery plan (Service 
1993, p. 1) used ``occurrence'', defining it as a ``discrete group of 
plants beneath a single rock shelter or on a single rock ledge.'' In 
making this definition, the Service (1993, p. 6) explained that 
pollinators (bees and syrphid flies) likely carried pollen between rock 
shelters and may even move between adjacent ravines. If there were 
sufficient gene flow between occurrences via pollinators, clusters of 
nearby rock shelters or adjacent ravines could comprise a population. 
However, without additional research, it was impossible to determine 
the species' actual population boundaries.
    The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) completed 
surveys in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 
124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 4), and these surveys raised the number of S. 
albopilosa occurrences from 90 to 141. Despite the increased number of 
occurrences, the total range of S. albopilosa did not increase 
significantly as it was still restricted to the same general area 
within the Red River Gorge. KSNPC (2010, pp. 4-8) completed the first 
range-wide survey during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons. During this 
2-year period, KSNPC ranked each occurrence based on population size 
and viability, habitat condition, and degree of threat. KSNPC also 
evaluated the stability of each occurrence by comparing their 2008-2009 
survey data with data collected in previous years. The following 
specifications were used to rank the occurrences (KSNPC 2010, p. 21):
    A (excellent estimated viability): 2,500 or more stems in habitat 
with low degree of recreational impact or a minimum of 4,000 stems 
where the degree of recreational impact is medium or high.
    B (good estimated viability): 1,000 to 2,499 stems and some areas 
of habitat with a low degree of recreational impact or higher numbers 
of stems (2,500 to 4,000) at sites where the degree of recreational 
impact is medium or high.
    C (fair estimated viability): 300 to 999 stems where recreational 
impacts are low or higher numbers of stems (1,000 to 2,000) at sites 
affected by a medium or high degree of recreational impact; may also 
include sites with little opportunity for habitat recovery or 
population expansion.
    D (poor estimated viability): Fewer than 300 stems in any habitat.
    H (historic): Taxon or natural community has not been reliably 
reported in Kentucky since 1990 but is not considered extinct or 
extirpated.
    X (extirpated): A taxon for which habitat loss has been pervasive 
and/or concerted efforts by knowledgeable biologists to collect or 
observe specimens within appropriate habitats have failed.
    F (failed to find): Occurrence not located in current survey; 
original mapping may be in wrong location.
    During their 2-year range wide survey, KSNPC (2010, p. 6) 
documented a total of 116 extant occurrences, producing ranks with the 
following categorical results: A-rank (11 occurrences), B (26), C (25), 
and D (54) (Table 1). The remaining 25 occurrences were considered to 
be historic, extirpated, or could not be relocated (failed to find). Of 
the 116 extant occurrences, only 6 were located on private land, with 
the remainder located on the DBNF. For all extant occurrences, 79 (68 
percent) were considered to be stable, including ranks of A (10 
occurrences), B (21), C (18), and D (30). Stability was estimated 
through comparisons of historical and recent survey data. Occurrences 
were considered ``stable'' if no change was detected in their general 
rank/status over the course of monitoring, stem numbers increased over 
the course of monitoring, and/or slight decreases in stem numbers could 
be attributed to natural climatic variation. Ranks were based on 
population size and perceived viability, habitat condition, and degree 
of threat. For all stable occurrences, KSNPC reported an average 
monitoring period of 10.2 years and an average of 3.6 monitoring events 
for each occurrence.

[[Page 52721]]



    Table 1--Summary of White-Haired Goldenrod Ranks and Status Based on Range-Wide Surveys Completed by the
                           Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission in 2008 and 2009
                                                  [KSNPC 2010]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Ranks of extant occurrences
             Status              ----------------------------------------------------------------      Total
                                         A               B               C               D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable..........................              10              21              18              30              79
Declining.......................               0               5               4              22              31
Unknown.........................               1               0               3               2               6
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              11              26              25              54             116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the remaining extant occurrences, 31 were considered to be 
declining and 6 were of unknown status (see Table 1). For the declining 
occurrences, ranks included B (5 occurrences), C (4), and D (22). For 
the unknown occurrences, ranks included A (1 occurrence), C (3), and D 
(2). Occurrences were considered to be declining if a negative change 
was detected in the general rank/status over the course of monitoring 
and/or there was a greater than 30 percent decline in stem count. 
Unknown status meant surveys of that occurrence were not performed more 
than once or prior surveys could not be compared to recent surveys due 
to discrepancies in survey methodology.
    KSNPC and the Service completed additional surveys from June to 
October 2013 at 30 widely separated occurrences, resulting in the 
discovery of one new occurrence and revised status information for two 
unknown occurrences (Service 2014a, entire). Combining these results 
with occurrence totals reported by KSNPC (2010, 24 pp.), there are now 
81 stable occurrences with the following categorical results: A (11 
occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30) (Table 2). The average 
monitoring period increased from 10.2 to 11.1 years, with an average of 
3.7 monitoring events for each occurrence. The total number of stems 
now stands at 174,357, compared to 45,000 when the recovery plan was 
completed.

Table 2--Summary of Current White-Haired Goldenrod Ranks and Status (KSNPC 2010, 2014a) Showing an Increase in A
                                            and B Ranked Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Ranks of extant occurrences
             Status              ----------------------------------------------------------------      Total
                                         A               B               C               D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable..........................              11              22              18              30              81
Declining.......................               0               5               4              23              32
Unknown.........................               0               0               2               2               4
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              11              27              24              55             117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recovery

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and 
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are not 
regulatory documents and are instead intended to establish goals for 
long-term conservation of a listed species, define criteria that are 
designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been 
removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer 
need the protections of the Act, and provide guidance to our Federal, 
State, and other governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods 
to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to 
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved 
without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria 
may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been 
accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall, the threats have 
been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to 
reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist 
the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been 
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan.
    Likewise, information on the species that was not known at the time 
the recovery plan was finalized may become available. The new 
information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for 
recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of species is a dynamic 
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully 
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The following discussion provides a brief review of recovery 
planning and implementation for the white-haired goldenrod, as well as 
an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to 
evaluating the status of the taxon.
    The White-haired Goldenrod Recovery Plan was approved by the 
Service on September 28, 1993 (Service 1993, 40 pp.). The recovery plan 
includes recovery criteria intended to indicate when threats to the 
species have been adequately addressed, and prescribes actions 
necessary to achieve those criteria. We first discuss progress on 
completing the primary recovery actions, then discuss recovery 
criteria.

Recovery Actions

    The recovery plan identifies five primary actions necessary for 
recovering S. albopilosa:
    (1) Protect existing occurrences;
    (2) Continue inventories;
    (3) Conduct studies on life history and ecological requirements;
    (4) Maintain plants and seeds ex situ; and
    (5) Provide the public with information.

[[Page 52722]]

    Three of five recovery actions (1, 2, and 5) have been accomplished 
(completion of the remaining actions (3 and 4) are discussed in greater 
detail below under each action). Action 4 is under way and will be 
included in the post delisting monitoring activities. The Service 
entered into a cooperative agreement with KSNPC in 1986, under section 
6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and threatened plant 
species. This agreement has provided a mechanism for KSNPC to acquire 
Federal funds that have supported much of the work described here. The 
Commonwealth of Kentucky and other partners have also provided matching 
funds under this agreement.

Recovery Action (1): Protect existing occurrences.

    The White-haired Goldenrod Recovery Plan states that an occurrence 
will be ``adequately protected'' when it is legally protected, has 
received adequate physical protection, and is assured of all required 
management (Service 1993, 40 pp.). Based on these criteria, we consider 
a total of 46 A-, B-, or C-ranked occurrences on the DBNF to be 
adequately protected. We base our conclusions regarding their level of 
protection on the location of these occurrences (all are in DNBF 
ownership and many are in remote locations not visited by the public); 
trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF and the Service; 
observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18); 
conservation actions described in DBNF's Land and Resource Management 
Plan (LRMP); and information in our files concerning specific DBNF 
conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and 
fencing. We have chosen to exclude five, stable, self-sustaining 
occurrences from the list of ``protected'' occurrences because they are 
in private ownership, and no conservation agreement or plan is in place 
to ensure their long-term protection.
    The species' primary threat has been identified as ground 
disturbance and trampling associated with recreational activities 
(i.e., camping, hiking, and rock-climbing) within the Red River Gorge. 
To address these threats, the DBNF began to redirect trails and install 
fencing (chicken wire) around selected S. albopilosa rock shelters in 
February 2000. The DBNF focused on these occurrences because they were 
near DBNF user-defined trails and were suffering obvious recreational 
impacts--trampling and ground disturbance associated with camping, rock 
climbing, and hiking. The DBNF also placed informational signs at these 
shelters and at trailheads, alerting visitors to the presence of the 
species and warning them against potential damage to plants.
    Signs and/or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a 
total of 21 occurrences, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these 
sites annually, checking the condition of signs and fencing and making 
repairs as needed. To guard against future impacts, the DBNF and KSNPC 
have proposed the addition of new or expanded fencing at five 
occurrences. As stated below in this recovery section, this new and 
expanded fencing is included as a conservation action in the Service's 
proposed cooperative management agreement with DBNF and KSNPC.
    Monitoring results show that implementation of the LRMP, including 
specific conservation actions described above (fencing and sign 
placement), have had a positive effect on the species (KSNPC 2010, 24 
pp.). Specifically, it has been demonstrated that disturbance from 
trampling, camping, and rock climbing is low at remote occurrences, and 
impacts have been reduced at more visited sites. The number of stems 
has remained stable or increased at 20 of 21 occurrences (95 percent) 
where fencing or informational signs have been added. For all extant 
occurrences on the DBNF, 75 (68 percent) of 111 extant occurrences are 
considered stable to increasing, and we consider 46 occurrences to be 
self-sustaining (A-, B-, or C-rank occurrences that are stable and 
reproducing). Based on all these factors, we consider this recovery 
action to be complete.

Recovery Action (2): Continue inventories.

    There were 90 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa when the recovery 
plan was completed (Service 1993, p. 2). In subsequent years, KSNPC 
completed surveys within the Red River Gorge in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004, 
and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 2), 
raising the number of documented S. albopilosa occurrences from 90 to 
141. Surveys in other areas of Kentucky and adjacent States with 
suitable habitat (e.g., sandstone rock shelters) did not show evidence 
of additional occurrences of the species (Campbell et al. 1989, pp. 29-
43; Palmer-Ball et al. 1988, pp. 19-25; Walck et al. 1996, pp. 339-341; 
Norris and Harmon 2000, pp. 2-3). The first range-wide survey in the 
Red River Gorge was completed during the field seasons of 2008 and 2009 
(KSNPC 2010, pp. 4-8), and KSNPC and the Service completed follow up 
surveys at 30 extant occurrences in 2013 (See the Species Information 
section above for detail on surveys). During these efforts, KSNPC and 
the Service documented a total of 117 extant occurrences and of these, 
we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked occurrences (total of 46) to be 
secure and self-sustaining. Because systematic searches for new 
occurrences have been conducted since the completion of the recovery 
plan and led to the discovery of previously unknown occurrences, we 
consider this recovery action to be completed.

Recovery Action (3): Conduct studies on life history and ecological 
requirements.

    This recovery action is incomplete (not all subactivities have been 
addressed completely) but significant progress has been made. Since 
publication of the recovery plan (Service 1993, entire), studies of the 
species' life history and ecological requirements have included 
Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10), Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 246-251), 
White and Drozda (2006, p. 125), KSNPC (2010, p. 5), and Nieves and Day 
2014). Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 
246-251) studied the ancestry of S. albopilosa, examined gene flow and 
genetic diversity within and between populations, and investigated 
life-history traits (i.e., seed set, importance of pollinators, self-
incompatibility (the inability of a plant to produce seeds when its 
flowers are pollinated from its own flowers or from flowers of plants 
that are genetically the same)). The ancestry of S. albopilosa was 
unclear, but it had the most morphological and genetic similarity with 
S. flexicaulis. Despite this, the two species were reported as 
genetically different and there was no evidence of recent gene flow. 
Esselman (1995, pp. 16-23) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 251-
253) observed the highest levels of genetic diversity between 
populations rather than within populations. The levels of seed 
production appeared to be about equal to that of other goldenrods, but 
the amount of seed set varied between populations and appeared to 
increase with increasing occurrence size. Pollination experiments 
indicated that pollinators are necessary for seed set, and the species 
is self-incompatible.
    During field surveys between 1996 and 2009, KSNPC collected 
occurrence information throughout the species' range, recording such 
information as stem count, patch size, percent vegetative versus sexual 
reproduction, recreational disturbance (ranked from low to high), other 
perceived threats, and general habitat condition (White and Drozda 
2006, p. 125; KSNPC 2010,

[[Page 52723]]

p. 5). In its 2-year range wide study, KSNPC (2010, p. 5) used a two-
page plant survey form to record more detailed biological information 
at each occurrence: population structure (percent individuals 
exhibiting vegetative versus reproductive growth), occurrence size 
(square meters), plant height, number of stems, number of rosettes, 
population density, plant vigor, and an evaluation of threats (e.g., 
trampling, camping, invasive plants, herbivory). KSNPC (2010, p. 5) 
also photographed each occurrence and made sketches that showed 
individual patch locations within each occurrence or rock shelter.
    Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 1-12) conducted a preliminary assessment 
of the microclimatic and pedological (soil) conditions of 10 rock 
shelters inhabited by the species. They documented significant 
differences between the inside of rock shelters and the surrounding 
environment with respect to temperature and relative humidity (habitats 
inside rock shelters were wetter and more humid) but no significant 
differences with respect to soil characteristics (macronutrients and 
acidity/alkalinity (pH)). Most of the rock shelters they investigated 
were easterly or northerly facing, but their small sample size prevents 
any significant conclusions with respect to the importance of sunlight 
and solar radiation.
    Under recovery action 3.0, two of seven subactivities remain to be 
completed--the use of quantitative, permanent plots (3.1) and 
determination of specific habitat requirements (3.3). Permanent plots 
have not been established, but the species' known occurrences have been 
visited and evaluated repeatedly (average of 3.6 times) since 
completion of the recovery plan. These visits have allowed us to 
evaluate the species' status and track the number of stems and flowers. 
The purpose of subactivity 3.1 was to evaluate demography and we 
believe the visits and work done in cooperation with KSNPC has provided 
enough population data on this plant to propose delisting without 
establishing permanent plots. The species' specific habitat 
requirements (e.g., light, moisture, soils) are not well understood, 
but preliminary investigations into the microclimate and soil 
conditions of rock shelters were completed by Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 
1-12), and additional research is planned (Nieves and Day 2014, pp. 11-
12). In partnership with DBNF and KSNPC, we have done extensive work 
together to reduce threats such as disturbance. The intent behind 
subactivity 3.3 was to learn about habitat requirements of this plant 
for the purposes of determining if reintroduction or artificial 
propagation that may be necessary to help recover this plant. White 
haired goldenrod occurrences have grown in number and size as recovery 
implementation actions have been implemented and threats have been 
removed or reduced. These successful actions have removed the necessity 
of having to reintroduce or augment plants. We will continue to learn 
more about the species' habitat requirements as we work with DBNF and 
KSNPC through post delisting monitoring. In the course of this work, if 
a new threat of any kind presents itself, we have identified in the PDM 
plan how we will evaluate it with respect to species status.
    The majority of subactivities have been addressed (3.2, 3.4-3.7); a 
considerable amount of information has been gained regarding the 
species' life history and ecological requirements; and the species' 
status has improved since publication of the recovery plan. We were 
able to obtain the intended information identified in subactivity 3.3 
through implementation of other actions. Although the need to conduct 
subactivity 3.3 has been removed with positive progress in this plant's 
recovery program, we intend throughout PDM to continue to work closely 
with researchers as they learn more about this species and its habitat.

Recovery Action (4): Maintain plants and seeds ex situ.

    Seeds and plants of S. albopilosa have not been maintained ex situ 
in any museum, botanical garden, or other seed storage facility; 
however, we are working with the Missouri Botanical Garden to develop a 
seed banking effort for S. albopilosa. A proposal for this work has 
been drafted and is being considered by the Garden and the Service. 
This effort will likely begin in late 2015 and will also be included as 
part of post-delisting monitoring activities. This will involve 
collection of S. albopilosa seed from across the range of the species 
with deposition of the material at the Missouri Botanical Garden.

Recovery Action (5): Provide the public with information.

    The KSNPC and DBNF have prepared several species factsheets and 
signs that have been posted at gas stations, restaurants, kiosks, and 
trailheads throughout the Red River Gorge. These signs were intended to 
educate Red River Gorge visitors about the species and its threats. 
Signs have also been posted in five archaeologically sensitive rock 
shelters to prevent disturbance of historical artifacts as part of the 
strategy to continue to protect against looting and at the same time to 
protect this plant species. DBNF also displays photographs and provides 
information on S. albopilosa at its Gladie Cultural-Environmental 
Learning Center. KSNPC makes available on its Web site (http://naturepreserves.ky.gov) an S. albopilosa factsheet and several 
threatened and endangered species lists that include information on S. 
albopilosa. In June 2009, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Resources published 2,000 copies of a revised threatened and endangered 
species booklet (second edition), which contained a species account for 
S. albopilosa. Because of the numerous public information and education 
projects listed above, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Criteria

    Under the Recovery Plan, S. albopilosa will be considered for 
delisting when 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences 
are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10 years. An 
occurrence will be considered as self-sustaining if there is evidence 
of successful reproduction and the number of individuals is stable or 
increasing. An occurrence will be adequately protected when it is 
legally protected, has received adequate physical protection, and is 
assured of all required management. The recovery plan also noted that 
the requirements for delisting were preliminary and could change as 
more information about the biology of the species was known. Based on 
our current understanding of the species' range, biology, and threats, 
we believe that the delisting criteria continue to be relevant. While 
the number of occurrences has increased since completion of the 
Recovery Plan, the species' overall range and the type of threats have 
not changed dramatically. Furthermore, our current knowledge of the 
species' biology indicates that multiple, distinct populations should 
be maintained in order to provide redundancy (protect against 
stochastic events) and preserve genetic diversity. We believe the 
recovery goal of 40 stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences 
is sufficient to address these needs. The species' current number of 
stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences (46) has exceeded 
this recovery goal (see discussion of Recovery Action 1 above). These 
occurrences are distributed across the species' range and contain more 
than 75 percent of the species' total number of stems.

[[Page 52724]]

    The criteria for delisting S. albopilosa have been met, as 
described below. Additionally, the level of protection currently 
afforded to the species and its habitat, as well as the current status 
of threats, are outlined below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species section.
    Currently, there are 117 extant occurrences. As described above, an 
occurrence is defined as a ``discrete group of plants beneath a single 
rock shelter or on a single rock ledge,'' and each occurrence is 
considered ``geographically distinct'' as described in the recovery 
criteria. We currently consider 81 (69 percent) of the 117 extant 
white-haired goldenrod occurrences to be stable, meaning no change has 
been detected (over average monitoring period of 11.1 years) in their 
general rank or status. Of these, we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked 
occurrences (total of 46) to be adequately protected and self-
sustaining as defined by the recovery plan. We consider these 
occurrences to be self-sustaining because (1) the number of plants at 
these occurrences has been stable or increasing over an average 
monitoring period of 11.1 years, (2) these natural occurrences contain 
a relatively high number of individual plants (range of 797-9,200), (3) 
the estimated viability of these occurrences ranges from fair to 
excellent; (4) the threat level at these occurrences is generally low 
(average recreational impact of 2.5 on a scale of 1 (low impact) to 5 
(high)), and (5) the observed reproduction (flowering plants) at these 
occurrences has been relatively high, averaging 75-90 percent of plants 
in nearly all cases (KSNPC 2010, p. 10). We consider these occurrences 
to be adequately protected because of their location (all are located 
on DBNF); trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF and the 
Service; observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18); 
conservation actions described in DBNF's Land and Resource Management 
Plan (LRMP); and information in our files concerning specific DBNF 
conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and 
fencing. We do not consider the stable, D-ranked occurrences (total of 
30) to be self-sustaining, primarily due to their poor estimated 
viability and the low number of plants (fewer than 300 stems) observed 
at these sites. We, therefore, conclude that we have met and exceeded 
the criterion to have 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining 
occurrences.
    While we consider only 46 out of the 117 total extant occurrences 
to currently be secure (adequately protected) and self-sustaining 
(approximately 39 percent of the total occurrences), these occurrences 
contain the majority of the total number of stems of the species. The 
total number of stems now stands at approximately 174,000, and the 46 
secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain approximately 131,000 
stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total number. If we consider 
the five additional self-sustaining occurrences located on private 
property, the total number of stems increases to 140,500, or about 81 
percent of the species' total number. While the remaining 65 
occurrences on DBNF are not currently considered self-sustaining, all 
of these occurrences will continue to receive protection and management 
under DBNF's LRMP and we expect, based on the past ten years of 
monitoring, their status will likely remain stable or continue to 
improve.
    With respect to protection, 111 of 117 extant occurrences (95 
percent) occur on the DBNF and receive management and protection 
through DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USFS 2004, pp. 
1.1-1.10). As specified in the LRMP, S. albopilosa habitats receive 
protection and management consideration as part of the Cliffline 
Community Prescription (or management) Area (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8). 
The Cliffline Community is defined as the area between 100-feet slope-
distance from the top of the cliff and 200-feet slope-distance from the 
dripline of the cliffline. A cliffline is defined as a naturally 
occurring, exposed, and nearly vertical rock structure at least 10 feet 
(3.05 meters (m)) tall and 100 feet (30.05 m) long. All known S. 
albopilosa occurrences occur within habitats fitting this description 
and, therefore, are included in this Prescription Area. For the 
Cliffline Community area, conservation goals in the LRMP include: (1) 
Maintenance of the unique physical and microclimatic conditions in 
these habitats, (2) the recovery of S. albopilosa, and (3) the 
protection of these habitats against anthropogenic disturbance (USFS 
2004, p. 3.6). To meet these goals, the following activities or 
resource uses are prohibited within the cliffline zone: mineral, oil, 
or gas exploration and development (Forest Service Standard 1.C-MIN-1); 
road construction (1.C-ENG-1); recreational facilities (1.C-REC-1); 
recreational activities such as rock climbing and rappelling (C-REC-2); 
camping (1.C-REC-3); campfires (1.C-REC-4). Other activities such as 
wildlife management (1.C-WLF) and vegetation management (1.C-VEG) are 
limited and strictly controlled. This Prescription Area is classified 
as ``Unsuitable for Timber Production'' but timber harvests may occur 
on an unscheduled basis to attain a desired future condition. Harvest 
of wood products may occur only as an output in pursuing other resource 
objectives (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8). DBNF monitors cliffline habitats 
and protects them as needed through law enforcement activities, 
construction of fences, trail diversion, and placement of signs.
    Since the species was listed, we have worked closely with KSNPC and 
DBNF on the management and protection of S. albopilosa. Management 
activities have included trail diversion (away from S. albopilosa 
occurrences), installation of protective fencing, and placement of 
informational signs in rock shelters, along trails, and at trailheads. 
These activities and other management actions included in the DBNF's 
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8) have assisted in recovery of the species, 
as reflected in the large number of stable occurrences (81), self-
sustaining occurrences (51 occurrences with ranks of A, B, or C), and 
the long period (greater than 11 years) during which this trend has 
been maintained. We are currently in the process of finalizing a 
cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC 
that will provide for the long-term protection of the species. The 
management agreement outlines a number of conservation actions that 
will benefit the species: (1) Maintenance of current fencing; (2) 
installation and maintenance of fencing at five new occurrences; (3) 
evaluation of trail diversion, rerouting, or closure at 39 occurrences 
identified by KSNPC (2010, entire); (4) placement of new informational 
signs at occurrences with high visitation; (5) monitoring of extant 
occurrences; (6) protection of extant occurrences through DBNF patrols; 
and (7) continuation of education and outreach efforts. We expect to 
have this agreement in place before this rule is finalized, and the 
cooperative management agreement will remain in place even if the 
species is delisted.
    In summary, most major recovery actions are complete, and 
significant progress has been made on the remaining actions (life 
history/ecological studies and ex situ seed conservation). Completion 
of these actions has contributed to achieving and exceeding the 
recovery criteria: 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining 
occurrences are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10 
years. The 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain 75 percent of 
the

[[Page 52725]]

species' total number of stems, and thus represent 75 percent of the 
species' total population. These secure, self-sustaining occurrences, 
as well as 93 percent of the species' remaining occurrences currently 
receive protection and management through implementation of DBNF's 
LRMP. We, therefore, conclude that the goals and criteria outlined in 
the recovery plan have been achieved.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. 
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate 
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we then evaluate 
whether that species may be an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in 
reclassifying or delisting a species. We may delist a species according 
to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial 
data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for 
the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has 
recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the 
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified 
was in error.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is an ``endangered species'' 
if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant 
portion of its range'' and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
``significant portion of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the phrase 
``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) phrase refers to the range 
in which the species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' 
refers to the value of that portion of the range being considered to 
the conservation of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the 
period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be 
anticipated or trends extrapolated. A recovered species is one that no 
longer meets the Act's definition of a threatened or endangered 
species. Determining whether or not a species is recovered requires 
consideration of the same five categories of threats specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. In other words, for species that are 
already listed as endangered or threatened, the analysis for a 
delisting due to recovery must include an evaluation of the threats 
that existed at the time of listing, the threats currently facing the 
species, and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the 
species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or 
downlisting and the removal of the Act's protections.
    The following analysis examines all five factors that are currently 
affecting or are likely to affect S. albopilosa within the foreseeable 
future.

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

    The final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR 11612, 
April 7, 1988) identified the following habitat threats: ground 
disturbance and trampling associated with unlawful archaeological 
activities and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and 
rock climbing. The species occupies a scenic and unique geological area 
that is heavily visited by hikers, campers, rock-climbers, and other 
nature enthusiasts. The U.S. Forest Service estimates recreational use 
of the Red River Gorge at approximately 500,000 visitor days per year 
(Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Recreational activities such as camping, 
hiking, and rock climbing pose a threat to the species through 
inadvertent trampling and ground disturbance of S. albopilosa habitats. 
Evidence of trampling and ground disturbance within rock shelters has 
been observed repeatedly by KSNPC and DBNF personnel (KSNPC 2010, pp. 
13-14).
    Habitat disturbance and trampling associated with recreational 
activities (camping, hiking, and rock climbing) and archaeological 
looting have posed a significant threat to the species. The Red River 
Gorge is a popular recreational area (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Use of 
rock shelters and cliff lines by campers, hikers, and rock climbers has 
contributed to physical habitat disturbance and has led to trampling of 
plants in rock shelters (Service 1993, p. 7; White and Drozda 2006, pp. 
124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). In addition to habitat disturbance 
caused by recreationists, the presence of Native American artifacts 
within the Red River Gorge has contributed to digging and 
archaeological looting in S. albopilosa habitats (rock shelters). 
Approximately 18 white-haired goldenrod occurrences have been 
extirpated due to human activities, and many heavily visited rock 
shelters have been modified to the point that these habitats are no 
longer suitable for the species (KSNPC 2010, pp. 6-7).
    According to the DBNF, impacts from archaeological looting are now 
infrequent, and these activities no longer pose a significant threat to 
S. albopilosa within the Red River Gorge (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). As 
for recreational impacts, many white-haired goldenrod occurrences are 
located in remote ravines of the Red River Gorge or grow along 
inaccessible cliff lines that are seldom visited or disturbed by 
campers, hikers, and rock climbers. Therefore, the threat magnitude at 
these sites is low.
    Occurrences located in areas with more frequent visitor use, 
typically areas near DBNF and user-defined trails, generally have 
suffered more severe habitat disturbance and trampling. Site protection 
and habitat management efforts by DBNF, working cooperatively with 
KSNPC and the Service, have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats 
at these sites. These occurrences have benefited from their location on 
the DBNF and management and protective actions provided under DBNF's 
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10), which prevents general land disturbance 
and prohibits or limits logging and other DBNF activities near 
cliffline habitats. The LRMP also protects rock shelters from vandalism 
and forbids removal of threatened and endangered species from these 
areas.
    The DBNF monitors these sites and protects them as needed through 
law enforcement efforts, construction of fences, trail diversion, and 
placement of signs. To protect occurrences from trampling, fire-
building, and digging, signs have been posted at all entry points to 
the Red River Gorge asking visitors not to remove or disturb historical 
resources and providing visitors with biological and status information 
on S. albopilosa. Similar signs were also placed inside at least five 
archaeologically significant rock shelters that contained S. 
albopilosa. Beginning in February 2000, DBNF began to redirect trails 
and install fencing (chicken wire) around selected rock shelters (those 
with greatest visitation) containing S. albopilosa. Signs were also 
placed at these shelters, alerting visitors to the presence of the 
species and warning them against potential damage to plants. Signs and/
or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a total of 21 
occurrences, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these sites annually, 
checking the condition of signs and fencing and making repairs as 
needed.
    Monitoring results show that implementation of DBNF's LRMP and

[[Page 52726]]

the completion of additional conservation actions such as fencing and 
sign placement have had a positive effect on the species, the number of 
stems has increased, and the level of habitat disturbance and trampling 
associated with recreational activities has been reduced (KSNPC 2010, 
entire). Of the 21 occurrences on the DBNF where fencing and signs were 
added, 20 are considered to be stable, and the 1 declining occurrence 
will be protected through expanded fencing. Additional evidence that 
these conservation efforts have improved the status of S. albopilosa 
occurrences on the DBNF is the large number of stable occurrences (75) 
and the relatively high number of secure, self-sustaining occurrences 
(46) observed by DBNF, KSNPC, and the Service. The 46 secure, self-
sustaining occurrences exceed the number identified in the recovery 
criteria to allow consideration of delisting.
    Additional evidence that conservation actions have had a positive 
effect on the species is the relatively low recreational impacts 
observed by KSNPC (2010, pp. 13-14) at the majority of DBNF 
occurrences. Recreational impacts have been assessed by KSNPC since the 
mid-1990s (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). 
Their qualitative ranking scheme estimates the percent disturbance of 
available habitat and uses a scale of 1 (little or no impact) to 5 
(high impact, greater than 50 percent of available habitat disturbed) 
to produce a disturbance rank. Based on recent evaluations by KSNPC 
(KSNPC 2010, entire; Service 2014a, entire), 70 occurrences (60 
percent) are classified as low impact (rank of 1-2), 8 occurrences (7 
percent) are classified as medium impact (rank of 3), and 39 
occurrences (33 percent) are classified as high impact (rank of 4-5). 
Overall, 67 percent of DBNF's occurrences are considered to have low to 
medium recreational impacts. KSNPC (2010, p. 14) also noted that they 
did not observe many new recreational impacts during their surveys in 
2008 and 2009. Most of the documented recreational impacts such as 
established trails, permanent structures within rock shelters (couches, 
chairs, fire pits), and camp sites had been in place since before S. 
albopilosa monitoring began in 1996 (KSNPC 2010, p. 14).
    The six occurrences on privately owned lands currently do not 
benefit from any formal protection or management and, therefore, could 
face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat disturbance) than those 
located on the DBNF. However, based on the most recent range-wide 
survey results by KSNPC, all six of these private occurrences have been 
ranked as ``stable,'' and five of the six are considered to be self-
sustaining (A-, B-, or C-rank) (KSNPC 2010, p. 8). While these 
occurrences potentially could face a greater level of threats, they 
currently do not appear to be facing a greater level of impact, and 
they represent a small proportion (five percent) of the overall 
population of the species.
    Summary of Factor A: Impacts associated with archaeological looting 
and recreational activities have been well documented in the past, but 
current monitoring data suggest that the magnitude of these threats has 
sufficiently decreased. Implementation of the DBNF's LRMP and specific 
conservation actions such as fencing and sign placement have had a 
positive effect on the species and have reduced the threat associated 
with recreational disturbance. The recovery goal of 40 stable, self-
sustaining, protected occurrences has been exceeded by 6, and these 
trends have held for more than 10 years. Because we expect that the 
lands containing the 46 secure and self-sustaining occurrences will 
remain permanently protected in Federal ownership and will be managed 
to maintain or improve current habitat conditions (see Service 2014b, 
entire), we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is no longer a 
threat to the continued existence of S. albopilosa.

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

    Both the final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR 
11612, April 7, 1988) and the recovery plan (Service 1993, p. 7) 
identified overutilization for recreational purposes as a threat to the 
species. However, while the use of habitat for recreational purposes, 
as discussed under Factor A, has impacted the species in the past, 
there is no evidence that the plant itself is or was utilized for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We, 
therefore, discuss impacts from recreational use of habitat for S. 
albopilosa under Factor A above.
    Summary of Factor B: We conclude that overutilization is not a 
threat to S. albopilosa.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The listing rule for S. albopilosa (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) did 
not identify disease or predation as a threat to the species. Plants 
are occasionally browsed by herbivores, such as white-tailed deer 
(Odocoileus virginianus), wood rats (Neotoma spp.), and caterpillars 
(Order Lepidoptera), but we have no information that grazing by these 
species represents a threat to the species. In addition, we have no 
current data indicating this plant is affected by diseases.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Populations of S. albopilosa on the DBNF are protected from damage 
and unauthorized taking by U.S. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 
261.9). This regulation will apply regardless of whether the species is 
listed because S. albopilosa would still be considered a sensitive, 
rare, or unique species on the DBNF under this Federal regulation. The 
final listing rule (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) identified inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms as a threat to S. albopilosa because limited 
manpower and the remoteness of many occurrences on the DBNF makes 
enforcement difficult. The DBNF has taken several steps to remedy this. 
As noted above, S. albopilosa receives management and protection 
through DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and its 
conservation goals for Cliffline Community Prescription Area. The 
National Forest Management Act (NFMA), regulations, and policies 
implementing the NFMA are the main regulatory mechanisms that guide 
land management on the DBNF, which contains 111 of the 117 extant 
occurrences of S. albopilosa. Since listing, the DBNF has included S. 
albopilosa and its habitat in its resource management plans. These 
plans are required by NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976. The NFMA requires revision of the Plans every 15 years; 
however, plans may be amended or revised as needed. Management plans 
are required to be in effect at all times (in other words, if the 
revision does not occur, the previous plan remains in effect) and to be 
in compliance with various Federal regulations. We expect continued 
implementation of the LRMP and expect that any future revisions will 
consider conservation of S. albopilosa and its Cliffline Community 
habitats.
    Specific actions that DBNF has taken under the LRMP include 
measures to reduce impacts of recreational activities to S. albopilosa 
and its habitat as discussed under Factor A. As discussed above, these 
and other protection and management actions taken by DBNF under their 
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10) have been successful at improving the 
status of the species. Monitoring results from these occurrences show 
that these efforts have had a positive effect on the species. 
Specifically,

[[Page 52727]]

disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing has been reduced 
in these areas, and the number of stems has increased.
    The species is listed as endangered by the State of Kentucky (KSNPC 
2005, entire), but this designation conveys no legal protection to 
occurrences located on private property. Consequently, occurrences on 
privately owned land could face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat 
disturbance) than those located on the DBNF. Based on recent survey 
results by KSNPC, however, only 6 of 117 extant S. albopilosa 
occurrences (5 percent) are located on private land, and 5 of these 
occurrences have been ranked as ``stable'' (A-, B-, or C-rank) by KSNPC 
(KSNPC 2010, p. 8). Therefore, based on this greater than 10-year data 
set, the majority of private occurrences are also stable.
    Summary of Factor D: Occurrences of S. albopilosa located on the 
DBNF receive protection due to their location on Federal property, and 
these occurrences are managed and protected under DBNF's LRMP (USFS 
2004, pp. 1.1-1.10). This protected status and management actions 
included in the LRMP will continue to provide adequate regulatory 
protection for these occurrences. Monitoring results show that DBNF's 
management actions have had a positive effect on the species. 
Specifically, disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing 
has been reduced and the number of stems has stabilized or increased. 
Based on the best available information for both private and public 
lands occurrences, and the fact that existing regulatory mechanisms and 
associated management practices will continue on public lands, we 
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate. Therefore, 
we find that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is no 
longer a threat to S. albopilosa.

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

    Other natural or manmade factors were first identified as a threat 
to white-haired goldenrod due to the species' specialized habitats 
(sandstone rock shelters and cliff habitats of the Red River Gorge) and 
the perceived vulnerability of these habitats to any physical or 
climatic change (52 FR 13798, 53 FR 11612). In the species' final 
listing rule (53 FR 11612), published in 1988, the Service concluded 
that even minor changes in the surrounding forest (e.g., loss of canopy 
trees) could impact the species through drying, erosion, and 
competition with sun-tolerant species. At the time, these potential 
changes were not considered to be an imminent threat to white-haired 
goldenrod, but the final listing rule identified the need for 
management planning that would take into account the requirements of 
the species to ensure its continued existence.
    Recent surveys and status assessments of white-haired goldenrod 
have identified several threats under Factor E. These included 
competition from invasive plants, the loss of eastern hemlock (Tsuga 
canadensis), low genetic diversity and small population size, and the 
effects of climate change (Service 2009a, p. 9; Service 2009b, p. 2; 
KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). KSNPC (2010, p. 14) reported several invasive 
plant species in habitats occupied by white-haired goldenrod, but the 
most common species included Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium 
vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), Japanese spiraea 
(Spiraea japonica), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and common 
mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Of the invasive plant species, Japanese 
stilt grass was the most common species. It was observed growing in 
direct competition with 23 S. albopilosa occurrences. However, invasive 
species were absent from the majority of extant occurrences (about 80 
percent) of white-haired goldenrod and most stable occurrences (65 
percent) (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014a, pp. 1-6). For the 23 
occurrences in direct competition with invasive plants, most (16 of 23 
(70 percent)) were stable or increased over the 10-year monitoring 
period (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014a, pp. 1-6). While we do not 
have data that specifically addresses the effects of climate change 
with regard to invasive species attributes like distribution or range 
and the relation to white haired goldenrod. There is some data showing 
that more common aggressive invasive species like kudzu (Pueraria 
lobata) may expand into greater ranges due to possible effects of 
climate change (Bradley et al. 2009). However, species like Japanese 
stilt grass are more recent invaders to this area of the Southeast and 
other than the data presented above, we do not have further information 
or data that indicates competition from invasive plants will change in 
significance as a threat to the species. Therefore, we do not believe 
that competition from invasive plants is a significant threat to the 
species now or in the foreseeable future.
    The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adeleges tsugae), an aphid-like insect 
that is native to Asia, represents a potential threat to white-haired 
goldenrod because it has the potential to severely damage stands of 
eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) that occur near rock shelters and 
cliffs occupied by the species (Service 2009b, p. 2; KSNPC 2010, p. 
15). The hemlock woolly adelgid was introduced in the Pacific Northwest 
during the 1920s and has since spread throughout the eastern United 
States, reaching Kentucky by 2006. The species creates an extreme 
amount of damage to natural stands of hemlock, specifically eastern 
hemlock and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana). The species' recovery 
action plan (Service 2009b, p. 2) concluded that the loss of eastern 
hemlock within the Red River Gorge could result in microclimatic 
changes (increased light, decreased moisture, increased leaf litter) in 
and near rock shelters that may negatively affect white-haired 
goldenrod. Despite this potential threat, KSNPC (2010, p. 15) 
demonstrated in their evaluation that eastern hemlock was actually a 
minor component of the canopy surrounding rock shelters inhabited by 
the species. Consequently, the eventual loss of eastern hemlocks would 
not represent a significant change to the canopy surrounding these rock 
shelters and would, therefore, not represent a significant threat to 
the species.
    Potential impacts that may be associated with low genetic 
variability, such as inbreeding depression, reduced fitness, or reduced 
adaptive capacity (ability to respond to and adapt to changing 
conditions) have been identified as a potential threat to other listed 
plant species, but we have no information suggesting that low genetic 
variability affects S. albopilosa (53 FR 11614; Service 2009a, entire; 
KSNPC 2010, 24 pp.). Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-257) reported 
that S. albopilosa exhibits genetic diversity both within and between 
populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among populations, and 
populations are not genetically homogenous). The highest level of 
genetic diversity was observed among (as opposed to between) 
populations. Consequently, we do not believe that the potential effects 
associated with low genetic variability threaten the continued 
existence of S. albopilosa now or in the foreseeable future.
    Some white-haired goldenrod occurrences may be more vulnerable to 
extirpation due to their small population size and poor estimated 
viability. The low number of stems (typically less than 300), poor 
estimated viability, and high recreational impacts associated with D-
ranked occurrences make these occurrences more vulnerable

[[Page 52728]]

to stochastic events. Currently, 62 of the species' 117 extant 
occurrences (53 percent) are D-ranked. Even though these occurrences 
may be more vulnerable to extirpation, the overall threat to the 
species is minimal because these occurrences contain less than 20 
percent of the species' total number of stems. Additionally, a small 
population size in and of itself is not indicative of being in danger 
of extinction. Some white-haired goldenrod occurrences may have always 
had fewer plants in rock shelters with less favorable conditions (e.g., 
small size, drier conditions).
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Effects 
associated with changes in climate have been observed including changes 
in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation 
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather 
including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity 
of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4). Species that are dependent on 
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme 
periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of 
climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 17; Anacker and Leidholm 
2012, p. 2). However, while continued change is certain, the magnitude 
and rate of change is unknown in many cases. The magnitude and rate of 
change could be affected by many factors (e.g., circulation patterns), 
but we have no additional information or data regarding these factors. 
There is evidence that some terrestrial plant populations have been 
able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks et 
al. 2013, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or 
phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to 
changes in climate have been detected and both can occur rapidly and 
often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, p. 135). Relatively few 
studies are available, however, that (1) directly examine plant 
responses over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal 
climatic driver of the responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to 
distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2013, 
p. 135).
    To generate future climate projections across the range of white-
haired goldenrod, one tool we used was the National Climate Change 
Viewer (NCCV), a climate-visualization Web site tool developed by the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that allows the user to visualize climate 
projections at the state, county, and watershed level (Adler and 
Hostetler 2013, entire; http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp). Initially, the viewer was designed to provide information 
for states and counties on projected temperature and precipitation 
through the 21st century. The viewer was expanded in 2014 to provide 
information on associated projected changes in snowpack, soil moisture, 
runoff, and evaporative deficit for U.S. states and counties and for 
USGS Hydrologic Units or watersheds as simulated by a simple water-
balance model. The model provides a way to simulate the response of the 
water balance to changes in temperature and precipitation in the 
climate models (30 separate models developed by the National Aeronautic 
and Space Administration). Combining the climate data with the water 
balance data provides further insights into the potential for climate-
driven change in water resources. The viewer uses tools such as 
climographs (plots of monthly averages); histograms showing the 
distribution or spread of model simulations; monthly time series 
spanning 1950-2099; and tables that summarize changes (and extremes) in 
temperature and precipitation during these periods. The application 
also provides access to comprehensive, three-page summary reports for 
states, counties, and watersheds.
    Using the NCCV and assuming the more extreme Representative 
Concentration Pathways (RCP) greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP8.5), 
in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked through 
the end of the century leading to an equivalent radiative forcing of 
8.5 Watts per square meter, we calculated projected annual mean changes 
for maximum temperature (+3.6 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (+6.5 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), precipitation (+0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012 
in/day)), runoff (-0.25 cm/month (-0.1 in/month), snowfall (-0.5 cm (-
0.2 in)), soil storage (-2.5 cm (-1.0 in)), and evaporative deficit 
(+0.75 cm/month (+0.3 in/month)) for the period 2050-2074 in Menifee, 
Powell, and Wolfe counties (Adler and Hostetler 2013, entire). Based on 
these results, all three counties within the range of white-haired 
goldenrod will be subjected to higher maximum temperatures (annual mean 
increase of 3.6 [deg]C (6.5 [deg]F)) and slightly higher precipitation 
(annual mean increase of 0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012 in/day)) 
relative to 1950-2005. Because the average annual increase in 
precipitation is predicted to be only slightly higher, the increased 
evaporative deficit and the loss in runoff, snowfall, and soil storage 
is primarily a result of higher maximum and minimum temperatures. The 
most dramatic shift is predicted for soil storage, which will decrease 
significantly between mid-May and late November relative to 1950-2005. 
Despite the slight increase in predicted precipitation, the coincident 
warming means that habitats are unlikely to maintain their current 
moisture status.
    To evaluate the vulnerability of white-haired goldenrod to the 
effects of climate change, we also utilized NatureServe's Climate 
Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. 2015, entire), a 
climate change model that uses downscaled climate predictions from 
tools such as Climate Wizard (Givertz et al. 2009, entire) and combines 
these with readily available information about a species' natural 
history, distribution, and landscape circumstances to predict whether 
it will likely suffer a range contraction and/or population reductions 
due to the effects of climate change. The CCVI uses an Excel platform 
that allows users to enter numerical or categorical, weighted responses 
to a series of questions about risk factors related to species exposure 
and sensitivity to climate change. The CCVI separates vulnerability 
into its two primary components: a species' exposure to changes in 
climate within a particular assessment area and its inherent 
sensitivity to the effects of climate change. The tool gauges 20 
scientifically documented factors and indicators of these components, 
as well as documented responses to climate change where they exist. 
While the Index calculates anticipated increases or declines in 
populations of individual species, it also accommodates inherent 
uncertainties about how species respond within their ecological 
contexts. The CCVI generated a vulnerability rating of ``extremely 
vulnerable'' to ``highly vulnerable'' for white-haired goldenrod, 
suggesting that the species' abundance and/or range extent could change 
substantially or possibly disappear by 2050 (Young et al. 2015, p. 44). 
Factors influencing the species' high vulnerability were its poor 
movement/dispersal ability, its connection with uncommon geologic 
features, and its unique hydrological niche (humid, shaded rock 
shelters). In West Virginia, top risk factors for plants included poor 
dispersal ability, natural and anthropogenic barriers to dispersal, 
dependence on wetland habitats, restriction to areas with unique 
geology, and genetic bottlenecks (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 16). 
Although the model suggested that white-haired goldenrod is

[[Page 52729]]

greatly exposed and sensitive to climate change and could be adversely 
affected in future years, Anacker and Leidholm 2012 (pp. 16-17) note 
that there are also a number of weaknesses associated with the CCVI.
    The CCVI was used to assess the vulnerability of over 150 rare 
plant species in California (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, entire). 
However, several specific weaknesses were identified: (1) It is 
weighted too heavily towards direct exposure to climate change 
(projected changes to future temperature and precipitation conditions 
which have high levels of uncertainties), (2) some important plant 
attributes are missing (mating system and pollinator specificity), (3) 
it is very difficult to complete scoring for a given species because 
some information is simply lacking, and (4) some scoring guidelines are 
too simplistic (Anacker and Leidholm (2012, pp. 16-17). They considered 
topographic complexity to be a potential complementary factor in 
assessing vulnerability to climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, 
pp. 12-16). Topographically complex areas, such as the Red River Gorge 
region, have been predicted to be less vulnerable to the effects of 
climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, p. 15-16), so species such 
as white-haired goldenrod may also be less vulnerable to such effects 
as compared to plants that occur in areas with low topographic 
complexity.
    Additionally, Phillips (2010, entire) found that efforts to predict 
responses to climate change and to interpret both modern and 
paleoclimate indicators are influenced by several levels of potential 
amplifiers, which can either increase or exaggerate climate impacts, 
and/or filters, which reduce or mute impacts. He notes that climate 
forcings (factors that drive or ``force'' the climate system to change 
such as the energy output of the sun, volcanic eruptions, or changes in 
greenhouse gases) are partly mediated by ecological, hydrological, and 
other processes which may amplify or filter impacts on surface 
processes and landforms. For example, resistance or resilience of 
geomorphic systems may minimize the effects of changes. Thus a given 
geomorphic response to climate could represent amplification and/or 
filtering (Phillips 2010, p. 571). Due to white-haired goldenrod's 
habitat specificity in rock shelters and cliff overhangs, it is our 
judgment that the effects of climate change are likely muted or 
diminished due to this species' specific habitat conditions.
    Based on observations of climatic conditions over a period of 25 
years (KSNPC (2010, p. 13), there is some biological and historical 
evidence to suggest that S. albopilosa is adapted to endure some of the 
potential effects of climate change, including more frequent droughts 
and an estimated 2.6-3.6 [deg]C (4.7-6.5 [deg]F) increase in average 
annual maximum temperature. Habitats within the Red River Gorge often 
experience multiyear droughts, and S. albopilosa occurrences can become 
stressed during these periods. For example, the Cumberland Plateau 
region of Kentucky experienced a several-year drought prior to KSNPC's 
2008-2009 survey. These dry conditions continued during 2008, and KSNPC 
observed many drought-stressed occurrences. The following year (2009) 
was relatively wet, and several of these drought stressed occurrences 
quickly improved (KSNPC 2010, p. 13). Despite this most recent dry 
period and others in the past, the species has demonstrated a 
resiliency to prolonged periods of drought. Although downscaling models 
exist at the county level (Alder and Hostetler 2013), we do not have 
data at the proper scale (inside rock shelters or in cliff overhangs) 
to determine, for example, how the species is affected by decreased 
relative humidity during a drought year, but periodic drought may be a 
normal cyclical event needed to increase production. The shaded, 
cooler, and more humid environment of rock shelters (Nieves and Day 
2014, p. 7) and the topographic complexity of the Red River Gorge 
region (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, p. 15-16) may offer some relief from 
drying and may contribute to the species' ability to survive these 
conditions.
    Although climate change is almost certain to affect terrestrial 
habitats in the Red River Gorge region of Kentucky (Adler and Hostetler 
2013, entire), there is uncertainty about the specific effects of 
climate change on white-haired goldenrod. Currently, we have no 
evidence that climate change effects observed to date have had any 
adverse impact on S. albopilosa or its habitats, and we are uncertain 
about how predicted future changes in temperature, precipitation, and 
other factors will influence the species. However, we do not believe 
that climate change represents an imminent threat now or in the 
foreseeable future.
    Summary of Factor E: Other potential threats such as minor 
vegetational changes in the surrounding forest, competition with 
invasive species, low genetic variability, small population size, and 
the effects of climate change have been identified as potential threats 
to S. albopilosa. Invasive species have invaded only 23 of 117 extant 
occurrences, and most of these occurrences (16) have remained stable. 
We do not expect the loss of eastern hemlock to have a significant 
impact on the species because eastern hemlock is a minor component of 
the forest canopy surrounding S. albopilosa occurrences. The potential 
effects of low genetic diversity do not represent a threat as the 
species has relatively high genetic diversity. Small populations may be 
vulnerable to stochastic events, but these occurrences contain only a 
small proportion of the species' total number of stems. We do not 
consider climate change to be an imminent threat based on the species' 
current status, its demonstrated resiliency to periods of drought, and 
our uncertainty regarding the species' vulnerability to the effects of 
climate change. Based on all these factors, we find that other natural 
or manmade factors considered here are no longer a significant threat 
to S. albopilosa.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is endangered if it is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and threatened if it is ``likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats faced by S. albopilosa in 
developing this proposed rule. Based on the analysis above and given 
the reduction in threats and evidence that certain factors are not 
threats, we conclude that S. albopilosa does not currently meet the 
Act's definition of a threatened species (it is not likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range).

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that S. albopilosa is not in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so throughout all of its range, we next consider 
whether there are any significant portions of its range in which S. 
albopilosa is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Under the 
Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if 
it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered 
species'' as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' 
as any species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any

[[Page 52730]]

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.''
    We published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``Significant 
Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final 
policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the 
Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever 
found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if 
the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of 
its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the 
species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the 
species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a 
species is considered to be the general geographical area within which 
that species can be found at the time FWS makes any particular status 
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or 
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant 
portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire 
taxonomic species or subspecies.
    The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including 
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and 
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether 
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status 
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the 
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its 
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we list the species as an endangered species (or threatened 
species) and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is 
neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all 
of its range, we next determine whether the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of 
its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered species or 
threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that 
listing the species is not warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be both significant and 
endangered or threatened. 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 in those portions or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering 
these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the 
species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of 
its range--rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed 
analysis of the issue is required. 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 affecting it uniformly 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of 
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range 
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of 
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be 
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire 
species), those portions will not warrant further consideration.
    If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and 
(2) in danger of extinction or likely to become so, we engage in a more 
detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. 
As discussed above, to determine whether a portion of the range of a 
species is significant, we consider whether, under a hypothetical 
scenario, the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is 
so important that, without the members in that portion, the species 
would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This analysis will 
consider the contribution of that portion to the viability of the 
species based on principles of conservation biology. The contribution 
is evaluated using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. (These concepts can similarly be expressed in terms of 
abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity.) The 
identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or 
other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is 
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to 
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or 
threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and 
methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or 
threatened throughout its range.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant'' 
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine 
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.''
    Applying the process described above, in considering delisting S. 
albopilosa, we evaluated the range of this plant to determine if any 
areas could be considered a significant portion of its range. As 
mentioned above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is 
to identify any natural divisions within the range that might be of 
biological or conservation importance. While there is some variability 
in the habitats occupied by S. albopilosa across its range, the basic 
ecological components required for the species to complete its life 
cycle (e.g., adequate sunlight, shade, moisture, soils) are present 
throughout the habitats occupied by the species. No specific location 
within the current range of the species provides a unique or 
biologically significant function that is not found in other portions 
of the range. The currently occupied range of S. albopilosa encompasses 
approximately 114 square kilometer (km\2\) (44 square miles) in 
Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky. Based on examination of 
information on the biology and life history of the species, we 
determined that there are no separate areas of the range that are 
significantly different from others or that are likely to be of greater 
biological or conservation importance than any other areas.
    We next examined whether any threats are geographically 
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in 
danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in that area. Through our 
review of potential threats, we identified some areas where white-
haired goldenrod may experience greater threats or a greater likelihood 
of extirpation and, therefore, may be in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in those areas. These include occurrences on private lands 
and

[[Page 52731]]

occurrences that are not currently considered self-sustaining. The 
majority (94.8 percent) of white-haired goldenrod occurrences are now 
located on DBNF and benefit from management and conservation actions 
implemented under the LRMP.
    Six of the 117 extant occurrences are located on private lands. As 
explained above, these occurrences currently do not benefit from any 
formal protection or management and, therefore, could face higher 
magnitude threats. While these occurrences do not receive any formal 
protection, five of the six occurrences are considered to be stable and 
self-sustaining, indicating a low level of current impacts to those 
occurrences. Although the occurrences on private lands could face 
greater threats in the future due to lack of formal protections, these 
occurrences represent only 5 percent of extant occurrences and a very 
small proportion of the range of the species. Additionally, even if 
future potential threats were to cause the loss of these occurrences, 
that loss would not appreciably reduce the long-term viability of the 
species, much less cause the species in the remainder of its range to 
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.
    We also evaluated whether the occurrences that are not considered 
self-sustaining could be considered a significant portion of the 
species' range. We have determined that 46 secure and self-sustaining 
occurrences presently are distributed throughout the species' range, 
which accounted for more than 75 percent of the total stems estimated 
to exist in 2013. Of the remaining 71 extant occurrences, the 6 
occurrences on private lands are not considered secure (but all 6 have 
been shown to be stable and 5 have been shown to be self-sustaining). 
These occurrences were discussed above.
    The remaining 65 occurrences are on DBNF, and thus protected, but 
currently are not considered self-sustaining. Some of these occurrences 
have a status of declining or their status is unknown, while others are 
considered not self-sustaining primarily due to poor estimated 
viability and low number of plants observed. These occurrences could be 
at greater risk of extinction due to vulnerability to demographic and 
environmental stochasticity because of their smaller population sizes. 
These 65 occurrences, along with the 6 occurrences on private lands, 
account for the remaining 25 percent of the total stems estimated to 
exist in 2013. The threats to these occurrences from recreational 
activities are being managed and are not different from the threats 
affecting the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences.
    Because these 46 occurrences exhibit stable or increasing trends, 
contain a relatively high number of individuals, have fair to excellent 
viability, and exhibit relatively high reproductive rates, we expect 
these populations to persist into the future. While most of the 
remaining occurrences also receive protections and are not at immediate 
risk of extirpation, their lower population sizes and poorer viability 
put them at a greater risk of extirpation. However, while these 
occurrences may have a greater potential to become extirpated due to 
demographic or environmental stochasticity, the loss of some or all of 
those occurrences would not cause the species in the remainder of its 
range to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.
    In conclusion, we have determined that none of the existing or 
potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are 
likely to cause S. albopilosa to be in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we 
conclude S. albopilosa no longer requires the protection of the Act, 
and propose to remove S. albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12 (h)).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
plants. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the Act make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce, remove and reduce S. albopilosa to possession from 
areas under Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or 
destroy S. albopilosa on any other area in knowing violation of any 
State law or regulation such as a trespass law. Section 7 of the Act 
requires that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. If this proposed rule is 
finalized, it would revise 50 CFR 17.12 to remove (delist) S. 
albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
and these prohibitions would no longer apply.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than 
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery. 
Post-delisting monitoring refers to activities undertaken to verify 
that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the species to 
ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is 
detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as 
threatened or endangered is not again needed. If at any time during the 
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act 
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if 
appropriate, emergency listing. At the conclusion of the monitoring 
period, we will review all available information to determine if 
relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of 
monitoring is appropriate.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the 
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring 
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) 
and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-
delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other 
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' 
conservation after delisting. In August 2013, DBNF and KSNPC agreed to 
be cooperators in the post-delisting monitoring of S. albopilosa.
    We have prepared a Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for White-
haired Goldenrod (Solidago albopilosa) (Plan) (Service 2014b, entire). 
The draft Plan:
    (1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;
    (2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring 
outcomes and conclusions;
    (3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;
    (4) Articulates monitoring methods including sampling 
considerations;
    (5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and 
responsibilities; and
    (6) Proposes a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule 
including timing and responsible parties.
    Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft 
plan's availability for public review. The draft post-delisting 
monitoring plan can be viewed in its entirety at http://

[[Page 52732]]

www.fws.gov/frankfort/ or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. Copies can also be obtained from the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 
Frankfort, Kentucky (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek 
information, data, and comments from the public regarding S. albopilosa 
and the post-delisting monitoring strategy. We are also seeking peer 
review of this draft plan concurrently with this comment period. We 
anticipate finalizing this plan, considering all public and peer review 
comments, prior to making a final determination on the proposed 
delisting rule.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the OMB's Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will solicit the 
expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding the science in this proposed rule and the draft 
post-delisting monitoring plan. The purpose of such review is to ensure 
that we base our decisions on scientifically sound data, assumptions, 
and analyses. We will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule 
and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan immediately following 
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will 
invite peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on 
the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed 
delisting and draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We will summarize 
the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision documents, and we 
will consider their input and any additional information we receive as 
part of our process of making a final decision on this proposal and the 
draft post-delisting monitoring plan. Such communication may lead to a 
final decision that differs from this proposal.

Clarity of This Proposed Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed/final rule does not contain collections of 
information that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no tribal lands affected by this proposal.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054.

Author

    The primary author of this document is Michael A. Floyd, Kentucky 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry ``Solidago albopilosa'' 
under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants.

     Dated: June 30, 2015.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21410 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P