Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist Sclerocactus wrightiae, 44544-44547 [05-15301]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44544
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to
filing comments with the FCC,
interested parties should serve the
petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford,
4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75205.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
05–230, adopted July 13, 2005, and
released July 15, 2005. The complete
text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054,
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. This document
does not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules
governing permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Missouri is amended
by adding Auxvasse, Channel 235A, by
removing Channel 234C and by adding
Channel 234C0 at Crestwood.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:21 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–14960 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Delist Sclerocactus
wrightiae (Wright Fishhook Cactus)
and Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition
finding and initiation of a 5-year status
review.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a
90-day finding for a petition to remove
Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright fishhook
cactus), throughout its range, from the
Federal list of threatened and
endangered species, pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We reviewed the
petition and supporting documentation
and find that there is not substantial
information indicating that delisting of
Wright fishhook cactus may be
warranted. Therefore, we will not be
initiating a further 12-month status
review in response to this petition.
However, we are initiating a 5-year
review of this species under section
4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA that will consider
new information that has become
available since the listing of the species.
This will provide the States, Tribes,
other agencies, university researchers,
and the public an opportunity to
provide information on the status of the
species. We are requesting any new
information on the Wright fishhook
cactus that has become available since
its original listing as an endangered
species in 1979.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on August 3, 2005.
To be considered in the 5-year review,
comments and information should be
submitted to us by October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, written
comments and materials, or questions
concerning this petition finding and 5year review should be submitted to the
Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological
Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite
50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. The
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
complete file for this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Barnes, Botanist, (see
ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright
fishhook cactus) is a small barrel shaped
cactus, with short central spines. Mature
adults produce vessel-shaped, creamcolored flowers with magenta filaments.
Wright fishhook cactus is known to
occur across portions of four counties in
Utah. It has been found on soil
formations, such as Emery sandstone,
Mancos shale, Dakota sandstone,
Morrison, Summerville, Curtis, Entrada
sandstone, Carmel, Moenkopi, and
alluvium (Neese 1987; Clark and
Groebner 2003). Vegetation associations
include semi-barren sites within desert
scrub or open pinyon juniper woodland
communities at 1,300 to 2,300 meters
(4,200 to 7,600 feet) in elevation. On
October 11, 1979, we listed Wright
fishhook cactus as an endangered
species (44 FR 58866) based on its
limited population size and distribution
as well as known and potential threats
from collection, mineral resource
exploration and extraction activities,
and off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in
50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not
prove that the petitioned action is
warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’
finding; instead, the key consideration
in evaluating a petition for
substantiality involves demonstration of
the reliability and adequacy of the
information supporting the action
advocated by the petition. We do not
conduct additional research at this
point, nor do we subject the petition to
rigorous critical review. If we find
substantial information exists to support
the petitioned action, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of
the species (50 CFR 424.14).
On February 3, 1997, we received a
petition from the National Wilderness
Institute, to remove Wright fishhook
cactus from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants on the
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
basis of ‘‘original data error.’’ To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make the finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and must
promptly publish the finding in the
Federal Register. On June 29, 1998, we
provided a written response to the
petitioner explaining our inability to act
upon the petition due to the low priority
assigned to delisting petitions in our
Listing Priority Guidance Fiscal Year
1997 (61 FR 64475). That guidance
identified delisting activities as the
lowest priority (Tier 4). Due to the large
number of higher priority listing actions
and a limited listing budget, we did not
conduct any delisting activities during
the Fiscal Year 1997. On May 8, 1998,
we published the 1998 and 1999 Listing
Priority Guidance in the Federal
Register (63 FR 25502) and, again,
placed delisting activities at the bottom
of our priority list. Beginning in 1999,
work on delisting (including delisting
petition findings) was included in the
line item for the recovery program
instead of the listing program (64 FR
27596). Since 1999, higher priority work
has further precluded our ability to act
upon this petition.
Review of the Petition
At the time of listing, in 1979, 5
scattered cactus populations, which
included at least 14 occupied sites, were
known to occur in Emery and Wayne
Counties, Utah, but the plant was not
abundant at any 1 location (44 FR
58866: Neese 1986). The petition cited
our 1990 Report to Congress:
Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery Program (1990 Report to
Congress), which said, ‘‘Population and
habitat inventories have identified a
greater abundance, range distribution,
and additional populations of this
species than originally known (USFWS
1990).’’ By July 1990, inventories by
Neese (1987) and Kass (1990) increased
the known distribution within Emery
and Wayne Counties by documenting
212 occupied sites, but provided no
population estimate. As of April 2005,
inventories have documented Wright
fishhook cactus in portions of Utah’s
Emery County, Sevier County, Wayne
County, and Garfield County at a total
of 264 sites (Neese 1987; Kass 1990; San
Juan College 1994; Clark 2001, 2002a,
2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002;
Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al.
2004).
At the time of listing, a population
estimate was not available. The 1982
Technical Review Draft for the
Sclerocactus wrightiae Recovery Plan
provided a population estimate of 2,000
individuals (USFWS 1982). This
estimate was not included in the final
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:21 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
recovery plan because complete
inventory and population counts had
not been conducted, casting doubt on
the figure’s accuracy (USFWS 1985).
Based on recent actual counts of
individual cacti and recent population
estimates, the population total may
range from 4,500 to 21,000 individuals
(Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b;
Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004;
Clark 2005 unpublished excel data; Kass
1990; Neese 1987). The high end of this
range is based on estimates of
questionable reliability. For example, at
one site 18 cacti were counted, but the
estimated population suggested there
may be as many as 500 individuals (Heil
1994). At another site, 384 plants were
counted, but the population was
estimated to potentially include as
many as 10,000 to 15,000 cacti (Heil
1994). Thus, the Service considers the
high end of this range an overestimate.
From 1999 to 2002, an interagency
rare plant team (Clark 2002a) revisited
104 known Wright fishhook cacti sites
where at least 10 years had passed since
the last survey, as documented by Neese
(1987) and Kass (1990). Sixty-five
percent of these sites (68 sites) had
fewer or no cacti when revisited, while
35 percent (36 sites) had the same or a
greater number of individuals present
(Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b;
Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004;
unpublished excel data Clark 2005, Kass
1990, Neese 1987). Based on
demographic monitoring information
collected from 1993 to 2000, Kass
(2001a; Intermountain Ecosystems 2003)
found—(1) No sizable populations with
adults larger than 9.0 centimeters (3.5
inches) wide, which represent the most
reproductive size-class; (2) that
populations showed low recruitment
with a mortality-to-recruitment ratio of
2.5 to 1; and (3) the species was
experiencing a slow decline. Overall,
the species appears to be experiencing
a population recession (Kass, pers.
comm. 1997; Kass, pers. comm. 2004).
Documented declines appear to be
linked to—(1) Changes in reproductive
age-class structure (primarily influenced
by cactus borer beetle (Moneilma
semipunctatum) and collection
activities); (2) direct mortality (the
documented causes of which include
cactus borer beetle predation, cattle
trampling, and crushing by ORVs); and
(3) habitat disturbance (including cattle
use, ORV activities, hiking and horse
trails, dirt bikes, non-designated
parking, road grading, and group
camping) (Clark and Groebner 2003;
Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44545
Conservation Status
In addition to discussing the
distribution, status and trends of the
species, the petition also asserts that
‘‘other new scientific information
gathered since the time of listing already
in the possession of the USFWS’’
indicates that the species should be
delisted. Because the ESA requires an
analysis of the threats faced by the
species before delisting can occur, we
consider that the petition is referencing
information affecting these threats.
Therefore, what follows below is a
preliminary review of the factors
affecting this species.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The 1979 listing included mineral
exploration, ORV use, and development
for a power generation station as threats
to the species’ habitat and range (44 FR
58866). Additionally, the best scientific
and commercial information currently
available suggests that direct mortality
has been caused by cattle trampling and
crushing by ORVs, and that habitat
disturbance has been caused by cattle
use, ORV activities, hiking and
horseback riding, dirt bike use, nondesignated parking, road grading, and
group camping when conducted in nondesignated areas (Clark and Groebner
2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a,
2001b). The petition provided no
information addressing these factors.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The original listing stated that ‘‘one of
the major factors in the decline of this
species at present is field collection by
amateur and professional cactus fanciers
for commercial and hobby purposes.
These fanciers could quickly reduce
known populations if protective
measures are not initiated’’ (44 FR
58866). Documented illegal collection
activities continue to be a significant
factor negatively affecting reproduction
and population structure (Clark and
Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas
2001a, 2001b). The petition provided no
information addressing this factor.
C. Disease or Predation
The original listing suggested disease
and predation were not factors
impacting the extinction probability of
Wright fishhook cactus (44 FR 58866).
The best scientific and commercial
information currently available suggests
predation by the cactus borer beetle,
which may select for larger adult cacti,
is causing direct mortality and affecting
population age-class structure (Clark
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
44546
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004;
Kaas 2001a, 2001b). The petition
provided no information addressing this
factor.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The original listing suggested that
Utah State law provided no protections
for the species (44 FR 58866); the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) provided protection
against international trade, but ‘‘[did]
not help regarding internal trade’’ (44
FR 58866); and ‘‘Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) regulations offer
some protection to vegetative resources,
but do not address Wright fishhook
cactus directions’’ (44 FR 58866). The
petition did not discuss the adequacy of
regulatory measures.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
The original listing suggested that the
species was ‘‘extremely limited in range
* * *, extremely vulnerable to any sort
of disturbance and could be completely
extirpated by even the most trivial
mishap’’ (44 FR 58866). The petition
cites our 1990 Recovery Report to
Congress, which suggested ‘‘a greater
abundance, range distribution, and
additional populations of this species
than originally known’’ (USFWS 1990).
Individual sites remain vulnerable to
extirpation through disturbance. Many
of the known Wright fishhook cactus
sites are small in number (less than 25
plants) and widely separated in distance
(Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b;
Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004;
Kass 1990; Neese 1987). Across a 10year period, 65 percent of documented
populations experienced a decline or
extirpation (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b;
Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004;
Clark 2005 unpublished excel data; Kass
1990; Neese 1987). Based on the above
discussion, we do not believe that the
petition has presented substantial
scientific information to indicate that
other natural or manmade factors no
longer threaten the continued existence
of Wright fishhook cactus throughout all
or a significant portion of the species’
range.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and
literature cited in the petition and
evaluated that information in relation to
other pertinent literature and
information available in our files.
Although greater population numbers
and distribution of Wright fishhook
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:21 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
cactus are known to occur today
compared to available information at the
time of the 1979 listing, recent sitespecific population threats and declines
also have been documented (Kass
2001a; Kass 2001b; Clark and Groebner
2003; Clark et al. 2004). The petitioner
stated that ‘‘other new scientific
information gathered since the time of
listing which is in possession of the
Service’’ supports delisting; however,
the petition did not identify this new
scientific information. In addition, the
petitioner did not include any detailed
narrative justification for the delisting of
Wright fishhook cactus or provide
information regarding the status of the
species over a significant portion of its
range or include any persuasive
supporting documentation for the
recommended administrative measure
to delist the species. After this review
and evaluation, we find the petition
does not present substantial information
to indicate that delisting the Wright
fishhook cactus may be warranted at
this time.
Five-Year Review
Under the Act, the Service maintains
a List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plant species at 50 CFR
17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for
plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act
requires that we conduct a review of
listed species at least once every 5 years.
We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to
determine on the basis of such a review,
whether or not any species should be
removed from the List (delisted), or
reclassified from endangered to
threatened or threatened to endangered.
Delisting a species must be supported
by the best scientific and commercial
data available and only considered if
such data substantiate that the species is
neither endangered nor threatened for
one or more of the following reasons: (1)
The species is considered extinct; (2)
the species is considered to be
recovered; and/or (3) the original data
available when the species was listed, or
the interpretation of such data, were in
error. Any change in Federal
classification would require a separate
rulemaking process. Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish
a notice in the Federal Register
announcing those species currently
under active review. This notice
announces our initiation of a 5-year
review of Wright fishhook cactus.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the 5-year review is
complete, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or
suggestions on Wright fishhook cactus
from the public, other concerned
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
governmental agencies, Tribes, the
scientific community, industry,
environmental entities, or any other
interested parties. Information sought
includes any data regarding historical
and current distribution, biology and
ecology, ongoing conservation measures
for the species, and threats to the
species. We also request information
regarding the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review will consider the
best scientific and commercial data
regarding the Wright fishhook cactus
that has become available since the
current listing determination or most
recent status review, such as:
(1) Species biology, including but not
limited to population trends,
distribution, abundance, demographics,
genetics, and taxonomy;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but
not limited to amount, distribution, and
suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have
been implemented that benefit the
species;
(4) Threat status and trends; and
(5) Other new information or data.
If you wish to comment on the 5-year
review, you may submit information to
the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES). Our
practice is to make comments, including
names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours.
Respondents may request that we
withhold a respondent’s identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish to
withhold your name or address, you
must state this request prominently at
the beginning of your comment.
However, we will not consider
anonymous comments. To the extent
consistent with applicable law, we will
make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
the Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Heather Barnes, Botanist, Utah
Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES
section).
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 19, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05–15301 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU22; 1018–AI48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove
the Arizona Distinct Population
Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous
Pygmy-Owl From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Proposal To Withdraw the Proposed
Rule To Designate Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (Act), as amended, propose to
remove the Arizona distinct population
segment (DPS) of the cactus ferruginous
pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum
cactorum) (pygmy-owl) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and accordingly to eliminate its
designated critical habitat. The Arizona
DPS of the pygmy-owl was listed as
endangered on March 10, 1997 (62 FR
10730), and critical habitat was
designated on July 12, 1999 (64 FR
37419). On January 9, 2001, a coalition
of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the
District Court of Arizona challenging the
validity of our listing of the pygmy-owl
as a DPS and the designation of its
critical habitat. After the District Court
of Arizona remanded the designation of
critical habitat (National Association of
Home Builders et al. v. Norton, Civ.–00–
0903–PHX–SRB), we proposed a new
critical habitat designation on
November 27, 2002 (67 FR 7102).
Ultimately, as a result of this lawsuit,
the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on
August 19, 2003, stating that ‘‘the FWS
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
designating the Arizona pygmy-owl
population as a DPS under the DPS
Policy’’ (National Association of Home
Builders v. Norton, 340 F. 3d 835, 852
(9th Cir. 2003)). In light of the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion, we have reassessed
the application of the DPS significance
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:21 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
44547
criteria to the Arizona pygmy-owl.
Based on our assessment, we do not
believe that the available information
and science satisfy the criteria to
indicate that pygmy-owls in Arizona are
an entity that qualifies for listing under
the Act. Accordingly, we propose to
remove the Arizona population of
pygmy-owls from the list in 50 CFR
17.11, remove the critical habitat
designation for this population at 50
CFR 17.95, and withdraw our November
27, 2002, proposed rule to designate
new critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments until
October 3, 2005. Public hearing requests
must be received by September 19,
2005.
(3) Additional information related to
current versus historical range, current
distribution, genetic diversity, and
population sizes of the Arizona pygmyowl population and its contribution to
the taxon as a whole;
(4) Status of the pygmy-owl in
Mexico, particularly threats to
populations or habitat; and
(5) Information related to
discreteness, significance, and
conservation status of any potential
pygmy-owl DPS.
We will take into consideration the
comments and any additional
information received, and such
communications may lead to a final
determination that differs from this
proposal.
Comments and materials
concerning the proposed delisting of the
Arizona DPS of the pygmy-owl should
be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 2321
West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, Arizona 85021–4951. Written
comments may also be sent by facsimile
to 602/242–2513. Comments and
materials received will be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES) (telephone 602/242–0210;
facsimile 602/242–2513).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)
(pygmy-owl) is in the order Strigiformes
and the family Strigidae. It is a small
bird, approximately 17 centimeters (cm)
(6.75 inches (in)) long. Males average 62
grams (g) (2.2 ounces (oz)), and females
average 75 g (2.6 oz). The pygmy-owl is
reddish brown overall, with a creamcolored belly streaked with reddish
brown. Color may vary, with some
individuals being more grayish brown.
The crown is lightly streaked, and a pair
of black/dark brown spots outlined in
white occur on the nape suggesting
‘‘eyes.’’ This species lacks ear tufts, and
the eyes are yellow. The tail is relatively
long for an owl and is colored reddish
brown with darker brown bars
(Proudfoot and Johnson 2000). The
pygmy-owl is primarily diurnal (active
during daylight) with crepuscular
(active at dawn and dusk) tendencies.
They can be heard making a long,
monotonous series of short, repetitive
notes, mostly during the breeding
season (Proudfoot and Johnson 2000).
The pygmy-owl is one of four
subspecies of the ferruginous pygmyowl. It occurs from lowland central
Arizona south through western Mexico
to the States of Colima and Michoacan,
and from southern Texas south through
the Mexican States of Tamaulipas and
Nuevo Leon. Only the Arizona
population of the pygmy-owl is listed as
an endangered species (62 FR 10730;
March 10, 1997).
Historically, pygmy-owls were
recorded in association with riparian
woodlands in central and southern
Arizona (Bendire 1892; Gilman 1909;
Johnson et al. 1987). Plants present in
these riparian communities included
cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow
(Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus velutina), and
hackberry (Celtis spp.). However, recent
records have documented that pygmy-
ADDRESSES:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be
based on the best available information.
We have gathered and evaluated new
information related to the pygmy-owl
that has become available since the 1997
listing and are seeking any other pygmyowl information. We will continue to
support surveys of pygmy-owls in
Mexico to further elucidate the status of
the species in Mexico, and to identify
threats to the population.
We are soliciting comments or
suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We are particularly
interested in comments concerning:
(1) Biological, genetic, and/or
morphological data related to the
taxonomic classification of the pygmyowl throughout its current range;
(2) The location and characteristics of
any additional populations not
considered in previous work that might
have bearing on the current population
status;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44544-44547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15301]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Delist Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright Fishhook Cactus)
and Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition finding and initiation of a 5-year
status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a 90-
day finding for a petition to remove Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright
fishhook cactus), throughout its range, from the Federal list of
threatened and endangered species, pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We reviewed the petition and supporting
documentation and find that there is not substantial information
indicating that delisting of Wright fishhook cactus may be warranted.
Therefore, we will not be initiating a further 12-month status review
in response to this petition. However, we are initiating a 5-year
review of this species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA that will
consider new information that has become available since the listing of
the species. This will provide the States, Tribes, other agencies,
university researchers, and the public an opportunity to provide
information on the status of the species. We are requesting any new
information on the Wright fishhook cactus that has become available
since its original listing as an endangered species in 1979.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 3,
2005. To be considered in the 5-year review, comments and information
should be submitted to us by October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, written comments and materials, or
questions concerning this petition finding and 5-year review should be
submitted to the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West
Valley City, Utah 84119. The complete file for this finding is
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Barnes, Botanist, (see
ADDRESSES) (telephone 801-975-3330).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright fishhook cactus) is a small barrel
shaped cactus, with short central spines. Mature adults produce vessel-
shaped, cream-colored flowers with magenta filaments. Wright fishhook
cactus is known to occur across portions of four counties in Utah. It
has been found on soil formations, such as Emery sandstone, Mancos
shale, Dakota sandstone, Morrison, Summerville, Curtis, Entrada
sandstone, Carmel, Moenkopi, and alluvium (Neese 1987; Clark and
Groebner 2003). Vegetation associations include semi-barren sites
within desert scrub or open pinyon juniper woodland communities at
1,300 to 2,300 meters (4,200 to 7,600 feet) in elevation. On October
11, 1979, we listed Wright fishhook cactus as an endangered species (44
FR 58866) based on its limited population size and distribution as well
as known and potential threats from collection, mineral resource
exploration and extraction activities, and off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. ``Substantial information'' is
defined in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ``that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the
petitioned action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding;
instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for
substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy
of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition. We
do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the
petition to rigorous critical review. If we find substantial
information exists to support the petitioned action, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of the species (50 CFR 424.14).
On February 3, 1997, we received a petition from the National
Wilderness Institute, to remove Wright fishhook cactus from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants on the
[[Page 44545]]
basis of ``original data error.'' To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and must promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register. On June
29, 1998, we provided a written response to the petitioner explaining
our inability to act upon the petition due to the low priority assigned
to delisting petitions in our Listing Priority Guidance Fiscal Year
1997 (61 FR 64475). That guidance identified delisting activities as
the lowest priority (Tier 4). Due to the large number of higher
priority listing actions and a limited listing budget, we did not
conduct any delisting activities during the Fiscal Year 1997. On May 8,
1998, we published the 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority Guidance in the
Federal Register (63 FR 25502) and, again, placed delisting activities
at the bottom of our priority list. Beginning in 1999, work on
delisting (including delisting petition findings) was included in the
line item for the recovery program instead of the listing program (64
FR 27596). Since 1999, higher priority work has further precluded our
ability to act upon this petition.
Review of the Petition
At the time of listing, in 1979, 5 scattered cactus populations,
which included at least 14 occupied sites, were known to occur in Emery
and Wayne Counties, Utah, but the plant was not abundant at any 1
location (44 FR 58866: Neese 1986). The petition cited our 1990 Report
to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program (1990
Report to Congress), which said, ``Population and habitat inventories
have identified a greater abundance, range distribution, and additional
populations of this species than originally known (USFWS 1990).'' By
July 1990, inventories by Neese (1987) and Kass (1990) increased the
known distribution within Emery and Wayne Counties by documenting 212
occupied sites, but provided no population estimate. As of April 2005,
inventories have documented Wright fishhook cactus in portions of
Utah's Emery County, Sevier County, Wayne County, and Garfield County
at a total of 264 sites (Neese 1987; Kass 1990; San Juan College 1994;
Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark and
Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004).
At the time of listing, a population estimate was not available.
The 1982 Technical Review Draft for the Sclerocactus wrightiae Recovery
Plan provided a population estimate of 2,000 individuals (USFWS 1982).
This estimate was not included in the final recovery plan because
complete inventory and population counts had not been conducted,
casting doubt on the figure's accuracy (USFWS 1985). Based on recent
actual counts of individual cacti and recent population estimates, the
population total may range from 4,500 to 21,000 individuals (Clark
2001, 2002a, 2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark and Groebner
2003; Clark et al. 2004; Clark 2005 unpublished excel data; Kass 1990;
Neese 1987). The high end of this range is based on estimates of
questionable reliability. For example, at one site 18 cacti were
counted, but the estimated population suggested there may be as many as
500 individuals (Heil 1994). At another site, 384 plants were counted,
but the population was estimated to potentially include as many as
10,000 to 15,000 cacti (Heil 1994). Thus, the Service considers the
high end of this range an overestimate.
From 1999 to 2002, an interagency rare plant team (Clark 2002a)
revisited 104 known Wright fishhook cacti sites where at least 10 years
had passed since the last survey, as documented by Neese (1987) and
Kass (1990). Sixty-five percent of these sites (68 sites) had fewer or
no cacti when revisited, while 35 percent (36 sites) had the same or a
greater number of individuals present (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b;
Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al.
2004; unpublished excel data Clark 2005, Kass 1990, Neese 1987). Based
on demographic monitoring information collected from 1993 to 2000, Kass
(2001a; Intermountain Ecosystems 2003) found--(1) No sizable
populations with adults larger than 9.0 centimeters (3.5 inches) wide,
which represent the most reproductive size-class; (2) that populations
showed low recruitment with a mortality-to-recruitment ratio of 2.5 to
1; and (3) the species was experiencing a slow decline. Overall, the
species appears to be experiencing a population recession (Kass, pers.
comm. 1997; Kass, pers. comm. 2004). Documented declines appear to be
linked to--(1) Changes in reproductive age-class structure (primarily
influenced by cactus borer beetle (Moneilma semipunctatum) and
collection activities); (2) direct mortality (the documented causes of
which include cactus borer beetle predation, cattle trampling, and
crushing by ORVs); and (3) habitat disturbance (including cattle use,
ORV activities, hiking and horse trails, dirt bikes, non-designated
parking, road grading, and group camping) (Clark and Groebner 2003;
Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b).
Conservation Status
In addition to discussing the distribution, status and trends of
the species, the petition also asserts that ``other new scientific
information gathered since the time of listing already in the
possession of the USFWS'' indicates that the species should be
delisted. Because the ESA requires an analysis of the threats faced by
the species before delisting can occur, we consider that the petition
is referencing information affecting these threats. Therefore, what
follows below is a preliminary review of the factors affecting this
species.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The 1979 listing included mineral exploration, ORV use, and
development for a power generation station as threats to the species'
habitat and range (44 FR 58866). Additionally, the best scientific and
commercial information currently available suggests that direct
mortality has been caused by cattle trampling and crushing by ORVs, and
that habitat disturbance has been caused by cattle use, ORV activities,
hiking and horseback riding, dirt bike use, non-designated parking,
road grading, and group camping when conducted in non-designated areas
(Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b). The
petition provided no information addressing these factors.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The original listing stated that ``one of the major factors in the
decline of this species at present is field collection by amateur and
professional cactus fanciers for commercial and hobby purposes. These
fanciers could quickly reduce known populations if protective measures
are not initiated'' (44 FR 58866). Documented illegal collection
activities continue to be a significant factor negatively affecting
reproduction and population structure (Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark
et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b). The petition provided no information
addressing this factor.
C. Disease or Predation
The original listing suggested disease and predation were not
factors impacting the extinction probability of Wright fishhook cactus
(44 FR 58866). The best scientific and commercial information currently
available suggests predation by the cactus borer beetle, which may
select for larger adult cacti, is causing direct mortality and
affecting population age-class structure (Clark
[[Page 44546]]
and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b). The petition
provided no information addressing this factor.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The original listing suggested that Utah State law provided no
protections for the species (44 FR 58866); the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) provided protection against international trade, but ``[did]
not help regarding internal trade'' (44 FR 58866); and ``Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) regulations offer some protection to vegetative
resources, but do not address Wright fishhook cactus directions'' (44
FR 58866). The petition did not discuss the adequacy of regulatory
measures.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The original listing suggested that the species was ``extremely
limited in range * * *, extremely vulnerable to any sort of disturbance
and could be completely extirpated by even the most trivial mishap''
(44 FR 58866). The petition cites our 1990 Recovery Report to Congress,
which suggested ``a greater abundance, range distribution, and
additional populations of this species than originally known'' (USFWS
1990). Individual sites remain vulnerable to extirpation through
disturbance. Many of the known Wright fishhook cactus sites are small
in number (less than 25 plants) and widely separated in distance (Clark
2001, 2002a, 2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark and Groebner
2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kass 1990; Neese 1987). Across a 10-year
period, 65 percent of documented populations experienced a decline or
extirpation (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002;
Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Clark 2005 unpublished
excel data; Kass 1990; Neese 1987). Based on the above discussion, we
do not believe that the petition has presented substantial scientific
information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors no longer
threaten the continued existence of Wright fishhook cactus throughout
all or a significant portion of the species' range.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition
and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent
literature and information available in our files. Although greater
population numbers and distribution of Wright fishhook cactus are known
to occur today compared to available information at the time of the
1979 listing, recent site-specific population threats and declines also
have been documented (Kass 2001a; Kass 2001b; Clark and Groebner 2003;
Clark et al. 2004). The petitioner stated that ``other new scientific
information gathered since the time of listing which is in possession
of the Service'' supports delisting; however, the petition did not
identify this new scientific information. In addition, the petitioner
did not include any detailed narrative justification for the delisting
of Wright fishhook cactus or provide information regarding the status
of the species over a significant portion of its range or include any
persuasive supporting documentation for the recommended administrative
measure to delist the species. After this review and evaluation, we
find the petition does not present substantial information to indicate
that delisting the Wright fishhook cactus may be warranted at this
time.
Five-Year Review
Under the Act, the Service maintains a List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plant species at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and
17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we
conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are
then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine on the basis of such a
review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List
(delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or threatened
to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best
scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such
data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened
for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered
extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the
original data available when the species was listed, or the
interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal
classification would require a separate rulemaking process. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing those species currently under active
review. This notice announces our initiation of a 5-year review of
Wright fishhook cactus.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the 5-year review is complete, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or suggestions on Wright fishhook
cactus from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, or any
other interested parties. Information sought includes any data
regarding historical and current distribution, biology and ecology,
ongoing conservation measures for the species, and threats to the
species. We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review will consider the best scientific and commercial
data regarding the Wright fishhook cactus that has become available
since the current listing determination or most recent status review,
such as:
(1) Species biology, including but not limited to population
trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount,
distribution, and suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit
the species;
(4) Threat status and trends; and
(5) Other new information or data.
If you wish to comment on the 5-year review, you may submit
information to the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office
(see ADDRESSES). Our practice is to make comments, including names and
home addresses of respondents, available for public review during
regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish to withhold
your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the
beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this document is Heather Barnes, Botanist,
Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES section).
[[Page 44547]]
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 19, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-15301 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
