Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened, 10166-10203 [2011-3675]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 10165]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 36

February 23, 2011

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

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

[[Page 10166]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

[[Page 10167]]

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

Species Information--Astragalus hamiltonii

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

[[Page 10168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 10169]]



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

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

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

    Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and 
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information 
pertaining to Astragalus hamiltonii for the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor 
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way 
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a 
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat 
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant 
a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes 
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species 
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined 
in the ESA. However, the identification of factors that could impact a 
species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the 
species warrants listing. The information must include evidence 
sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats that act 
on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of 
endangered or threatened under the ESA.

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

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

[[Page 10170]]

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

[[Page 10171]]

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

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

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 10172]]

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

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

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

[[Page 10173]]

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

Finding

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

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that Astragalus hamiltonii does not meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must next consider 
whether there are any significant portions of the range where A. 
hamiltonii is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future.
    In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a 
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the 
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions an infinite number 
of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the 
range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and threatened 
or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant further 
consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information 
indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the 
species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis 
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If 
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its 
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the 
species' range that are not significant, such portions will not warrant 
further consideration.
    If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then 
determine whether the species is threatened or endangered in these 
portions of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its 
range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address either the 
significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the 
Service considers significance first and determines that a portion of 
the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether 
the species is threatened or endangered there. Likewise, if the Service 
considers status first and determines that the species is not 
threatened or endangered in a

[[Page 10174]]

portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is 
significant. However, if the Service determines that both a portion of 
the range of a species is significant and the species is threatened or 
endangered there, the Service will specify that portion of the range as 
threatened or endangered under section 4(c)(1) of the ESA.
    We have no evidence that any particular population or portion of 
the range of Astragalus hamiltonii is critical to the species' 
survival. Although population area 2 appears to have a majority of the 
known Astragalus hamiltonii individuals, this area has received a 
majority of the search effort. A. hamiltonii may actually occur 
continuously across its known range, but range-wide surveys have not 
been done. The population areas delineated in this document were 
derived from existing data and information; however, information on the 
species' distribution and numbers may change with more survey effort. 
Additionally, potential threats to the species are essentially uniform 
throughout its range. Therefore, we do not find that A. hamiltonii is 
in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. Therefore, listing A. hamiltonii as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA is not warranted at this time.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, Astragalus hamiltonii to our Utah Ecological 
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever such information 
becomes available. New information will help us monitor A. hamiltonii 
and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for 
A. hamiltonii, or any other species, we will act to provide immediate 
protection.

Species Information--Penstemon flowersii

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

[[Page 10175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE11.001

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

[[Page 10176]]



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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 10177]]

ample flower production (UNHP 2010b, entire; Brunson 2010b, p. 1). The 
OHV use was not documented for the five remaining element occurrences 
or in the new P. flowersii site, but this does not necessarily mean OHV 
use does not occur there. Additionally, no other recreational uses were 
documented at P. flowersii sites.
    In summary, OHV use may be negatively affecting individual plants 
at some sites, but this impact is localized and not rangewide. We 
identified OHV use in the species' habitat, but the plants are vigorous 
and retaining their ability to reproduce. Therefore, we believe that 
recreational activities are not threats to Penstemon flowersii now or 
for the foreseeable future.
(3) Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
    Oil and gas exploration and development can impact Penstemon 
flowersii plants and their habitat (BLM 2008c, pp. 448-449). Within all 
mapped element occurrences of P. flowersii, there are four plugged and 
abandoned wells. All existing wells were plugged prior to 1999. As 
mentioned previously, plugged and abandoned wells involve surface 
disturbance for roads and well pads when they are constructed and 
during operation, but when they are abandoned they are reclaimed and do 
not rec