Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis, 42033-42040 [2010-17650]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42033-42040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0047]
[MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or 
Threatened with Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 
finding on a petition to list Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) as 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, we find 
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing P. albicaulis may be warranted. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a 
review of the status of the species to determine if listing P. 
albicaulis is warranted. To ensure that this status review is 
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and 
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, 
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address 
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before September 20, 2010. Please 
note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic 
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on this date.
    After September 20, 2010, you must submit information directly to 
the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 
Please note that we may not be able to address or incorporate 
information that we receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In 
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the docket number for 
this finding, which is FWS-R6-ES-2010-0047. Check the box that reads 
``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search button. You 
should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure 
that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your 
comment.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2010-0047; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us

[[Page 42034]]

(see the Request for Information section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, 
Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Room 
308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009; by telephone (307-772-2374); or by facsimile 
(307-772-2358). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on Pinus 
albicaulis from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the 
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We 
seek information on:
    (1) The status of the species throughout its range in the United 
States and Canada including:
    (a) Historic and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (b) Historic and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends;
    (c) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both; and
    (d) Distribution and extent of threats faced by the species.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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.
    (3) The Potential effects of climate change on this species and its 
habitat.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing Pinus 
albicaulis is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see 
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, 
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose 
to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range currently 
occupied by P. albicaulis, we request data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,''
    (2) Where these features are currently found, and
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are 
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide 
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat 
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed 
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 
of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
the full reference for scientific journal articles or other 
publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial 
information you include.
    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. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this personal identifying information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    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. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To 
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly review the status of the species, which is subsequently 
summarized in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On December 9, 2008, we received a petition dated December 8, 2008, 
from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that we list 
Pinus albicaulis as endangered throughout its range and designate 
critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself 
as such and included the requisite identification information for the 
petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 13, 2009, 
letter to NRDC, we responded that we had reviewed the information 
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency 
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the 
Act was not warranted. We also stated that we could not address the 
petition promptly because of staff and budget limitations. We indicated 
that we would process a 90-day petition finding as quickly as possible. 
This finding addresses the petition.
    On December 23, 2009, we received NRDC's December 11, 2009, notice 
of intent to sue over the Service's failure to respond to the petition 
to list Pinus albicaulis and designate critical habitat. The Service 
responded in a letter dated January 6, 2010, indicating that preceding 
listing actions had priority but that we expected to complete the 90-
day finding during the 2010 fiscal year. On February 24, 2010, the 
Service received a formal complaint from NRDC

[[Page 42035]]

for the Service's failure to comply with issuing a 90-day finding on 
the petition.

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 5, 1991, the Great Bear Foundation of Missoula, 
Montana, petitioned the Service to list Pinus albicaulis under the Act. 
After reviewing the petition, we found that the petitioner had not 
presented substantial information indicating that listing P. albicaulis 
may be warranted. A not-substantial finding on the petition was made on 
January 13, 1994, and published in the Federal Register on January 27, 
1994 (59 FR 3824).

Species Information

    Pinus albicaulis is a 5-needled conifer species classified in the 
Pinus subsection Cembrae, or stone pines, which include five species 
worldwide (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 30; Lanner 1996, p. 26). The 
taxonomic characterization of P. albicaulis as a species is not 
disputed. Characteristics of stone pines include indehiscent cones 
(cones that remain essentially closed at maturity) and wingless seeds 
that are specialized for seed dispersal by nutcrackers in the avian 
family Corvidae (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 30; Burns and Honkala 1990, p. 
271; Lanner 1996, p. 2). Pinus albicaulis seeds cannot be wind-
disseminated like seeds of some other species of pines, and the species 
relies almost exclusively on Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) 
for seed dispersal (Lanner 1996, p. 7; Schwandt 2006, p. 2).
    Pinus albicaulis typically occurs on cold, windy, moist, high-
elevation or high-latitude sites in western North America, and as a 
result, many stands are geographically isolated. Its range extends 
longitudinally between 107 and 128 degrees west and latitudinally 
between 37 and 55 degrees north. The distribution of P. albicaulis 
includes coastal and Rocky Mountain ranges (Burns and Honkala 1990, p. 
268) that are connected by the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern 
Washington and southeastern British Columbia. The coastal distribution 
of P. albicaulis extends from the Bulkley Mountains in British Columbia 
to the northeastern Olympic Mountains and Cascade Range of Washington 
and Oregon, to the Kern River of the Sierra Nevada Range of east-
central California. Isolated stands are known from the Blue and Wallowa 
Mountains in northeastern Oregon and the subalpine and montane zones of 
mountains in northeastern California, south-central Oregon, and 
northern Nevada. The Rocky Mountain distribution of P. albicaulis 
ranges from northern British Columbia and Alberta to Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, and Nevada. Extensive stands occur in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem. The Wind River Range in Wyoming is the eastern-most 
distribution of the species (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 33; Burns and 
Honkala 1990, p. 268).
    The upper elevational limits of Pinus albicaulis decrease with 
increasing latitude. It occurs from approximately 900 meters (2,950 
feet) at its northern limit in British Columbia up to 3,660 meters 
(12,000 feet) in the Sierra Nevada. Pinus albicaulis is typically found 
at or slightly lower than alpine timberline in the upper montane zone, 
where it is associated with other conifer species that include Rocky 
Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia), Engelmann 
spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and 
mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) in the Rocky Mountains, and 
Sierra-Cascade lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) in the 
Sierra Nevada and Blue and Cascade Mountains in the western portion of 
its range (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 33-34; Lanner 1999, revised 2007, 
p. 83). In the United States, approximately 98 percent of all P. 
albicaulis communities occur on public lands (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 
12).
    The interaction of Pinus albicaulis with its environment varies 
over its geographic range due to differences in climate, substrate, 
physical environment, competitors, and seasons (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 
52). It is a stress-tolerant pine, and its hardiness allows it to grow 
where other conifer species cannot (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 10). Pinus 
albicaulis expresses superior hardiness in cold, dry, and windy 
settings; therefore, it becomes established and survives in 
environmental conditions where other conifer species are unable to 
establish and compete for space and light (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 75). 
In the upper subalpine ecosystem, P. albicaulis is considered a 
keystone species, or one that determines the ability of many other 
species to persist in a community, thereby increasing biodiversity 
(Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 7-8). It does this in multiple ways, 
including regulating runoff by slowing the progression of snowmelt, 
reducing soil erosion by physically stabilizing soils, initiating 
succession as a hardy pioneer or as an early seral (an intermediate 
stage in ecological succession) species after fire or other disturbance 
events, and providing seeds that are a high-energy food source for some 
birds and mammals (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 8-11), including Clark's 
nutcracker (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 121-131; Lanner 1996, p. 38), red 
squirrels (Tamiasciurus spp.), and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos 
horribilis) (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 123; Lanner 1996, pp. 71 and 73).

Evaluation of Information for this Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to Pinus albicaulis, as presented in the petition and 
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation 
of this information is presented below. If we had information available 
to us that differed from the information or conclusions presented in 
the petition, we describe the differences.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat

    The petitioner states the threats causing the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of Pinus albicaulis' high 
alpine habitat include changes in fire regimes due to fire suppression; 
the white pine blister rust pathogen, which is an introduced disease 
caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola; and mountain pine beetles 
(Dendroctonus ponderosae) (NRDC 2008, p. 11). White pine blister rust 
and mountain pine beetles are addressed in greater detail under Factor 
C, Disease or Predation. The petitioner also addressed climate change 
under Factor E, Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 
Continued Existence; however, because the petitioner's assertions 
regarding the impacts of climate change relate to changes to the 
species' habitat, we are addressing climate change under Factor A for 
this finding.

[[Page 42036]]

Fire Suppression and Changes in Fire Regimes
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner asserts that where fire suppression policies are in 
place, fire suppression has reduced fire frequency in subalpine 
communities, resulting in the successional replacement of Pinus 
albicaulis by more shade-tolerant species in many areas. The petitioner 
indicates that once P. albicaulis communities become established, they 
are perpetuated by low-intensity fires that kill the competing 
understory fir and spruce. Thus, the lack of fire provides a 
competitive advantage to other tree species, resulting in the eventual 
loss of P. albicaulis (NRDC 2008, p. 13).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner indicates that the long-term consequence of fire 
suppression in the Pinus albicaulis ecosystem is successional 
replacement by other conifer species, resulting in conversion to a more 
shade-tolerant forest type. The petitioner cites decreases in P. 
albicaulis relating to advancing succession and subsequent increases in 
other conifer species at several sites in Montana, Idaho, Washington, 
and Oregon (NRDC 2008, p. 13). The fire regime subsequently changes 
from a low-to-moderate severity regime typical of P. albicaulis 
communities, to a stand-replacing, crown fire regime (NRDC 2008, p. 
13). The petitioner does note that high-intensity, stand-replacing 
fires in many P. albicaulis seral communities have occurred 
historically (NRDC 2008, p. 13).
Evaluation of Information Available in Service Files
    Information in our files indicates that stand-replacing fires (ones 
in which Pinus albicaulis trees are killed) can provide a successional 
advantage to the species. Although fire may accelerate the loss of P. 
albicaulis at a local level, fire is necessary to perpetuate the 
species' communities at a landscape scale (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 
226). Stand-replacing fire disrupts the successional process and 
creates openings for repeated establishment of early colonizers like P. 
albicaulis (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 13). Nutcrackers disperse P. 
albicaulis seeds farther and faster than wind can disperse the seeds of 
competing tree species, and use openings created by stand-replacing 
fires as seed-caching sites (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 8, 13, and 226). 
Therefore, P. albicaulis can establish more quickly in burned areas 
than can competing species (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 13).
    Fire suppression, however, limits the burned areas available for 
nutcrackers to cache Pinus albicaulis seeds, thereby reducing areas for 
the species to regenerate (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 237), resulting in 
range contraction and potentially the species' decline. Information in 
our files indicates fire suppression during the last 60 to 80 years may 
have limited natural regeneration and subsequently contributed to 
conversion of some P. albicaulis stands to shade-tolerant species (Arno 
2001, as cited in Schwandt 2006, p. 4). Prior to that period, the 
average P. albicaulis stand burned every 50 to 300 years. While only 
small amounts of P. albicaulis sites have burned more recently (less 
than 1 percent within the last 25 years; Schwandt 2006, p. 4), the 60- 
to 80-year fire suppression period is not outside the range of the 50- 
to 300-year average burn interval, suggesting that P. albicaulis 
systems may not be outside the historic range of fire frequency.
    Information in our files (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 237) indicates 
that wildland fire policies of natural resource management agencies 
have been revised in the recent past, allowing for greater levels of 
prescribed fire across large areas of forest with Pinus albicaulis 
communities. However, while wildland fire suppression policies are 
being modified to address potential concerns of fire suppression on 
this species, fire suppression and subsequent succession by other 
conifer species have been responsible for many stand conversions.
    Fire has been an important landscape disturbance factor in the 
Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, and the Rocky Mountains, for 
the past 10,000 years (Agee 1993, p. 54). The origin of fire 
suppression policies may be traced to about 1910 when the ``Big Burn'' 
of northern Idaho and northwestern Montana consumed approximately 1.2 
million hectares (2.8 million acres). This fire generated national 
interest in protecting forests from fire, and thus led to the 
development of fire suppression policies (Agee 1993, p. 59). 
Suppression of fire has resulted in shifts in the composition of 
subalpine forests from shade-intolerant species like P. albicaulis to 
more shade-tolerant species such as Abies lasiocarpa, Picea 
engelmannii, or Tsuga mertensiana, thereby increasing the fuel load 
(Shoal et. al., 2008, p. 19; Schwandt 2006, p. 5), reducing the 
opportunity for P. albicaulis regeneration, and adding stress to the 
remaining trees. The result is that remaining trees are more 
susceptible to stand replacing (high intensity) fires and to other 
damaging agents like white pine blister rust or mountain pine beetles 
(Schwandt 2006, p. 5). This may be the case in the northwestern United 
States (Tomback et al., p. 82), but we lack data to analyze the extent 
of the decline throughout the species' entire range. Therefore, we find 
that the petition and information in our files presents substantial 
information that P. albicaulis habitat is being reduced or curtailed by 
fire suppression activities. We will seek additional information 
regarding the potential effects of fire suppression and fire 
suppression policies during the status review process.

Climate Change

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner asserts that climate change is one of the most 
significant threats to Pinus albicaulis. The petitioner cites a variety 
of sources supporting the claim that climate change will result in a 
shifting in the ranges of vegetation northward, and upward in elevation 
(NRDC 2008, p. 29), resulting in a reduction of P. albicaulis range and 
population. The petition also cites evidence of climate change-induced 
range shifts in an associated pathogen and pest, white pine blister 
rust and mountain pine beetle. The petition discusses how climate 
change is expected to facilitate the expansion of white pine blister 
rust and mountain pine beetles (further discussed under Factor C. 
Disease or Predation). The petitioner also cites literature indicating 
climate change may result in changes to fire patterns in western North 
America (NRDC 2008, p. 33).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    To support their assertion of Pinus albicaulis decline resulting 
from climate change, the petitioner cites model projections from the 
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicating that human-
induced changes to natural greenhouse gases may result in warming of 
1.1 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C) (2 [deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) to 6.4 [deg]C 
(12 [deg]F) in the 21\st\ century (NRDC 2008, p. 28). These projections 
are consistent with our review of IPCC models for other listing actions 
(e.g., 75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). The petitioner also cites several 
other models under different scenarios predicting up to a 98 percent 
decline in P. albicaulis by the end of the century (NRDC 2008, p. 29). 
Additional literature is cited indicating that the predicted rate of 
climate change may threaten species incapable of migrating

[[Page 42037]]

to more suitable habitats or unable to migrate due to human-caused 
landscape fragmentation. As a high-elevation, long-lived species with 
limited mobility, P. albicaulis will be particularly vulnerable to 
climate change (NRDC 2008, p. 28). The information in our files, which 
includes Tomback et al. (2001, pp. 58-59) and Schwandt (2006, p. 6), 
supports this conclusion; however, these authors caution that 
predicting the overall effects of climate change is difficult due to 
the number of factors involved and the fact that the magnitudes of the 
likely changes are unknown (e.g., rangewide or local).
    The petitioner asserts that climate change will alter fire patterns 
in western North America (NRDC 2008, p. 33). Changes in fire pattern 
include an increased fire season duration associated with increased 
spring and summer temperatures and associated early spring snow melt, 
increased time to extinguish fires, and increased area burned. The 
petitioner notes that one of the complications with identifying climate 
change as the definitive cause of increased fire frequency and 
intensity is the confounding effect of forest management and fire 
suppression (NRDC 2008, p. 34).
Evaluation of Information Available in Service Files
    Literature in our files supports the assertion that increased fire 
frequency due to climate change is likely (Agee 1993, p. 405). The 
rationale for this claim is that as vegetation communities migrate 
north, the high frequency fire regimes of these forest types will 
change the fire frequency of a given area (Agee 1993, p. 405). The 
intensity of future fires in a changing climate is less certain; 
however, we do support the contention that changes in forest 
composition will occur, which will increase fuel loads and lead to 
greater stress in Pinus albicaulis forests. In turn, we conclude that 
this leads to a higher proportion of dead trees in stands, therefore 
making them more susceptible to fire (Agee 1993, p. 405; Agee pers. 
comm., 2010).
    Information in our files provides numerous climate change model 
predictions describing future Pinus albicaulis scenarios (Tomback et 
al. 2001, pp. 57-59). Climate change is predicted to affect several 
aspects of the ecology of whitebark pine, including an increase in the 
length of the growing season (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 410-411), an 
increase in fire frequency and severity (McKenzie et al. 2004, p. 893; 
Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 942-943), spatial shifts in the 
distribution of suitable growing sites (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 788), 
and an increase in both mountain pine beetle (Logan and Powell 2001, 
pp. 165-170; Williams and Liebhold 2002, p. 95 ) and white pine blister 
rust (Koteen 2002, pp. 352-364) outbreaks. However, because 
environmental conditions in P. albicaulis communities are highly 
variable and the magnitudes of potential changes are unknown, effects 
of climate change are uncertain (Kendall and Keane 2001, p. 236). 
Although the climate change information contains high variability as to 
the predicted magnitude of effects, both our files and the petition 
indicate that there are effects that warrant further examination.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat from fire suppression, 
subsequent alterations of fire regimes, and climate change. We will 
review the possible effects of these threats to Pinus albicaulis more 
thoroughly in our 12-month status review.

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

    The petitioner did not present information, nor do we have 
information in our files, suggesting that overutilization is 
threatening Pinus albicaulis. However, we will further investigate 
whether overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes is a potential threat in our 12-month status 
review of P. albicaulis.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner indicates that Pinus albicaulis is currently being 
devastated by the combination of white pine blister rust and an 
epidemic outbreak of mountain pine beetle, a native species. The 
petitioner cites literature showing temporal and spatial changes in the 
distribution of white pine blister rust infections and mountain pine 
beetle infestations and describes the synergistic effects of white pine 
blister rust and mountain beetle to P. albicaulis (NRDC 2008, pp. 14-
28). The petitioner summarizes literature on P. albicaulis declines 
from white pine blister rust in areas throughout the range of P. 
albicaulis in the United States and Canada.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
White Pine Blister Rust
    The petitioner indicates that Pinus albicaulis and all 5-needled 
pines are highly susceptible to white pine blister rust (NRDC 2008, p. 
14). Each year an infected tree lives, the rust continues to produce 
fungal spores, thereby perpetuating the disease. Where the fungus' 
alternate host (typically in the genus Ribes (currants or 
gooseberries)) is abundant and when summer weather is conducive to 
multiple cycles of fungal spore production, the result is a ``wave'' of 
new rust infections that spread into new areas or intensify in already 
infected stands. The frequency of wave years depends on various 
factors, including elevation, geographical region, topography, wind 
patterns, temperature, and humidity. White pine blister rust can kill 
cone-bearing branches years before the tree actually dies. While large 
P. albicaulis trees may survive white pine blister rust infection for a 
long time, the rust can kill small trees within a few years (NRDC 2008, 
pp. 16-17). The information in our files corroborates the petitioner's 
information (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 193-214).
    The petitioner cites surveys showing white pine blister rust 
infection rates of 83 percent in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in 
Montana to 100 percent of trees in other unidentified locations within 
this geographic area. Overall infection rates in the drier, southern 
portion of the Rocky Mountains have increased from 10 to 20 percent 
during the last decade; however, the petitioner cites a 2004 study that 
found white pine blister rust on 71 percent of transects, indicating 
the disease is now more widespread and expanding (NRDC 2008, p. 18). In 
the coastal distribution of the species, the petitioner cites several 
studies indicating variable infection incidence, ranging from 0 to 100 
percent, with the highest Pinus albicaulis mortality from white pine 
blister rust occurring in Mt. Hood National Forest (NRDC 2008, p. 19). 
Similarly, in British Columbia and Alberta, infection rates vary from 0 
to 100 percent depending on location and other variables, with one 
study showing a P. albicaulis mortality increase from 26 to 61 percent 
in 7 years (NRDC 2008, p. 19). The petitioner claims that the incidence 
of the disease is steadily increasing in all areas sampled (NRDC 2008, 
p. 20).
    The petitioner cites literature indicating white pine blister rust 
is

[[Page 42038]]

currently present at the northern range limits of Pinus albicaulis and 
at treeline, which may inhibit northerly and altitudinal migration of 
the species (NRDC 2008, p. 30), a necessary adaptation to climate 
change. The petitioner indicates that changes in frequency or 
persistence of rainfall patterns from climate change may also 
contribute to favorable white pine blister rust conditions, resulting 
in disease proliferation and intensification in various locations. The 
petitioner states that these conditions, combined with the buildup of 
white pine blister rust over the past decades, will likely result in 
larger transmission events in the future (NRDC 2008, p. 31).
Evaluation of Information Available in Service Files
    Information in our files indicates that in the Rocky Mountains, the 
highest mortality from white pine blister rust generally occurs in 
northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and the southern Canadian 
Rockies, where cool, moist climatic conditions are more favorable to 
white pine blister rust growth (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 15). Blister 
rust infections attack seedlings and mature trees, causing damage to 
upper canopy and cone-bearing branches, or death to branches or the 
entire tree (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 15, 116, 195); however, some 
trees may persist, and long-term survival depends on local 
environmental conditions and specific tree health (Tomback et al. 2001, 
p. 195). Survey information in our files indicates that many stands 
have been infected with white pine blister rust, but we do not know how 
much regeneration is occurring in these areas; however, most remaining 
high-elevation P. albicaulis stands in the U.S. Intermountain West that 
are climax communities have little regeneration (Tomback et al. 2001, 
p. 228). White pine blister rust has spread throughout the range of P. 
albicaulis since introduction into the United States a century ago, and 
a summary of white pine blister rust analyses suggests that blister 
rust will continue to cause damage to P. albicaulis in the central 
Rocky Mountains (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 197 - 211).
    Based on information in our files (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 15-16, 
193-214, 221, and 234-237), the geographic extent of white pine blister 
rust appears to have changed little during the past 30 years; however, 
the incidence and intensity of infections have increased sharply, and 
it appears unlikely that any Pinus albicaulis stand is safe from damage 
by white pine blister rust.
Mountain Pine Beetle
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner states that Pinus albicaulis forests are suffering 
heavy mortality from mountain pine beetles, which usually colonize 
larger, mature trees where inner bark is thick enough to support beetle 
larvae. In addition, the beetles carry a blue-stain fungus (Grosmannia 
clavigera) on their mouth parts. The fungi interrupt the flow of resins 
that would ordinarily pitch out or kill the beetles, thus promoting 
beetle invasions and reducing a tree's defenses to beetle attack. The 
fungi also interrupt water flow to the tree's crown and within 
approximately 2 weeks of colonization, the tree's phloem layer is 
damaged enough to cut off water and nutrient flows and the tree starves 
to death. This impact is visible by the presence of reddened needles, 
often encompassing entire stands of trees (NRDC 2008, p. 23). The 
petitioner cites one study indicating that historically, conditions in 
high-elevation P. albicaulis habitat prevented sustained mountain pine 
beetle outbreaks, but today, climate change appears to be allowing 
outbreak populations to expand into these previously inhospitable areas 
(NRDC 2008, p. 22).
    The petitioner summarizes literature on Pinus albicaulis declines 
from mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Yellowstone Ecosystem; in 
the Selkirk Mountains of northern Idaho, Washington, and Oregon; and in 
British Columbia and Alberta, Canada (NRDC 2008, pp. 24-27). In the 
Yellowstone Ecosystem, the petitioner cites survey data within the last 
3 years indicating P. albicaulis mortality from mountain pine beetles 
was 80 percent and 74 percent of trees greater than 5 inches diameter 
at breast height (DBH) on plots in Yellowstone National Park and the 
Gallatin National Forest, respectively (NRDC 2008, pp. 24-27). In 
northern Idaho's Selkirk Mountains, a loss of 45 to 82 percent of P. 
albicaulis trees greater than 5 inches DBH, primarily due to mountain 
pine beetle, was documented in 2000. In Washington and Oregon, overall 
mountain pine beetle incidence ranged from 0 to 34 percent and 
mortality from both mountain pine beetle and white pine blister rust 
averaged 33 percent. In British Columbia and Alberta, the petitioner 
cites literature from 2008, stating that given the extent of the 
current mountain pine beetle outbreak in lower elevation forests, a 
massive and imminent Pinus albicaulis decline is expected (NRDC 2008, 
p. 27). Losses by 2002 were considered minor, but more recent data 
indicate that pine beetle outbreaks are rapidly expanding in Canada. 
The petitioner asserts that outbreak severity has been aided by a 
series of warm winters and extensive availability of susceptible mature 
pine forests (NRDC 2008, p. 27).
    The petitioner indicates that warming temperatures in recent years 
have provided favorable conditions for increasing widespread mountain 
pine beetle outbreaks. The petitioner cites literature indicating that 
a 2 [deg]F (1.11 [deg]C) temperature increase is the amount predicted 
to shift the mountain pine beetle's life cycle from semivoltine (more 
than one year required to produce a brood of offspring) to univoltine 
(produces one brood of offspring per year) and allow for synchronous 
emergence (from overlapping generations) - conditions that are 
conducive to massive beetle outbreaks (NRDC 2008, p. 32). Further, 
while mountain pine beetles are a native species in western North 
American forests, they have been rare in cold, high-elevation areas; 
however, outbreaks have occurred earlier than predicted in climate 
change models and are expanding into previously unoccupied areas (NRDC 
2008, p. 33).
Evaluation of Information Available in Service Files
    Information in our files (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 14 and 299) 
indicates that large-scale outbreaks of mountain pine beetle have 
caused widespread Pinus albicaulis mortality. Mountain pine beetle 
infestations killed many P. albicaulis trees in the Selway-Bitterroot 
Wilderness in the late 1870s, 1930s, and late 1980s. Further, mountain 
pine beetles have expanded throughout the range of P. albicaulis, and 
because beetles preferentially attack larger cone-bearing trees, there 
has been a decrease in P. albicaulis seed production. Our information 
also states that absence of fire has resulted in P. albicaulis and 
Abies lasiocarpa forests increasing in age, thereby increasing their 
susceptibility to mountain pine beetle infestations. Trees infected by 
white pine blister rust are stressed and appear to be more attractive 
to mountain pine beetles or more vulnerable to attack (Tomback et al. 
2001, p. 225). As a result, P. albicaulis has declined throughout major 
portions of its range during the past 50 years from several factors, 
including white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle. Therefore, 
the information in our files corroborates the petitioner's information.

[[Page 42039]]

Summary of Factor C
    We find that the information provided in the petition, as well as 
other information in our files, presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted due to disease or predation, specifically white pine blister 
rust and mountain pine beetle. We will review the possible effects of 
these threats to Pinus albicaulis more thoroughly in our 12-month 
status review.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner provides information indicating that there are few, 
if any, regulatory mechanisms in place to protect Pinus albicaulis from 
the threats of climate change, white pine blister rust, and mountain 
pine beetles, or the combination of effects from some or all of these 
threats. The petitioner also asserts there are no mechanisms to 
effectively control greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and 
Canada (NRDC 2008, pp. 34-37).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioner states that existing forest management law in the 
United States, in particular the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 
(916 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), provides few regulatory standards or 
enforceable mandates to conserve Pinus albicaulis specifically and 
forest diversity in general. The petitioner asserts there are only 
ineffective mechanisms in place to control climate change pollution and 
there are inadequate mandates to conserve P. albicaulis. The petitioner 
also states that the Forest Service has not issued any directives 
mandating or prescribing P. albicaulis conservation (NRDC 2008, p. 35). 
The petitioner notes the Forest Service has put some effort into 
conserving P. albicaulis by assessing it rangewide and developing a 
conservation and restoration plan. However, the petitioner asserts that 
to date, efforts have been haphazard and uncoordinated between regions 
and lack funding for successful implementation (NRDC 2008, p. 36). The 
petitioner notes the Forest Service has acknowledged that climate 
change is beyond the capacity of the agency itself to address 
effectively (NRDC 2008, p. 36).
    The petitioner asserts that Canadian laws and regulations also lack 
adequate protections for Pinus albicaulis and its habitat. However, the 
petitioner also cites the British Columbia Ministry of Environment's 
addition of P. albicaulis to its ``blue-list,'' which lists special 
conservation concerns, in this case due to a ``severe negative long-
term trend expected from mountain pine beetle infections, white pine 
blister rust epidemics, climatic warming trends, and successional 
replacement'' (NRDC 2008, pp. 36-37).
Evaluation of Information Available in Service Files
    However, on December 18, 2009 (after the NRDC petition was 
submitted and received) (74 FR 67059), the U.S. Forest Service 
reinstated their 2000 Planning Rule, which does include standards (a 
required action in a land management plan) for timber management. 
Further, publications from the Forest Service in our files (Lorenz et 
al. 2008; Shoal et al. 2008; Aubry et al. 2008) advocate actions to 
reduce threats from white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetles 
to P. albicaulis. These strategies, however, are relatively recent, are 
specific to the Pacific Northwest, and may be inadequate to reduce 
threats throughout the entire range of the taxon. Additionally, the 
need for funding to implement the actions may be inadequate to reduce 
threats rangewide. While there is uncertainty about whether or not 
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate for protecting P. 
albicaulis, the petitioner presents substantial information for further 
consideration of this factor.
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms addressing threats specifically from climate change, white 
pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle, fire suppression, and forest 
management. We will review the possible effects of these threats on P. 
albicaulis more thoroughly in our 12-month status review.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

    The petitioner discussed the threat of climate change under this 
factor; however, we have addressed it under Factor A. We will 
investigate whether there are any other natural or manmade factors that 
are potential threats to Pinus albicaulis when we address Factor E in 
our 12-month status review.

Finding

    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Pinus 
albicaulis throughout all or a significant portion of its range may be 
warranted. This finding is based on substantial information provided by 
the petitioners and in our files for Factor A, Factor C, and Factor D.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing Pinus albicaulis may be warranted, 
we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing P. 
albicaulis under the Act is warranted. As part of our status review we 
will examine available information on the threats to the species and 
make a final determination in a 12-month finding on whether the species 
is warranted for listing as endangered or threatened under the Act. To 
ensure that the status review is complete, we are requesting scientific 
and commercial information regarding P. albicaulis (as described above 
under the Information Requested section). The petition also asks us to 
designate critical habitat for this species. If we determine in our 12-
month finding that listing P. ablicaulis is warranted, we will address 
the designation of critical habitat in the subsequent proposed listing 
rule, if we conclude critical habitat is prudent and determinable.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether 
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough 
status review of the species, which is conducted following a 
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 
12-month petition findings are different, as described above, a 
substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will 
result in a warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Wyoming Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).


[[Page 42040]]


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


    Dated:July 9, 2010
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-17650 Filed 7-19- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S