[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28704-28740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11100]
[[Page 28703]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 94
May 15, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for
Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii
subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28704]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2012-0017: 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AX72
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status
for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii
subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list
Umtanum desert buckwheat (Eriogonum codium) and White Bluffs bladderpod
(Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis) as threatened, under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also proposing
to designate critical habitat for both species under the Act. In total,
approximately 344 acres (139 hectares) are being proposed for
designation as critical habitat for Eriogonum codium in Benton County,
Washington, and approximately 2,861 acres (1,158 hectares) are being
proposed for designation as critical habitat for Physaria douglasii
subsp. tuplashensis in Franklin County, Washington. We also announce
the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
designation and a required determinations section of the proposal.
DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or
before July 16, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by June 29, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: The draft economic analysis is
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-
0017 or by contacting the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit your comments or data concerning
this proposal by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and submit your comment to Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0017.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0017; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond
Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503-1263, by telephone (360) 753-
9440, or by facsimile (360) 753-9405. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We are
proposing to list Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod
as threatened under the Act because of continued threats, and listing
can only be done by issuing a rule. Both species occur as single
populations in narrow, linear bands on bluffs above and on opposite
sides of the Columbia River along the Hanford Reach in Washington
State. We are also proposing to designate critical habitat under the
Act for both species. Critical habitat represents geographical areas
that are essential to a species' conservation, and is designated on the
basis of the best scientific information available after taking into
consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. This proposed rule also announces the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA), which evaluates the potential economic impacts
that may be attributable to the proposed designation of critical
habitat for both species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of five factors:
(1) Destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(2) Overuse; (3) Disease or predation; (4) Inadequate existing
regulations; or (5) Other natural or manmade factors. The Act also
requires that we designate critical habitat concurrently with listing
determinations, if designation is prudent and determinable.
We have made the following finding related to these criteria:
Umtanum desert buckwheat is threated by wildfire,
nonnative plants, seed predation, small population size, limited
geographic range, and low recruitment.
White Bluffs bladderpod is threatened by wildfire,
irrigation-induced landslides and slope failure, harm by recreational
activities and off-road vehicle use, nonnative plants, small population
size, and limited geographic range.
This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for both species.
Critical habitat designation would not be expected to
increase threats to either species, and we have sufficient scientific
information on both species to determine the areas essential to their
conservation. Accordingly, we have determined the designation of
critical habitat is both prudent and determinable.
Approximately 2,400 acres of Federal land, 17 acres of
State land, and 419 acres of private land are being proposed as
critical habitat for both species.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial
data, we have not identified a significant number of small entities
that may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation.
Small entities are consequently anticipated to bear a relatively low
cost as a result of the designation of critical habitat.
Peer Review. We will seek the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists with scientific expertise to
ensure our determinations are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
[[Page 28705]]
(1) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, population size, pollinators and the
foraging distances of these species, including the locations of any
additional populations of these species.
(2) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species and ongoing conservation measures for these species and
their habitat.
(3) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(4) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats, as discussed in this proposed rule.
(5) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by
Eriogonum codium or Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis and the
possible impacts of these activities on these species. For purposes of
this document, we will refer to Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis
as ``White Bluffs bladderpod'' and Eriogonum codium as ``Umtanum desert
buckwheat''.
(6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
which the threats can be expected to increase due to the designation,
and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for Umtanum desert
buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod;
(b) What areas occupied at the time of the proposed listing that
contain features essential to the conservation of the species should be
included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protections that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas that are not occupied at the time of the proposed
listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
area and their possible impacts on the proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod
and the proposed critical habitat areas.
(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and why.
(12) Information on whether the draft economic analysis (DEA)
identifies all costs and benefits attributable to the proposed critical
habitat designation for each of the plants, and information on any
costs or benefits that we have overlooked.
(13) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and any regulatory changes likely if we
designate critical habitat.
(14) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs reasonably
likely to occur that could result from the critical habitat designation
and whether you agree with the analysis.
(15) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating any
particular area as critical habitat.
(16) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
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
determinations 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,'' and section 4(b)(2) directs that critical
habitat designations be made based on the best scientific data
available and after consideration of economic and other relevant
impacts.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, such as your address,
phone number, email address, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
Candidate History: Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod (formerly Lesquerella tuplashensis) were identified as
candidates for possible addition to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants in our Annual Candidate Notice of
Review, published in the Federal Register October 25, 1999 (64 FR
57542). Both species were given a Listing Priority number (LPN) of 5 at
that time; the LPN is assigned to a species based on the immediacy and
magnitude of threats and the species' taxonomic status. In 1999,
threats to both species were considered to be of high magnitude, but
nonimminent. However, in 2002, the LPN for Umtanum desert buckwheat was
revised to LPN 2, which is assigned when threats to a species are of
high magnitude and imminence (67 FR 40663), based on new information
revealing low reproduction for the
[[Page 28706]]
species. The LPN for White Bluffs bladderpod (formerly Lesquerella
tuplashensis) was revised to LPN 9 in 2009 (74 FR 57810), to reflect
new information indicating threats were now moderate to low in
magnitude and imminence. In 2009, the Service completed a Spotlight
Species Action Plan for White Bluffs bladderpod to set conservation
targets and identify actions to achieve those targets for the next 5
years. This plan can be found on the Service's Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/action_plans/doc3090.pdf. The 2011 Notice
of Review, published October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), included Umtanum
desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod; both species have been
maintained as candidates since 1999.
Petition History: A petition requesting that Umtanum desert
buckwheat, White Bluffs bladderpod, and several other species be listed
under the Act was received on May 4, 2004 (Center for Biological
Diversity et al. [CBD] 2004, pp. 49, 100). On July 12, 2011, the
Service filed a multiyear work plan as part of a proposed settlement
agreement with Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and others in a
consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The settlement agreement was approved by the court on
September 9, 2011, and will enable the Service to systematically review
and address the conservation needs of more than 250 species, over a
period of 6 years, including Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed listing and critical habitat designations for Umtanum
desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod in this proposed rule. A
summary of topics relevant to this proposed rule is provided below.
Additional information on both species may be found in the Candidate
Notice of Review, which was published October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370).
Geography, Climate, and Landscape Setting
Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod are found only
on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, the last free-flowing
stretch of the Columbia River within U.S. borders. The Hanford Reach
lies within the semi-arid shrub steppe Pasco Basin of the Columbia
Plateau in south-central Washington State. The region's climate is
influenced by the Pacific Ocean, the Cascade Mountain Range to the
west, and other mountain ranges located to the north and east. The
Pacific Ocean moderates temperatures throughout the Pacific Northwest,
and the Cascade Range generates a rain shadow that limits rain and
snowfall in the eastern half of Washington State. The Cascade Range
also serves as a source of cold air drainage, which has a considerable
effect on the wind regime on the Hanford Installation. Daily maximum
temperatures vary from an average of 1.7 [deg]Celsius (C)
(35[emsp14][deg]Fahrenheit (F)) in late December and early January, to
36 [deg]C (96[emsp14][deg]F) in late July. The Hanford Reach is
generally quite arid, with an average annual precipitation of 16
centimeters (cm) (6.3 inches (in)). The relative humidity at the
Hanford Reach is highest during the winter months, averaging about 76
percent, and lowest during the summer, averaging about 36 percent.
Average snowfall ranges from 0.25 cm (0.1 in) in October to a maximum
of 13.2 cm (5.2 in) in December, decreasing to 1.3 cm (0.5 in) in
March. Snowfall accounts for about 38 percent of all precipitation from
December through February (USFWS 2008, pp. 3.8-3.10).
The Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain National
Wildlife Refuge (Monument), which includes approximately 78,780
hectares (ha) (195,000 acres (ac)), contains much of the Hanford Reach
of the Columbia River. All of the land is owned by the Department of
Energy (DOE) and was formerly part of the 145,440-ha (360,000-ac)
Hanford installation. The Hanford installation was established by the
U.S. Government in 1943 as a national security area for the production
of weapons grade plutonium and purification facilities. For more than
40 years, the primary mission at Hanford was associated with the
production of nuclear materials for national defense. However, large
tracts of land were used as protective buffer zones for safety and
security purposes and remained undisturbed.
The Hanford Reach National Monument was established by Presidential
Proclamation in June 2000, to connect these tracts of land, protecting
the river reach and the largest remnant of the shrub steppe ecosystem
in the Columbia River Basin. The Hanford Reach National Monument
Proclamation identifies several nationally significant resources,
including a diversity of native plant and animal species, including
rare and sensitive plant species such as Umtanum desert buckwheat and
White Bluffs bladderpod (USFWS 2008, p. 1-4). The Proclamation also
sets forth specific management actions and mechanisms that are to be
followed: (1) Federal lands are withdrawn from disposition under public
land laws, including all interests in these lands, such as future
mining claims; (2) off-road vehicle use is prohibited; (3) the ability
to apply for water rights is established; (4) grazing is prohibited;
(5) the Service and DOE (subject to certain provisions) are established
as managers of the Monument; (6) a land management transfer mechanism
from the DOE to the Service is established; (7) cleanup and restoration
activities are assured; and (8) existing rights, including tribal
rights, are protected.
All lands included in the Monument are Federal lands under the
primary jurisdiction of the DOE. Approximately 66,660 ha (165,000 ac)
are currently managed as an overlay refuge by the Service through
agreements with the DOE. Overlay refuges exist where the Service
manages lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources, but is
not the primary holder in fee title of lands forming the refuge
(Service 2008, p. 1-7). Because the Monument is administered as a
component of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the legal mandates
and policies that apply to any national wildlife refuge apply to the
Monument. The Proclamation directs the DOE and the Service to protect
and conserve the area's native plant communities, specifically
recognizing the area's biologically diverse shrub steppe ecosystem
(USFWS 2008, pp. 1.21, 3.5). The DOE manages approximately 11,716 ha
(29,000 ac) of land within the Monument and retains land surface
ownership or control on all Monument acreage. Thus, the Service and DOE
have joint management responsibility for the Monument.
The parcel of land containing Umtanum desert buckwheat is on part
of what was historically called the McGee Ranch, a historical homestead
area of more than 364 ha (900 ac) within the greater Hanford
installation. Management of this parcel has been retained by DOE due to
unresolved issues with contaminants. This is expected to be resolved
over time, and management conveyed to the Monument, since this area is
not essential to the operation of the Hanford facility. Umtanum desert
buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod both occur in narrow, linear
bands on bluffs above and on opposite sides of the Columbia River. The
populations are approximately 15 kilometers (km) (9 miles (mi)) apart,
and although relatively near to each other, their habitat has a widely
disparate geologic history and subsequent soil
[[Page 28707]]
development. These conditions create unique habitats and substrates
that support these and other rare endemic plants (see Species
Information sections) within the Hanford Reach.
Species Information
Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
Umtanum desert buckwheat is a long-lived, woody perennial plant
that forms low mats. Individual plants may exceed 100 years of age,
based on counts of annual growth rings on cross sections of recently
dead plants. Growth rates are also extremely slow, with stem diameters
increasing an average of only 0.17 millimeters (mm) (0.007 in) per year
(The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 1998, p. 9; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p.
62). A detailed description of the identifying characteristics of
Umtanum desert buckwheat is found in Reveal et al. (1995, pp. 350-351).
Umtanum desert buckwheat is State-listed as Endangered, with a G1
(i.e., critically imperiled world-wide, and particularly vulnerable to
extinction) global ranking and an S1 (i.e., critically imperiled State-
wide, and particularly vulnerable to extinction) State ranking (WDNR
2011a, p. 5).
Taxonomy
In 1995, Florence Caplow and Kathryn Beck resumed large-scale rare
plant surveys on the Hanford Site that were initiated in 1994 by TNC
and the DOE, as part of the Hanford Biodiversity Project. Two
previously undescribed plant taxa were discovered, including Umtanum
desert buckwheat (Caplow and Beck 1996, p. 5). The species was fully
described in Reveal et al. (1995) and has retained the current
nomenclature unchallenged since that time. Umtanum desert buckwheat is
recognized as a distinct species, and there is no known controversy
concerning its taxonomy.
Habitat/Life History
Umtanum desert buckwheat was discovered in 1995 during a botanical
survey of the Hanford installation (Reveal et al. 1995, p. 353), and is
found exclusively on soils over exposed basalt from the Lolo Flow of
the Wanapum Basalt Formation. As the basalt of the Lolo Flow weathers,
a rocky soil type is formed that is classified as lithosol, a term
describing the well-drained, shallow, generally stony soils over
bedrock (Franklin and Dyrness 1973, p. 347), and talus slopes
associated with eroding outcrops and cliffs. These cliffs (scarps), and
loose rock at the base of cliffs or on slopes (defined as scree) are
found along the crests and slopes of local hills and ridges, including
east Umtanum Ridge, where Umtanum desert buckwheat occurs. This type of
landform in the Columbia Basin is determined by the underlying basalts,
which may be exposed above the soil on ridge tops or where wind and
water erode the fine soils away (Sackschewski and Downs 2001, p.
2.1.1).
The Lolo Flow contains higher titanium dioxide and lower iron oxide
than the neighboring Rosalia Flow, also of the Priest Rapids Member.
The flow top material commonly has a high porosity and permeability and
has weathered to pebble and gravel-sized pieces of vesicular basalt
(Reveal et al. 1995, p. 354). This basalt typically contains small (<5
mm (0.2 in)) crystals of the mineral olivine and rare clusters of
plagioclase crystals (Reidel and Fecht 1981, pp. 3-13). It is unknown
if the close association of Umtanum desert buckwheat with the lithosols
of the Lolo Flow is related to the chemical composition or physical
characteristics of the bedrock on which it is found, or a combination
of factors not currently understood (Reveal et al. 1995, p. 354).
Preliminary counts indicate that seed set occurs in approximately
10 percent of flowers observed, potentially limiting reproductive
capacity. Based on a pollinator exclusion study (Beck 1999, pp. 25-27),
the species is probably capable of at least limited amounts of self-
pollination, although the percentage of seed set in the absence of
pollinators appears to be low. A variety of insect pollinators were
observed on Umtanum desert buckwheat flowers, including ants, beetles,
flies, spiders, moths and butterflies (TNC 1998, p. 8). Wasps from the
families Vespidae and Typhiidae and a wasp from the species Criosciolia
have been observed in the vicinity of Umtanum desert buckwheat, but not
on the plant itself. A bumble bee, Bombus centralis, has been observed
utilizing flowers of Umtanum desert buckwheat plants by Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) specialists (Arnett 2011b, pers.
comm.).
Common perennial plant associates of Umtanum desert buckwheat
include Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), Grayia spinosa (spiny
hopsage), Krascheninnikovia lanata (winterfat), Eriogonum
sphaerocephalum (rock buckwheat), Salvia dorrii (purple sage),
Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread), Pseudoroegneria spicata
(bluebunch wheatgrass), Poa sandbergii (Sandberg's wheatgrass),
Sphaeralcea munroana (Munro's Globemallow), Astragalus caricinus
(buckwheat milkvetch), and Balsamorhiza careyana (Carey's balsamroot).
Common annual associates include Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), Phacelia
linearis (threadleaf phacelia), Gilia leptomeria (sand gilia). G.
inconspicua var. sinuata (shy gilia), Camissonia minor (small evening
primrose), and Cryptantha pterocarya (wingnut cryptantha).
Historical Range/Distribution
The only known population of Umtanum desert buckwheat occurs along
the top edges of the steep slopes on Umtanum Ridge, a wide mountain
ridge in Benton County, Washington, where it has a discontinuous
distribution along a narrow (25-150 m (82-492 ft) wide by 1.6 km (1 mi)
long) portion of the ridge (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 59). The species
was discovered in 1995 (Reveal et al. 1995, p. 354), and there are no
records of any collections prior to that year.
Current Range/Distribution
It is unknown if the prehistorical distribution of Umtanum desert
buckwheat was different than the species' current distribution, but it
is likely the species has been confined to this location during at
least the last 150 years, as annual growth ring counts from fire-killed
plants revealed individual ages in excess of 100 years. Individual
plants with greater stem diameters (and, therefore, presumably older)
are present, which supports the 150-year minimum locality occupation
estimate.
Population Estimates/Status
The only known population of Umtanum desert buckwheat was fully
censused (an accounting of the number of all individuals in a
population) in 1995, 1997, 2005, and 2011 (see Table 1). In 1995,
researchers counted 4,917 living individual plants, and in 1997,
researchers counted 5,228 individuals (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 61).
The 1995 census was ``roughly counted'' (Beck 1999, p. 3) (i.e., there
was a greater degree of estimation), while the 1997 count was more
precise. In addition, the 1995 count may have overlooked an isolated
patch with 79 plants to the east that was discovered in 2011. It is not
uncommon for estimated population counts to be substantially lower than
precise counts (Arnett 2011a, pers. comm.).
Table 1--Umtanum Desert Buckwheat Population Counts 1995-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total plants
Census year counted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................................... 4,917
1997.................................................... 5,228
[[Page 28708]]
2005.................................................... 4,408
2011.................................................... 5,169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a 1997 wildfire burned through a portion of the population, a
subsequent count found 5,228 living and 813 dead individual plants. A
minimum of 75 percent of the 813 dead individual plants observed died
as a direct result of the fire (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 61). No
survival or resprouting was noted in fire-killed plants in following
years. Because a more accurate count was used to derive the number of
dead individual plants (Beck 1999, p. 3), this total represents a
fairly precise measure of the impact of the 1997 wildfire on Umtanum
desert buckwheat (Arnett 2011a, pers. comm.), although it is likely
some plants were totally consumed by the fire and thereby
unidentifiable.
In 2005, researchers reported 4,408 living plants (Caplow 2005, p.
1), which represents a 15 percent decline in the population over an 8-
year period. However, this result likely reflects some variability in
how the census was performed over the years since the species was
discovered in 1995. On July 12, 2011, a complete population census was
conducted, which recorded 5,169 living individuals. This was somewhat
higher than average, which could be attributable to a more thorough
census, the identification of plant clusters not previously documented,
and the recording of larger clumps as containing more than one
individual plant. These clumps were likely counted as individual plants
in previous counts (Arnett 2011a, pers. comm.).
Demographic monitoring of the largest subpopulation within the main
population, commenced in 1997, and demonstrated an average 2 percent
annual mortality of adult flowering plants. During the 9 years of
monitoring, only 4 or 5 seedlings have been observed to survive beyond
the year of their germination (Kaye 2007, p. 5). Since 2007, the
demographic monitoring plots continue to reflect population declines
and minimal recruitment (Arnett 2011b, pers. comm.). Dunwiddie et al.
(2001, p. 67) documented a lack of plants in the smallest size classes
and the absence of any seed survival over 1 year. Their data did not
indicate any spikes or gaps in the size distribution of plants that
might reflect years of unusually high or low recruitment of plants,
although evidence of such could have been obscured by the variable
growth rates of the plants. Populations of long-lived species with low
adult mortality can survive with relatively low recruitment rates
(Harper 1977 in Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 67). Further, the survival of
a few seedlings each year may be sufficient to replace the occasional
adult that dies, or alternatively, an occasional bumper crop of
seedlings surviving to maturity during several favorable years may
ensure the long-term survival of the population (Dunwiddie et al. 2001,
p. 67). However, no demographic data supported either of these
scenarios for this species (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 67).
An unpublished draft population viability analysis (PVA) was
recently completed by Thomas Kaye (2007, p. 5), based on 9 years of
demographic data. A PVA is a quantitative analysis of population
dynamics, with the goal of assessing the risk of extinction of a
species. The 2007 study, which took into account observed environmental
variability, determined there was little or no risk of a 90 percent
population decline within the next 100 years; an approximate 13 percent
chance of a decline of 50 percent over the next 50 years; and a 72
percent chance of a 50 percent decline within the next 100 years. The
PVA concluded the decline is gradual, consistent with the decline noted
by Caplow (2005, p. 1) between 1997 and 2005, and will likely take
several decades to impact the population (Kaye 2007, p. 7). Although
census data indicates more individuals in 2011 compared to the number
of individuals in 1995 and 2005, this increase likely reflects some
variability in how the census was performed. The inflorescence for
Umtanum desert buckwheat consists of a cluster of flowers arranged on a
main stem or branch. As stated earlier, the fact that the 2011 census
was somewhat higher than previous plant counts may be attributable to
the identification of plant clusters not previously documented, or
individually counting plants present in plant clusters (rather than
counting the cluster itself as one plant) (Arnett 2011a, pers. comm.).
Since 1995, numerous surveys have been conducted at other locations
within the lower Columbia River Basin, within every habitat that
appears to be suitable for Umtanum desert buckwheat. However no other
populations or individuals have been found.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants (Lists). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species
based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Individual analyses of the above factors have been
completed for both Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod
and are discussed below.
Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Caplow and Beck (1996, pp. 40-41) and other studies indicate that
threats to Umtanum desert buckwheat and its habitat are primarily due
to wildfire and associated firefighting activities (Beck 1999, pp. 27-
29; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 66). The invasion of nonnative plants
that increase the availability of wildfire fuel sources is also a
threat, as discussed below. Livestock trespassing, prospecting, and
off-road vehicle use represent potential threats, which appear to be
presently reduced because of improved boundary integrity, access
controls, fencing, and enforcement. Below is a detailed discussion of
these threats and their potential effects on survival and recovery of
the species.
Wildfire: Fire may be the primary threat to Umtanum desert
buckwheat, and it is likely to become an even greater threat if the
frequency or severity of fires increases (TNC 1998 p. 9; Dunwiddie et
al. 2001, p. 62). Prior to manmade disturbances (livestock grazing,
introduction of exotic species, and farming), the historic fire regime
was a 32- to 70-year fire return interval of small, high-intensity
fires that removed small patches of the fire-intolerant shrub
overstory. Small, infrequent fires maintained bunchgrass openings
within the shrub-steppe habitat, providing for both shrub and grassland
communities. The historic fire regime has been significantly altered by
sociopolitical and economic factors.
[[Page 28709]]
After the 1900s, human activities interrupted the natural fire interval
and patterns of burning. Agricultural development and livestock grazing
reduced the light fuels that would normally carry a fire; livestock
grazing also had the effect of suppressing native bunchgrasses and
allowing nonnative invasive species (e.g., Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass)) and native sagebrush densities to increase (USFWS 2008,
p. 3-15). Cheatgrass competes with Umtanum desert buckwheat for space
and moisture. In turn, the establishment and growth of highly flammable
cheatgrass increases the likelihood of fire, potentially further
negatively (or adversely) impacting the Umtanum desert buckwheat
population.
In mid-August 1984, approximately 80,800 ha (200,000 ac) both on
and off the Hanford Site were burned in a fire that expanded westward
20 miles during a 24-hour period. The 1984 fire was initiated by a
lightning strike on private land (DOE 2000, p. 3-1). During the summer
of 1997, a fire escaped from the Yakima Training Center (U.S.
Department of the Army) and traveled down the ridge occupied by Umtanum
desert buckwheat. The fire burned on all sides and partially through
the population, which caused considerable mortality of adult plants
(Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 60). It was conservatively estimated that at
least 10-20 percent of the population may have been killed by the fire
event (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 62). The fire was most severe where
vegetative cover was dense and less severe on thinner soils supporting
little or no vegetation. Shrub and grass fuels on parts of the ridge
are sparse, and the fire was patchy in the area where Umtanum desert
buckwheat is located (Newsome 2011, pers. comm.). In late July 1998, a
wildfire triggered by a lightning strike burned approximately 2,828 ha
(7,000 ac) before it was contained (DOE 2000, p. 3-1). From 2001 to
2011, there have been 84 wildfire incidents documented, affecting
approximately 38,164 ha (94, 460 ac) of lands within the Hanford Reach
National Monument and Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge (see
Table 2).
Table 2--Wildfire History, Hanford Monument Lands, Hanford Reach/Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hectares
Year fires Acres burned burned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................ 2 1 0.4
2010............................................................ 3 3,350 1,353
2009............................................................ 10 529 214
2008............................................................ 6 1,340 542
2007............................................................ 8 77,319 31,237
2006............................................................ 5 34 14
2005............................................................ 8 10,910 4,408
2004............................................................ 8 41 17
2003............................................................ 16 512 207
2002............................................................ 7 299 121
2001............................................................ 11 125 51
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 84 94,460 38,164.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fws.gov/fire/program_statistics/ (acres/hectares rounded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umtanum desert buckwheat appears to be intolerant of fire, and
plants were easily killed. Even plants that were singed but not visibly
charred appeared to be negatively affected, and many died the year
following the fire. The fire did not stimulate vigorous new growth on
established plants or sprouting from the plants' root crowns, which is
sometimes observed with other species. In addition, there was no
apparent flush of seedlings the following spring. Based on this lack of
regeneration, or resprouting from burned plants, the species does not
appear to be fire-tolerant (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 66). Due to the
intensity of the fire in some areas, many plants were entirely consumed
and no traces remained that could be definitively identified, which led
researchers to believe that the total impact of the 1997 fire on the
population was likely to have been considerably higher than the 813
plants documented. The long-term impact of the fire to the population
is unknown, but may be significant given the slow growth rates, minimal
recruitment, and the increase in cheatgrass on the site following the
fire. Cheatgrass plants tended to cluster with Umtanum desert buckwheat
plants, likely increasing their flammability (Dunwiddie et al. 2001,
pp. 62, 67). Mortality from the fire occurred primarily among plants
growing where associated vegetation was more abundant, thereby
providing fuel to carry the fire. After the fire, a reduction in native
plant diversity and loss of shrub components were also observed in
areas adjacent to the population. Based on the best available
information, wildfire represents an ongoing threat to Umtanum desert
buckwheat.
Fire Suppression Activities: In addition to wildfire itself, fire
suppression activities could present a threat to the species if they
were to occur within the population, since this species appears to be
highly sensitive to any physical damage (see discussion under off-road
vehicles below). The Umtanum desert buckwheat population is located on
a flat natural fire break of rocky soils above steep-slopes, where fire
lines and firefighting equipment would tend to be concentrated
(Whitehall 2012, pers. comm.; Newsome 2011, pers. comm.). Although fire
suppression activities did not take place within the Umtanum desert
buckwheat population in response to the 1997 fire, the surrounding area
is at high risk of wildfire from human and natural (lightning) ignition
sources. The Service's fire program statistics (see Table 2) indicate a
recurrence of wildfire events within Monument lands, which would be
anticipated to continue.
The 2001 Hanford Reach Wildlife Fire Management Plan prescription
for this area states that ``except on existing roads, the use of any
equipment (including light engines) within \1/4\ mile of the escarpment
edge of the Umtanum Ridge is prohibited because of surface instability
and potential for sloughing at the escarpment. Protection of sensitive
resources is an objective unless achieving this objective jeopardizes
either firefighter or public safety''
[[Page 28710]]
(USFWS 2001, p. 36). Accordingly, if a wildfire were to occur in the
surrounding area, protection of the Umtanum desert buckwheat population
may not be possible if fire direction and firefighter/public safety
considerations were to necessitate establishing fire lines or response
equipment staging areas within or near the population. Although the
need for wildfire suppression activities near or within the Umtanum
desert buckwheat population is unpredictable, this activity is
considered a potential threat to this species based on the Monument's
wildfire history (see Table 2).
Nonnative Plant Fuel Sources: Another potential consequence of fire
and other disturbances that remove native plants from the shrub steppe
communities of eastern Washington is the displacement of native
vegetation by nonnative weedy species, particularly cheatgrass. As a
result of the 1997 fire, a higher percent cover of weedy plant species,
including cheatgrass, has become established within and around the
Umtanum desert buckwheat population. Wildfire raises the percent cover
of weedy species, thereby increasing the availability of ground fuels,
which enhances the ability to carry wildfire across the landscape into
previously fire-resistant cover types, including habitat for Umtanum
desert buckwheat. Accordingly, nonnative weedy species represent an
ongoing threat to the species.
Off-road Vehicles and Hikers: There have been incidences of
trespassing by off-road vehicles (ORVs) and hikers in the vicinity of
and within the Umtanum desert buckwheat population (Caplow 2005, pers.
comm.). The open cliff edge where the plants grow is an attractive
place for human traffic because of the compact substrate, sparse
vegetative cover, and the view overlooking the Columbia River. In 2004
and 2005, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reopened and
improved a steep road on the top of the ridge from the substation on
China Bar below. The road was then passable to 2-wheel drive vehicles
and up until the summer of 2005, was inadequately fenced and gated to
prevent trespass (Caplow, pers. com. 2005). The entire known population
exists within a narrow corridor where human traffic could be expected
to concentrate. Umtanum desert buckwheat plants are easily damaged by
trampling or crushing by ORVs, appear to be less resilient following
such damage, and are very slow to recover if capable of recovering at
all. Within 2 days of being run over by trespassing dirt bikes,
portions of damaged plants showed signs of further decline, and some of
the damaged plants subsequently died (TNC 1998, p. 62).
This threat appears to have been reduced since direct access to the
site has been gradually fenced off over time, the site has been marked
with prohibited entry signage, and consistent enforcement is taking
place. Although unauthorized access is prohibited, there is a potential
for trespass since an open road is located approximately 0.5 km (0.3
mi) (slope distance) below the population through lands commonly used
for recreation. However, a fence is present between the road and the
Umtanum desert buckwheat population, which should further discourage
ORV or hiker trespass incidents. Based on the available evidence, we
have no substantive information that would indicate ORV or hiking
activities represent ongoing threats to the species, provided current
security and boundary integrity efforts are maintained. We will
continue to monitor these activities as additional information becomes
available.
Livestock: There could be a potential threat of trampling to
Umtanum desert buckwheat if livestock were to escape from a pasture
area on China Bar, approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) (slope distance)
below the population, although this has not been observed or documented
to date. If it were to occur, it could impact the species by direct
means such as crushing and mortality through grazing, and indirect
means, including soil disturbance, compaction, and importation of
invasive species by seed carried on the body or through feces. In
addition, areas disturbed by livestock could increase bare soil areas,
making them more suitable for the establishment of invasive plant
species. This potential threat has been reduced under the terms of a
Department of Energy (DOE) permit issued to the rancher that conducts
the seasonal pasturing operations. The DOE permit restricts the
seasonal movement of livestock between pastures by way of a paved road
directly below the Umtanum desert buckwheat population (Hathaway 2001,
pers. comm.). In addition, there is a fence between the paved road and
the population. Based on the available evidence regarding permit
requirements and boundary integrity, we have no substantive information
indicating livestock trespass represents an ongoing threat to the
species. However, we will continue to investigate this possibility as
additional information becomes available.
Prospecting: Prospecting by rock collectors was initially thought
to be a potential threat to Umtanum desert buckwheat. Excavations up to
1.5 m (5 ft) in diameter and 1.2 m (4 ft) deep occur throughout the
area occupied by the species (Caplow 2005, pers. comm.), although their
age is uncertain. Some may predate 1943, when the DOE acquired the land
as part of the Hanford installation, and others may reflect more recent
activity. Continuation of this activity could threaten a large portion
of the Umtanum desert buckwheat population by trampling, uprooting, or
burial of plants during these activities. Although prospecting could be
a threat, it has not been observed since the species discovery in 1995,
likely because of increased boundary integrity, improved fencing,
restrictive signage, and enforcement. We have no information that would
indicate there has been any recent prospecting or other unauthorized
entry into the site. Therefore, based on the available evidence, we
have no substantive information that would indicate prospecting
activities represent an ongoing threat to the species. We will continue
to investigate this possibility as additional information becomes
available.
Based on the information above, we find that specific activities
discussed under Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range present a threat
to Umtanum desert buckwheat and its habitat. These include wildfire,
nonnative plant fuel sources, and potentially wildfire suppression
activities. Trespassing by off-road vehicles, hikers, and mineral
prospectors are not considered ongoing threats at this time, based on
permit requirements, access restrictions, boundary fencing, signage,
and enforcement actions that are in effect for the area where this
population occurs.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The regulations at 50 CFR 27.51 prohibit collecting any plant on
any national wildlife refuge without a special use permit. Evidence of
overutilization has not been documented since the discovery of Umtanum
desert buckwheat in 1996. In order to maintain a secure source for seed
and provide some assurance of maintaining the genome of Umtanum desert
buckwheat over time, Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon, has
collected and stored several seed accessions for the species. The
facility currently has 401 seeds that were collected in 1997, and 1,108
seeds collected in 2001 and 2002 from an unknown number of plants
(Gibble 2011, pers. comm.). Based on a thorough
[[Page 28711]]
accounting of all activities on the site by researchers and DOE, there
is no evidence that commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational use of this species is occurring at a level that would
threaten the population. Based on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not
now a threat to Umtanum desert buckwheat or in any portion of its
range, or likely to become a significant threat in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Evidence of disease has not been documented in Umtanum desert
buckwheat; however, predation of seeds by ants and removal of flower
heads by an unknown species has been observed by researchers during
demographic monitoring trips.
Researchers from The Nature Conservancy observed western harvester
ants (Pogonomyrmex occidentalis), a common native species, gathering
mature achenes (seeds) of Umtanum desert buckwheat plants and
transporting them to their underground colonies (Dunwiddie et al. 2001,
p. 66). Ants have also been observed discarding the inedible remains of
achenes above ground, near the colony. Evidence of seed predation by
ants was commonly observed by different researchers between 1999 and
2004 in numerous locations, although it has not been observed on
Umtanum desert buckwheat in recent years (Arnett 2011c, pers. comm.).
The percentage of achenes consumed by ants and other insects, and the
degree of impact this activity may be having on the available seed bank
is unknown, although no Umtanum desert buckwheat seedlings have been
observed successfully germinating or becoming established near ant
colonies. Ant predation of seeds has been shown to be a significant
factor in the viability of at least one other rare Eriogonum taxon
(Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum (sulfur flower buckwheat)) (TNC
1998, p. 9).
Because ants have been observed moving on and between flowers, they
may also be contributing to the pollination of Umtanum desert
buckwheat. Whether seed predation by ants is a significant threat to
the species based on its current demographic status, or to what degree
the threat is offset by potential benefits of pollination is unclear.
During the 2011 census of Umtanum desert buckwheat, numerous flower
heads that had been clipped off and were lying on top of or very near
the plants were observed. The species responsible is unknown, although
there was no evidence of mutilation or consumption of the flower
structure (Arnett 2011c, pers. comm.). As stated earlier, no Umtanum
desert buckwheat seedlings have been observed successfully germinating
or becoming established near ant colonies. Because seed predation and
the removal of flowering structures could significantly reduce the
reproductive potential of the species, which is already in gradual
decline based on the results of the PVA, we consider these activities
to be ongoing threats to Umtanum desert buckwheat. We are unaware of
any other disease or predation interactions that represent potential
threats to this species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Umtanum desert buckwheat is designated as endangered under the
State of Washington's list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive
vascular plants (WDNR 2011a, p. 5). The State of Washington's
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant program is administered
through the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), which was
created to provide an objective basis for establishing priorities for a
broad array of conservation actions (WDNR 2011b, p. 2). Prioritizing
ecosystems and species for conservation offers a means to evaluate
proposed natural areas and other conservation activities (WDNR 2011b,
p. 3). The WNHP is a participant in the Arid Lands Initiative, which is
a public/private partnership attempting to develop strategies to
conserve the species and ecosystems found within Washington's arid
landscape. The WNHP assists in identifying conservation targets, major
threats and potential strategies to address them (WDNR 2011b, p. 4).
The DOE does not have a rare plant policy that provides specific
protection for the species, and presently retains management
responsibility for the lands where Umtanum desert buckwheat occurs.
Once contaminant issues are resolved in this area, management
responsibility will be conveyed to the Service, as a part of the
Hanford Reach National Monument.
Agricultural development and livestock grazing reduced the light
fuels that would normally carry a fire, and allowed nonnative invasive
species like cheatgrass to increase (USFWS 2008, p. 3-15). The
establishment of highly flammable cheatgrass within the Umtanum desert
buckwheat population increases competition for space and moisture, and
the likelihood that a wildfire could negatively impact the species. As
fires become larger, the opportunity for seed dispersal is also
increased as nonnative species invade burned areas. Nonnative species
like cheatgrass can be dispersed in several ways, including long-
distance dispersal facilitated by humans and animals. The barbed
florets are ideally adapted to being picked up by clothing, feathers,
and fur. Seeds can also be dispersed by machinery or vehicles. Animals
may carry cheatgrass seed in their feces and hooves, and seed-caching
rodents and harvester ants can disperse seeds intermediate distances
through caching activity. Cropland, particularly fields of winter wheat
and dryland hay, may also be potential seed sources to nearby natural
areas and rangelands, as cheatgrass is a common weed in these crops
(http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/brotec/all.html).
The threat of nonnative invasive species does not appear to lend itself
to abatement through regulatory mechanisms, because of the many ways
for cheatgrass and other nonnative species to become established in an
area. Accordingly, we do not believe nonnative species represent a
threat that is susceptible to elimination by regulatory mechanisms.
The Hanford Fire Department maintains four fire stations on the
Hanford Reservation (USFWS 2001, Appendix D, p. 74). The Service and
the Hanford Fire Department have entered into a cooperative agreement
under which either organization can provide firefighting support (USFWS
2001, Appendix D, p. 75) on lands under the jurisdiction or
responsibility of the other party (DOE 2011, p. 84). The concept of
closest forces is the guiding principle of initial attack suppression.
This agreement does not provide specific conservation measures for the
protection of Umtanum desert buckwheat, but does acknowledge the
presence of plants unique to the site. The objective for this area
states that ``except on existing roads, the use of any equipment
(including light engines) within \1/4\ mile of the escarpment edge of
the Umtanum Ridge is prohibited because of surface instability and
potential for sloughing at the escarpment. Protection of sensitive
resources is an objective unless achieving this objective jeopardizes
either firefighter or public safety'' (USFWS 2001, p. 36).
Numerous wildland fires occur annually on lands in and surrounding
the Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain National Wildlife
Refuge. Many are human-caused resulting from vehicle ignitions from
roads and highways, unattended
[[Page 28712]]
campfires, burning of adjacent agricultural lands and irrigation
ditches, and arson. Fires of natural origin (lightning caused) also
occur on lands within and adjacent to the monument/refuge (USFWS 2001,
p. 171). Since wildfires are unpredictable with regard to their
location and severity, a fire management plan is necessarily designed
to be a response, rather than a regulatory activity.
All collecting is prohibited on the Monument, including antlers,
bones, rocks, artifacts, and plant life. Regulations also prohibit
fires on Monument lands (Hanford Reach National Monument Hunting
Regulations, 2011). The Revised Hanford Site 2011 Wildland Fire
Management Plan (DOE 2011, p. 176) addresses Umtanum desert buckwheat
briefly in a specific accounting of sensitive resources located on the
site. The plan states that ``due to the sensitive nature of the biology
of the Hanford Site, an on-call Mission Support Alliance biologist will
be requested to assist the command staff in protecting the environment
during suppression efforts.'' This requirement does not remove the
wildfire threat to the species, but may make a negative incident less
probable.
The 1997 wildfire initiated by the U.S. Army Yakima Training Center
fire resulted in mortality to 10-20 percent of the population (see
Factor A and Table 2). The threat of wildfire originating on the nearby
U.S. Army Yakima Training Center and spreading to the Umtanum desert
buckwheat site remains, as does the potential for ignition to occur
along the BPA transmission line corridor, which crosses the population.
Fire could also originate below the Umtanum desert buckwheat site on
China Bar and rapidly burn upslope, since this area is commonly used by
recreationists. The Hanford Reach National Monument Comprehensive
Conservation Plan acknowledges that wildland fire will be suppressed
when possible, suppression techniques will be designed to minimize
surface disturbance in the vicinity of sensitive resources, and fire
control policies will be implemented to reduce the risk of human-caused
wildland fire (USFWS 2008, p. 4-8). However, based on the recent
wildfire history and acreage affected (see Table 2), fire planning
documents are not able to address all possible scenarios. In addition,
numerous agencies must coordinate firefighting on this landscape,
ignitions from recreationists remain a risk, and timely and effective
initial firefighting responses may be difficult. For example, before it
was contained, the 24 Command Wildfire (discussed in Factor A above)
charred nearly 66,256 ha (164,000 ac) of land both on and off the
Hanford site, even though the Hanford Fire Department arrived on scene
approximately 20 minutes after the incident was reported. At that time
the fire was approximately 4 ha (10 ac) in size (DOE 2000, pp. ES-2-ES-
3).
Although the WNHP and Monument CCP are important tools for
identifying conservation actions that would benefit Umtanum desert
buckwheat, these programs do not appear to have been designed to
function as regulatory mechanisms that would eliminate threats to the
species. In addition, a fire management plan is necessarily designed to
be a response, rather than prescriptive strategy, since wildfires are
unpredictable with regard to their location and severity. Accordingly,
the impact of wildfire to Umtanum desert buckwheat is not a threat that
can be eliminated by regulatory mechanisms, because of the many
potential ignition scenarios on the lands within and surrounding the
area where the species occurs. Therefore, based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we do not
consider the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to be an
ongoing threat to White Bluff's bladderpod.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Umtanum desert buckwheat has a small population size and
distribution, and suffers from low recruitment (Kaye 2007, p. 3; Caplow
2005, p. 3). These features make it particularly susceptible to
potentially changing climate conditions. For instance, regional climate
change models indicate a rise in hotter and drier conditions, which may
increase stress on individuals as well as increase wildfire frequency
and intensity.
Population structure: The typical size distribution of perennial
plants consists of more individuals in smaller and presumably younger
size-classes, than in larger or older ones. However, Umtanum desert
buckwheat has fewer plants in smaller size-classes than in larger ones.
The only known population of this species is dominated by mature plants
with little successful establishment of seedlings. The majority of
individual plants have a strong tendency to remain in the same size
class, and presumably age class, from 1 year to the next. In addition,
adult mortality averages 2 percent annually (Kaye 2007, p. 3). Between
1997 and 2006, only five to six seedlings in all demographic monitoring
plots were observed to survive longer than 1 year, and in 2005, which
was preceded by a dry winter, no germination was observed (Caplow 2005,
p. 3).
The lack of establishment and survival of seedlings is a threat, as
few plants are becoming established as replacements for plants that
die. Several factors may be responsible, such as exposure of young
plants to high winds and temperatures and very low spring and summer
precipitation. Other possible factors include low seed production, low
seed or pollen viability, low seedling vigor and survival, impacts to
plant pollinators or dispersal mechanisms, and flowering structure
removal/insect predation of seeds (as described under Factor C). There
has been some success in germinating and growing Umtanum desert
buckwheat in containers, which may indicate that the failure to
establish seedlings in the wild may not be due to low fertility, but
may be related to conditions necessary for survival after germination
(Arnett 2011c, pers. comm.). Long-term monitoring and research may
determine the cause of the population's skewed size distribution. A
seed bank study has shown that viability of buried seed decreases
dramatically after the first year, suggesting a very small and short-
lived seed bank for Umtanum desert buckwheat (Caplow 2005, p. 6).
Considered in total, these factors likely combine effects to create
negative recruitment for Umtanum desert buckwheat. This theory is
supported by the findings of Kaye (2007, p. 5), that the population
appears to be in a gradual decline of approximately \2/3\ of 1 percent
per year. Negative recruitment due to the factors described above
combined with a small population size present a significant threat to
the species.
Climate change: Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act
include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The
terms ``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to
the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over
time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements,
although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect
effects on
[[Page 28713]]
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change. The potential impacts of a changing global
climate to Umtanum desert buckwheat are presently unclear. All regional
models of climate change indicate that future climate in the Pacific
Northwest will be warmer than the past, and, together, they suggest
that rates of warming will be greater in the 21st century than those
observed in the 20th century. Projected changes in annual
precipitation, averaged over all models, are small (+1 to +2 percent),
but some models project an enhanced seasonal precipitation cycle with
changes toward wetter autumns and winters and drier summers (Littell,
et al. 2009a, p. 1).
At a regional scale, two different temperature prediction models
are presented in Stockle et al. (2009, p. 199) yet show similar
results. Outputs from both models predict increases in mean annual
temperature for eastern Washington State. Specifically, the Community
Climate System Model General Circulation Model projects temperature
increase as 1.4, 2.3 and 3.2 [deg]C (2.5, 4.1, and 5.8 [deg]F) at Lind,
Washington, which is 64 km (40 mi) northeast of the Umtanum desert
buckwheat population; approximately 1.7, 2.7, and 3.5 [deg]C (3.1, 4.9,
and 6.3 [deg]F) at Pullman, Washington, which is 169 km (105 mi) east
of the population; and Sunnyside, Washington, which is 50 km (31 mi)
southwest of the population, for the 2020, 2040 and 2080 modeling
scenarios, respectively. For the Parallel Climate Model effort, the
temperature change is expected to be 0.8, 1.7, and 2.6 [deg]C (1.4,
3.1, and 4.7 [deg]F) at Lind, Washington; 1.1, 2.0, and 2.9 [deg]C
(2.0, 3.6, and 5.2 [deg]F) at Pullman, Washington; and 1.3, 2.2, and 3
[deg]C (2.3, 4.0, and 5.5 [deg]F) at Sunnyside, Washington, in the
2020, 2040, and 2080 scenarios, respectively.
The projected warming trend will increase the length of the frost-
free period throughout the State, increasing the available growing
season for plants, which will continue to be limited in eastern
Washington by water availability, and likely by extreme heat events in
some instances. This will continue the trend observed from 1948 to
2002, during which the frost-free period has lengthened by 29 days in
the Columbia Valley (Jones, 2005 in Stockle et al. 2009, p. 199). Weeds
and insects will adapt to the longer season with more favorable
conditions (Stockle et al. 2009, p. 200).
Given the importance of water availability to plants, precipitation
change needs to be included in predictions of climate change effects on
invasive plants (Bradley 2009, p. 197). Regional climate models suggest
that some local changes in temperature and precipitation may be quite
different than average regional changes projected by the global models
(Littell et al. 2009a, p. 6). Precipitation uncertainties are
particularly problematic in the western United States, where complex
topography coupled with the difficulty of modeling El Ni[ntilde]o
result in highly variable climate projections (Bradley 2009, p. 197).
Cheatgrass, an invasive species, competes with native species by
growing early in the spring season and using available water resources.
It senesces in late spring, sets seed, and remains dormant through the
summer (Rice et al., 1992; Peterson, 2005; in Bradley 2009, p. 197;
Bradley 2009, pp. 204-205). If summer precipitation were to increase,
native perennial shrubs and grasses could be more competitive because
they would be able to use water resources while cheatgrass is dormant
(Loik, 2007 in Bradley 2009, pp. 204-205).
Littell et al. (2009b, p. 270) were successful in developing
statistical models of the area burned by wildfire for six regions in
Washington for the period 1980 to 2006. Future projections from these
six models project mean-area-burned increases of between 0 and 600
percent, depending on the ecosystem in question, the sensitivity of the
fire model, emissions scenario and the timeframe of the projection. By
the 2040s, the area burned in nonforested ecosystems (Columbia Basin
and Palouse Prairie) increased on average by a factor of 2.2. Notably,
the increase in area burned is accompanied by an increase in
variability in some of the more arid systems, such as the Palouse
Prairie and Columbia Basin (Littell et al. 2009b, p. 270).
We do not know what the future holds with regard to climate change,
however, this species has a very limited distribution, small population
size, and low recruitment. Despite the lack of site-specific data,
increased average temperatures and reduced average rainfall may further
influence the current decline of the species and result in a loss of
habitat. Hotter and drier summer conditions may also increase the
frequency and intensity of fires in the area, as cheatgrass and other
invasive plants would become better competitors for resources than
Umtanum desert buckwheat. Alternatively, warmer and wetter winter
conditions could potentially benefit the species by extending the
growing season and providing additional moisture to the soil in the
spring. However, if the frequency, intensity, and timing of the
predicted changes in climate for eastern Washington are not aligned
with the phenology of Umtanum desert buckwheat, the survival and
reproduction of the species could be threatened over time. Accordingly,
although climate change represents a potential ongoing threat based on
the best available information, more thorough investigations are needed
to better understand the potential impacts of climate change to this
species.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Umtanum desert buckwheat (see Table 3). The 1997 fire that escaped
from the Yakima Training Center killed 813 plants, or approximately 10-
20 percent of the population (Dunwiddie et al., 2001, pp. 61-62). The
Revised Hanford Site 2011 Wildland Fire Management Plan (DOE 2011)
acknowledges the sensitive nature of the biology of the Hanford Site,
and provides for environmental protection during fire suppression
activities. This plan may reduce the likelihood of a wildfire event
within or near the population, but cannot remove the threat completely
since wildfire locations, severity, and response needs are
unpredictable. The 2007 unpublished draft Population Viability Analysis
(PVA) estimated a 72 percent chance of a decline of 50 percent of the
population within the next 100 years (Kaye 2007, p. 5). The PVA, which
incorporated observed environmental variability, determined the Umtanum
desert buckwheat population was in very gradual decline. The decline is
very close to stable, but still suggests an annual decline of about \2/
3\ of one percent, which will take several decades to accumulate
significant impacts (Kaye 2007, p. 5). The steady decline observed
through demographic monitoring of numbers and recruitment since 1997
may be directly attributable to several of the known threats, although
some have been reduced because of increased boundary integrity and
access control. Because the population is small, limited to a single
site, at risk of invasive species, and sensitive to fire and
disturbance in a high fire-risk location,
[[Page 28714]]
the species remains vulnerable to the threats summarized in Table 3.
Table 3--Summary of Threat Factors Under the ESA to Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Threat Imminence * Magnitude * Severity *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................. Wildfire.................. Confirmed........... High................ High.
Fire suppression Possible **......... Unknown............. Unknown.
activities.
Harm by recreational Possible but Low................. Low.
activities and/or ORV use. unlikely. ***
Direct harm and habitat Possible but Low................. Low.
modification by livestock. unlikely. ***
Mineral prospecting....... Possible but Low................. Low.
unlikely. ***
Competition, fuels load Confirmed........... High................ High.
from nonnative plants.
C................. Seed predation............ Confirmed........... Unknown............. Unknown.
Flower predation.......... Confirmed........... Unknown............. Unknown.
E................. Small population size..... Confirmed........... Moderate............ Moderate.
Limited geographic range.. Confirmed........... Moderate............ Moderate.
Low recruitment........... Confirmed........... Moderate............ Moderate.
Climate change............ Possible............ Unknown............. Unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Imminence: The likelihood of the threat currently affecting the species.
Magnitude: The extent of species numbers or habitat affected by the threat.
Severity: The intensity of effect by the threat on the species or habitat.
** If avoidance is not possible due to fire direction or safety needs.
*** Based on ongoing restricted access, fencing, and enforcement.
As described above, Umtanum desert buckwheat is currently at risk
throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A), predation (Factor C), and
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence
(Factor E). Specifically, these factors include the existing
degradation or fragmentation of habitat resulting from wildfire,
nonnative invasive vegetation that provides fuel for wildfires,
predation of seed and flower structures, and potentially changing
environmental conditions resulting from global climate change (although
its magnitude and intensity are uncertain). Wildfire suppression
activities could also threaten the species if they were to occur within
the population, since this species appears to be highly sensitive to
any physical damage. However, whether this potential threat would
actually occur is unknown, given the unpredictable nature of wildfire
events. Impacts to Umtanum desert buckwheat from livestock moving
through the population, off-road vehicle use, hikers, and prospecting
are conceivable, but unlikely, provided DOE livestock movement permit
conditions are complied with, access to the site is effectively
controlled, boundary integrity is monitored and maintained, and
enforcement actions are taken as needed, each of which is presently
occurring.
The area where Umtanum desert buckwheat is found is at high risk of
frequent fire and is fully exposed to the elements. The population is
extremely small, isolated, and in slow but steady decline,
notwithstanding the somewhat higher count in the 2011 population census
(which may be attributable to the way individual plants were counted as
described earlier). These population demographics make the species
particularly susceptible to extinction due to threats described in this
proposal. The magnitude of the wildfire threat is high; other threats
are moderate to low in magnitude. Because of the limited range of
Umtanum desert buckwheat, any one of the threats may threaten its
continued existence at any time. Since these threats are ongoing, they
are also imminent.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Since Umtanum desert buckwheat is
highly restricted in its range and the threats occur uniformly
throughout its range, we assessed the status of the species throughout
its entire range. The threats to the survival of the species occur
throughout the species' range and are not restricted to any particular
significant portion of that range, and the number of individuals in the
single population is very small and declining. Some threats are more
severe than others, but the population is being affected by small
population size, limited range, low recruitment, invasive cheatgrass
presence that can fuel wildfire, wildfire (Table 2), seed predation,
and flower predation.
Our assessment and proposed determination applies to the species
throughout its entire range. In this regard, we find that Umtanum
desert buckwheat is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout
its entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats described above (see Table 3). The Hanford Reach National
Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan was developed to protect and
conserve the biological, geological, paleontological, and cultural
resources described in the Monument Proclamation by creating and
maintaining extensive areas within the Monument free of facility
development (USFWS 2008, p. v). Several management objectives are
identified that could benefit the Umtanum desert buckwheat population;
these include treating invasive species and restoring upland habitat
(USFWS 2008, pp. 19-22).
As stated earlier, the population is in a very gradual decline,
which will take several decades to accumulate significant impacts (Kaye
2007, p. 5). Given the fact that (1) the population is in a very
gradual decline; (2) the management objectives of the CCP will be
beneficial to the species; (3) access is prohibited without special
authorization from the DOE; (4) security fencing surrounds the
population; (4) entry prohibited signs are in place; and (5) boundary
enforcement is ongoing, the species is not presently in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we propose listing Umtanum desert buckwheat as threatened
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 28715]]
Species Information
White Bluffs Bladderpod
White Bluffs bladderpod is a low-growing, herbaceous, perennial
plant with a sturdy tap root and a dense rosette of broad gray-green
pubescent (having any kind of hairs) leaves (WDNR 2010). The species
produces showy yellow flowers on relatively short stems in May, June,
and July. The species inhabits dry, steep upper zone and top exposures
of the White Bluffs area of the Hanford Reach at the lower edge of the
Wahluke Slope. Along these bluffs, a layer of highly alkaline,
fossilized cemented calcium carbonate (caliche) soil has been exposed
(Rollins et al. 1996, pp. 203-205). A detailed description of the
identifying physical characteristics of White Bluffs bladderpod is in
Rollins et al. (1996, pp. 203-205) and Al-Shehbaz and O'Kane (2002, pp.
319-320). White Bluffs bladderpod is State-listed as Threatened, with a
G2 (i.e., imperiled world-wide, vulnerable to extinction) global
ranking and an S2 (i.e., vulnerable to extirpation) State ranking (WDNR
2011).
Taxonomy
Although specimens of this taxon were originally collected from a
population in 1883, the plant material was in poor condition, no
definitive identification could be made, and the plant was not
recognized as a species at that time. The population was rediscovered
in 1994, and was described and published as a species, Lesquerella
tuplashensis, by Rollins et al. (1996, pp. 319-322). A petition
requesting that L. tuplashensis be listed as threatened under the Act
stated that its status as a valid species is uncontroversial (Center
for Biological Diversity et al. [CBD] 2004, pp. 49,100). However, the
nomenclature and taxonomy of the species has been investigated.
In a general paper on the taxonomy of Physaria and Lesquerella,
O'Kane and Al-Shehbaz (2002, p. 321) combined the genera Lesquerella
and Physaria and reduced the species Lesquerella tuplashensis to
Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (O'Kane and Al-Shehbaz (2002, p.
322)), providing strong molecular, morphological, distributional, and
ecological data to support the union of the two genera.
Rollins and Shaw (1973, entire), took a wide view of the degree of
differentiation between species and subspecies (or varieties) of
Lesquerella, although many species of Lesquerella are differentiated by
only one or two stable characters. The research of Rollins et al.
(1996, pp. 205-206) recognized that, although L. tuplashensis and L.
douglasii were quite similar, they differed sufficiently in morphology
and phenological traits to warrant recognition as two distinct species.
Simmons (2000, p. 75) suggested in a Ph.D. thesis that L. tuplashensis
may be an ecotype of the more common L. douglasii. Caplow et al. (2006,
pp. 8-10) later argued that L. tuplashensis was sufficiently different
from douglasii to warrant a species rank because it: (1) Was
morphologically distinct, differed in stipe (a supporting stalk or
stem-like structure) length and length-to-width ratio of stem leaves,
and had statistically significant differences in all other measured
characters; (2) was reproductively isolated from L. douglasii by non-
overlapping habitat and differences in phenology for virtually all L.
tuplashensis plants; and (3) had clear differences in the ecological
niche between the two taxa (Caplow et al. 2006, pp. 8-10).
Based on molecular, morphological, phenological, reproductive, and
ecological data, the conclusions in Al-Shehbaz and O'Kane (2002, p.
322) and Caplow et al. (2006, pp. 8-10) combining the genera
Lesquerella and Physaria and reducing the species Lesquerella
tuplashensis to Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis, provide the
most consistent and compelling information available to date.
Therefore, we will consider it a subspecies of the genus Physaria, with
the scientific name Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis.
Habitat/Life History
The only known population of White Bluffs bladderpod is found
primarily on near-vertical exposures of weathered, cemented, alkaline,
calcium carbonate paleosol (ancient, buried soil whose composition may
reflect a climate significantly different from the climate now
prevalent in the area) (http://www.alcwin.org/Dictionary_Of_Geology_Description-84-P.htm). The hardened carbonate paleosol caps several
hundred feet of alkaline, easily eroded, lacustrine sediments of the
Ringold Formation, a sedimentary formation made up of soft Pliocene
lacustrine deposits of clay, sand, and silt (Newcomb 1958, p. 330). The
uppermost part of the Ringold Formation is a heavily calcified and
silicified cap layer to a depth of at least 4.6 m (15 ft). This layer
is commonly called ``caliche'' although in this case, it lacks the
nitrate constituents found in true caliche. The ``caliche'' layer is a
resistant caprock underlying the approximately 274-304 m (900-1,000 ft)
elevation (above sea level) plateau extending north and east from the
White Bluffs (Newcomb 1958, p. 330). This species may be an obligate
calciphile, as are many of the endemic Lesquerella (now Physaria)
(Caplow 2006, pp. 2-12). The habitat of White Bluffs bladderpod is
arid, and vegetative cover is sparse (Rollins et al. 1996, p. 206).
Common associated plant species include: Artemisia tridentata (big
sagebrush), Poa sandbergii (Sandberg's bluegrass), Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass), Astragalus carieinus (buckwheat milk-vetch), Eriogonum
microthecum (slender buckwheat), Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian
ricegrass), and Cryptantha spiculifera (Snake River cryptantha).
Occasionally White Bluffs bladderpod is numerous enough at some
locations to be subdominant.
Because of its recent discovery and limited range, little is known
of the species' life-history requirements. In a presentation of
preliminary life-history studies, Dunwiddie et al. (2002, p. 7)
reported that most individuals reach reproductive condition in their
first or second year, most adult plants flower every year, and the
lifespan of the species is probably 4 to 5 years. The population size
appears to vary from year to year (see Table 4), and the survival of
seedlings and adults appears to be highly variable (Dunwiddie et al.
2002, p. 8), however, more monitoring is needed to determine the
magnitude and frequency of high- and low-number years, as well as to
obtain an understanding of the causes of these annual fluctuations
(Evans et al. 2003, p. 64). Monitoring by Monument staff (Newsome 2011,
p. 5) suggests the annual population fluctuations are presumably tied
to environmental conditions, such as seasonal precipitation and
temperature.
Historical Range/Distribution
In 1996, White Bluffs bladderpod was only known from a single
population that occurred along the upper edge of the White Bluffs of
the Columbia River in Franklin County, Washington. The population was
described to occur intermittently in a narrow band (usually less than
10 m (33 ft) wide) along an approximately 17-km (10.6-mi) stretch of
the river bluffs (Rollins et al. 1996, p. 205).
Current Range/Distribution
White Bluffs bladderpod is still known only from the single
population that occurs along the upper edge of the White Bluffs of the
Columbia River, Franklin County, Washington, although the full extent
of the species' occurrence has now been described. Most of the species
distribution (85 percent) is within lands owned by the DOE and
[[Page 28716]]
once managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as the
Wahluke Wildlife Area (USFWS 200, p. 1-3). This land remains under DOE
ownership, and is managed by the Monument. The remainder of the
species' distribution is on private land (Newsome 2011, pers. comm.).
Table 4--Estimated * Population Size of White Bluffs Bladderpod
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Transect 20-Transect
Year sample sample
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... 14,034 ..............
1998.................................... 31,013 32,603
1999.................................... 20,354 21,699
2002.................................... 11,884 12,038
2007.................................... 29,334 28,618
2008.................................... 16,928 18,400
2009.................................... 16,569 20,028
2010.................................... 9,650 9,949
2011.................................... 47,593 58,887
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mean number of plants per transect x total number of transects along
permanent 100-m (328-ft) monitoring transects (from Newsome 2011, p.
3). An additional 20-transect sample was added to monitoring after
1997 to increase statistical confidence.
Population Estimates/Status
The size of the population varies considerably between years.
Censuses in the late 1990s estimated more than 50,000 flowering plants
in high population years (Evans et al. 2003, p. 3-2) (see Table 4).
Since 1997 to 1998 when the monitoring transects currently used were
selected, the population has ranged between an estimated low of 9,650
plants in 2010 and an estimated high of 58,887 plants in 2011 (see
Table 4). Following the monitoring period in 2007, a large wildfire
burned through the northern portion of the population within the
monitoring transects. Annual monitoring was conducted through 2011 to
attempt to determine the effects of fire on White Bluffs bladderpod.
The monitoring results indicated that when burned and unburned
transects were compared, plants in burned transects appear to have
rebounded to some extent. However, the burned transects appeared to
have a mean of 24 percent fewer plants than in the unburned transects.
The high variability in estimated population numbers was confirmed
by the 2011 data, which documented the highest population estimate
since monitoring began in 1997, even though it immediately followed the
year representing the lowest estimate (2010). May 2011 was identified
by the Hanford Meteorological Station (http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HMS) as the fifth coolest and seventh wettest month of May recorded on
the installation since its establishment in 1944 (Newsome 2011, p. 2).
This environment likely provided ideal conditions for germination,
growth, and flowering for this year's population following a rather
moist fall and mild winter season (Autumn 2010 precipitation was 4.6 cm
(21.8 inches) above average: Winter 2011 precipitation was 0.6 cm (0.24
inches) below average (http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hms/products/seaprcp).
Summary of Factors: White Bluffs bladderpod
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Caplow and Beck (1996, p. 42) and others state that the threats to
White Bluffs bladderpod and its habitat are primarily landslides caused
by subsurface water seepage, invasive species, and ORV use (TNC 1998,
p. 5; Evans et al. 2003, p. 67, Newsome 2007, p. 4). Of these threats,
landslides and invasive species competition is of primary concern
(Caplow and Beck 1996, p. 42; Newsome 2007, p. 4). Below is a detailed
discussion of these threats and their potential effects on survival and
recovery of the species.
Landslides: Groundwater movement from adjacent, up-slope
agricultural activities has caused mass-failure landslides in portions
of the White Bluffs. As a result, the habitat in approximately 6.0 km
(3.7 mi), or about 35 percent of the known range of White Bluffs
bladderpod has been moderately to severely altered (Brown 1990, pp. 4,
39; Cannon 2005, p. 4.25; Caplow et al. 1996, p. 65; Drost et al. 1997,
pp. 48, 96; Lindsey et al. 1997, pp. 4, 10, 11, 12, 14; U.S. Congress
(H.R. 1031), 1999, p. 2; USFWS 1996, p. 1). White Bluffs bladderpod
plants have not been observed in areas that have undergone recent
landslides, regardless of whether the landslide disturbance is moderate
or severe. They have not been observed to survive small slumping
events, possibly because the mixed soils downslope post-event no longer
have the soil horizon that White Bluffs bladderpod plants seem to
require. Additionally, these slumped soils are typically more saturated
because they end up below the groundwater seep zone. In the arid
environment, White Bluffs bladderpod appears to be unable to
successfully compete with the host of weedy and invasive drought-
intolerant species in the seed bank. Where natural weathering has
eroded occupied habitat, White Bluffs bladderpod plants have been
observed to occasionally become established on the more gentle slopes.
In very large events of rotational slumping or landslides, parts of the
original surface horizon may remain somewhat undisturbed on the crest
of the slumped block, preserving White Bluffs bladderpod plants, at
least for the short term (Caplow et al. 1996, p. 42). All mass-failures
occurring along the White Bluffs, with one historical exception, are
found in association with water seepage (Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p.
16).
In the 1960s, the Washington State Department of Game (currently
known as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) constructed
artificial wetlands using irrigation water delivered to unlined
wastewater ponds and canals in the vicinity of the White Bluffs for
wildlife enhancement (Bjornstad 2006, p. 1). Water entered a
preferential pathway for movement along a buried paleochannel, which
connected the artificial wetlands with the White Bluffs escarpment near
Locke Island only 4.8 km (3 mi) to the southwest. Water percolating
from artificial wetlands moved quickly down through highly transmissive
flood deposits, and then encountered the low-permeability soils of the
Ringold Formation. The water then flowed laterally along the
impermeable layer, and discharged through springs along the White
Bluffs. Where they were wet, the unstable Ringold Formation sediments
have slumped and slid along the steep White Bluffs escarpment
(Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p. 14). Although water flow to the pond has
been halted due to concerns about landslides and the artificial
wetlands no longer exist, water continues to seep out along the bluffs,
apparently due to the large volume that accumulated in the underlying
sediments over years of infiltration (Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p. 15).
The erosional processes at work in the northern White Bluffs
vicinity are somewhat different than those of the southern White Bluffs
area, where White Bluffs bladderpod occurs. A record of slumping exists
along the White Bluffs, beginning with periodic high-recharge, Ice Age
flood events. Since the Pleistocene Epoch, landsliding on the southern
bluffs where White Bluffs bladderpod is found was dormant until the
1970s, when increased infiltration of moisture from agricultural
activities caused a resurgence of slumping (Bjornstad and Peterson
2009b; Cannon et al. 2005, p. 4.25; Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p. 17;
Drost et al. 1997, p. 76; Brown 1990, pp. 4, 38, 39). Excess irrigation
water percolates downward before moving laterally upon lower-
permeability Ringold strata. Spring water that
[[Page 28717]]
discharges in the vicinity of the bluff face greatly reduces internal
soil strength, and leads to slope failure. Heads of landslides
characteristically consist of back-rotated slump blocks that transition
to debris flows downslope, and the toes of fluidized debris flows often
fan out into the Columbia River. Landslides and their damaging effects
will likely continue until water that is currently being introduced
subsurface through unlined irrigation canals, ponds, and over-
irrigation is significantly reduced or eliminated (Bjornstad and
Peterson 2009b).
The entire population of White Bluffs bladderpod is down-slope of
irrigated agricultural land and is at risk of landslides induced by
water-seepage. The threat is greater in the southern portion of the
species' distribution where irrigated agriculture is closest in
proximity, and in several locations directly adjacent to the bluffs
(Bjornstad et al., 2009a, p. 8; Lindsey 1997, p. 12). Wetted soils
visible on the cliff faces directly below the private lands indicate
that irrigation of the fields above is affecting the bluff. Irrigation
water moves a considerable distance laterally across some of the more
impermeable beds of the Ringold Formation, as described earlier, and
also percolates downward. As the water increases the pore pressure
between sediment grains, it reduces the soil material strength. At the
steep bluff face, the loss of material strength results in slope
failure and formation of landslides (Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p. 17),
which permanently destroy White Bluffs bladderpod habitat. The areas
subject to mass-failure landslides are somewhat predictable, and appear
as horizontal wetted zones in the cliff face. This threat is imminent
and ongoing, potentially affecting most of the population.
Off-road vehicles: ORVs also threaten the species, by crushing
plants, destabilizing the soil, increasing erosion, and spreading the
seeds of invasive plants. Although ORV activity is prohibited on the
Monument (USFWS 2008, p. 1-5), it occurs intermittently on the Federal
lands that constitute approximately 85 percent of the species'
distribution. Currently, ORV activity is more common within the private
portion (approx. 15 percent of the area) at the southern end of the
species distribution. The location and extent of this threat has been
mapped by Monument staff on the land under their management (Newsome
2011, pers. comm.). Based on the best available information, ORV use is
considered to be an ongoing threat to White Bluffs bladderpod,
particularly within the southern extent of the species' distribution.
Invasive species: An infestation of Centaurea solstitialis (yellow
starthistle), a nonnative weed that is known as a rapid invader of arid
environments even in the absence of disturbance, was discovered during
2003 within a portion of the range of White Bluffs bladderpod (Evans et
al. 2003, p. 67). Invasive plants compete with White Bluffs bladderpod
for space and moisture and increase the effects of fire. The
infestation was mapped, plants were treated using aerial means, and the
weeds are currently being controlled. Continued monitoring and timely
followup treatment of this ongoing threat is necessary to protect White
Bluffs bladderpod habitat. In addition, a portion of the White Bluffs
bladderpod population is adjacent to a public access point along the
Columbia River. Visitors could potentially transport invasive plant
material or seeds into the area, increasing the risk of impacts of
establishment of invasive species. Based on the best available
information, nonnative invasive species represent an ongoing threat to
White Bluffs bladderpod.
Pesticide or Herbicide Use: We initially considered whether White
Bluffs bladderpod pollinators could potentially be negatively affected
by pesticide or herbicide applications on orchards and other irrigated
crops located adjacent to the population along the southern portion of
its distribution. However, specific information on whether this is a
threat is not available, and we are not identifying this as an ongoing
threat at this time. More thorough investigations are necessary, and we
will continue to evaluate this as a potential threat as additional
information becomes available.
Wildfire: In July 2007, a large wildfire burned through the
northern portion of the White Bluffs bladderpod population and within
the area of the monitoring transects after monitoring was completed for
that year. Fire is considered to be a threat to White Bluffs
bladderpod, although the decline in population numbers after the 2007
fire indicated the population estimate was still within the known range
of variability. The 2008-2011 monitoring results demonstrated the
negative impacts of the fire to be less than expected, as approximately
76 percent of the population remained viable the following year
(Newsome and Goldie, 2008). Notwithstanding the species' apparent
ability to recover somewhat from the 2007 wildfire event, we believe
that wildfire continues to be a threat to the existing population. This
is because fire events tend to be large and unpredictable in the
Hanford Reach (see Table 2) and can potentially affect large numbers of
plants and significant areas of pollinator habitat.
In addition, wildfire also impacts pollinator communities by
directly causing mortality, altering habitat, and reducing native plant
species diversity. Since an increase in cheatgrass was observed within
the White Bluffs bladderpod population and the surrounding areas
affected by the 2007 fire, we presume a larger scale fire event would
have similar results. Because of its invasive nature (see discussion
below), cheatgrass is able to outcompete native species and, once
established, increases wildfire fuel availability. White Bluffs
bladderpod may be somewhat fire-tolerant based on the post-2007
wildfire response monitoring. However, the establishment and growth of
highly flammable cheatgrass increases the likelihood of fire as well as
its intensity, potentially elevating the risk of impacting the White
Bluffs bladderpod population in the future. Given the invasive nature
of cheatgrass, the increased fire frequency and wildfire history within
and around the Monument (see Table 2), the increased fuel that becomes
available for future wildfire events as cheatgrass proliferates, and
observations that cheatgrass presence increased within and around the
population after the 2007 wildfire, wildfire is considered to be an
ongoing threat to White Bluffs bladderpod.
Nonnative Plant Competition and Fuel Sources: A common consequence
of fire is the displacement of native vegetation by nonnative weedy
species, particularly cheatgrass. As a result of the 2007 fire, a
higher percent cover of weedy plant species, including cheatgrass, has
become established within and around the White Bluffs bladderpod
population. Cheatgrass is an introduced annual grass that is widely
distributed in the western United States, and has been documented in
the White Bluffs bladderpod population. The origins are probably
southwestern Asia via contaminated grain from Europe in the 1890's. The
species was preadapted to the climate and soils in the Great Basin
Desert (parts of Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah) and filled the void
left vacant by historic livestock grazing. This opportunistic grass is
able to maintain a superiority over native plants in part because it is
a prolific seed producer, able to germinate in the autumn or spring,
giving it a competitive advantage over native perennials, and is
tolerant of increased fire frequency. Cheatgrass can
[[Page 28718]]
outcompete native plants for water and nutrients in the early spring,
since it is actively growing when native plants are initiating growth.
It also completes its reproductive process and becomes senescent before
most native plants (Pellant 1996, p. 1-2).
An infestation of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
discovered during 2003 within a portion of the White Bluffs bladderpod
range was mapped and treated aerially (TNC 2003, p. 67). Yellow
starthistle infestations can reduce wildlife habitat and forage,
displace native plants, and reduce native plant and animal diversity.
It significantly depletes soil moisture reserves in both annual and
perennial grasslands, and is able to invade and coexist within
cheatgrass-dominated annual grasslands (TNC 2003, p. 55). Accordingly,
nonnative plants that increase fuel availability for wildfires are
considered an ongoing threat to White Bluffs bladderpod.
Fire Suppression Activities: Fire suppression activities, which
often damage or remove native plants from the habitat and disturb
soils, could potentially be as damaging as the wildfire itself. The
Monument Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2001, p. 27) briefly addresses
White Bluffs bladderpod by providing guidance for fire suppression
activities on the White Bluffs. The plan states: ``Fire Management will
protect these sensitive resources by suppressing fires in this area
either from existing roads or the use of flappers and water use. The
use of hand tools that break the surface will be avoided when possible
and the use of any off-road equipment in these areas requires
concurrence by the Project Leader.'' In the 2007 fire, damage to
habitat from fire suppression activities within the White Bluffs
bladderpod population was avoided by limiting soil disturbance to areas
outside a 50-100 m (164-228 ft) buffer (Goldie 2012, pers. comm.).
However, the ability to avoid fire suppression impacts to the White
Bluffs bladderpod population during future wildfire events would take
into account the location, direction, magnitude, and intensity of the
event, firefighter safety considerations, and proximity of the fire to
the plant population. If a wildfire were to occur in the surrounding
area, protection of the White Bluffs bladderpod population may not be
possible if wildfire circumstances necessitate establishing fire lines
or response equipment staging areas within or near the population. A
potential consequence of fire or any soil disturbance during fire
suppression activities is the displacement of native vegetation by
nonnative weedy species, which increases intraspecific competition for
resources and increases the accumulation of fuels. When these
conditions occur, they contribute to increases in wildfire frequency
and severity in a frequent fire landscape. Accordingly, although the
need for wildfire suppression activities near or within the White
Bluffs bladderpod population is unpredictable, this activity is
considered a potential threat to this species based on the Monument's
wildfire history (see Table 2).
Based on the information above, we find that specific activities
discussed under Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range present a threat
to White Bluffs bladderpod and its habitat. These activities include
landslides, invasive species, wildfire, off-road vehicle use, and
potentially fire suppression activities.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The regulations at 50 CFR 27.51 prohibit collecting any plant
material on any national wildlife refuge. There is no evidence of
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational use of White
Bluffs bladderpod, other than occasional collection of relatively few
specimens (e.g., dead plants and seed collection). The species is very
showy while flowering and may be subject to occasional collection by
the public. The University of Washington Rare Care staff collected
approximately 2,000 White Bluffs bladderpod seeds from 60 plants on
July 29, 2011, and Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon, currently
has 1,800 seeds collected in 1997 from 45 plants (Gibble 2011, pers.
comm.). Because the public has access to the species, and it occurs on
private land, occasional collection may be expected. Collection for
scientific purposes combined with sporadic collection by private
individuals remains a possible, but unlikely threat.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes is not now a threat to White Bluffs
bladderpod in any portion of its range and is not likely to become a
significant threat in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Evidence of disease has not been documented in White Bluffs
bladderpod; however, predation of developing fruits and infestations on
flowering buds has been observed.
Seed predation: Since 1966, some predation by larval insects on
developing fruits of White Bluffs bladderpod has been observed. Larvae
of a species of Cecidomyiid fly have been observed infesting and
destroying flowering buds, and an unidentified insect species has been
documented boring small holes into young seed capsules and feeding on
developing ovules. However, the overall effect of these insect species
on the plants or population is not known (TNC 1998, p. 5). Although
insect predation may be a potential threat to White Bluffs bladderpod,
more thorough investigations are necessary to determine its
significance to seed production. Accordingly, we do not consider insect
predation to be a threat to White Bluffs bladderpod at this time. We
are unaware of any other disease or predation interactions that
represent potential threats to the species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
White Bluffs bladderpod was added to the State of Washington's list
of endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants in 1997 (as
Lesquerella tuplashensis), and is designated as threatened by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR, 2011). The State of
Washington's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant program is
administered through the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP),
and was created to provide an objective basis for establishing
priorities for a broad array of conservation actions (WDNR 2011, p. 2).
Prioritizing ecosystems and species for conservation offers a means to
evaluate proposed natural areas and other conservation activities (WDNR
p. 3). The WNHP is a participant in the Arid Lands Initiative, which is
a public/private partnership attempting to develop strategies to
conserve the species and ecosystems found within Washington's arid
landscape. The WHNP assists in identifying conservation targets, major
threats, and potential strategies to address them (WDNR 2011 p. 4).
The DOE does not have a rare plant policy that provides specific
protection for the species, and the Service manages DOE lands where
White Bluffs bladderpod is found as a part of the Hanford National
Monument. A comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Monument has
been completed that provides a strategy and general conservation
measures for rare plants that may benefit White Bluffs bladderpod. This
strategy includes support for monitoring, invasive species
[[Page 28719]]
control, fire prevention, propagation, reintroduction, and GIS support
to map the impact area (USFWS 2008, pp. 2-64--2-65), but does not
prescribe mandatory conservation elements. Although specific actions to
conserve the species are not identified, the plan acknowledges that
protection of the population is needed, and that management actions are
required to address its protection (USFWS 2008, p. 3-95). The CCP
states that fire control policies will be implemented to reduce the
risk of human-caused wildland fire (USFWS 2008, p. 4-13). The CCP also
identifies strategies to mitigate the potential for increased human-
caused wildfire as a result of increased visitation, through
informational signing educating visitors on the danger of wildfire, the
adverse effects of wildfire on the shrub-steppe habitat, and how
visitors can contribute to fire prevention. Seasonal closure of
interpretive trails through high-risk areas would be established and
enforced to mitigate the potential of visitor-caused wildfire (USFWS
2008, pp. 4-43--4-44). The CCP states that best management practices
and current regulations which prohibit campfires, open fires,
fireworks, and other sources of fire ignition on the Monument will be
adequate to prevent human-caused wildfires that could potentially
result from hunting activity (USFWS 2008, p. 4-46).
A Spotlight Species Action Plan has been developed for White Bluffs
bladderpod, which briefly describes the species and the major threats
and identifies actions to conserve the species (USFWS 2009). These
actions include working with adjacent landowners to restore, manage,
and reduce threats to the population, installation of fencing to
eliminate ORV use, invasive species studies and potential eradication
efforts, seed collection for augmentation/restoration purposes,
pollinator species studies, wildfire studies, and climate change
studies. However, many of these actions have not been implemented as
funding sources have not been identified (Newsome 2011, pers. comm.).
Numerous wildland fires occur annually on lands in and surrounding
the Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain National Wildlife
Refuge. Many are human-caused, resulting from vehicle ignitions from
roads and highways, unattended campfires, burning of adjacent
agricultural lands and irrigation ditches, and arson. Fires of natural
origin (lightning caused) also occur on lands within and adjacent to
the monument/refuge (USFWS 2001, p. 171). Since wildfires are
unpredictable with regard to their location and severity, a fire
management plan is necessarily designed to be a response, rather than a
regulatory strategy. The Wildland Fire Management Plan for the Monument
is an operational guide for managing the Monument's wildland and
prescribed fire programs. The plan defines levels of protection needed
to promote firefighter and public safety, protect facilities and
resources, and restore and perpetuate natural processes, given current
understanding of the complex relationships in natural ecosystems (USFWS
2001, p. 9). The Monument CCP also has an educational and enforcement
program in place that reduces the likelihood of human-caused wildfires.
Although the WHNP, Monument CCP, and Spotlight Species Action plans
are important tools to identify conservation actions that would benefit
White Bluffs bladderpod, they were not designed to function as
regulatory mechanisms that would eliminate threats to the species. In
addition, the impact of wildfire is not a threat that is susceptible to
elimination by regulatory mechanisms, because of the many potential
ignition scenarios on the lands within and surrounding the area where
White Bluffs bladderpod occurs.
An invasive plant species inventory and management plan has been
developed for the Monument (Evans et al. 2003, entire). The plan
identifies conservation targets, prevention, detection and response
activities, prioritization of species and sites, inventory and
monitoring, adaptive management, and several other strategies to
address invasive species. Invasive species management presents
significant management challenges because of the Monument's large size
(78,780 ha) (195,000 ac), and the large number of documented or
potential invasive plant species present (Evans et al. 2003, p. 5). The
introduction and spread of invasive plant species is enhanced by the
existence of disturbed lands and corridors; potential introduction
pathways include the Columbia River, active irrigation canals,
wasteways, and impoundments, state highways, and paved and unpaved
secondary roads. In addition, recurrent wildfires, powerline
development and maintenance, and slumping of the White Bluffs
continually create new habitats for invasive species to colonize (Evans
et al. 2003, p. 5). The invasive species management plan is not a
regulatory mechanism, and given the many invasive plant species
pathways within and surrounding the population, the impact of nonnative
species is not a threat that is susceptible to elimination by
regulatory mechanisms.
Although the Hanford Monument Proclamation prohibits off-road
vehicle (ORV) use, ORV use has been documented in the publicly
accessible Wahluke Unit (where White Bluffs bladderpod occurs). Some of
these violators enter the Monument from long-established access routes
from adjacent private lands (USFWS 2002, p. 17), causing physical
damage to plants and creating ruts in slopes that increase erosion
(USFWS 2008, p. 3-57). Although ORV trespass incidents have been
documented on Monument lands, and are affecting some White Bluffs
bladderpod individuals, we have no information indicating they are
occurring with significant frequency or are affecting a substantial
portion of the population. ORV use has also been documented on private
property, where the southern extent of the population occurs. We have
no information that would indicate ORV trespass incidents on Monument
lands are taking place over a large area within the White Bluffs
bladderpod population, and there are apparently no constraints on ORV
use on private property. Accordingly, we do not believe the ORV threat
to White Bluffs bladderpod identified in Factor A is being exacerbated
because of existing regulations that are inadequate.
As described under Factor A, groundwater movement from adjacent,
up-slope agricultural activities has caused mass-failure landslides
caused by subsurface water seepage, which is a threat to White Bluffs
bladderpod. This threat is greatest in the southern portion of the
species' distribution where irrigated agriculture is close in
proximity, and in several locations directly adjacent to the bluffs
(Bjornstat et al., 2009a, p. 8; Lindsey 1997, p. 12). There are no
existing regulatory mechanisms that address this threat.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we do not consider any of the threats described above
under Factor D to be subject to elimination by existing regulatory
mechanisms. Therefore, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
does not represent an ongoing threat to White Bluff's bladderpod.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Small Population Size: As stated earlier, since 1997 to 1998 when
the monitoring transects currently used were selected, the population
has ranged between an estimated low of 9,650 plants in 2010 and an
estimated high of 58,887 plants in 2011 (see Table
[[Page 28720]]
4). Additionally, the species is known from only a single population
that occurs intermittently in a narrow band (usually less than 10 m (33
ft) wide) along an approximately 17-km (10.6-mi) stretch of the river
bluffs (Rollins et al. 1996, p. 205), and approximately 35 percent of
the known range has been moderately to severely affected by landslides.
Accordingly, the species is susceptible to being negatively impacted by
the activities described in Factors A and C above, particularly if
those threats are of a magnitude that affects a significant portion of
the population. Therefore, based on the best available information, we
consider White Bluffs bladderpod's small population size and limited
geographic distribution to represent an ongoing threat to the species.
Climate Change: Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act
include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The
terms ``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to
the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over
time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements,
although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in
climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects
may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time,
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the
effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use
our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
Regional climate change modeling indicates a potential threat to
White Bluffs bladderpod if hotter and drier conditions increase stress
on individual plants, or increase the effects of wildfire frequency and
intensity (See discussion under Factor A). As described for Umtanum
desert buckwheat above (see Factor E), the potential impacts of a
changing global climate to White Bluffs bladderpod are presently
unclear. All regional models of climate change indicate that future
climate in the Pacific Northwest will be warmer than the past, and,
together, they suggest that rates of warming will be greater in the
21st century than those observed in the 20th century. Projected changes
in annual precipitation, averaged over all models, are small (+1 to +2
percent), but some models project an enhanced seasonal precipitation
cycle with changes toward wetter autumns and winters and drier summers
(Littell et al. 2009a, p. 1). Regional climate models suggest that some
local changes in temperature and precipitation may be quite different
than average regional changes projected by the global models (Littell
et al. 2009a, p. 6). Precipitation uncertainties are particularly
problematic in the western United States, where complex topography
coupled with the difficulty of modeling El Ni[ntilde]o result in highly
variable climate projections (Bradley 2009, p. 197).
We do not know what the future holds with regard to climate change.
Despite a lack of site-specific data, increased average temperatures
and reduced average rainfall may promote a decline of the species and
result in a loss of habitat. Hotter and drier summer conditions could
increase the frequency and intensity of fires in the area as cheatgrass
or other invasive plants compete for resources with White Bluffs
bladderpod. However, if summer precipitation were to increase, some
native perennial shrubs and grasses could be more competitive if they
are able to use water resources when cheatgrass or other nonnative
species are dormant (Loik, 2007 in Bradley 2009, pp. 204-205).
Nevertheless, if the frequency, intensity, and timing of the predicted
changes in climate for eastern Washington are not aligned with the
phenology of White Bluffs bladderpod, the survival and reproduction of
the species could be threatened over time. Although climate change
represents a potential threat based on the available information, more
thorough investigations are needed to determine the degree to which
climate change may be affecting the species.
Table 5--Summary of Threat Factors Under the ESA to Umtanum Desert Buckwheat and White Bluffs Bladderpod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Threat Magnitude * Severity * Imminence *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................. Wildfire.................. Confirmed........... High................ Moderate.
Fire suppression Possible **......... Unknown............. Unknown.
activities.
Slope failure, landslides. Confirmed........... High................ High.
Harm by recreational Confirmed........... Moderate............ Low.
activities and/or ORV use.
Competition, fuels load Confirmed........... Moderate............ Moderate.
from nonnative plants.
E................. Small population size..... Confirmed........... Low................. Low.
Limited geographic range.. Confirmed........... Low................. Low.
Climate change............ Possible............ Unknown............. Unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Magnitude: The extent of species numbers or habitat affected by the threat. Severity: The intensity of effect
by the threat on the species or habitat. Imminence: The likelihood of the threat currently affecting the
species.
** If avoidance is not possible due to fire direction or safety needs.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to White Bluffs bladderpod (see Table 5). Under the Act and our
implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is
threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. We assessed the status of White Bluffs bladderpod throughout its
entire range and found it to be highly restricted within that range.
The threats to the survival of the species occur throughout the
species' range and are not restricted to any particular significant
portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed
determination applies to the species throughout its entire range.
Approximately 35 percent of the known range of the species has been
moderately to severely affected by landslides, resulting in an
apparently permanent destruction of the habitat. The entire population
of the species is down-slope of irrigated agricultural land, the source
of the water seepage
[[Page 28721]]
causing the mass-failures and landslides, but the southern portion of
the population is the closest to the agricultural land and most
affected. Other significant threats include use of the habitat by
recreational off-road vehicles which destroy plants, and the presence
of invasive nonnative plants that compete with White Bluffs bladderpod
for limited resources (light, water, nutrients). Additionally, the
increasing presence of invasive nonnative plants may alter fire regimes
and potentially increase the threat of fire to the White Bluffs
bladderpod population.
Fire suppression activities could potentially be as great a threat
as the fire itself, given the location of the species on the tops of
bluffs where firelines are often constructed. In addition, firefighting
equipment and personnel are commonly staged on ridge tops for safety
and strategic purposes (Whitehall 2012, pers. comm.), although this has
not been necessary within the White Bluffs bladderpod population to
date. During a wildfire response effort in 2007, responders were able
to avoid damage to White Bluffs bladderpod habitat during suppression
activities by limiting soil disturbance to areas outside a 50-100 m
(164-228 ft) buffer around the population. The threats to the
population from landslides, ORV use, and potentially fire suppression
(contingent on location, safety, the ability to avoid, and other
particulars) are ongoing, and will continue to occur in the future. In
addition, invasion by nonnative plants is a common occurrence post-fire
in the Hanford vicinity, and will likely spread or increase throughout
the areas that were burned during the 2007 fire that occurred in the
area of the existing population or in future events.
As described above, White Bluffs bladderpod is currently at risk
throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A), and other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E). Specifically,
these factors include the existing degradation or fragmentation of
habitat resulting from landslides due to water seepage, invasive
species establishment, ORV use, wildfire, potential fire suppression
activities, and potential global climate change. Most of these threats
are ongoing and projected to continue and potentially worsen in the
future. The population is small and apparently restricted to a unique
geological setting, making it particularly susceptible to extinction
due to threats described in the proposed rule. The magnitude of the
threat of wildfire is high, while other threats are moderate to low in
magnitude (see Table 5). Because of the limited range of the species,
any one of the threats could affect its continued existence at any
time.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that White Bluffs bladderpod
is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion
of its range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy and
scope of the threats described above and, therefore, meets the
definition of a threatened species under the Act. There are no portions
of the species' range where threats are geographically concentrated
such that the species is in danger of extinction within that portion of
its range. White Bluffs bladderpod is primarily surrounded by Federal
ownership, where the lands are managed as an overlay national wildlife
refuge for general conservation purposes.
The Hanford Reach National Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan
was developed to protect and conserve the biological, geological,
paleontological, and cultural resources described in the Monument
Proclamation by creating and maintaining extensive areas within the
Monument free of facility development (USFWS 2008, p. v). Several
management objectives are identified that could benefit the White
Bluffs bladderpod population, include treating invasive species and
restoring upland habitat (USFWS 2008, pp. 19-22). The species is also
fairly numerous and continuous where it occurs over 17 km (10.6 mi),
and the threats are acting with uniform magnitude, intensity, or
severity throughout the species' distribution. Since 85 percent of the
species distribution is on Federal lands managed as a national wildlife
refuge for conservation purposes, and refuge management plans are in
place to help protect and conserve the species, we do not believe White
Bluffs bladderpod is presently in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we propose
listing White Bluffs bladderpod as threatened in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, the development of a
recovery plan (including implementation of recovery actions),
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing actions results in public
awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection measures required of
Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed wildlife are discussed in Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation and are further discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on
[[Page 28722]]
our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
The Hanford Reach National Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(2008, p. 4-31), identifies several strategies that will support
recovery efforts, including (1) continuing ongoing partnerships for
monitoring Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod
populations; (2) inventory and control of nonnative plant species; (3)
consideration of rare plant species and locations when planning
management, recreational, access, and other actions; (4) wildfire
prevention when possible, and limiting their size; and (5) development
of propagation techniques for rare species for reintroductions if
populations go below thresholds.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Washington would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection and recovery of Umtanum desert buckwheat and White
Bluffs bladderpod. Information on our grant programs that are available
to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod are
only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for
this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information
on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you
may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Energy,
Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and
construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-
way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by
50 CFR 17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, 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, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas
under Federal jurisdiction. Seeds from cultivated specimens of
cultivated plants are exempt from these prohibitions provided that
their containers are marked ``Of Cultivated Origin.'' Certain
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies. At this time, there are no existing regulatory
mechanisms that provide protection for State-listed plants in
Washington, even if endangered. In addition, since Umtanum desert
buckwheat occurs entirely on Federal land, and White Bluffs bladderpod
occurs predominantly on Federal land, all Hanford Reach National
Monument regulations that have protective or conservation relevance to
either species would be applicable.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened plant species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.62 for endangered plants, and at Sec. 17.72 for threatened plants.
With regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to our Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits,
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181 (telephone (503) 231-6158; facsimile (503) 231-6243).
[[Page 28723]]
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical and biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species; and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use,
and the use of, all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation on Federal actions that
may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does
not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve,
preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow
the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does
not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests
Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a
listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal action
agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that when combined compose
the features essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its current range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we determine which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be
required for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, but are outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if certain
actions occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation
planning efforts if new information available at the time of these
planning efforts warrants otherwise.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when
[[Page 28724]]
one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species; or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation of commercial or private collection of
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod. Although that
activity is identified as a possible but unlikely threat to the
species, the significance of collection to the viability of the
species' populations is not known. In the absence of a finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include: (1)
Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for
actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not
otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or
the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on
the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4)
preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. At this
time, Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod occur only
on Federal, State, and private lands along the Hanford Reach of the
Columbia River in Washington State. Lands proposed for designation as
critical habitat would be subject to Federal actions that trigger
section 7 consultation requirements. These include land management
planning, Federal agency actions, and permitting by the Saddle Mountain
National Wildlife Refuge/Hanford Reach National Monument. There may
also be educational or outreach benefits to the designation of critical
habitat. These benefits include the notification of lessees and the
general public of the importance of protecting the habitats of both of
these rare species.
In the case of Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod, these aspects of critical habitat designation would
potentially benefit the conservation of both species. Therefore, if the
threat of commercial or private collection exists for either species,
it is outweighed by the conservation benefits derived from the
designation of critical habitat. We therefore find that designation of
critical habitat is prudent for Umtanum desert buckwheat and White
Bluffs bladderpod.
We also reviewed the available information pertaining to the
biological needs of these species and habitat characteristics where
they occur. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available, and the available information is sufficient for us to
identify areas to propose as critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for both
species.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within
the geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
(PBF's) essential to the conservation of the species that may require
special management considerations or protection. These may include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBF's required for Umtanum desert buckwheat
and White Bluffs bladderpod from studies of each species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described above in the proposed listing
rule. We have determined that the PBFs described below are essential
for these species. The criteria used to identify the geographical
location of the proposed critical habitat areas for both species is
described following the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation sections
below (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in developing this
proposed rule we used the best scientific data available to propose
critical habitat for both Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod. We reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and
its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we also consider
whether designating additional areas outside those currently occupied
as well as those occupied at the time of listing is necessary to ensure
the conservation of the species. These sources of information included,
but were not limited to:
1. Data used to prepare the proposed rule to list the species;
2. Information from biological surveys;
3. Peer-reviewed articles, various agency reports and databases
from the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage
Program and the Hanford National Monument/Saddle Mountain National
Wildlife Refuge;
4. Information from the U.S. Department of Energy and other
governmental cooperators;
5. Information from species experts;
6. Data and information presented in academic research theses; and
7. Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as
species occurrence data, land use, topography, aerial imagery, soil
data, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and mapping.
The long-term survival and recovery of Umtanum desert buckwheat and
White Bluffs bladderpod is dependent upon protecting existing
populations by maintaining ecological function within these sites,
including preserving the integrity of the unique soils and connectivity
between occurrences to facilitate pollinator activity. It is also
dependent on maintaining these areas free of habitat-disturbing
activities, including trampling, the exclusion of invasive, nonnative
plant species, and managing the risk of wildfire. Because the areas of
unique soils cover a relatively small area within the larger shrub
steppe matrix, we did not restrict the designation to individual
occupied patches, but included adequate adjacent shrub steppe habitat
to provide for ecosystem function. This contiguous habitat provides the
requisite physical or biological features for both Umtanum desert
buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod, including diverse native
flowering plants and habitat to support pollinators, and provides the
essential feature of habitat free from disturbances, such as invasive
species and recreational trampling. We used the following criteria to
select areas for inclusion in critical habitat: (a) The geographical
areas containing the entire distribution of habitat occupied by Umtanum
desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod at the time of the
[[Page 28725]]
proposed listing, because they are each found in only single
populations and our goal is to maintain the current species extent and
genetic variability; (b) areas that provide the physical and biological
features necessary to support the species' life-history requirements;
and (c) areas that provide connectivity within and between habitat for
each species, and adjacent shrub steppe habitat that provides for
pollinator life-history needs.
The first step in delineating proposed critical habitat units was
to identify all areas that contained Umtanum desert buckwheat or White
Bluffs bladderpod populations, which was accomplished during the summer
of 2011. We are proposing to designate critical habitat within and
around all occurrences of both populations to conserve genetic
variability. These areas are representative of the entire known
historical geographic distribution of the species. We then analyzed
areas outside the population to identify unoccupied habitat areas
essential for the conservation of the species. The proposed
designations take into account those features that are essential to
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod, including the
presence of unique soils, unique habitat conditions within the area,
and the condition of the surrounding landscape features necessary to
support pollination, and possibly other life-history requirements.
We do not know if the lack of pollinators is a limiting factor, but
in the absence of other information and knowing that both species are
largely insect-pollinated, we believe it is prudent to identify an area
adjacent to the occupied areas as unoccupied critical habitat to
support pollinator species. The outer boundary of the proposed critical
habitat designation was primarily determined based on the flight
distances of insect pollinators, which are essential to the
conservation of both species. Using Geographical Information Systems
(GIS), we included an area of native shrub steppe vegetation
approximately 300 m (980 ft) around the population to provide habitat
of sufficient quantity and quality to support Umtanum desert buckwheat
and White Bluffs bladderpod. This boundary was selected because we
believe it provides the minimum area needed to sustain an active
pollinator community for both species, based on the best available
scientific information (see Arnett 2011b; Evans pers. comm., 2001,
discussed below). This distance does not include all surrounding
habitat potentially used by pollinators, but provides sufficient
habitat for those pollinators that nest, feed, and reproduce in areas
adjacent to the occupied critical habitat areas.
Although Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod are
visited by a variety of likely pollinators, only one insect pollinator
species has been verified to date; the bumblebee (Bombus centralis) has
been confirmed as a pollinator for Umtanum desert buckwheat (Arnett
2011b, pers. comm.). As stated earlier, Bombus did not appear to be an
appropriate surrogate to determine pollinator distance for either
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod because of their
relatively long-distance foraging capabilities. Instead, we delineated
an effective pollinator use area based on the flight distances of
solitary bees, a group of important noncolonial pollinators with a
relatively limited flight distance. Research literature on flight
distances was available for this group (Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002,
p. 758)), of which numerous representatives of the genera Chelostoma,
Megachile, and Osmia are found in shrub steppe habitat in the Hanford
Reach area. Species within other solitary bee genera such as Andrena,
Anthophora, Habropoda, Hoplitis, and Lasioglossum have also been
identified on the Hanford Installation (Evans 2011, pers. comm.). This
methodology assumes that potential pollinators with long-range flight
capabilities would be able to use this proximal habitat as well (see
Physical and Biological Features section).
Because the population occurrences of Umtanum desert buckwheat and
White Bluffs bladderpod are linear in arrangement, we established the
occupied critical habitat areas by connecting the known coordinates for
occurrences, using GIS. The mean width for the occupied areas was
estimated based on monitoring and transect data compiled by species
experts. The estimated mean width for Umtanum desert buckwheat was
determined to be 30 m (100 ft), and 50 m (165 ft) for White Bluffs
bladderpod. We then established a 300-m (980-ft) unoccupied critical
habitat polygon surrounding the mean occupied habitat width to identify
insect pollinator habitat that is essential for the conservation of
both species. We then mapped the critical habitat unit boundaries for
each of the two species based on the above criteria, using aerial
imagery, 7.5 minute topographic maps, contour data, WDNR Natural
Heritage and Washington Department of Transportation data to depict the
critical habitat designation, gather ownership, and acreage
information.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, other structures, tilled farm lands and
orchards on private property, because such lands lack physical or
biological features for Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Therefore, if the critical habitat
is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving such developed
lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification, unless the
specific action would affect the physical and biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
Space for Individual Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Umtanum desert buckwheat is highly restricted in its distribution.
The only known population occurs at elevations ranging between 340-400
m (1,115-1,310 ft) on flat to gently sloping substrate at the top edge
of a steep, north-facing basalt cliff of Umtanum Ridge overlooking the
Columbia River. Approximately 5,000 plants occur in a narrow band 1.6
km (1 mi) in length and generally less than 30 m (100 ft) wide (Reveal
et al. 1995, p. 353). However, individual plants have been found up to
150 m (490 ft) above the cliff breaks (Arnett 2011b, pers. comm.), and
scattered plants occur on the steep cliff-face below the breaks
(Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 60).
Umtanum desert buckwheat is found exclusively on soils over exposed
basalt from the Lolo Flow of the Wanapum Basalt Formation at the far
southeastern end of Umtanum Ridge in Benton County, Washington. This
type of landform in the lower Columbia Basin is determined by the
underlying basalts, which may be exposed above the soil on ridge tops
or where wind and water erode the fine soils away (Sackschewski and
Downs 2001, p. 2.1.1). The Lolo flow surface material commonly has a
high porosity and permeability. The cliff area has weathered to pebble-
and gravel-sized pieces of vesicular basalt (basalt that contains tiny
holes formed due to gas bubbles in lava or magma) and is sparsely
vegetated where the species is found. It is unknown if the close
association of Umtanum desert buckwheat with the lithosols of the Lolo
Flow is related to the chemical
[[Page 28726]]
composition or physical characteristics of the particular parent
bedrock on which it is found, or other factors (Reveal et al. 1995, p.
354); however, that particular mineralogy is not known from any other
location.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify weathered
Wanapum basalt cliffs, and adjacent outcrops, cliff breaks, and flat or
gently sloping cliff tops with exposed pebble and gravel soils as a
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation for
Umtanum desert buckwheat.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The presence of unique soil structure and/or chemistry may
determine where a rare plant species exists. Umtanum desert buckwheat
is found exclusively on pebbly lithosol soils over exposed basalt from
the Lolo Flow of the Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt
Formation. The flow surface material commonly has a high porosity and
permeability and typically contains small (< 5 mm, (0.2 in)) crystals
of the mineral olivine and rare (occasional) clusters of plagioclase
crystals, and differs from the other members of the Wanapum Formation.
Basalts of the Lolo Flow contain higher titanium dioxide and lower iron
oxide than the neighboring Rosalia Flow, also of the Priest Rapids
Member (Reidel and Fecht 1981, p. 3-13).
It is unknown if the distribution of Umtanum desert buckwheat prior
to European settlement was different from the species' current
distribution, but it is likely that the species has been confined to
this location during at least the last 150 years, which indicates an
isolated soil exposure, unique within the broader Columbia Basin
landscape. The physiological and soil nutritional needs of Umtanum
desert buckwheat are not known at this time. Other locations containing
apparently suitable habitat have been intensively searched since the
species' discovery in 1995, and no additional individuals or
populations have been found. The factors limiting the species'
distribution are unknown, but could be related to microsite differences
(such as nutrient availability, soil microflora, soil texture, or
moisture). Additional research is needed to determine the specific
nutritional and physiological requirements for Umtanum desert
buckwheat.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the pebbly
lithosol talus soils derived from surface weathering of the Lolo Flow
of the Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt Formation as a
physical and biological feature essential to the conservation for
Umtanum desert buckwheat. These areas are sparsely vegetated, with less
than 10 percent estimated total cover (including Umtanum desert
buckwheat) within the population and less than 5 percent cover by
species other than Umtanum desert buckwheat, and less than 1 percent
nonnative or invasive plants (Arnett 2001, pers. comm.). Areas of
sparse vegetation are required to minimize nonnative plant competition,
minimize conditions that promote the accumulation of fuels, and provide
for the recovery of the species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The availability of insect pollinators is essential to conserve
Umtanum desert buckwheat. Based on the results of a pollinator
exclusion study, the species is probably capable of at least limited
amounts of self-pollination, although the percentage of seedset in the
absence of pollinators appears to be low (TNC 1998, p. 8; Reveal et al.
1995, p. 355). A variety of potential insect pollinators has been
observed on Umtanum desert buckwheat flowers, including ants, beetles,
flies, spiders, moths, and butterflies (TNC 1998, p. 8). Wasps from the
families Vespidae and Typhiidae and from the species Criosciolia have
been observed near, but not on, the species. A bumble bee species,
Bombus centralis (no common name), has also been observed utilizing the
flowers of Umtanum desert buckwheat (Arnett 2011b, pers. comm.). Insect
collection and identification efforts by Washington State University on
the Hanford Reach documented approximately 2,500 different species of
invertebrates, 42 of which were new to science (WNPS 2004, p. 3).
Since pollination is essential to the conservation of Umtanum
desert buckwheat, we evaluated alternatives for determining the
effective pollinator distance for this species. Since specific known
pollinators are mostly unknown for the species and the species is
likely frequented by several pollinators, we investigated delineating
an effective pollinator distance based on foraging distances of the
species' only known pollinator, the bumble bee (Bombus spp.). Bumble
bee species are internally guided to use a plant species as long as
flowers are rewarding and nearby, but will otherwise change to
different species (Chittka et al. 1997, p. 248). Foraging ranges for
Bombus are greater and consistent within species; however, there are
substantial differences between species in foraging ranges and the size
of the areas they utilize. Knight et al. (2005, p. 1,816) observed a
maximum foraging distance between 450-760 m (1,475-2,500 ft), and
foraging ranges between 62-180 ha (150-450 ac), based on studies of
four species of Bombus species. Because of these conspecific
differences, we concluded that bumble bee foraging distances may not be
representative of the suite of pollinators that may be available to
Umtanum desert buckwheat. Based on the limited distribution of Umtanum
desert buckwheat and the lack of foraging data for Bombus centralis, we
determined that generalized Bombus foraging range data may not be an
appropriate surrogate for determining Umtanum desert buckwheat
pollinator distance requirements.
We next considered using the flight distances of solitary bees
(individual, noncolonial bees) to determine the effective pollinator
distance for the species. Numerous Families of this Order (Hymenoptera)
have been observed in shrub steppe habitats within the Hanford Reach,
including the Genera Andrena, Anthophora, Chelostoma, Habropoda,
Hoplitis, Lasioglossum, Megachile, and Osmia, among others (Evans 2011,
pers. comm.) and are likely to be among the pollinators of Umtanum
desert buckwheat.
Solitary bees have fairly short foraging distances within similar
habitat types, which is suggested as being between 150-600 m (495-1,970
ft) (Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002, pp. 760-762)). Three genera are
found in common with those studied in Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002) in
the Hanford Reach; Chelostoma, Megachile, and Osmia. Although the
specific insect pollinator species and their foraging distances are not
known, we believe 300 m (980 ft) represents a reasonable mid-range
estimate of the area needed around the Umtanum desert buckwheat
population to provide sufficient habitat for the pollinator community.
As noted above, many other insects likely contribute to the pollination
of this species, and some may travel greater distances than solitary
bees. However, these pollinators may also forage, nest, overwinter, or
reproduce within 300 m (980 ft) of Umtanum desert buckwheat plants. As
a result, we limited the Umtanum desert buckwheat pollinator support
area to 300 m (980 ft) around the population, based on the rationale
that pollinators using habitat farther away may not be as likely to
contribute to the conservation and recovery of this species.
Vegetation cover in the vicinity of Umtanum desert buckwheat is low
[[Page 28727]]
when compared with other shrub steppe sites, which may be related to
substrate chemistry. Common perennial associates and habitat for the
pollinators listed above include Artemisia tridentata (Wyoming big
sagebrush), Grayia spinosa (spiny hopsage), Krascheninnikovia lanata
(winterfat), Eriogonum sphaerocephalum (round-headed desert buckwheat),
Salvia dorrii (purple sage), Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread
grass), Pseudoroegneria spicata (bluebunch wheatgrass), Poa sandbergii
(Sandberg bluegrass), Sphaeralcea munroana (Munro's globemallow),
Astragalus caricinus (buckwheat milkvetch), and Balsamorhiza careyana
(Carey's balsamroot). Common annual associates include Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass), Phacelia linearis (threadleaf phacelia), Gilia leptomeria
(great basin gilia), G. inconspicua sweetvar. Sinuata (rosy gilia),
Camissonia minor (small evening primrose), Mentzelia albicaulis
(whitestem blazingstar), and Cryptantha pterocarya (wing-nut
cryptantha) (Reveal et al. 1995, p. 354; Caplow and Beck 1996, p. 40).
Although percent vegetative cover is low in close proximity to E.
codium, species diversity within the adjacent plant community is fairly
high. Nearby vegetative patches with more dense vegetative cover offer
increased vertical habitat structure and plant species diversity within
the foraging distances of potential pollinators.
In order for Umtanum desert buckwheat genetic exchange to occur,
pollinators must be able to move freely between plants. Additional
pollen and nectar sources (other plant species within the surrounding
sagebrush vegetation) are also needed to support pollinators when the
species is not flowering. This surrounding and adjacent habitat will
protect soils and pollinators from disturbance, slow the invasion of
the site by nonnative species, and provide a diversity of habitats
needed by Umtanum desert buckwheat and its pollinators. Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify the presence of insect
pollinators as a physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation for Umtanum desert buckwheat. Insect pollinators require a
diversity of native plants, whose blooming times overlap to provide
sufficient flowers for foraging throughout the seasons, nesting and
egg-laying sites, appropriate nesting materials, and sheltered,
undisturbed places for hibernation and overwintering.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representing Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions
The Umtanum desert buckwheat population has a discontinuous
distribution along a narrow, 1.6-km (1-mi) long portion of Umtanum
Ridge (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 59). The entire known population
exists within a narrow corridor at the top edge of the steep, north-
facing basalt cliffs where human traffic could be expected to
concentrate. The plants respond negatively to trampling or crushing and
are extremely sensitive following such damage. In one instance, within
2 days of being run over by trespassing dirt bikes, portions of damaged
plants showed signs of further decline, and in some cases mortality, as
evidenced by damaged plants that later died (TNC 1998, p. 62).
Fire appears to readily kill the slow-growing Umtanum desert
buckwheat plants, especially in areas with higher fuel levels. Because
of the rocky talus soils and a relatively low fire frequency, the
species is confined to a few meters of upper cliff slope, cliff breaks,
and tops. Fires increase the risk of invasion of nonnative or invasive
species, particularly cheatgrass, which competes with Umtanum desert
buckwheat for space and moisture. In turn, the establishment and growth
of highly flammable and often continuous cheatgrass increases the
likelihood of fire, potentially elevating the risk of impacting the
Umtanum desert buckwheat population in the future. The substrate that
supports Umtanum desert buckwheat likely had a lower vegetation cover
prior to the introduction of cheatgrass in the 1800s. Fire is a primary
threat to Umtanum desert buckwheat, and will likely become a greater
threat if the frequency or severity of fires increases (TNC 1998 p. 9;
Dunwiddie et al. 2001, pp. 59, 62, 66).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the stable
cliff and soil structure that is protected from human-caused trampling
and at a low risk of wildfire as a physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation for Umtanum desert buckwheat. This
habitat contains little or no surface disturbance and is surrounded by
diverse native pollinator habitat.
Primary Constituent Elements for Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Umtanum desert buckwheat, focusing on the features'
primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements
to be the specific compositional elements of physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and the habitat characteristics required to sustain the
species' life-history process, we have determined that the primary
constituent elements specific to Umtanum desert buckwheat are:
1. Primary Constituent Element 1--North to northeast facing,
weathered basalt cliffs of the Wanapum Formation at the far eastern end
of Umtanum Ridge in Benton County that contain outcrops, cliff breaks,
slopes, and flat or gently sloping cliff tops with exposed pebble and
gravel soils;
2. Primary Constituent Element 2--Pebbly lithosol talus soils
derived from surface weathering of the top of the Lolo Flow of the
Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Formation;
3. Primary Constituent Element 3--Sparsely vegetated habitat (less
than 10 percent total cover), containing low amounts of nonnative or
invasive plant species (less than 1 percent cover);
4. Primary Constituent Element 4--The presence of insect pollinator
species; and
5. Primary Constituent Element 5--The presence of native shrub
steppe habitat within the effective pollinator distance (300 m
(approximately 980 ft)) around the population.
Umtanum desert buckwheat occurs only as a single population located
within a single site. With this proposed designation of critical
habitat, we intend to identify the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, through the
identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of
the primary constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history
processes of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat as
described below may require some level of management to address the
current and future threats to the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of Umtanum desert buckwheat. In all of
the described units, special management
[[Page 28728]]
may be required to ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the
biological needs of the species.
Public access without security clearance is currently prohibited at
the Umtanum desert buckwheat site, reducing the risk of trampling or
crushing the plants by ORV use. Special management to protect the
proposed critical habitat areas and the features essential to the
conservation of Umtanum desert buckwheat from the effects of the
current wildfire regime may include preventing or restricting the
establishment of invasive, nonnative plant species, post-wildfire
restoration with native plant species, and reducing the likelihood of
wildfires affecting the population and nearby plant community
components. These actions may be achieved by detailed fire management
planning by the DOE (the landowner), including rapid response and
mutual support agreements between the DOE, the Monument, the U.S.
Department of the Army, Bureau of Land Management, and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife for wildfire control. These agreements
should contain sufficient detail to identify actions by all partners
necessary to protect habitat for Umtanum desert buckwheat from fire
escaping from other ownerships.
Further studies leading to an enhancement or reintroduction plan
may be necessary to increase population size and prepare for recovery
post-wildfire. More research is needed to determine habitats most
suitable for expansion of the current population. In summary, special
management considerations or protections should address activities that
would be most likely to result in the loss of Umtanum desert buckwheat
plants or the disturbance, compaction, or other negative impacts to the
species' habitat. These activities could include, but are not limited
to, recreational activities and associated infrastructure, off-road
vehicle activity, dispersed recreation, wildfire, and wildfire
suppression activities.
Existing Conservation Measures
A fire management plan has been completed for the Hanford
installation (DOE 2011, p. 93) and recently revised to incorporate more
detailed management objectives and standards. Though not intended to
specifically address Umtanum desert buckwheat, implementation of this
plan will contribute to the protection of the primary constituent
elements (and physical or biological features) by: (1) Using a map of
``sensitive resources'' on the site during implementation, including
the location of Umtanum desert buckwheat habitat; (2) requiring a
biologist to assist the command staff in protecting these environments
during wildfire suppression efforts; and (3) restricting public access
to the entire Umtanum desert buckwheat site, including the proposed
pollinator use area.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing one unit as critical habitat for the Umtanum
desert buckwheat population. The critical habitat area described below
constitutes our best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for Umtanum desert buckwheat. Within this unit, no
subunits have been identified.
The approximate size and ownership of the proposed Umtanum Ridge
critical habitat unit is identified in Table 6 below. The single unit
contains currently occupied critical habitat and unoccupied habitat
surrounding it.
Table 6--Proposed Critical Habitat Unit for Umtanum Desert Buckwheat
[Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat unit boundaries; values are rounded to the nearest tenth]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied Unoccupied
critical habitat critical habitat Percent by Total hectares
Unit name Land ownership in hectares in hectares ownership (acres)
(acres) (acres)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umtanum Ridge, WA............................. Federal......................... 5.7 (14.2) 133.5 (329.9) 100 139.3 (344.1)
State........................... ................ ................ ................ ................
Private......................... ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total................... 5.7 (14.2) 133.5 (329.9) 100 139.3 (344.1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Bluffs Bladderpod
Physical and Biological Features
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
White Bluffs bladderpod is only known from a single population that
occurs in a narrow band approximately 10 m (33 ft) wide by 17 km (10.6
mi) long, at the upper edge of the White Bluffs of the Hanford Reach.
The species only occurs at the upper surface areas of a near-vertical
exposure of paleosol (ancient, buried soil whose composition may
reflect a climate significantly different from the climate now
prevalent in an area). This surface material overlays several hundred
feet of easily eroded sediments of the Ringold Geologic Formation, a
sedimentary formation made up of soft Pliocene lacustrine deposits of
clay, sand, and silt (Newcomb 1958, p. 330).
The upper part of the Ringold Formation is a heavily calcified and
silicified cap layer that exists to a depth of at least 4.6 m (15 ft).
This layer is geologically referred to as ``caliche,'' although it
lacks the nitrate constituents found in true caliche. The caliche-like
layer is a resistant caprock underlying a 275-305 m (900-1,000 ft)
plateau extending north and east from the White Bluffs (Newcomb 1958,
p. 330).
The entire population of White Bluffs bladderpod is down-slope of
irrigated agricultural land, and is being impacted to differing degrees
by landslides induced by water-seepage (see Factor A). The potential
for landslide is greatest in the southern portion of the species
distribution where irrigated lands are closer to, or directly adjacent
to, the bluffs (Lindsey 1997, p. 12). In addition, field investigations
have determined that Lesquerella (now Physaria) plants can be
outcompeted by nonnative, weedy plant species associated with
irrigation projects and other disturbance (TNC 1998, p. 5).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the
weathered cliffs at approximately 210-275 m (700- 900 ft) above sea
level of the White Bluffs of the Ringold Formation exposed by natural
erosion as a physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation for White Bluffs bladderpod. The habitat includes the
adjacent cliff breaks, moderate to gentle slopes (<100 percent slope)
to the toe of slope, and flat or gently sloping cliff tops with exposed
alkaline paleosols. This habitat is stable with a minimal amount of
landslide occurrence.
[[Page 28729]]
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The White Bluffs area was submerged during the larger ice-age
floods until about 3 million years ago and was protected from high flow
events by the Saddle Mountains to the north. As a result, the area
experienced little or no erosion. A thin layer of ancient slackwater
flood deposits overlay the older paleosols and resistant cap deposits
(Bjornstad and Fecht 2002, p. 15). White Bluffs bladderpod occurs only
on or near exposed, weathered, highly alkaline, calcium carbonate cap
deposits and may be an obligate calciphile (a plant which grows well on
chalky or alkaline soils), as are many of the endemic Lesquerella (now
Physaria) species (Caplow 2006, p. 3).
White Bluffs bladderpod plants are found on several different types
of soil substrates, (e.g., paleosol, volcanic tuff, caliche, and
ancient flood deposits), each of which presumably have a relatively
high percentage of calcium carbonate (TNC 1998, p. 5). The species is
occasionally observed on the lower slopes of the White Bluffs, which
may be related to ancient landslide zones or weathering and disturbance
factors that deposit alkaline soils down slope (Caplow and Beck 1996,
p. 42). Although there are scattered small exposures of similar caliche
substrate in coulees (i.e., deep ravines or gulches that are usually
dry, although formed by water) to the north, surveys have failed to
detect the species in those areas (Rollins et al. 1996, p. 206). The
physiological relationship between White Bluffs bladderpod and the
high-calcium carbonate soils of the White Bluffs is uncertain; however,
the particular combination of exposed soil types where the species
occurs is not known from any other location.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the
weathered alkaline paleosols and mixed soils of the Ringold Formation
that occur in a narrow band within and around the exposed caliche-like
cap containing a high percentage of calcium carbonate as a physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of White Bluffs
bladderpod. This habitat is associated with the White Bluffs, and
occurs between 210-275 m (700-900 ft) in elevation.
Sites for Reproduction
Washington State University researchers on the Hanford Reach have
identified approximately 2,500 different species of invertebrates, 42
of which are new to science (WNPS 2004, p. 3). Larvae of a species of
Cecidomyiid fly have been observed infesting and destroying flowering
buds, and another unidentified insect species has been observed boring
small holes in young seed capsules and feeding on developing ovules,
although the overall positive or negative effects of these insect
species to the plant are unknown. White Bluffs bladderpod appears to be
served by several pollinators, including butterflies, flies, wasps,
bumblebees, moths, beetles, and ant species. The presence of nearby
habitat for pollinators is essential to conserving White Bluffs
bladderpod, although little is currently known about the reproductive
biology of the species. The effective pollinator distance for this
species was determined by applying research on known flight distances
of solitary bees (individual, noncolonial bees), which are known to
pollinate native species and commonly observed in shrub steppe habitat
within the Hanford Reach. Research suggests that different species of
solitary bees have fairly short foraging distances within similar
habitat types (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, p. 762); we assume other
pollinating insects with longer-range flight capabilities would also
utilize this habitat.
Solitary bees foraging distances within similar habitat types is
suggested as being between 150-600 m (495-1,970 ft) (Gathmann and
Tscharntke (2002, pp. 760-762)). Absent specific data, we believe 300 m
(980 ft) represents a reasonable mid-range estimate of the area needed
around the White Bluffs bladderpod population to provide sufficient
habitat for solitary bees and other pollinators. As noted above, many
other insects likely contribute to the pollination of White Bluffs
bladderpod, some may travel greater distances than solitary bees, and
some likely use habitat within the 300-m (980-ft) pollinator area
described above. However, we limited the White Bluffs bladderpod
pollinator support habitat to 300 m (980 ft) around the population,
based on the rationale that pollinators using habitat farther away may
not be as likely to contribute to the conservation/recovery of this
species.
Common plant species associated with White Bluffs bladderpod
include: Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), Poa sandbergii
(Sandberg's bluegrass), Astragalus carieinus (buckwheat milk-vetch),
Eriogonum microthecum (slender buckwheat), and Oryzopsis hymenoides
(Indian ricegrass). Occasionally White Bluffs bladderpod is numerous
enough at some locations to be subdominant.
Species diversity within the surrounding plant community is quite
high, and the presence of increased vegetative cover nearby offers more
habitat structure and plant species diversity within the presumed
effective flight distances of potential pollinators. In order for
genetic exchange to occur between White Bluffs bladderpod individuals,
pollinators must be able to move freely between plants. Additional
pollen and nectar sources (other plant species within the surrounding
sagebrush vegetation) are also needed to support pollinators during
times when White Bluffs bladderpod is not flowering. This surrounding
and adjacent habitat will protect soils and pollinators from
disturbance, slow the invasion of the site by nonnative species, and
provide a diversity of habitats needed by White Bluffs bladderpod and
its pollinators.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify insect
pollinators as a physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation for White Bluffs bladderpod. Insect pollinators require a
diversity of native plants, surrounding and adjacent to White Bluffs
bladderpod, whose blooming times overlap to provide them with
sufficient flowers for foraging throughout the seasons and to provide
nesting and egg-laying sites, appropriate nesting materials, and
sheltered, undisturbed places for hibernation and overwintering of
pollinator species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representing Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions
White Bluffs bladderpod grows exclusively on the upper edge and
upper face of the White Bluffs adjacent to the Columbia River, where
human use can be high. The majority of the population occurs within the
Wahluke Unit of the Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain
National Wildlife Refuge. The Wahluke Unit is open for public access in
some form in its entirety (USFWS 2008, p. 2-4). The habitat is arid,
and vegetation is sparse within the population (Rollins et al. 1996, p.
206). The area supporting the population has approximately 10-15
percent total vegetative cover. Species other than White Bluffs
bladderpod comprise less than 5 percent cover, and nonnative or
invasive plant species comprise less than 1 percent cover (Arnett
2011c, pers. comm.). Much of this area (85 percent) is on public land
that is managed as an overlay national wildlife refuge on the Monument,
and accessible by vehicle from a nearby State highway. Off-road vehicle
(ORV) use can impact the species by crushing
[[Page 28730]]
plants, destabilizing the soil, and spreading seeds of invasive plants.
Within White Bluffs bladderpod habitat, ORV activity is prohibited on
the Hanford Reach National Monument lands, intermittent on other
Federal lands, and is most common on private lands. ORV use increases
soil disturbance and erosion, and has been observed to destroy White
Bluffs bladderpod individuals since this activity more often takes
place on the more moderate slopes where the species occurs (Caplow and
Beck 1996, p. 42).
Fire threatens White Bluffs bladderpod by directly burning plants
and opening new areas to the establishment of invasive species. A large
wildfire burned through the northern portion of the population in July
2007. The observed decline in the number of plants counted after the
2007 fire was within a natural range of variability (between highest
and lowest counts) determined during survey transects. The 2008-2011
monitoring indicated the negative impacts of the burn were less than
expected, since 76 percent of the previous population numbers were
observed the following year. However, large-scale wildfires continue to
be a threat to the existing population (Newsome pers. comm. 2008;
Goldie pers. comm. 2008) by destroying pollinator habitat and
facilitating competition with nonnative and invasive plant species that
become established in openings created by wildfires.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify stable bluff
formations and caliche-like alkaline soils as a physical and biological
feature essential to the conservation for White Bluffs bladderpod.
These areas (1) are at a low risk of wildfire, (2) are not open to
motorized recreational use, (3) are protected from human-caused
trampling, (4) have little or no surface disturbance, (5) are sparsely
vegetated (i.e., have 10 to 15 percent total vegetation cover), and (6)
are surrounded by native pollinator habitat.
Primary Constituent Elements for White Bluffs Bladderpod
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of White Bluffs bladderpod in areas occupied at the time
of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider primary constituent elements to be the specific compositional
elements of physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and the habitat characteristics required to sustain the
species' life-history process, we have determined that the primary
constituent elements specific to White Bluffs bladderpod are:
1. Primary Constituent Element 1--Weathered alkaline paleosols and
mixed soils overlying the Ringold Formation. These soils occur within
and around the exposed caliche-like cap deposits associated with the
White Bluffs of the Ringold Formation, which contain a high percentage
of calcium carbonate. These features occur between 210-275 m (700-900
ft) in elevation.
2. Primary Constituent Element 2--Sparsely vegetated habitat (less
than 10-15 percent total cover), containing low amounts of nonnative or
invasive plant species (less than 1 percent cover).
3. Primary Constituent Element 3--The presence of insect pollinator
species.
4. Primary Constituent Element 4--The presence of native shrub
steppe habitat within the effective pollinator distance (300 m
(approximately 980 ft)).
5. Primary Constituent Element 5--The presence of stable bluff
formations with minimal landslide occurrence.
White Bluffs bladderpod occurs only as a single population found
within a single location. With this proposed designation of critical
habitat, we intend to identify the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, through the
identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of
the primary constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history
processes of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. Because the public can access the White Bluffs bladderpod
population, there is increased risk for plants being trampled and the
spread of nonnative or invasive plants. To address this concern, the
Hanford National Monument may develop a management plan on lands within
its jurisdiction to protect the areas proposed as critical habitat for
White Bluffs bladderpod, while continuing to allow the public to enjoy
the area. Recreational access may be managed and controlled by
directing foot traffic away from the species, installing fencing, and
establishing appropriate signage for pedestrians and ORV traffic across
unprotected boundaries with private and State land.
Special management to protect the proposed critical habitat areas
from irrigation-induced landslides could include working with
landowners through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural
Resources Conservation Service) to support water conservation practices
to reduce excessive groundwater charging. This program could be
designed to increase water efficiency as a savings and benefit to
agricultural producers as well. Management considerations could include
coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation to make water delivery to
its customers more efficient and route wastewater return such that it
reduces groundwater infiltration. Special management to protect the
proposed critical habitat area from the effects of wildfire may include
preventing or restricting the establishment of invasive, nonnative
plant species, post-wildfire restoration with native plant species, and
reducing the likelihood of wildfires affecting the nearby plant
community components. Many of these actions are already in place, and
need only refinement through detailed fire management planning to
protect proposed critical habitat by the Monument.
In summary, special management considerations or protections should
address activities that would be most likely to result in the loss of
White Bluffs bladderpod plants or the disturbance, compaction, or other
negative impacts to the species' habitat through landslides or other
means. These activities could include, but are not limited to,
dispersed recreation, off-road vehicle activity, wildfire, and wildfire
suppression activities.
Existing Conservation Measures
The Service has completed a comprehensive conservation plan for the
Hanford National Monument that provides a strategy and general
conservation measures for rare plants that may benefit White Bluffs
bladderpod. This strategy includes support for monitoring, invasive
species control, fire prevention, propagation, reintroduction and GIS
support (USFWS 2008, pp. 2-64-2-65). The conservation of White Bluffs
bladderpod is addressed by acknowledging that protection is needed, and
that the plant is required to be addressed in any management action
(USFWS 2008, p. 3-95).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing one unit as critical habitat for the White Bluffs
bladderpod
[[Page 28731]]
population. The critical habitat area described below constitutes our
best assessment of that portion of the landscape that meets the
definition of critical habitat for this population. Within this unit,
no subunits have been identified. The approximate size and ownership of
the proposed White Bluffs critical habitat unit is identified in Table
7. The unit includes both occupied and unoccupied habitat.
Table 7--Proposed Critical Habitat Area for White Bluffs Bladderpod
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries; values are rounded to the nearest tenth]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied Unoccupied
critical habitat critical habitat Percent by Total hectares
Unit name Land ownership in hectares in hectares ownership (acres)
(acres) (acres)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White......................................... Federal......................... 87 (216) 884 (2,184) 84 971 (2,400)
Bluffs........................................ State........................... 2 (6) 14 (36) 2 17 (42)
Private......................... 19 (47) 151 (372) 15 170 (419)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 109 (269) 1,049 (2,592) 100 1,158 (2,861)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Umtanum Desert Buckwheat and White Bluffs Bladderpod
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat.
Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th
Cir 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, the key
factor in determining whether an action will destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat is whether, with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve
its intended conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions that require a Federal
permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit
from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some
other Federal action (such as funding from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service or the Bureau of Reclamation). Federal actions not
affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State,
tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as
alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards
Jeopardy Standard
If either species were listed under the Act, the Service would
apply an analytical framework for jeopardy analyses relying heavily on
the importance of habitat parameters at known population sites
essential to the species' survival and recovery. The Service would
focus its section 7(a)(2) analysis not only on these populations but
also on the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of the species in a qualitative fashion without making
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery.
[[Page 28732]]
Generally, the jeopardy analysis would focus on the rangewide status of
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod, the factors
responsible for those conditions, and what is necessary for the species
to survive and recover. An emphasis would also be placed on
characterizing the conditions of these species and their habitat in the
area that would be affected by a proposed Federal action, and the role
of affected populations in the survival and recovery of either Umtanum
desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod. That context would then be
used to determine the significance of the adverse and beneficial
effects of the proposed Federal action, and any cumulative effects for
purposes of making the jeopardy determination.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of the critical habitat for Umtanum desert buckwheat
or White Bluffs bladderpod. As discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support the various life-history needs and provide for
the conservation of both species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in
consultation for Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that
would result in the loss, disturbance, or compaction of unique soils at
cliff breaks, slopes, and flat to gently sloping upper surface areas.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
Recreational activities and associated infrastructure;
Off-road vehicle activity;
Dispersed recreation;
New road construction or widening or existing road
maintenance;
New energy transmission lines, or expansion of existing
energy transmission lines;
Maintenance of existing energy transmission line
corridors;
Wildfire suppression and post-wildfire rehabilitation
activities;
Activities that result in the burial of seeds such that
germinants do not successfully reach the soil surface to flower and set
seed;
Activities that result in compaction that smoothes the
surface, causing seeds to be carried away by wind or water due to the
lack of rough surface textures to capture seed;
Activities that result in changes in soil composition
leading to changes in the vegetation composition, such as an increase
in invasive, nonnative plant cover within and adjacent to cliff break
microsites, resulting in decreased density or vigor of individual
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod plants; and
Activities that result in changes in soil permeability and
increased runoff that degrades, reduces, or eliminates habitat
necessary for growth and reproduction of either species.
(2) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that
would result in the significant alteration of intact, native,
sagebrush-steppe habitat within the range of Umtanum desert buckwheat
or White Bluffs bladderpod. Such activities could include:
ORV activities and dispersed recreation;
New road construction or widening or existing road
maintenance;
New energy transmission lines or expansion of existing
energy transmission lines;
Maintenance of existing energy transmission line
corridors;
Fuels management projects such as prescribed burning; and
Rehabilitation or restoration activities using plant
species that may compete with Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs
bladderpod, or not adequately address habitat requirements for insect
pollinators.
These activities could result in the replacement or fragmentation
of sagebrush-steppe habitat through the degradation or loss of native
shrubs, grasses, and forbs in a manner that promotes increased wildfire
frequency and intensity, and an increase in the cover of invasive,
nonnative plant species that would compete for soil matrix components
and moisture necessary to support the growth and reproduction of either
species.
(3) Actions within or near designated critical habitat that would
significantly reduce pollination or seed set (reproduction). Such
activities could include, but are not limited to:
Recreational development and associated infrastructure;
and
Use of pesticides, mowing, fuels management projects such
as prescribed burning, and post-wildfire rehabilitation activities
using plant species that may compete with Umtanum desert buckwheat or
White Bluffs bladderpod.
These activities could prevent or reduce successful reproduction by
removal or destruction of reproductive plant parts and could impact the
habitat needs of generalist insect pollinators through habitat
degradation and fragmentation, reducing the availability of insect
pollinators for either species.
The occupied areas proposed as critical habitat contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod, and are within
the historical geographic range of the species. The unoccupied areas
are essential to the conservation of the species because they provide
areas needed by insect pollinators. Federal agencies would need to
consult with us to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species, or adversely affect designated
critical habitat, if the species are listed under the Act.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat
[[Page 28733]]
enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), or designated
for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no DOD lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate will result in the
extinction of the species. In making that determination, the
legislative history is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider all relevant impacts,
including economic impacts. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have prepared a draft analysis of the economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat (DEA), which is available as
supporting information for the proposed critical habitat designation.
This document is available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or from the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The DEA evaluates
potential economic impacts of the designation, considering land
ownership, reasonably foreseeable land use activities, potential
Federal agency actions within the area and section 7 consultation
requirements, baseline conservation measures (i.e., measures that would
be implemented regardless of the critical habitat designation), and
incremental conservation measures (i.e., measures that would be
attributed exclusively to the critical habitat designation).
The DEA concludes that incremental economic impacts are unlikely,
given the species' narrow geographic range and the fact that any
economic impacts related to conservation efforts to avoid adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat would be, for the most
part, indistinguishable from those that would be required because of
the listing of the species under the Act. Although unoccupied critical
habitat areas are typically where incremental effects would be
expected, in this case unoccupied critical habitat areas that support
insect pollinators are immediately adjacent to occupied critical
habitat. The effects of an action in occupied critical habitat would be
analyzed concurrently with regard to its effects to unoccupied critical
habitat. We anticipate that, in most cases, conservation
recommendations or conservation recommendations would be identical,
regardless of the critical habitat type. The DEA concludes that any
incremental costs would be limited to additional administrative costs
that would be borne by Federal agencies associated with section 7
consultations. During the development of the final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information.
Certain areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and or implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
At this time, we are not proposing any exclusions of areas from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Umtanum desert
buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod. During the comment period for the
proposed designation of critical habitat, we will consider any
available information about areas covered by conservation or management
plans that we should consider for exclusion from the designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, including whether the benefits of exclusion
would outweigh the benefits of their inclusion and whether exclusion
would or would not result in the extinction of the species. We are
specifically asking for public comment on the benefits of exclusion
versus inclusion of private lands in the designation of critical
habitat, and will determine whether any such lands may merit exclusion
from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, we
will evaluate all comments provided during the public comment period of
this proposed rule on whether the benefits of excluding any particular
area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area
in critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the DOD where a national security impact
might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the
lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for either of
the species are not owned or managed by the DOD and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact to national security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from
the final designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or
other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans that specifically address
management needs for either of the species, and the proposed
designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact to Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does
not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on
[[Page 28734]]
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our
determination of status for this species is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer
reviewers to comment, during this public comment period, on the
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to list
Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod as threatened, and
our proposed determinations regarding critical habitat for these
species.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) provides for one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after
the date of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such
requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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 and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we considered the potential
number of small entities potentially affected within the particular
types of economic activities most likely to be affected. In order to
determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, we considered each industry or category
individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement. Since the predominant private land use that could be
impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation for White Bluffs
bladderpod appears to be irrigated agriculture, we focused our RFA and
SBREFA analyses to that particular activity. The proposed designation
is focused on Federal, State, and private lands that contain occupied
habitat and the adjacent areas with native shrub steppe vegetation that
provides nearby habitat for insect pollinators. Lands that are under
agricultural use are not included in the proposed critical habitat
designation.
In 2007, Franklin County, Washington, had 891 farms, which
encompassed 246,664 ha (609,046 ac) and had an average farm size of 277
ha (684 ac, (http://www.co.franklin.wa.us/assessor/demo_countywide.html). The Franklin County data indicates that 393,025 acres
were in irrigated agriculture. The market value of agricultural
products sold was $467 million, and the net cash return from
agricultural sales was $116.8 million. For purposes of this analysis,
we assumed the entire critical habitat designation proposed on private
lands (170 ha (419 ac)) could be used for irrigated agriculture, to
determine the scope of maximum impact for the proposed designation on
small entities (i.e., the worst-case scenario). Although the DEA does
not differentiate between the acreage most likely suitable for
agricultural use and the acreage not suitable for such use, much of the
170 ha (419 ac) is steep, and contains numerous cliffs, high gradient
draws, and areas of active and dormant soil fracturing and sloughing.
Accordingly, the DEA represents an upper bound, and likely overstates
the potential economic impacts to small entities.
Based on Franklin County, Washington 2007 data, the proposed
designation would overlay approximately 1/10 of 1 percent of the total
irrigated acres (159,175 ha (393,025 ac)) in the county. Approximately
65 percent of the total land in farms (609,046 acres) consists of
irrigated acreage (393,025 acres). The 2007 irrigated-acres value would
proportionally represent approximately $304 million of the total market
value of all agricultural products sold ($467 million). Each irrigated
acre, therefore, proportionally represents approximately $724 in value/
year, based on the 2007 data. Based on this calculation, the maximum
economic impact for the entire 419 acres of private land proposed as
critical habitat would be $303,559 if all acreage were conducive to and
planned for irrigation agricultural use. However, since much of this
acreage is not suitable for agriculture based on topography, the actual
economic impact would likely be considerably less. Based on this
analysis (see Table 6), the proposed designation of critical habitat
within the 419 acres of private property would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the
average size of a farm in Franklin County, Washington, is 277 ha (684
ac), 170 ha (419 ac) represents approximately 61 percent of the size of
one average farm; there are 891 farms in the County. Each private
property acre within the proposed critical habitat designation
potentially represents approximately $724 in annual value based on 2007
data, although a substantial percentage of this acreage is
[[Page 28735]]
not conducive to agricultural use because of steep topography and
erosion potential. In addition, the designation of critical habitat
would not affect private property unless a proposed development
activity required Federal authorization or involved Federal funding,
which is uncertain.
Table 8--Potential Upper Bound Economic Impact to Private Land of the
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for White Bluffs Bladderpod *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Variable Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Total land in farms (acres)..... (a) 609,046
2. Lands in irrigated farms (acres) (b) 393,025
3. Market value agricultural (c) $467,014,000
products sold.....................
4. Net cash return from (d) $116,803,000
agricultural sales................
5. Proposed critical habitat acres. (e) 419
6. Percent of (a) represented by (f) 65%
(b): [(b) / (a)]..................
7. Proportional (d) represented by (g) $303,559,100
(b): [(b) x 0.65].................
8. Percentage of (b) represented by (h) 0.001%
(e): [(e) / (b)]..................
9. Proportional value of (g) (i) $303,559
represented by (e): [(g) x (h)]...
10. Proportional value (i) per acre (j) $724
(e): [(i) / (e)]..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on 2007 Franklin County tax assessor data.
Other than the above 170 ha (419 ac), the remainder of the areas
proposed as critical habitat for White Bluffs bladderpod are either on
State or Federal lands, and the proposed critical habitat designation
for Umtanum desert buckwheat is entirely on Federal land. Federal and
State governments are not considered small entities for purposes of our
RFA analysis.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we have
not identified a significant number of small entities that may be
impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation, based on land
ownership information. Small entities are consequently anticipated to
bear a relatively low cost impact as a result of the designation of
critical habitat for Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs
bladderpod. Accordingly, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Seventeen high-voltage transmission lines cross the
Monument boundaries, 11 of which cross the Hanford Reach. There are
also two electric substations and several microwave towers located
within the Monument boundaries. Periodic patrols and 24-hour access for
emergency replacement of failed equipment are required for these
facilities, and lines are patrolled by helicopter usually three times
each year to assess potential problem areas. Helicopters may also be
used in lieu of ground vehicles for maintenance or repairs (FWS 2008,
p. 3-168). Other than an existing Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
overhead transmission line near the Umtanum desert buckwheat population
on lands administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), there are no
energy facilities within the footprint of the proposed critical habitat
boundaries. The BPA has existing agreements with the DOE (the agency
managing the land where the Umtanum desert buckwheat population occurs)
for management of transmission line rights-of-way, access roads,
microwave tower lines-of-sight, electric power substations, and other
sites. The BPA will likely need to expand its existing transmission
system in the vicinity of the Monument to meet future needs for moving
electricity from generation sources in Montana, northern Idaho, and
northeastern Washington to load centers in the Pacific Northwest.
Any activities related to transmission system expansion would first
require study and analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
and coordination with the DOE and FWS to ensure protection of the
Monument's natural and cultural resources (USFWS 2008, p. 3-169). This
analysis would be required regardless of the designation of critical
habitat for Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs bladderpod.
However, we have no information indicating that new energy projects are
planned for areas within the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat units, or that any of the maintenance activities described
above would affect either the Umtanum desert buckwheat or White Bluffs
bladderpod populations. Accordingly, we do not expect the designation
of this proposed critical habitat to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. Any comments received addressing energy supply will be fully
considered and addressed in the final rule. The DOE Richland Operations
Office is supportive of the Service's efforts to list Umtanum desert
buckwheat under the Act (DOE 2011).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
[[Page 28736]]
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The lands being proposed for critical habitat
designation are predominantly owned by the Department of Energy and the
Department of the Interior. These government entities do not fit the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings implications.
As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only
Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency
for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
We do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the
critical habitat designation, but will fully consider all comments in
this regard. We will revise this preliminary assessment as warranted,
and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment, based on those comments,
if needed.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with the appropriate State resource
agencies in Washington. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to
those currently in place and, therefore, may have little incremental
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule identifies the physical and biological features
within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of both Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs
bladderpod.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new 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.). This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was
upheld by the U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the 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.
[[Page 28737]]
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above.
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.
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. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997, ``American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Native American Indian
culture, and to make information available to Tribes. Neither Umtanum
desert buckwheat nor White Bluffs bladderpod occurs on Tribal lands,
and there are no unoccupied areas essential to the conservation of
either species on Tribal lands. Therefore, we are not proposing any
Tribal lands as critical habitat for either Umtanum desert buckwheat or
White Bluffs bladderpod. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakima Nation indicated they have interest in protecting and managing
resources occurring in the Ceded Territories designated under the
Treaty of 1855. The Tribe submitted a letter stating they are
supportive of the proposed ``Federal special status listing'' of
Umtanum desert buckwheat and White Bluffs bladderpod.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or upon
request from the Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Central Washington Field Office.
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]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding entries for ``Eriogonum codium''
(Umtanum desert buckwheat) and ``Physaria douglasii subsp.
tuplashensis'' (White Bluffs bladderpod) to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under Flowering Plants to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
----------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When Critical Special
Scientific name Common name listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Eriogonum codium................... Umtanum desert U.S.A. (WA).......... Polygonaceae......... T .......... 17.96(a) NA
buckwheat.
* * * * * * *
Physaria douglasii subsp. White Bluffs bladder- U.S.A. (WA).......... Brassicaceae......... T .......... 17.96(a) NA
Tuplashensis. pod.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for
``Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs bladderpod)'' in
alphabetical order under Family Brassicaceae and an entry for
``Eriogonum codium (Umtanum desert buckwheat)'' in alphabetical order
under Family Polygonaceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplahensis (White
Bluffs bladderpod)
(1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Franklin County,
Washington, on the map at paragraph (5) of this entry.
(2) The primary constituent elements of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of critical habitat for Physaria
douglasii subsp. tuplashensis are the following:
(i) Weathered alkaline paleosols and mixed soils overlying the
Ringold Formation. These soils occur within and around the exposed
caliche-like cap deposits associated with the White Bluffs of the
Ringold Formation, which contain a high percentage of calcium
carbonate. These features occur between 210-275 m (700-900 ft) in
elevation.
(ii) Sparsely vegetated habitat (less than 10-15 percent total
cover), containing low amounts of nonnative or invasive plant species
(less than 1 percent cover).
(iii) The presence of insect pollinator species.
(iv) The presence of native shrub steppe habitat within the
effective pollinator distance (300 m (approximately 980 ft)).
(v) The presence of stable bluff formations with minimal landslide
occurrence.
[[Page 28738]]
(3) Critical habitat does not include irrigated private lands or
manmade structures (such as buildings, pavement, or other structures)
and the land on which they are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4) This critical habitat unit was mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator, Zone 11, North American Datum 1983 (UTM NAD 83)
coordinates. These coordinates establish the vertices of the unit
boundaries.
(5) Note: Map of critical habitat for Physaria douglasii subsp.
tuplashensis (White Bluffs bladderpod) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MY12.016
[[Page 28739]]
* * * * *
Family Polygonaceae: Eriogonum codium (Umtanum desert buckwheat)
(1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Benton County,
Washington, on the map at paragraph (5) of this entry.
(2) The primary constituent elements of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of Eriogonum codium are the
following:
(i) North- to northeast-facing, weathered basalt cliffs of the
Wanapum Formation at the far eastern end of Umtanum Ridge in Benton
County that contain outcrops, cliff breaks, slopes, and flat or gently
sloping cliff tops with exposed pebble and gravel soils.
(ii) Pebbly lithosol talus soils derived from surface weathering of
the top of the Lolo Flow of the Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum
Formation.
(iii) Sparsely vegetated habitat (less than 10 percent total
cover), containing low amounts of nonnative or invasive plant species
(less than 1 percent cover).
(iv) The presence of insect pollinator species.
(v) The presence of native shrub steppe habitat within the
effective pollinator distance (300 m (approximately 980 ft)) around the
population.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, pavement, or other structures) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) This critical habitat unit was mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator, Zone 11, North American Datum 1983 (UTM NAD 83)
coordinates. These coordinates establish the vertices of the unit
boundaries.
(5) Note: Map of critical habitat for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum
desert buckwheat) follows:
[[Page 28740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MY12.017
* * * * *
Dated: April 24, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-11100 Filed 5-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C