Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila, 37706-37716 [2011-16190]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
37706
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
evaluation roles and responsibilities to
those individuals responsible for
preparing interim and final performance
evaluations (e.g., contracting officer
representatives and program managers).
If agency procedures do not specify the
individuals responsible for past
performance evaluation duties, the
contracting officer will remain
responsible for this function. Those
individuals identified may obtain
information for the evaluation of
performance from the program office,
administrative contracting office, audit
office, end users of the product or
service, and any other technical or
business advisor, as appropriate. Interim
evaluations shall be prepared on an
annual basis, in accordance with agency
procedures.
(b)(1) The evaluation report should
reflect how the contractor performed.
The report should include clear relevant
information that accurately depicts the
contractor’s performance, and be based
on objective facts supported by program
and contract performance data. The
evaluations should be tailored to the
contract type, size, content, and
complexity of the contractual
requirements.
(2) Evaluation factors for each
assessment shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
(i) Technical or Quality.
(ii) Cost Control (as applicable).
(iii) Schedule/Timeliness.
(iv) Management or Business
Relations.
(v) Small Business Subcontracting (as
applicable).
(3) These evaluation factors, including
subfactors, may be tailored, however,
each factor and subfactor shall be
evaluated and supporting narrative
provided.
(4) Each evaluation factor, as listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be
rated in accordance with a five scale
rating system (e.g., exceptional, very
good, satisfactory, marginal, and
unsatisfactory). Rating definitions shall
reflect those contained in the CPARS
Policy Guide available at https://
www.cpars.gov/.
(c)(1) When the contract provides for
incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract
performance evaluation shall be entered
into CPARS. (See 16.401(f).)
(2) When the contract provides for
award fee, the award fee-contract
performance adjectival rating as
described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be
entered into CPARS.
(d) Agency evaluations of contractor
performance, including both negative
and positive evaluations, prepared
under this subpart shall be provided to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
the contractor as soon as practicable
after completion of the evaluation.
(e) Agencies shall require—
(1) Performance issues be documented
promptly during contract performance
to ensure critical details are included in
the evaluation;
(2) The award fee determination, if
required, align with the contractor’s
performance and be reflected in the
evaluation;
(3) Timely assessments and quality
data (see the quality standards in the
CPARS Policy Guide at https://
www.cpars.gov/) in the contractors past
performance evaluation; and
(4) Frequent assessment (e.g., monthly
or quarterly) of agency compliance with
the reporting requirements in 42.1502,
so agencies can readily identify
delinquent past performance reports
and monitor their reports for quality
control.
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit
all past performance reports
electronically into the CPARS at
https://www.cpars.gov/. These reports are
transmitted to the Past Performance
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at
https://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance
reports for classified contracts and
special access programs shall not be
reported in CPARS, but will be reported
as stated in this subpart and in
accordance with agency procedures.
Agencies shall ensure that appropriate
management and technical controls are
in place to ensure that only authorized
personnel have access to the data and
the information safeguarded in
accordance with 42.1503(b).
(g) Agencies shall use the past
performance information in PPIRS that
is within the last three years (six for
construction and architect-engineer
contracts) and information contained in
the Federal Awardee Performance and
Integrity Information System (FAPIIS),
e.g., termination for default or cause.
(h) Other contractor performance
information. (1) Agencies shall ensure
information is reported in the FAPIIS
module of CPARS within 3 working
days after a contracting officer—
(2) Agencies shall establish CPARS
focal points who will register users to
report data into the FAPIIS module of
CPARS (available at https://
www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS).
(3) The primary duties of the CPARS
focal point is to administer CPARS and
FAPIIS access. Agencies must also
establish PPIRS group managers. The
primary duties of the PPIRS group
managers are to grant or deny access to
PPIRS. The CPARS Reference Material,
on the Web site, includes reporting
instructions.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PART 49—TERMINATION OF
CONTRACTS
49.402–8
[Amended]
10. Amend section 49.402–8 by
removing ‘‘42.1503(f)’’ and adding
‘‘42.1503(h)’’ in its place.
[FR Doc. 2011–16169 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2009–0020; MO
92210–0–0008–B]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Castanea pumila var.
ozarkensis as Threatened or
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list Castanea
pumila var. ozarkensis (Ozark
chinquapin), a tree, as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that listing Ozark chinquapin is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the threats to Ozark
chinquapin or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on June 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
[FWS–R4–ES–2009–0020]. 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, Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 110
South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway,
AR 72032. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Boggs, Field Supervisor, Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 110
South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway,
AR 72032 (see ADDRESSES); by telephone
(501–513–4470) or by facsimile (501–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
513–4480). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(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 the 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:
(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
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 Act 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 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823),
Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ozark
chinquapin; see Taxonomy and Species
Description section) was included as
one of the 3,000 plant species under
status review. It was proposed or
reviewed by the Service for listing as an
endangered species under the Act in
1976 (June 16, 1976, 41 FR 24524).
However, we did not finalize that
proposed rule because of subsequent
amendments to the Act (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1988). Ozark
chinquapin became a category 2
candidate on December 15, 1980 (45 FR
82480). It was again advertised as a
category 2 candidate on September 27,
1985 (50 FR 39526). The status changed
on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), to
a category 1 candidate species. On
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), the
status changed back to a category 2
candidate species for listing until the
category 2 list was eliminated in 1996
(61 FR 7596). A category 2 species was
a species for which we had information
indicating that a proposal to list as
threatened or endangered under the Act
may be appropriate but for which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
additional information on biological
viability and threat was needed to
support the preparation of a proposed
rule.
On January 6, 2004, we received a
petition, dated December 28, 2003, from
Mr. Joe Glenn of Hodgen, OK,
requesting that the Ozark chinquapin be
listed under the Act as a candidate
species. We interpreted the request to
mean threatened or endangered. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, as
required by the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
The petition contained supporting
information regarding the species’
ecology, threats to the species, and
survey and occurrence data for a portion
of the Ouachita Highlands in
southeastern Oklahoma. We
acknowledged receipt of the petition in
a February 2, 2004, letter to Mr. Glenn.
In that letter, we advised the petitioner
that, due to a significant number of
court orders and settlement agreements
in Fiscal Year 2004, we would not be
able to address the petitioned request at
that time.
On June 1, 2010, we published a 90day finding that the petition presented
substantial information that listing the
Ozark chinquapin may be warranted
and initiated a status review of the
species (75 FR 30313). This notice
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
December 28, 2003, petition to list
Ozark chinquapin as threatened or
endangered.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis
(Ozark chinquapin) was first identified
as a separate species (Castanea
ozarkensis) by Ashe (1923, p. 60). Ashe
described the range of the species as
‘‘north of the Arkansas River and
westward from Center Ridge, Arkansas,
northward to southwestern Missouri
and westward to the Valley of the White
River’’ (Tucker 1983, p. 2). Ashe (1923,
p. 361) also described a second species,
Castanea arkansana, in Arkansas. Ashe
(1924, p. 45, in Tucker 1983) reduced
Castanea arkansana to varietal status as
Castanea ozarkensis var. arkansana.
Little (1953, p. 2, in Tucker 1983)
reduced Castanea arkansana to
synonymy with Castanea ozarkensis.
Tucker (1975, p. 2, in Tucker 1983)
reduced Castanea ozarkensis to a
variety of the more common Castanea
pumila (Castanea pumila var.
ozarkensis (Ashe) Tucker) and
concurred with Little’s (1953) treatment
of Castanea arkansana. Johnson (1988,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37707
p. 43) published a revision of the
Castanea section (sect.) with
Balanocastanion concurring as Tucker’s
reduction of Castanea ozarkensis to a
variety of Castanea pumila. Tucker’s
reduction is further supported in
Smith’s Keys to the Flora of Arkansas
(1994, p. 54), as well as in current
scientific literature that references the
tree.
Ozark chinquapin is a tree in the
beech family (Fagaceae). Ozark
chinquapin has leaves 10 to 25
centimeters (cm) (4 to 10 inches (in))
long, broadly lanceolate (tapering to a
point at the apex and sometimes at the
base) to elliptical, with coarse teeth that
are 2.5 to 9 millimeters (mm) (0.1 to
0.35 in) long with whitish or yellowishcream stellate (star-shaped) hairs on the
lower surfaces. The bark is light brown
to reddish brown or grayish, with broad
flat ridges that break into loose platelike scales. The fruits are subglobose
(round but not perfectly spherical) to
ovoid nuts up to approximately 20 mm
(0.8 in) long, enclosed in a spiny burr.
Burrs are solitary or in groups of two or
three. The subspecies is distinguished
from Castanea pumila var. pumila
(Allegheny chinquapin) by the larger
leaf size, larger teeth, and larger fruit,
which also have hairs (Steyermark 1963,
p. 531; Smith 1994, p. 54).
Ozark chinquapin was historically a
medium-sized tree species that once
grew to 20 meters (m) (65 feet (ft)),
although usually much shorter, but
now, as a result of chestnut blight, it
rarely reaches heights of more than 9 m
(30 ft). Trunks develop from stump
sprouts as well as from seeds, but in
recent years, new growth is generally
from sprouts. Trees reaching the age to
produce fruit (4 to 5 years; Paillet 1993,
p. 262) are still common (Arkansas
Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC)
2010, personal communication (pers.
comm.)). Ecologically the tree has taken
on the character of an understory shrub
similar to Castanea dentata (American
chestnut) (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.)
due to the fungus parasite
(Cryphonectria parasitica) that is
responsible for the chestnut blight
disease, which has adversely affected
many Castanea spp. populations in the
United States (Tucker 1983, pp. 8–9;
Steyermark 1963, p. 531). However,
Paillet (1991, p. 10; 1993, pp. 261–262)
noted an area on the Ozark National
Forest that was cut 4 to 5 years
previously that was full of broad
chinquapin crowns, and the ground
littered with burrs from the summer’s
nut crop. Ozark chinquapin differs in its
growth and ability to put out an earlier
seed (nut) crop compared to Castanea
dentata, and appears to allow for an
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
37708
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
abundant but short-lived pulse of seed
germination in the decade following
opening of the forest canopy due to
disturbance (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.).
Habitat
Ozark chinquapin has been described
as historically common in thin woods,
edges of woods, and mid-successional
woods (Tucker 1983, pp. 8–9). Turner
(1935, p. 419) describes Ozark
chinquapin as ‘‘fairly common’’ on
north, east, and west facing slopes,
ravines, gullies, or narrow valleys, and
less frequently in the deep, narrow
south-facing gullies or ravines in the
white oak, red oak, red maple, hard
maple hickory association of northwest
Arkansas. It historically occupied
canopy and subcanopy positions on a
variety of habitats, including dry upland
(the higher ground of a region or
district; an elevated region) deciduous
or mixed hardwood-pine communities
on acid soils of ridge-tops, upper slopes
adjacent to ravines and gorges, and the
tops of sandstone bluffs (C. McDonald
1987, pers. comm.). It is well
documented that fire frequency had a
major role in shaping landscape and
regional vegetation patterns in the
Interior Highlands (Batek et al. 1999,
pp. 407–409; Spetich 2004, pp. 21–28,
49–50, 65–69; Guyette and Spetich
2002, pp. 466–473; Guyette and Spetich
2003, pp. 463–474; Bidwell et al.
undated, pp. 2877–2–2877–12; Elliot
and Vose 2010, pp. 49–66). Ozark
chinquapin is fire tolerant, but sprouts
may be damaged by fire (Kral 1983, p.
287).
Ozark chinquapin occupy sandstone
areas in Alabama, but occupy limestone,
sandstone, chert rock, and possibly a
combination in the Interior Highlands of
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma
(Johnson 1988, p. 43). Associated trees
in these habitats include Quercus alba
(white oak), Quercus stellata (post oak),
Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Nyssa
sylvatica (black gum), Pinus echinata
(short-leaf pine), Morus rubra
(mulberry), Carya spp. (hickories),
Ulmus americana (American elm), and
Ostrya virginiana (ironwood)
(Steyermark 1963, p. 531; G. Tucker
1976, pers. comm.). Soil conditions
typically are acid and sandstonederived, and soil moisture conditions
vary from mesic (drains well but retains
water) to dry; shade is variable (G.
Tucker 1976, pers. comm.; C. McDonald
1987, pers. comm.).
Faber-Langendoen (2001, pp. 444,
446, and 449) describe three forest types
that Ozark chinquapin is associated
with in the Interior Highlands. These
include: (1) Short-leaf pine, white oak,
Schizachyrium scoparium (little
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
bluestem) woodland, (2) Pinus echinata
(shortleaf pine), Quercus velutina (black
oak), post oak, Vaccinium spp.
(blueberry species) forest, (3) white oak,
northern red oak, Acer saccharum
(sugar maple), Carya cordiformis
(bitternut hickory), and Lindera benzoin
(northern spicebush) forest.
The first of these forest types is
reported from Missouri and Arkansas,
where it is known from the Ozark and
Ouachita Mountains, and may extend
into Oklahoma (this forest type is
synonymous (the same or similar) with
acid bedrock savanna in Missouri and
dry mesic slope Woodland (Smith et al.
2000 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p.
444)). It contains an open canopy
(woodland), and Ozark chinquapin is
reported as comprising a portion of the
shrub and sapling strata.
The second of these forest types white
oak ranges from eastern Oklahoma to
the southwestern corner of Illinois, but
may have been widespread prior to
excessive harvest of shortleaf pine. It is
synonymous with the dry acid bedrock
forest in Missouri (Faber-Langendoen
2001, p. 446) and (in part) dry shortleaf
pine–oak–hickory forest (Allard 1990 in
Faber-Langendoen 2001, p. 446) and dry
south slope woodland (Smith et al. 2000
in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p. 446). The
tree canopy is short, spreading, open,
and contains numerous branches; a
shortleaf-pine emergent canopy often
forms over a shorter canopy of oaks.
Ozark chinquapin comprises a portion
of the shrub layer in Arkansas, Missouri,
and Oklahoma.
The third forest type (little bluestem
woodland) is known from the SouthCentral United States, particularly the
Ozark and Ouachita Mountain regions
in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It
is synonymous with the mesic forest,
mesic limestone–dolomite forest, acid
bedrock forest (mesic sandstone forest
and mesic igneous forest) in Missouri,
and mesic oak–hickory forest (Tucker
1989 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p.
469). The canopy is dominated by oaks,
sugar maple, and hickories, while the
understory closure varies with moisture
status at the site, being more closed
under greater moisture conditions.
Ozark chinquapin comprises a portion
of the shrub layer in moderately welldrained soils.
Distribution
Ozark chinquapin is located
throughout the Interior Highlands in
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma
(Kartesz 1994; ANHC 2010, pers.
comm.; USDA Forest Service (USFS)
2010, pers. comm.; Missouri Department
of Conservation 2010, pers. comm.). In
Arkansas, it is in 39 counties,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
represented by thousands of elements of
occurrence (known locations of
individual(s) based on field
observation). In Missouri, it is found in
9 counties, including but not limited to
48 elements of occurrence representing
multiple individuals on the Mark Twain
National Forest, Big Sugar Creek State
Park, and Roaring River State Park. In
Oklahoma, the species is in 8 counties.
Ozark chinquapin currently is
widespread and abundant within the
Interior Highlands of Arkansas, but is
less common and widespread within the
uplands of southwestern Missouri and
eastern Oklahoma. For example,
Waterfall and Wallis (1963, p. 14) report
Ozark chinquapin occurrence in only
three of seven Oklahoma counties
(Adair, Cherokee, and Delaware) in the
Ozark uplift portion of the Interior
Highlands.
Localities with seed-producing trees
are common on public and private lands
in the Interior Highlands. Based on a
detailed reconstruction of Ozark
chinquapin in the pre-blight forests of
northwest Arkansas, almost none of the
original trees survived the arrival of
blight circa 1957. Most Ozark
chinquapin sprouts form after the blight
infestation and represent old seedlings,
which may represent an extreme case of
a reproductive strategy based on
advanced regeneration (Paillet 2010,
pers. comm.). Ozark chinquapin
populations still occur throughout the
tree’s historical core distribution in the
Interior Highlands.
Herbarium specimens are all that
remains to support the existence of
Ozark chinquapin in Alabama (in Bibb,
Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and
Winston Counties in the Appalachian
Mountains). Data to support the
abundance and distribution of Ozark
chinquapin in the Appalachian
Mountains is lacking, and researchers
have been unable to find extant
populations in this region. While it is
the opinion of tree experts that Ozark
chinquapin is the best taxonomic
classification (see Taxonomy and
Species Description), the Ozark
Chinquapin Foundation reports Ozark
chinquapin co-occurrence with
Castanea pumila var. pumila in the
coastal plain of Louisiana and
Mississippi (S. Bost, Ozark Chinquapin
Foundation, pers. comm. 2010). The
Service, however, has no documentation
available to substantiate these records.
For the present, according to the best
available scientific literature, Ozark
chinquapin is best treated as a separate
species. The Interior Highlands in
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma
contain the only known extant
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
populations of Ozark chinquapin at this
time (Johnson 1988, pp. 43–45).
At present, there are thousands of
element occurrences in the Interior
Highlands. Individual site records
commonly report multiple Ozark
chinquapin sprout clumps and trees
producing fruit. These vary from tens to
hundreds of individual sprout clumps at
an element occurrence record site
(Kartesz 1994; ANHC 2010, pers.
comm.; USFS 2010, pers. comm.;
Missouri Department of Conservation
2010, pers. comm.).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533 et
seq.) and implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) set forth the procedures for
adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, 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 this finding, information
pertaining to Ozark chinquapin in
relation to the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed
below.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to the species, we
must look beyond the exposure of the
species to a factor to evaluate whether
the species may respond to the factor in
a way that causes actual effects 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 may warrant
listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Under Factor A, we evaluated the
following threats: Habitat loss and/or
fragmentation; and forest composition,
structure conversions, and forest and
fire management (fire use, fire
suppression, and forest silvicultural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
practices; timber harvest, salvage
logging, forest thinning, and forest
restoration projects).
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Johnson (1988, pp. 41–45) recognized
Ozark chinquapin records from the
Interior Highlands and Appalachian
Mountains. Herbarium specimens are all
that remain to support the existence of
Ozark chinquapin in Alabama (in five
counties in the Appalachian Mountains;
Johnson 1988, p. 43). Data to support
the abundance and distribution of the
Ozark chinquapin in the southern
Appalachian Mountains are lacking, and
researchers have been unable to find
extant populations in this region. While
there is support for an AppalachianOzarkian floristic (relating to flowers)
relationship by other taxa such as
Neviusia alabamensis (Moore 1956 in
Johnson 1988, p. 44), floristic
relationships to the lower Mississippi
Valley and Gulf Coastal Plain (Ozark
Chinquapin Foundation 2010, pers.
comm.) can only be considered
speculative at this time (Johnson 1988,
p. 47; ANHC 2010, pers. comm.).
Steyermark (1963, p. 531) states that
Louisiana and Mississippi are
sometimes included as part of the Ozark
chinquapin range, but specimens
examined from those States have been
proven not to be Ozark chinquapin.
Ozark chinquapin is sympatric over
virtually its entire range with Castanea
pumila var. pumila and with Castanea
dentata in Alabama. Further
compounding questions regarding
taxonomy of the species, herbarium,
laboratory, and field studies indicate
that in areas of sympatry the two
varieties of Castanea pumila may be
intermediate and identification of the
two species may not always be possible
(Johnson 1988, p. 43).
Ashe (1923) described the range of the
species as ‘‘north of the Arkansas River
and westward from Center Ridge,
Arkansas, northward to southwestern
Missouri and westward to the Valley of
the White River.’’ Tucker (1983, p. 16)
reported a large number of populations
of Ozark chinquapin in the Interior
Highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma. Nearly 20 years later, the
distribution and abundance of
populations remain similar. The largest
populations occur on public lands (such
as the Ouachita National Forest (AR and
OK), Ozark National Forest (AR), Mark
Twain National Forest (MO), State
Wildlife Management Areas and Parks
(AR, MO, and OK), Buffalo National
River (AR), Hot Springs National Park
(AR), and Pea Ridge National Military
Park (AR). Thousands of elements of
occurrences represented by numerous
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37709
individuals occur in the Interior
Highlands (ANHC 2010, pers. comm.;
USFS 2010, pers. comm.; Missouri
Department of Conservation 2010, pers.
comm.; and Oklahoma Natural Heritage
2010; National Park Service (NPS) 2010
and 2011).
The Ozark–Ouachita Highlands
Assessment (OOHA) 1999 Terrestrial
Vegetation and Wildlife Report,
prepared by a collaborative team of
natural resource specialists and research
scientists, examined historical and
existing forest conditions throughout
the Interior Highlands of Arkansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma (USFS 1999,
section 5). The area of analysis overlaps
much of the range of Ozark chinquapin.
The upland oak–hickory forest type
provided the dominant cover within the
region at the time of the OOHA. It
covered 15 million acres (6.1 million
hectares) or about 36 percent of the area.
The oak–pine forest type provided the
second most extensive cover. It covered
4.4 million acres (1.8 million hectares)
or 11 percent of the area. In 1999, clearcutting had declined by 97.5 percent
over a 10-year period in National
Forests within the planning area.
Additionally, herbicide application in
the National Forests experienced an 83
percent decline over the same period
(USFS 1999, p. 73; UUSFS 2005a, pp. 2–
5, 2–6 and 2–27; USFS 2005b, pp. 176–
178). Oak–hickory and oak–pine forest
types continue to be common forest
types in the Interior Highlands. OOHA
descriptions of vegetation cover or
silvicultural practices do not indicate
significant reductions in suitable habitat
for Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis.
Moreover, the majority of Ozark
chinquapin habitat is located on State
and Federally managed lands. Ozark
chinquapin is designated as a USFS
sensitive species. Land and resource
management plans have recently been
revised for National Forests within the
range of the species. Revisions of these
plans include development of standards
to protect the species while allowing
normal forest management activities,
including the use of prescribed fire,
thinning, and natural gas development.
These standards further demonstrate
that management activities (for example,
prescribed fire and thinning) on public
lands enhance sprouting, flowering, and
fruit production of this species, thus
enhancing stewardship for the species.
The general direction within these plans
is for the National Forests to manage
habitat to move species toward recovery
and delisting and to prevent the listing
of proposed or sensitive species (USFS
2005a, p. 2–13; USFS 2005b, p. 76).
Private property development and
land use activities may threaten Ozark
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
37710
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
chinquapin due to habitat conversion or
loss. On the other hand, private
landowners interested in the
conservation of Ozark chinquapin have
been able to sustain isolated, moderately
sized individuals capable of seed
production on small tracts of private
land. In short, as the human population
continues to increase in the Interior
Highlands, we believe loss or
conversion of forested habitat on private
lands and its effect on Ozark chinquapin
will be minimal, due to the wide
distribution and vast amount of
contiguous habitats afforded the species
on State and Federal lands. While we
expect some element occurrences to be
lost on private land, we conclude that
habitat loss and fragmentation are not
current threats to Ozark chinquapin, nor
do we believe they will be in the
foreseeable future.
Forest Composition, Structure
Conversions, Forest and Fire
Management
It is generally accepted that climate,
topography, and substrate place
fundamental constraints on vegetation
at many different spatial and temporal
scales, but at the landscape scale,
vegetation patterns also may be
controlled by disturbance histories
(Zedler et al. 1983; McCune and Allen
1985; Myers 1985 in Batek et al. 1999,
p. 398). Much of our knowledge of fire
effects on trees comes from a relatively
small collection of studies throughout
the eastern United States during the
period 1957 to 1998 (Dey and Hartman
2005, p. 38). Fire suppression is one of
the major determinants of contemporary
vegetation patterns in the Interior
Highlands. Batek et al. (1999, pp. 407–
410) concluded that where fire regimes
are primarily anthropogenic, as in the
Interior Highlands (specifically in the
Ozarks), they exert strong constraints on
vegetation composition and patterns.
Based on their reconstruction analysis,
the Interior Highlands vegetative
community was replaced during the
19th century by a more homogenous
landscape dominated by several oak
species. Most of the shortleaf pine was
felled from 1888 to 1909 (Steven 1991
in Batek et al. 1999, p. 410), and fire
suppression since 1940 has favored
invasion of fire-sensitive species that
were more restricted in distribution 150
years ago (Batek et al. 1999, p. 410;
Arthur et al. 1998, p. 225).
Historically, the Interior Highlands
landscape consisted of a mosaic of
prairies, savannas, woodlands, and
forests maintained by fires and adapted
to disturbance. Based on Government
Land Office (GLO) survey records
interpreted by the ANHC, only 33
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
percent of the Ozark Mountains was
described as closed forest (much in
steep slopes). The remaining 67 percent
at the time of the GLO surveys had
average tree densities ranging from 38 to
76 trees per acre.
European settlement brought changes
to the ecosystem that led to extensive
timber harvest and fire suppression. As
a result, the average tree density per
acre (ha) increased from 52 to 148 (21
to 60) trees. Even more staggering was
the increase from 300 to 1,000 stems per
acre (121 to 405 stems per ha) in the
sapling and shrub layers. Increased trees
per acre competing for the same amount
of nutrients and water put the
ecosystem under stress. There is nothing
in the post-glacial record that suggests
that the Interior Highlands have been
previously affected by changes of this
magnitude or rapidity (Spetich 2004,
pp. 28 and 304). Despite this forest
conversion after European settlement,
Ozark chinquapin remained a prized
source of edible nuts, fence posts, and
railroad ties in the Interior Highlands
until its rapid ecological and
socioeconomic demise in the mid-1940s
from chestnut blight (Tucker 1983, p. 7).
Canopy closure in undisturbed woods
did not seem to have a major effect on
Ozark chinquapin populations (Paillet
2010, pers. comm.).
Hyatt (1993, pp. 116–118) recounts
the floristic history of Baxter County in
north central Arkansas from the earliest
floristic survey in 1818 to present day.
Ecologically and floristically, Baxter
County was very different during
Hyatt’s 1987–1988 surveys, as compared
with the county’s surveys from the early
19th century, when many upland areas
were once prairie. Much of this prairie
had disappeared by 1880 and was
replaced with ‘‘upland hardwood’’ and
‘‘pine-hardwood’’ forest. By the late
19th century, nearly all of the existing
forest land was logged for railroad ties
and lumber (Hyatt and Moren 1990 in
Hyatt 1993, p. 117). Hyatt (1993, pp. 119
and 127) describes Ozark chinquapin as
‘‘common, diseased, [and] rarely
reproductive,’’ and from only
‘‘Deciduous Forest.’’
Chapman et al. (2006) describe longterm dynamics from 1934 to 2002 in oak
stands within the Sylamore
Experimental Forest (SEF), located in
the Ozark National Forest in north
central Arkansas. When SEF was
established in 1934, it was
representative of typical unharvested
forests of the region that had a long
history (100 plus years) of frequent fire.
Some cutting (harvest) was conducted
after establishment (start of growth) and
a fire prevention program was
implemented, but little management
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
occurred after 1960. Total tree density
increased from 899 to 2,550 trees per ac
(364 to 1,032 trees per ha) and basal area
(an area of a given section of land that
is occupied by the cross-section of tree
trunks and stems at their base) from 25
to 57 m2/ac (10 to 23 m2/ha). Increases
occurred among understory, midstory,
and overstory trees for most species,
except Ozark chinquapin, which
decreased markedly in all three
categories, and Quercus velutina (Black
oak). Chestnut blight is the probable
cause of the Ozark chinquapin decline,
but fire suppression also may have
exacerbated the decline.
Spetich (2004, p. 49) evaluated firescarred trees and stumps at the Big
Piney Ranger District (formerly Bayou
and Pleasant Hill Ranger Districts),
Ozark National Forest, north central
Arkansas, for the three time periods
1747 to 1764, 1804 to 1906, and 1916 to
1954. From 1747 to 1764, the fire return
interval ranged from 1 to 3 years, with
a mean return interval of 2.4 years.
From 1804 to 1906, the fire interval
ranged from 1 to 9 years, with a mean
return interval of 4.4 years. From 1916
to 1954, the fire return interval ranged
from 1 to 12 years, with a mean return
interval of 5.3 years. This validates what
other researchers have found to be a
positive correlation between fire
frequency and low levels of human
population and a negative correlation
between fire frequency and high levels
of human population density. Thus,
increasing human settlement and
fragmentation of the landscape resulted
in a decrease of fire return interval
(Spetich 2004, pp. 49, 463, 469–473).
In 2003, an administrative study
designed to monitor the immediate and
short-term effects of prescribed fire on
individual Ozark chinquapin stems was
implemented north of the Crystal
Mountain Recreation Area on the
Caddo-Womble Ranger District,
Ouachita National Forest, AR. Three
areas were studied: An area thinned in
previous years, an area with no harvest,
and an area that served as a reference
site. The monitoring was designed to
capture the current stand conditions
and health and abundance of individual
Ozark chinquapin stems. The harvest/
burn area showed the widest range of
variability and the greatest increase in
number of Ozark chinquapin sprouts;
there was also an increase in the
number of Ozark chinquapin sprouts in
the burned area, which had no previous
harvest treatments and little to no
change in the reference area (USFS
2003, pp. 4–5).
Historical descriptions of vegetation
and flora of the Ouachita Mountains (a
portion of the Interior Highlands) in
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
eastern Oklahoma are very similar to
those previously discussed for this
region. Nuttall (1780 to 1820) and Rice
and Penfound (1953 to 1957) accounts
of an area dominated by pines and
hardwoods intermixed with open
prairies contained a mosaic of
vegetation types established by frequent
anthropogenic fire and lightning-caused
fires (Thwaites 1905, Curtis 1956, Pyne
1982, and Masters 1991 in Crandall and
Tyrl 2006, p. 65; Rice and Penfound
1959, pp. 595–596). They reported
Ozark chinquapin from stands in
eastern and central Oklahoma, but
provide no discussion on its status,
distribution, or abundance. With the
implementation of fire suppression in
the 1920s, the region changed to a
landscape of predominately forest
(Crandall and Tyrl 2006, p. 65; Rice and
Penfound, pp. 606–607).
Crandall and Tyrl (2006, p. 65) and
Smith et al. (1997 in Hoagland and
Buthod 2009, pp. 78–81) documented
447 and 359 species at the Pushmataha
Wildlife Management Area and
McCurtain County Wilderness Area,
McCurtain County, Oklahoma,
respectively, but no Ozark chinquapin
were reported within these areas
(collectively comprising 33,090 ac
(13,391 ha)). Hoagland and Buthod
(2008, pp. 18 and 24; 2009, pp. 61 and
85) reported Ozark chinquapin presence
at The Nature Conservancy’s T. Nickel
Family Nature and Wildlife Preserve
and Cucumber Creek Nature Preserve,
Cherokee and LeFlore Counties,
Oklahoma. They reported Ozark
chinquapin in xeric forests,
predominately on south facing and
exposed slopes at the preserve.
In summary, the OOHA recognized
Ozark chinquapin as a species of
viability concern, the habitat
description being ‘‘woodland, fire
maintained’’ (USFS 1999, p. 137). Loss
of natural fire regimes is recognized as
a threat to the health and sustainability
of oak–hickory and oak–pine
ecosystems in which Ozark chinquapin
occurs (Spetich 2004, pp. 49–50 and 65–
66). Given the current understanding of
fire as it relates to ecosystem health and
sustainability within most of the
habitats where Ozark chinquapin is
known to occur, we cannot conclude
that fire, whether natural or prescribed,
is negatively influencing the species.
Fire plays a vital role in the
management of Ozark chinquapin by
maintaining open habitat, encouraging
both seed germination and vegetative
regeneration. While fire may injure or
kill individuals, long-term effects on
sustaining viable populations are
beneficial. It is well documented that
fire suppression adversely effects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
reproduction of Ozark chinquapin. In
contrast, prescribed fire reduces fuel
availability in the forest, which reduces
the threat of catastrophic wildfires that
are likely a greater threat to Ozark
chinquapin than prescribed fire.
Scientific literature supports
widespread forest composition and
structure changes throughout the
Interior Highlands beginning in the late
1800s and extending over one century.
Tucker (1983, p. 15) stated that Ozark
chinquapin formerly was a member of
the climax (the highest or most intense
point in the development) community,
but presently is one of the first species
to regenerate following a disturbance
(for example, clear-cut and prescribed
fire). Paillet (1991, p. 10; 1993, pp. 261–
262) noted an area on the Ozark
National Forest that was cut 4 to 5 years
previously that was full of broad
chinquapin crowns, with the ground
littered with burrs from the summer’s
nut crop. Despite these changes, Ozark
chinquapin remains common
throughout its historical distribution in
the Interior Highlands. Current land
management efforts, particularly on
State and Federal lands, favor Ozark
chinquapin persistence in this region.
Summary of Factor A
We evaluated habitat loss,
fragmentation, forest composition,
structure conversions, forest
management, and fire management as
threats to the Ozark chinquapin. We
found that habitat loss and
fragmentation may be happening on
private lands, but that its effect on
Ozark chinquapin is minimal due to
widespread distribution and vast
amounts of contiguous habitats afforded
the species on State and Federal lands.
Forest composition and structure
conversions have occurred throughout
the species’ range, but despite these
changes, Ozark chinquapin remains
common throughout its historical
distribution in the Interior Highlands.
Additionally, current forest
management efforts, particularly on
State and Federal lands, favor Ozark
chinquapin persistence in this region.
Fire management was the last threat we
evaluated. Fire plays a vital role in the
management of Ozark chinquapin by
maintaining open habitat, encouraging
both seed germination and vegetative
regeneration. While fire may injure or
kill individuals, long-term effects on
sustaining viable populations is
beneficial.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the Ozark
chinquapin is not threatened by the
present or threatened destruction,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37711
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range now or in the
foreseeable future. Additionally, for
these reasons, we conclude that
alterations to forest composition and
structure and forest and fire
management do not pose an imminent
threat to Ozark chinquapin now or in
the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We do not have any evidence of risks
to the Ozark chinquapin from
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes, and we have no reason to
believe this factor will become a threat
to the species in the future. Therefore,
based on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not a threat to
Ozark chinquapin now or in the
foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Under Factor C, we evaluated the
following diseases: ink disease
(Phytopthera cinnamomi) and chestnut
blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). We do
not have any information to indicate
that any other disease or that predation
poses a threat to Ozark chinquapin at
this time.
Ink Disease
Ink disease, caused by the fungus
Phytopthora cinnamomi, is known to
attack the root systems of all North
American Castanea species. It has been
present in the southeast United States
for over a century. The pathogen is slow
spreading. Phytopthora cinnamomi
spores spread through groundwater, and
thus are most prevalent in low-lying
areas. The pathogen also appears to be
restricted to relatively warm
temperatures (generally south of
Philadelphia, PA) and heavier soils
(Paillet 2010, pers. comm.). The
relatively coarse sandstone and chert
loam upland soils where Ozark
chinquapin thrives may be too well
drained for the pathogen (Paillet 2010,
pers. comm.). For these reasons, we
conclude that ink disease does not pose
an imminent threat to Ozark chinquapin
now or in the foreseeable future.
Chestnut Blight
Chestnut blight, caused by the fungal
parasite Cryphonectria (formerly
Endothia) parasitica, attacks the stems
of all North American Castanea species,
but is not directly pathogenic to the root
system. Castanea species evolved in
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
37712
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
North America with little or no
resistance to chestnut blight, due to
isolation from the Asiatic Castanea
species, which evolved with this
parasitic fungus and developed some
resistance (Anagnostakis 1982 p. 466).
The chestnut blight was first found in
Castanea dentata (American chestnut;
1904). Over a period of approximately
20 years, the blight spread throughout
the range of the American chestnut,
reducing this important forest tree to a
shrub or small tree. The fungus enters
wounds in the bark and grows under the
bark, eventually killing the cambium (a
layer of living cells, between the bark
and hardwood, that each year produces
additional wood and bark cells)
encircling the infected area. This results
in top-kill of the tree (above the ground).
After top-kill, sprouts develop at the
base of the tree from dormant buds.
These sprouts grow, become infected,
and die, and the process is repeated
(Anagnostakis 2000, p. 1). Chestnut
blight is widely recognized as the
dominant threat to Ozark chinquapin.
The blight’s effect on Ozark chinquapin
was first noted in the 1940s (Tucker
1983, p. 7). However, while there is an
abundance of scientific literature
addressing the effects of chestnut blight
on the American chestnut, literature
addressing its effects on Ozark
chinquapin specifically is very limited.
There are clearly a number of
similarities in the current status of the
two species (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.).
The long-term threat posed to both
species is that: (1) Trees survive by
avoiding chestnut blight, so there is
little selective pressure to generate
blight resistance; and (2) chestnut blight
severely restricts reproduction (cross
pollination and seed production), which
may serve as resistance genes through
normal cross breeding species that are
not self fertile.
The ability of Ozark chinquapin to
produce a mast crop after 4 to 5 years
of age increases the likelihood of cross
pollination (fertile individuals) and
subsequent seed production. This
allows for a significant but short lived
pulse of cross pollination and seed
production in the decade following a
release response (release of seeds and
pollination) (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.).
Although most Ozark chinquapin
specimens now found are infertile
multi-stemmed understory shrubs due
to chestnut blight, it is not exceedingly
rare to find fertile specimens in a variety
of Arkansas habitats or to find young
specimens with single trunks and no
evidence of chestnut blight–killed older
trunks, indicating recent seed
production (ANHC 2010, pers. comm.).
In one Arkansas locality, the sprouts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
produced seeds within a few years of
release (Paillet, 1993, p. 267). This
indicates there is some level of
reproduction (cross pollination and
subsequent seed production and
germination) (ANHC 2010, pers.
comm.), albeit degraded by chestnut
blight (Tucker, 1983, pp. 9, 16).
Ozark chinquapin, like American
chestnut, also has suppressed sprout
clumps that reside on the forest floor.
Almost all sprout clumps represent ‘‘old
seedlings’’ that never grew to tree size.
Many of these suppressed Ozark
chinquapin sprouts are small and
inconspicuous, escaping notice by the
casual observer (Paillet 2010, pers.
comm.). Nibbs (1983 in Paillet 2002, p.
1527) showed that suppressed seedlings
of several New England tree species are
capable of sprouting and that sprouts
from seedlings established before tree
harvest were more successful in
regenerating forests in Massachusetts
than were either stump sprouts or new
seedlings. Much of the adaptive
character of American chestnut as an
understory shrub applies as well to
Ozark chinquapin.
The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest,
Wedington Unit, is involved in a
detailed reconstruction of Ozark
chinquapin in the pre-chestnut blight
forests of northwest Arkansas. Although
in modern forests we think of Ozark
chinquapin growing in clumps of
sprouts, most of the original trees had a
single, upright dominant trunk. Most of
these original trees did not survive by
resprouting. Most surviving Ozark
chinquapin sprouts, as in the case of the
American chestnut, represent ‘‘old
seedlings.’’ This may represent an
extreme case of a reproductive strategy
based on advanced regeneration (Paillet
2010, pers. comm.), but limited
information is available to support or
refute this hypothesis.
An understanding of adaptive genetic
differentiation among populations is of
primary importance in the conservation
of Castanea species in North America
(Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 2). Stillwell
et al. (2003, pp. 3–4) discuss several
effects to the American chestnuts as a
consequence of chestnut blight,
including ecological changes and the
diminished importance of cross
pollination, seed production, and
germination on the amount and
distribution of genetic diversity in the
species. First, the chestnut blight
significantly alters the ecology of
American chestnut, which may reduce
the overall level of genetic diversity.
Secondly, chestnut blight may affect the
distribution of genetic variance within
and among populations. This could
occur by genetic drift from the reduced
population size or from the vegetative
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expansion of root collars, both of which
would tend to diminish genetic variance
within patches.
Dane and Hawkins (1999) characterize
the genetic diversity within and
between populations of the Ozark
chinquapin to provide an understanding
of overall genetic composition and its
relationship to the vulnerability of the
species to chestnut blight. The
proportion of genetic diversity found
among the studied Ozark chinquapin
populations was slightly greater than
that observed for other Castanea
species, other long-lived perennial
species, wind-outcrossing (to crosspollinate (reproduce) by wind dispersal)
species, and late-successional species
(Hamrick and Godt 1996 in Dane and
Hawkins 1999, p. 8). ANHC (1996, p. 5)
also found similar results in four
Arkansas Ozark chinquapin
populations, although the amount of
genetic diversity found among the
populations was very low. They
reported a high level of heterozygosity
within populations that may have been
the result of tree recovery in clear-cut
areas following the incidence of
chestnut blight. Dane et al. (2003, p.
319) found high genetic diversity in the
more narrowly distributed Ozark
chinquapin, similar to that in regionally
distributed Castanea pumila var.
pumila (Allegheny chinquapin). While
Fu and Dane (2003, pp. 228–229) found
that genetic diversity in Allegheny
chinquapin was much higher than that
observed in the American chestnut,
which is geographically sympatric
(Johnson 1988, p. 42), and is similar to
that of the closely related Ozark
chinquapin. The greater level of genetic
diversity in Ozark chinquapin may be
related to its origin as it is less evolved
than the more common Allegheny
chinquapin as evidenced by its lack of
stoloniferous (producing stolons;
putting forth suckers) growth (an
adaptation for survival in early
successional stages and areas with low
soil fertility), its arborescent (having the
size, form, or characteristics of a tree)
habit, and other habitat requirements
(Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 8).
There are high levels of outcrossing
and gene flow among Ozark chinquapin
populations. Indirect estimates of
outcrossing rates suggest that most
populations are highly outcrossed (Dane
and Hawkins 1999, p. 9). Johnson (1988,
pp. 37–40) found the Castanea species
to be mainly wind-pollinated, and
detected infrequent occurrences of selfcompatibility and apomixis
(reproduction without meiosis (the
process of cell division in sexually
reproducing organisms that reduces the
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
number of chromosomes) or formation
of gametes (eggs)).
Knowles and Grant (1981, p. 4, in
Stillwell et al. 2003) and Mitton and
Grant (1980, p. 4, in Stillwell et al.
2003) present contrasting information
on long-lived trees and the general
perception that more heterozygous
individuals are less variable and better
adapted in fluctuating environments.
Stillwell et al. (2003, pp. 9–11) suggest
that the chestnut blight has had
significant effects on the genetics of
American chestnut populations. They
found that a slight growth advantage for
heterozygous genotypes has resulted in
a profound excess of heterozygotes
within populations. Studies of different
age classes (seeds, seedlings, and stands
of differing ages) show an increase in
heterozygosity with increasing age
within other tree species. The difference
observed by Stillwell et al. (2003, pp. 9–
11) is that all extant American chestnut
genotypes are more than 70 years old
and many that succumbed to the blight
as mature canopy trees are much older.
Therefore, as selection favors a
population of heterozygous individuals,
there are no new recruits to restore the
population toward Hardy-Weinberg
equilibrium (a constant state of genetic
variation in a population from one
generation to the next in the absence of
disturbance). Prolonged absence of cross
pollination and subsequent new
recruitment from seed germination in
the American chestnut has resulted in a
change in population genetics, yet it is
not well documented whether these
same effects have resulted in similar
changes to population genetics of the
Ozark chinquapin due to its ability to
produce mast crops before succumbing
to chestnut blight.
The high mortality of American
chestnut stems in conjunction with near
total elimination of reproduction
through cross pollination could have
resulted in the loss of some (mostly rare)
alleles (one of two or more alternative
forms of a gene that arise by mutation
and are found at the same place on a
chromosome) (Loveless and Hamrick
1984; Leberg 1992 in Stillwell et al.
2003, pp. 207–213). It is not clear;
however, whether this slightly lower
genetic diversity is a result of the
chestnut blight epidemic. Huang et al.
(1998, pp. 1015–1019) suggested that
the low genetic diversity of the
American chestnut resulted in the high
susceptibility to attack by blight, rather
than that the low genetic diversity was
a direct consequence of the blight
pandemic, and that other Castanea
species with more diverse allozyme
variation are less susceptible to
epidemics. In the absence of knowledge
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
of pre-blight genetic population
structure, it is difficult to make any
definitive statement on changes in
genetic diversity due to the chestnut
blight pandemic (Stillwell et al. 2003, p.
10).
Grenate (1965 in Anagnostakis 1987
p. 27) isolated forms of the chestnut
blight fungus that had a different
appearance and reduced virulence in
Castanea species infected by chestnut
blight in Italy. Hypovirulence is a
disease, or a group of diseases, that
affect the chestnut blight, reducing the
ability of the blight to kill susceptible
Castanea tree hosts (Van Alfen et al.
1975 in Anagnostakis 1987 p. 28).
Hypovirulence is controlled by genetic
determinants in the cytoplasm of the
fungus (Day et al. 1977 in Anagnostakis
1987 p. 28). These hypovirulent forms
cured existing blight when they were
inoculated into cankers of infected trees.
Due to successes achieved with
hypovirulent strains in Europe, research
and conservation efforts began in the
early 1970s with the American chestnut
(Anagnostakis 1987 pp. 32–33) and
continue at present with the Ozark
chinquapin. Full restoration of the
Ozark chinquapin may prove
complicated and might require
establishment of a backcross breeding
program designed to transfer the blight
resistance of Castanea henryi (Chinese
chinquapin) (Dane and Hawkins 1999,
p. 9). Similar efforts are ongoing to
discover hypovirulent forms or founder
(fall in or give way; collapse) trees with
natural chestnut blight resistance in
Ozark chinquapin, although there is
preference towards the latter (Ozark
Chinquapin Foundation 2010, pers.
comm.).
Success at bringing chestnut blight
into balance in Europe (Italy and
France) demonstrates that the fungus
might be controlled in North America
(Anagnostakis 1987 p. 33). Brewer
(1995, pp. 54–55) found that certain
ecological factors may explain
differential success of hypovirulence in
different Michigan soil types: (1)
American chestnut has a better
competitive advantage on well-drained
sandy soils, (2) hypovirulence originates
from sandy textured hypovirulence
originates soils, and (3) sandy textured
soils provide more dispersing agents for
hypovirulent strains. While it remains
unclear how important each of these
factors is in the hypovirulence
phenomenon and how chestnut blight,
double-stranded RNA, and American
chestnut interact, it should enable
researchers, foresters, and
conservationists the opportunity to
better assess hypovirulence as a
biological control that also may favor
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37713
restoration of Ozark chinquapin
populations.
Despite the shift in reproductive
strategy (seed production/germination
versus vegetative regeneration) and a
shorter life span for the stems, chestnut
blight has not affected the distribution
and abundance of Ozark chinquapin in
the Interior Highlands of Arkansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma (see
‘‘Distribution’’). Tucker (1983, p. 25)
states that chestnut blight is responsible
for the mortality of extant reproductive
populations (those capable of cross
pollination and seed production),
reducing populations to primarily
reproduction via regeneration, and that
populations capable of cross pollination
and seed production are increasingly
rare. However, there are numerous
references in the scientific literature and
from personal communications with
agencies and conservation groups
actively involved in the conservation of
Ozark chinquapin that indicate that this
species is adapted to and capable of
producing mast crops annually in areas
with active management (such as forest
management and prescribed fire) (Paillet
1993, p. 267; Paillet 2002, p. 1528;
Paillet 2010, pers. comm.; ANHC 2010,
pers. comm.; USFS 2010, pers. comm.;
Ozark Chinquapin Foundation 2010,
pers. comm.; Missouri Department of
Natural Resources 2010, pers. comm.).
While not done as extensively as for
American chestnut, genetic studies
indicate that Ozark chinquapin has
greater genetic diversity than American
chestnut and similar genetic diversity to
Allegheny chinquapin, both of which
are more geographically widespread
than Ozark chinquapin (Dane and
Hawkins 1999, p. 2–9; Stillwell et al.
2003, pp. 3–11; ANHC 1996, p. 5; Dane
et al. 2003, p. 319; Fu and Dane 2003,
pp. 228–229; Huang et al. 1998, pp.
1015–1019). The greater level of genetic
diversity in Ozark chinquapin may be
related to evolutionary adaptations for
survival in early successional stages and
areas with low soil fertility, its
arborescent habit, and other habitat
requirements (Dane and Hawkins 1999,
p. 8). Thus, information available does
not indicate that chestnut blight has
resulted in a loss of genetic diversity for
Ozark chinquapin. While the ecological
demise of Castanea species is well
documented in scientific literature, the
seemingly endless cycle of sprouting
(regeneration) and reinfection has
continued in American chestnut, as well
as Ozark chinquapin, unabated to
present day (over 100 years in the
former species and 70 years in the latter)
(Anagnostakis and Hillman undated, pp.
6–7). Success at bringing chestnut blight
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
37714
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
into balance in Europe (Italy and
France) with hypovirulence
demonstrates that the fungus might be
controlled in North America
(Anagnostakis 1987 p. 33). Moreover,
similar hypo virulent efforts as those
taking place in Europe are ongoing with
Ozark chinquapin (Ozark Chinquapin
Foundation, 2010 pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor C
Ink disease does not pose an
imminent threat now or in the
foreseeable future to the continued
existence of extant Ozark chinquapin
populations; however, chestnut blight
has posed a long-term, imminent threat
to mature Ozark chinquapins for the
past 70 years and will for the
foreseeable future. However, chestnut
blight does not threaten the continued
existence of Ozark chinquapin at this
time or in the foreseeable future. Our
conclusion is based on the following: (1)
The documented widespread
distribution and abundance of Ozark
chinquapin is more complex than the
picture presented by chestnut blight
alone and may represent combined
effects of changes in disturbance regime,
climate, and land use history that
extend over a prolonged period (postglacial history) in the region; (2) it is
well documented that the Ozark
chinquapin remains widespread and
abundant within the Interior Highlands;
and (3) due to the life history traits of
Ozark Chinquapin, it appears that cross
pollination and production of seeds,
while rare, does occur, which may allow
for a significant, albeit greatly
diminished, short pulse of seed
production and germination in the
decade after a disturbance (release)
response. Based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the Ozark
chinquapin is not threatened by the
disease or predation now or in the
foreseeable future.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The majority of Ozark chinquapin
populations occur on public land.
Populations that occur on these lands
are protected by State and Federal laws
and regulations.
Federal Regulations and Management
The NPS, under its National Park
Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),
is responsible for managing the National
Parks to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the
wildlife (see ‘‘Distribution’’ section and
Factor A, for National Parks with extant
Ozark chinquapin populations) found
on the parks. The National Parks
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16
U.S.C. 5934 et seq.) requires the NPS to
inventory and monitor its natural
resources. NPS has implemented its
resource management responsibilities
through its Management Policies,
Section 4.4, which states that the NPS
‘‘will maintain as parts of the natural
ecosystems of parks all plants and
animals native to park ecosystems.’’
Section 207 of the Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 allows NPS to
withhold from the public any
information related to the nature and
specific location of endangered,
threatened, or rare species unless
disclosure would not create an
unreasonable risk of harm to the
species.
Hot Springs National Park (HSNP)
does not specifically manage for Ozark
chinquapin. HSNP’s current General
Management Plan (GMP) was approved
in the 1980s and did not specifically
address the Ozark chinquapin.
However, HSNP does manage for the
entire ecosystem that includes the Ozark
chinquapin. For instance, in May 2005,
HSNP abandoned its practice of total
fire suppression regardless of ignition
source and has since utilized fire as an
ecosystem restoration tool on Sugarloaf
Mountain (the only site in the park with
an extant population of Ozark
chinquapin). As a result of the new fire
regime, young Ozark chinquapin
sprouts have responded favorably at
sites with suitable habitat. Furthermore,
HSNP is currently in the process of
developing a new GMP, which will
incorporate ecosystem restoration that
will prove valuable to Ozark chinquapin
restoration at HSNP, with expertise from
other agencies and researchers (for
example, USFS Southeast Research
Station; S. Rudd, NPS, pers. comm.
2011). Similarly, Pea Ridge National
Military Park does not currently have a
GMP that specifically addresses the
conservation needs of Ozark
chinquapin, but it actively utilizes fire
as an ecosystem restoration tool (K.
Eads, NPS, pers. comm. 2011).
Finally, Buffalo National River (BNR)
is developing a predictive geographic
information system (map) model based
on soil types and aspects associated
with Ozark chinquapin populations at
BNR. This work also includes a better
delineation (survey) of Ozark
chinquapin populations to aid in a
better understanding of its health and
spatial distribution, important modeling
parameters. This information will be
available in summer 2011 and will
further help guide Ozark chinquapin
habitat restoration efforts at BNR. BNR
also began work in 2009 with an arborist
to gather seeds from trees at BNR
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
seemingly unaffected by chestnut blight
for propagation (B. Wilson, NPS, pers.
comm. 2011).
Ozark chinquapin is currently
designated as a USFS sensitive species
(see Distribution section and Factor A
for USFS lands with extant Ozark
chinquapin populations). The National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) specifies guidelines
for land management plans developed
to achieve goals that include protection
of sensitive species. USFS Manual 2670,
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
Plants and Animals, sections 22 and 32,
requires the USFS to develop and
implement management practices that
ensure that sensitive species do not
become threatened or endangered due to
USFS actions. Factor A of this finding
discusses some vegetative monitoring
and management activities which
include the Ozark chinquapin that are
conducted and controlled by the USFS.
State Regulations and Management
Additionally, the Ozark chinquapin
currently receives protection on State
park and natural heritage owned lands
(see Distribution section and Factor A)
in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
State parks in Missouri, similar to
Arkansas and Oklahoma, are acquired
and managed to protect a well-balanced
system of areas with outstanding scenic,
recreational, and historic significance
(10 CSR 100–1.010). Missouri State
parks currently track resiliency and
recovery of Ozark chinquapin with
implementation of prescribed fire to
manage for ecosystem health (such as
fire-mediated woodlands that support
Ozark chinquapin) and monitor
distribution with aid from the Natural
Heritage Program (A. Vaughn, Missouri
State Parks, pers. comm. 2010).
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
(AGFC) has no specific management
strategy for Ozark chinquapin on
Wildlife Management Areas; similar to
other State properties throughout the
species range, they maintain a species
list for inventory purposes and elements
of occurrence and have prescribed fire
management plans that benefit Ozark
chinquapin (M. Blaney, AGFC, pers.
comm. 2011).
The ANHC System of Natural Areas
provides long-term protection to some
of Arkansas’ most ecologically
significant lands. ANHC rules and
regulations prohibit the collection and/
or removal of plants (including fruits,
nuts, or edible plant parts), animals,
fungi, rocks, minerals, fossils,
archaeological artifacts, soil, downed
wood, or any other natural material,
alive or dead. Natural areas are managed
according to an established management
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
plan and a conservation vision aimed at
protecting, enhancing, interpreting, and
sometimes even restoring the significant
ecological values present at the site (for
example, natural ecosystem health). To
do this, management plans for areas
within the system are prepared and
updated regularly to set the frameworks
for future management activities. ANHC
no longer tracks Ozark chinquapin as a
State species of concern, due to its
widespread distribution and local
abundance in Arkansas (C. Colclasure,
ANHC, pers. comm. 2010 and T.
Witsell, ANHC, pers. comm. 2011).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, we do not consider the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to be a threat to the
populations of Ozark Chinquapin in the
national forests and parks and State
parks and natural areas in Arkansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma. The regulatory
mechanisms discussed above allow the
Federal and State agencies to prevent
collection or take of Ozark chinquapin
and implement management practices to
ensure long-term population viability
and promote natural ecosystem
restoration and health on public
property. Furthermore, we do not
consider development outside these
Federal and State lands to be a threat to
Ozark chinquapin populations within
these Federal lands. Therefore, based on
a review of the available information,
we find that inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to
Ozark chinquapin now or in the
foreseeable future.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
Climate Change
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. Climate change will be a particular
challenge for biodiversity, because the
interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and
current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic
(combined or cooperative action or
force) implications of climate change
and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for
biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4).
Current climate change predictions for
terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air
temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying (Field et al.
1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p.
12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate
change may lead to increased frequency
and duration of severe storms and
droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook
et al. 2004, p. 1015). According to the
Arkansas Statewide Forest Resource
Assessment (2010, p. 68), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture concluded
that species will adjust to suitable
conditions or go locally extinct if
suitable conditions are no longer
available. As climate models project
continued warming in all seasons across
the Southeast (Karl et al. 2009, p. 1),
species shift is likely to be northward.
The information currently available on
the effects of global climate change and
increasing temperatures does not make
sufficiently precise estimates of the
location and magnitude of the effects.
Nor are we currently aware of any
climate change information specific to
the habitat of Castanea pumila var.
ozarkensis that would indicate what
areas may become important to the
species in the future.
Summary of Factor E
Therefore, we do not have any
information of risks to the Ozark
chinquapin from other natural or
manmade factors, and we have no
reason to believe this factor will become
a threat to the species in the foreseeable
future. Based on a review of the
available information, we find that other
natural or manmade factors are not a
threat to the Ozark chinquapin now or
in the foreseeable future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether
Ozark chinquapin is threatened or
endangered 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 Ozark chinquapin. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized Ozark chinquapin experts
and other Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that the threats are not
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that Ozark
chinquapin is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all of its
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37715
range. Therefore, we find that listing
Ozark chinquapin as a threatened or
endangered species is not warranted
throughout all of its range at this time.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that Ozark
chinquapin does not meet the definition
of a threatened or endangered species
throughout all of its range, we must next
consider whether there are any
significant portions of the range where
Ozark chinquapin is in danger of
extinction or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
In determining whether Ozark
chinquapin is threatened or endangered
in a significant portion of its range, we
first addressed whether any portions of
the range of Ozark chinquapin warrant
further consideration. We evaluated the
current range of Ozark chinquapin to
determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of the primary
stressors potentially affecting the
species including habitat management,
development, climate change,
regulation, disease, and genetics. This
species’ range suggests that stressors are
not likely to affect it in a uniform
manner throughout its range. As we
explained in detail in our analysis of the
status of the species, none of the
stressors faced by the species are
sufficient to place it in danger of
extinction now (endangered) or in the
foreseeable future (threatened).
Therefore, no portion is likely to
warrant further consideration, and a
determination of significance is not
necessary.
We do not find that Ozark chinquapin
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 Ozark chinquapin as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, Ozark chinquapin to our
Arkansas Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section)
whenever it becomes available. New
information will help us monitor Ozark
chinquapin and encourage its
conservation. If an emergency situation
develops for Ozark chinquapin, or any
other species, we will act to provide
immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
37716
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Authors
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Comments regarding the burden-hour
estimates, or any other aspect of the
collection of information requirements
contained in this proposed rule, should
be submitted in writing to Chief, Marine
Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, or to Nathan Frey,
OMB, by fax to 202–395–7285 or by email to Nathan_Frey@omb.eop.gov.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
Information regarding the LOF and
the Marine Mammal Authorization
Program, including registration
procedures and forms, current and past
LOFs, information on each Category I
and II fishery, observer requirements,
and marine mammal injury/mortality
reporting forms and submittal
procedures, may be obtained at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/
or from any NMFS Regional Office at
the addresses listed below:
NMFS, Northeast Region, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–
2298, Attn: Allison Rosner;
NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701,
Attn: Laura Engleby;
NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 W.
Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
CA 90802–4213, Attn: Charles Villafana;
NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand
Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, Attn:
Protected Resources Division;
NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected
Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West
9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:
Bridget Mansfield; or
NMFS, Pacific Islands Region,
Protected Resources, 1601 Kapiolani
Boulevard, Suite 1100, Honolulu, HI
96814–4700, Attn: Lisa Van Atta.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Andersen, Office of Protected
Resources, 301–713–2322; David
Gouveia, Northeast Region, 978–281–
9280; Laura Engleby, Southeast Region,
727–551–5791; Elizabeth Petras,
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: June 14, 2011.
Gabriela Chavarria,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–16190 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 110207104–1112–02]
RIN 0648–BA76
List of Fisheries for 2012
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its
proposed List of Fisheries (LOF) for
2012, as required by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The
proposed LOF for 2012 reflects new
information on interactions between
commercial fisheries and marine
mammals. NMFS must classify each
commercial fishery on the LOF into one
of three categories under the MMPA
based upon the level of serious injury
and mortality of marine mammals that
occurs incidental to each fishery. The
classification of a fishery in the LOF
determines whether participants in that
fishery are subject to certain provisions
of the MMPA, such as registration,
observer coverage, and take reduction
plan (TRP) requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by any one
of the following methods.
(1) Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic comments through the
Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov (follow
instructions for submitting comments).
(2) Mail: Chief, Marine Mammal and
Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Attn:
List of Fisheries, Office of Protected
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Southwest Region, 562–980–3238; Brent
Norberg, Northwest Region, 206–526–
6733; Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region,
907–586–7642; Lisa Van Atta, Pacific
Islands Region, 808–944–2257.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the
hearing impaired may call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1–800–
877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
What is the List of Fisheries?
Section 118 of the MMPA requires
NMFS to place all U.S. commercial
fisheries into one of three categories
based on the level of incidental serious
injury and mortality of marine mammals
occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C.
1387(c)(1)). The classification of a
fishery on the LOF determines whether
participants in that fishery may be
required to comply with certain
provisions of the MMPA, such as
registration, observer coverage, and take
reduction plan requirements. NMFS
must reexamine the LOF annually,
considering new information in the
Marine Mammal Stock Assessment
Reports (SAR) and other relevant
sources, and publish in the Federal
Register any necessary changes to the
LOF after notice and opportunity for
public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387
(c)(1)(C)).
How does NMFS determine in which
category a fishery is placed?
The definitions for the fishery
classification criteria can be found in
the implementing regulations for section
118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The
criteria are also summarized here.
Fishery Classification Criteria
The fishery classification criteria
consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific
approach that first addresses the total
impact of all fisheries on each marine
mammal stock, and then addresses the
impact of individual fisheries on each
stock. This approach is based on
consideration of the rate, in numbers of
animals per year, of incidental
mortalities and serious injuries of
marine mammals due to commercial
fishing operations relative to the
potential biological removal (PBR) level
for each marine mammal stock. The
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the
PBR level as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population. This
definition can also be found in the
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37706-37716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16190]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0020; MO 92210-0-0008-B]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis as Threatened or
Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ozark
chinquapin), a tree, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing Ozark
chinquapin is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
threats to Ozark chinquapin or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 28,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R4-ES-2009-0020]. 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, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office,
110 South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Boggs, Field Supervisor, Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300,
Conway, AR 72032 (see ADDRESSES); by telephone (501-513-4470) or by
facsimile (501-
[[Page 37707]]
513-4480). 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (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 the 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: (1) Not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) 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 Act 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 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis
(Ozark chinquapin; see Taxonomy and Species Description section) was
included as one of the 3,000 plant species under status review. It was
proposed or reviewed by the Service for listing as an endangered
species under the Act in 1976 (June 16, 1976, 41 FR 24524). However, we
did not finalize that proposed rule because of subsequent amendments to
the Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Ozark chinquapin became
a category 2 candidate on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). It was again
advertised as a category 2 candidate on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526). The status changed on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), to a
category 1 candidate species. On September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), the
status changed back to a category 2 candidate species for listing until
the category 2 list was eliminated in 1996 (61 FR 7596). A category 2
species was a species for which we had information indicating that a
proposal to list as threatened or endangered under the Act may be
appropriate but for which additional information on biological
viability and threat was needed to support the preparation of a
proposed rule.
On January 6, 2004, we received a petition, dated December 28,
2003, from Mr. Joe Glenn of Hodgen, OK, requesting that the Ozark
chinquapin be listed under the Act as a candidate species. We
interpreted the request to mean threatened or endangered. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, as required by the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition
contained supporting information regarding the species' ecology,
threats to the species, and survey and occurrence data for a portion of
the Ouachita Highlands in southeastern Oklahoma. We acknowledged
receipt of the petition in a February 2, 2004, letter to Mr. Glenn. In
that letter, we advised the petitioner that, due to a significant
number of court orders and settlement agreements in Fiscal Year 2004,
we would not be able to address the petitioned request at that time.
On June 1, 2010, we published a 90-day finding that the petition
presented substantial information that listing the Ozark chinquapin may
be warranted and initiated a status review of the species (75 FR
30313). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the December
28, 2003, petition to list Ozark chinquapin as threatened or
endangered.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ozark chinquapin) was first
identified as a separate species (Castanea ozarkensis) by Ashe (1923,
p. 60). Ashe described the range of the species as ``north of the
Arkansas River and westward from Center Ridge, Arkansas, northward to
southwestern Missouri and westward to the Valley of the White River''
(Tucker 1983, p. 2). Ashe (1923, p. 361) also described a second
species, Castanea arkansana, in Arkansas. Ashe (1924, p. 45, in Tucker
1983) reduced Castanea arkansana to varietal status as Castanea
ozarkensis var. arkansana. Little (1953, p. 2, in Tucker 1983) reduced
Castanea arkansana to synonymy with Castanea ozarkensis. Tucker (1975,
p. 2, in Tucker 1983) reduced Castanea ozarkensis to a variety of the
more common Castanea pumila (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe)
Tucker) and concurred with Little's (1953) treatment of Castanea
arkansana. Johnson (1988, p. 43) published a revision of the Castanea
section (sect.) with Balanocastanion concurring as Tucker's reduction
of Castanea ozarkensis to a variety of Castanea pumila. Tucker's
reduction is further supported in Smith's Keys to the Flora of Arkansas
(1994, p. 54), as well as in current scientific literature that
references the tree.
Ozark chinquapin is a tree in the beech family (Fagaceae). Ozark
chinquapin has leaves 10 to 25 centimeters (cm) (4 to 10 inches (in))
long, broadly lanceolate (tapering to a point at the apex and sometimes
at the base) to elliptical, with coarse teeth that are 2.5 to 9
millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.35 in) long with whitish or yellowish-cream
stellate (star-shaped) hairs on the lower surfaces. The bark is light
brown to reddish brown or grayish, with broad flat ridges that break
into loose plate-like scales. The fruits are subglobose (round but not
perfectly spherical) to ovoid nuts up to approximately 20 mm (0.8 in)
long, enclosed in a spiny burr. Burrs are solitary or in groups of two
or three. The subspecies is distinguished from Castanea pumila var.
pumila (Allegheny chinquapin) by the larger leaf size, larger teeth,
and larger fruit, which also have hairs (Steyermark 1963, p. 531; Smith
1994, p. 54).
Ozark chinquapin was historically a medium-sized tree species that
once grew to 20 meters (m) (65 feet (ft)), although usually much
shorter, but now, as a result of chestnut blight, it rarely reaches
heights of more than 9 m (30 ft). Trunks develop from stump sprouts as
well as from seeds, but in recent years, new growth is generally from
sprouts. Trees reaching the age to produce fruit (4 to 5 years; Paillet
1993, p. 262) are still common (Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
(ANHC) 2010, personal communication (pers. comm.)). Ecologically the
tree has taken on the character of an understory shrub similar to
Castanea dentata (American chestnut) (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.) due to
the fungus parasite (Cryphonectria parasitica) that is responsible for
the chestnut blight disease, which has adversely affected many Castanea
spp. populations in the United States (Tucker 1983, pp. 8-9; Steyermark
1963, p. 531). However, Paillet (1991, p. 10; 1993, pp. 261-262) noted
an area on the Ozark National Forest that was cut 4 to 5 years
previously that was full of broad chinquapin crowns, and the ground
littered with burrs from the summer's nut crop. Ozark chinquapin
differs in its growth and ability to put out an earlier seed (nut) crop
compared to Castanea dentata, and appears to allow for an
[[Page 37708]]
abundant but short-lived pulse of seed germination in the decade
following opening of the forest canopy due to disturbance (Paillet
2010, pers. comm.).
Habitat
Ozark chinquapin has been described as historically common in thin
woods, edges of woods, and mid-successional woods (Tucker 1983, pp. 8-
9). Turner (1935, p. 419) describes Ozark chinquapin as ``fairly
common'' on north, east, and west facing slopes, ravines, gullies, or
narrow valleys, and less frequently in the deep, narrow south-facing
gullies or ravines in the white oak, red oak, red maple, hard maple
hickory association of northwest Arkansas. It historically occupied
canopy and subcanopy positions on a variety of habitats, including dry
upland (the higher ground of a region or district; an elevated region)
deciduous or mixed hardwood-pine communities on acid soils of ridge-
tops, upper slopes adjacent to ravines and gorges, and the tops of
sandstone bluffs (C. McDonald 1987, pers. comm.). It is well documented
that fire frequency had a major role in shaping landscape and regional
vegetation patterns in the Interior Highlands (Batek et al. 1999, pp.
407-409; Spetich 2004, pp. 21-28, 49-50, 65-69; Guyette and Spetich
2002, pp. 466-473; Guyette and Spetich 2003, pp. 463-474; Bidwell et
al. undated, pp. 2877-2-2877-12; Elliot and Vose 2010, pp. 49-66).
Ozark chinquapin is fire tolerant, but sprouts may be damaged by fire
(Kral 1983, p. 287).
Ozark chinquapin occupy sandstone areas in Alabama, but occupy
limestone, sandstone, chert rock, and possibly a combination in the
Interior Highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (Johnson 1988,
p. 43). Associated trees in these habitats include Quercus alba (white
oak), Quercus stellata (post oak), Quercus rubra (northern red oak),
Nyssa sylvatica (black gum), Pinus echinata (short-leaf pine), Morus
rubra (mulberry), Carya spp. (hickories), Ulmus americana (American
elm), and Ostrya virginiana (ironwood) (Steyermark 1963, p. 531; G.
Tucker 1976, pers. comm.). Soil conditions typically are acid and
sandstone-derived, and soil moisture conditions vary from mesic (drains
well but retains water) to dry; shade is variable (G. Tucker 1976,
pers. comm.; C. McDonald 1987, pers. comm.).
Faber-Langendoen (2001, pp. 444, 446, and 449) describe three
forest types that Ozark chinquapin is associated with in the Interior
Highlands. These include: (1) Short-leaf pine, white oak, Schizachyrium
scoparium (little bluestem) woodland, (2) Pinus echinata (shortleaf
pine), Quercus velutina (black oak), post oak, Vaccinium spp.
(blueberry species) forest, (3) white oak, northern red oak, Acer
saccharum (sugar maple), Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory), and
Lindera benzoin (northern spicebush) forest.
The first of these forest types is reported from Missouri and
Arkansas, where it is known from the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, and
may extend into Oklahoma (this forest type is synonymous (the same or
similar) with acid bedrock savanna in Missouri and dry mesic slope
Woodland (Smith et al. 2000 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p. 444)). It
contains an open canopy (woodland), and Ozark chinquapin is reported as
comprising a portion of the shrub and sapling strata.
The second of these forest types white oak ranges from eastern
Oklahoma to the southwestern corner of Illinois, but may have been
widespread prior to excessive harvest of shortleaf pine. It is
synonymous with the dry acid bedrock forest in Missouri (Faber-
Langendoen 2001, p. 446) and (in part) dry shortleaf pine-oak-hickory
forest (Allard 1990 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p. 446) and dry south
slope woodland (Smith et al. 2000 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p. 446).
The tree canopy is short, spreading, open, and contains numerous
branches; a shortleaf-pine emergent canopy often forms over a shorter
canopy of oaks. Ozark chinquapin comprises a portion of the shrub layer
in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
The third forest type (little bluestem woodland) is known from the
South-Central United States, particularly the Ozark and Ouachita
Mountain regions in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is synonymous
with the mesic forest, mesic limestone-dolomite forest, acid bedrock
forest (mesic sandstone forest and mesic igneous forest) in Missouri,
and mesic oak-hickory forest (Tucker 1989 in Faber-Langendoen 2001, p.
469). The canopy is dominated by oaks, sugar maple, and hickories,
while the understory closure varies with moisture status at the site,
being more closed under greater moisture conditions. Ozark chinquapin
comprises a portion of the shrub layer in moderately well-drained
soils.
Distribution
Ozark chinquapin is located throughout the Interior Highlands in
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (Kartesz 1994; ANHC 2010, pers. comm.;
USDA Forest Service (USFS) 2010, pers. comm.; Missouri Department of
Conservation 2010, pers. comm.). In Arkansas, it is in 39 counties,
represented by thousands of elements of occurrence (known locations of
individual(s) based on field observation). In Missouri, it is found in
9 counties, including but not limited to 48 elements of occurrence
representing multiple individuals on the Mark Twain National Forest,
Big Sugar Creek State Park, and Roaring River State Park. In Oklahoma,
the species is in 8 counties.
Ozark chinquapin currently is widespread and abundant within the
Interior Highlands of Arkansas, but is less common and widespread
within the uplands of southwestern Missouri and eastern Oklahoma. For
example, Waterfall and Wallis (1963, p. 14) report Ozark chinquapin
occurrence in only three of seven Oklahoma counties (Adair, Cherokee,
and Delaware) in the Ozark uplift portion of the Interior Highlands.
Localities with seed-producing trees are common on public and
private lands in the Interior Highlands. Based on a detailed
reconstruction of Ozark chinquapin in the pre-blight forests of
northwest Arkansas, almost none of the original trees survived the
arrival of blight circa 1957. Most Ozark chinquapin sprouts form after
the blight infestation and represent old seedlings, which may represent
an extreme case of a reproductive strategy based on advanced
regeneration (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.). Ozark chinquapin populations
still occur throughout the tree's historical core distribution in the
Interior Highlands.
Herbarium specimens are all that remains to support the existence
of Ozark chinquapin in Alabama (in Bibb, Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Walker,
and Winston Counties in the Appalachian Mountains). Data to support the
abundance and distribution of Ozark chinquapin in the Appalachian
Mountains is lacking, and researchers have been unable to find extant
populations in this region. While it is the opinion of tree experts
that Ozark chinquapin is the best taxonomic classification (see
Taxonomy and Species Description), the Ozark Chinquapin Foundation
reports Ozark chinquapin co-occurrence with Castanea pumila var. pumila
in the coastal plain of Louisiana and Mississippi (S. Bost, Ozark
Chinquapin Foundation, pers. comm. 2010). The Service, however, has no
documentation available to substantiate these records. For the present,
according to the best available scientific literature, Ozark chinquapin
is best treated as a separate species. The Interior Highlands in
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma contain the only known extant
[[Page 37709]]
populations of Ozark chinquapin at this time (Johnson 1988, pp. 43-45).
At present, there are thousands of element occurrences in the
Interior Highlands. Individual site records commonly report multiple
Ozark chinquapin sprout clumps and trees producing fruit. These vary
from tens to hundreds of individual sprout clumps at an element
occurrence record site (Kartesz 1994; ANHC 2010, pers. comm.; USFS
2010, pers. comm.; Missouri Department of Conservation 2010, pers.
comm.).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533 et seq.) and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 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 this finding, information pertaining to Ozark chinquapin in
relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to the
species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that
causes actual effects 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 may
warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined
in the Act.
Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
Under Factor A, we evaluated the following threats: Habitat loss
and/or fragmentation; and forest composition, structure conversions,
and forest and fire management (fire use, fire suppression, and forest
silvicultural practices; timber harvest, salvage logging, forest
thinning, and forest restoration projects).
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Johnson (1988, pp. 41-45) recognized Ozark chinquapin records from
the Interior Highlands and Appalachian Mountains. Herbarium specimens
are all that remain to support the existence of Ozark chinquapin in
Alabama (in five counties in the Appalachian Mountains; Johnson 1988,
p. 43). Data to support the abundance and distribution of the Ozark
chinquapin in the southern Appalachian Mountains are lacking, and
researchers have been unable to find extant populations in this region.
While there is support for an Appalachian-Ozarkian floristic (relating
to flowers) relationship by other taxa such as Neviusia alabamensis
(Moore 1956 in Johnson 1988, p. 44), floristic relationships to the
lower Mississippi Valley and Gulf Coastal Plain (Ozark Chinquapin
Foundation 2010, pers. comm.) can only be considered speculative at
this time (Johnson 1988, p. 47; ANHC 2010, pers. comm.). Steyermark
(1963, p. 531) states that Louisiana and Mississippi are sometimes
included as part of the Ozark chinquapin range, but specimens examined
from those States have been proven not to be Ozark chinquapin. Ozark
chinquapin is sympatric over virtually its entire range with Castanea
pumila var. pumila and with Castanea dentata in Alabama. Further
compounding questions regarding taxonomy of the species, herbarium,
laboratory, and field studies indicate that in areas of sympatry the
two varieties of Castanea pumila may be intermediate and identification
of the two species may not always be possible (Johnson 1988, p. 43).
Ashe (1923) described the range of the species as ``north of the
Arkansas River and westward from Center Ridge, Arkansas, northward to
southwestern Missouri and westward to the Valley of the White River.''
Tucker (1983, p. 16) reported a large number of populations of Ozark
chinquapin in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma. Nearly 20 years later, the distribution and abundance of
populations remain similar. The largest populations occur on public
lands (such as the Ouachita National Forest (AR and OK), Ozark National
Forest (AR), Mark Twain National Forest (MO), State Wildlife Management
Areas and Parks (AR, MO, and OK), Buffalo National River (AR), Hot
Springs National Park (AR), and Pea Ridge National Military Park (AR).
Thousands of elements of occurrences represented by numerous
individuals occur in the Interior Highlands (ANHC 2010, pers. comm.;
USFS 2010, pers. comm.; Missouri Department of Conservation 2010, pers.
comm.; and Oklahoma Natural Heritage 2010; National Park Service (NPS)
2010 and 2011).
The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment (OOHA) 1999 Terrestrial
Vegetation and Wildlife Report, prepared by a collaborative team of
natural resource specialists and research scientists, examined
historical and existing forest conditions throughout the Interior
Highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (USFS 1999, section 5).
The area of analysis overlaps much of the range of Ozark chinquapin.
The upland oak-hickory forest type provided the dominant cover within
the region at the time of the OOHA. It covered 15 million acres (6.1
million hectares) or about 36 percent of the area. The oak-pine forest
type provided the second most extensive cover. It covered 4.4 million
acres (1.8 million hectares) or 11 percent of the area. In 1999, clear-
cutting had declined by 97.5 percent over a 10-year period in National
Forests within the planning area. Additionally, herbicide application
in the National Forests experienced an 83 percent decline over the same
period (USFS 1999, p. 73; UUSFS 2005a, pp. 2-5, 2-6 and 2-27; USFS
2005b, pp. 176-178). Oak-hickory and oak-pine forest types continue to
be common forest types in the Interior Highlands. OOHA descriptions of
vegetation cover or silvicultural practices do not indicate significant
reductions in suitable habitat for Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis.
Moreover, the majority of Ozark chinquapin habitat is located on
State and Federally managed lands. Ozark chinquapin is designated as a
USFS sensitive species. Land and resource management plans have
recently been revised for National Forests within the range of the
species. Revisions of these plans include development of standards to
protect the species while allowing normal forest management activities,
including the use of prescribed fire, thinning, and natural gas
development. These standards further demonstrate that management
activities (for example, prescribed fire and thinning) on public lands
enhance sprouting, flowering, and fruit production of this species,
thus enhancing stewardship for the species. The general direction
within these plans is for the National Forests to manage habitat to
move species toward recovery and delisting and to prevent the listing
of proposed or sensitive species (USFS 2005a, p. 2-13; USFS 2005b, p.
76).
Private property development and land use activities may threaten
Ozark
[[Page 37710]]
chinquapin due to habitat conversion or loss. On the other hand,
private landowners interested in the conservation of Ozark chinquapin
have been able to sustain isolated, moderately sized individuals
capable of seed production on small tracts of private land. In short,
as the human population continues to increase in the Interior
Highlands, we believe loss or conversion of forested habitat on private
lands and its effect on Ozark chinquapin will be minimal, due to the
wide distribution and vast amount of contiguous habitats afforded the
species on State and Federal lands. While we expect some element
occurrences to be lost on private land, we conclude that habitat loss
and fragmentation are not current threats to Ozark chinquapin, nor do
we believe they will be in the foreseeable future.
Forest Composition, Structure Conversions, Forest and Fire Management
It is generally accepted that climate, topography, and substrate
place fundamental constraints on vegetation at many different spatial
and temporal scales, but at the landscape scale, vegetation patterns
also may be controlled by disturbance histories (Zedler et al. 1983;
McCune and Allen 1985; Myers 1985 in Batek et al. 1999, p. 398). Much
of our knowledge of fire effects on trees comes from a relatively small
collection of studies throughout the eastern United States during the
period 1957 to 1998 (Dey and Hartman 2005, p. 38). Fire suppression is
one of the major determinants of contemporary vegetation patterns in
the Interior Highlands. Batek et al. (1999, pp. 407-410) concluded that
where fire regimes are primarily anthropogenic, as in the Interior
Highlands (specifically in the Ozarks), they exert strong constraints
on vegetation composition and patterns. Based on their reconstruction
analysis, the Interior Highlands vegetative community was replaced
during the 19th century by a more homogenous landscape dominated by
several oak species. Most of the shortleaf pine was felled from 1888 to
1909 (Steven 1991 in Batek et al. 1999, p. 410), and fire suppression
since 1940 has favored invasion of fire-sensitive species that were
more restricted in distribution 150 years ago (Batek et al. 1999, p.
410; Arthur et al. 1998, p. 225).
Historically, the Interior Highlands landscape consisted of a
mosaic of prairies, savannas, woodlands, and forests maintained by
fires and adapted to disturbance. Based on Government Land Office (GLO)
survey records interpreted by the ANHC, only 33 percent of the Ozark
Mountains was described as closed forest (much in steep slopes). The
remaining 67 percent at the time of the GLO surveys had average tree
densities ranging from 38 to 76 trees per acre.
European settlement brought changes to the ecosystem that led to
extensive timber harvest and fire suppression. As a result, the average
tree density per acre (ha) increased from 52 to 148 (21 to 60) trees.
Even more staggering was the increase from 300 to 1,000 stems per acre
(121 to 405 stems per ha) in the sapling and shrub layers. Increased
trees per acre competing for the same amount of nutrients and water put
the ecosystem under stress. There is nothing in the post-glacial record
that suggests that the Interior Highlands have been previously affected
by changes of this magnitude or rapidity (Spetich 2004, pp. 28 and
304). Despite this forest conversion after European settlement, Ozark
chinquapin remained a prized source of edible nuts, fence posts, and
railroad ties in the Interior Highlands until its rapid ecological and
socioeconomic demise in the mid-1940s from chestnut blight (Tucker
1983, p. 7). Canopy closure in undisturbed woods did not seem to have a
major effect on Ozark chinquapin populations (Paillet 2010, pers.
comm.).
Hyatt (1993, pp. 116-118) recounts the floristic history of Baxter
County in north central Arkansas from the earliest floristic survey in
1818 to present day. Ecologically and floristically, Baxter County was
very different during Hyatt's 1987-1988 surveys, as compared with the
county's surveys from the early 19th century, when many upland areas
were once prairie. Much of this prairie had disappeared by 1880 and was
replaced with ``upland hardwood'' and ``pine-hardwood'' forest. By the
late 19th century, nearly all of the existing forest land was logged
for railroad ties and lumber (Hyatt and Moren 1990 in Hyatt 1993, p.
117). Hyatt (1993, pp. 119 and 127) describes Ozark chinquapin as
``common, diseased, [and] rarely reproductive,'' and from only
``Deciduous Forest.''
Chapman et al. (2006) describe long-term dynamics from 1934 to 2002
in oak stands within the Sylamore Experimental Forest (SEF), located in
the Ozark National Forest in north central Arkansas. When SEF was
established in 1934, it was representative of typical unharvested
forests of the region that had a long history (100 plus years) of
frequent fire. Some cutting (harvest) was conducted after establishment
(start of growth) and a fire prevention program was implemented, but
little management occurred after 1960. Total tree density increased
from 899 to 2,550 trees per ac (364 to 1,032 trees per ha) and basal
area (an area of a given section of land that is occupied by the cross-
section of tree trunks and stems at their base) from 25 to 57 m\2\/ac
(10 to 23 m\2\/ha). Increases occurred among understory, midstory, and
overstory trees for most species, except Ozark chinquapin, which
decreased markedly in all three categories, and Quercus velutina (Black
oak). Chestnut blight is the probable cause of the Ozark chinquapin
decline, but fire suppression also may have exacerbated the decline.
Spetich (2004, p. 49) evaluated fire-scarred trees and stumps at
the Big Piney Ranger District (formerly Bayou and Pleasant Hill Ranger
Districts), Ozark National Forest, north central Arkansas, for the
three time periods 1747 to 1764, 1804 to 1906, and 1916 to 1954. From
1747 to 1764, the fire return interval ranged from 1 to 3 years, with a
mean return interval of 2.4 years. From 1804 to 1906, the fire interval
ranged from 1 to 9 years, with a mean return interval of 4.4 years.
From 1916 to 1954, the fire return interval ranged from 1 to 12 years,
with a mean return interval of 5.3 years. This validates what other
researchers have found to be a positive correlation between fire
frequency and low levels of human population and a negative correlation
between fire frequency and high levels of human population density.
Thus, increasing human settlement and fragmentation of the landscape
resulted in a decrease of fire return interval (Spetich 2004, pp. 49,
463, 469-473).
In 2003, an administrative study designed to monitor the immediate
and short-term effects of prescribed fire on individual Ozark
chinquapin stems was implemented north of the Crystal Mountain
Recreation Area on the Caddo-Womble Ranger District, Ouachita National
Forest, AR. Three areas were studied: An area thinned in previous
years, an area with no harvest, and an area that served as a reference
site. The monitoring was designed to capture the current stand
conditions and health and abundance of individual Ozark chinquapin
stems. The harvest/burn area showed the widest range of variability and
the greatest increase in number of Ozark chinquapin sprouts; there was
also an increase in the number of Ozark chinquapin sprouts in the
burned area, which had no previous harvest treatments and little to no
change in the reference area (USFS 2003, pp. 4-5).
Historical descriptions of vegetation and flora of the Ouachita
Mountains (a portion of the Interior Highlands) in
[[Page 37711]]
eastern Oklahoma are very similar to those previously discussed for
this region. Nuttall (1780 to 1820) and Rice and Penfound (1953 to
1957) accounts of an area dominated by pines and hardwoods intermixed
with open prairies contained a mosaic of vegetation types established
by frequent anthropogenic fire and lightning-caused fires (Thwaites
1905, Curtis 1956, Pyne 1982, and Masters 1991 in Crandall and Tyrl
2006, p. 65; Rice and Penfound 1959, pp. 595-596). They reported Ozark
chinquapin from stands in eastern and central Oklahoma, but provide no
discussion on its status, distribution, or abundance. With the
implementation of fire suppression in the 1920s, the region changed to
a landscape of predominately forest (Crandall and Tyrl 2006, p. 65;
Rice and Penfound, pp. 606-607).
Crandall and Tyrl (2006, p. 65) and Smith et al. (1997 in Hoagland
and Buthod 2009, pp. 78-81) documented 447 and 359 species at the
Pushmataha Wildlife Management Area and McCurtain County Wilderness
Area, McCurtain County, Oklahoma, respectively, but no Ozark chinquapin
were reported within these areas (collectively comprising 33,090 ac
(13,391 ha)). Hoagland and Buthod (2008, pp. 18 and 24; 2009, pp. 61
and 85) reported Ozark chinquapin presence at The Nature Conservancy's
T. Nickel Family Nature and Wildlife Preserve and Cucumber Creek Nature
Preserve, Cherokee and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma. They reported Ozark
chinquapin in xeric forests, predominately on south facing and exposed
slopes at the preserve.
In summary, the OOHA recognized Ozark chinquapin as a species of
viability concern, the habitat description being ``woodland, fire
maintained'' (USFS 1999, p. 137). Loss of natural fire regimes is
recognized as a threat to the health and sustainability of oak-hickory
and oak-pine ecosystems in which Ozark chinquapin occurs (Spetich 2004,
pp. 49-50 and 65-66). Given the current understanding of fire as it
relates to ecosystem health and sustainability within most of the
habitats where Ozark chinquapin is known to occur, we cannot conclude
that fire, whether natural or prescribed, is negatively influencing the
species. Fire plays a vital role in the management of Ozark chinquapin
by maintaining open habitat, encouraging both seed germination and
vegetative regeneration. While fire may injure or kill individuals,
long-term effects on sustaining viable populations are beneficial. It
is well documented that fire suppression adversely effects reproduction
of Ozark chinquapin. In contrast, prescribed fire reduces fuel
availability in the forest, which reduces the threat of catastrophic
wildfires that are likely a greater threat to Ozark chinquapin than
prescribed fire.
Scientific literature supports widespread forest composition and
structure changes throughout the Interior Highlands beginning in the
late 1800s and extending over one century. Tucker (1983, p. 15) stated
that Ozark chinquapin formerly was a member of the climax (the highest
or most intense point in the development) community, but presently is
one of the first species to regenerate following a disturbance (for
example, clear-cut and prescribed fire). Paillet (1991, p. 10; 1993,
pp. 261-262) noted an area on the Ozark National Forest that was cut 4
to 5 years previously that was full of broad chinquapin crowns, with
the ground littered with burrs from the summer's nut crop. Despite
these changes, Ozark chinquapin remains common throughout its
historical distribution in the Interior Highlands. Current land
management efforts, particularly on State and Federal lands, favor
Ozark chinquapin persistence in this region.
Summary of Factor A
We evaluated habitat loss, fragmentation, forest composition,
structure conversions, forest management, and fire management as
threats to the Ozark chinquapin. We found that habitat loss and
fragmentation may be happening on private lands, but that its effect on
Ozark chinquapin is minimal due to widespread distribution and vast
amounts of contiguous habitats afforded the species on State and
Federal lands. Forest composition and structure conversions have
occurred throughout the species' range, but despite these changes,
Ozark chinquapin remains common throughout its historical distribution
in the Interior Highlands. Additionally, current forest management
efforts, particularly on State and Federal lands, favor Ozark
chinquapin persistence in this region. Fire management was the last
threat we evaluated. Fire plays a vital role in the management of Ozark
chinquapin by maintaining open habitat, encouraging both seed
germination and vegetative regeneration. While fire may injure or kill
individuals, long-term effects on sustaining viable populations is
beneficial.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the Ozark chinquapin is not threatened by
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range now or in the foreseeable future. Additionally,
for these reasons, we conclude that alterations to forest composition
and structure and forest and fire management do not pose an imminent
threat to Ozark chinquapin now or in the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We do not have any evidence of risks to the Ozark chinquapin from
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, and we have no reason to believe this factor will
become a threat to the species in the future. Therefore, based on a
review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not a threat to Ozark chinquapin now or in the
foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Under Factor C, we evaluated the following diseases: ink disease
(Phytopthera cinnamomi) and chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica).
We do not have any information to indicate that any other disease or
that predation poses a threat to Ozark chinquapin at this time.
Ink Disease
Ink disease, caused by the fungus Phytopthora cinnamomi, is known
to attack the root systems of all North American Castanea species. It
has been present in the southeast United States for over a century. The
pathogen is slow spreading. Phytopthora cinnamomi spores spread through
groundwater, and thus are most prevalent in low-lying areas. The
pathogen also appears to be restricted to relatively warm temperatures
(generally south of Philadelphia, PA) and heavier soils (Paillet 2010,
pers. comm.). The relatively coarse sandstone and chert loam upland
soils where Ozark chinquapin thrives may be too well drained for the
pathogen (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.). For these reasons, we conclude
that ink disease does not pose an imminent threat to Ozark chinquapin
now or in the foreseeable future.
Chestnut Blight
Chestnut blight, caused by the fungal parasite Cryphonectria
(formerly Endothia) parasitica, attacks the stems of all North American
Castanea species, but is not directly pathogenic to the root system.
Castanea species evolved in
[[Page 37712]]
North America with little or no resistance to chestnut blight, due to
isolation from the Asiatic Castanea species, which evolved with this
parasitic fungus and developed some resistance (Anagnostakis 1982 p.
466). The chestnut blight was first found in Castanea dentata (American
chestnut; 1904). Over a period of approximately 20 years, the blight
spread throughout the range of the American chestnut, reducing this
important forest tree to a shrub or small tree. The fungus enters
wounds in the bark and grows under the bark, eventually killing the
cambium (a layer of living cells, between the bark and hardwood, that
each year produces additional wood and bark cells) encircling the
infected area. This results in top-kill of the tree (above the ground).
After top-kill, sprouts develop at the base of the tree from dormant
buds. These sprouts grow, become infected, and die, and the process is
repeated (Anagnostakis 2000, p. 1). Chestnut blight is widely
recognized as the dominant threat to Ozark chinquapin. The blight's
effect on Ozark chinquapin was first noted in the 1940s (Tucker 1983,
p. 7). However, while there is an abundance of scientific literature
addressing the effects of chestnut blight on the American chestnut,
literature addressing its effects on Ozark chinquapin specifically is
very limited. There are clearly a number of similarities in the current
status of the two species (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.). The long-term
threat posed to both species is that: (1) Trees survive by avoiding
chestnut blight, so there is little selective pressure to generate
blight resistance; and (2) chestnut blight severely restricts
reproduction (cross pollination and seed production), which may serve
as resistance genes through normal cross breeding species that are not
self fertile.
The ability of Ozark chinquapin to produce a mast crop after 4 to 5
years of age increases the likelihood of cross pollination (fertile
individuals) and subsequent seed production. This allows for a
significant but short lived pulse of cross pollination and seed
production in the decade following a release response (release of seeds
and pollination) (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.). Although most Ozark
chinquapin specimens now found are infertile multi-stemmed understory
shrubs due to chestnut blight, it is not exceedingly rare to find
fertile specimens in a variety of Arkansas habitats or to find young
specimens with single trunks and no evidence of chestnut blight-killed
older trunks, indicating recent seed production (ANHC 2010, pers.
comm.). In one Arkansas locality, the sprouts produced seeds within a
few years of release (Paillet, 1993, p. 267). This indicates there is
some level of reproduction (cross pollination and subsequent seed
production and germination) (ANHC 2010, pers. comm.), albeit degraded
by chestnut blight (Tucker, 1983, pp. 9, 16).
Ozark chinquapin, like American chestnut, also has suppressed
sprout clumps that reside on the forest floor. Almost all sprout clumps
represent ``old seedlings'' that never grew to tree size. Many of these
suppressed Ozark chinquapin sprouts are small and inconspicuous,
escaping notice by the casual observer (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.).
Nibbs (1983 in Paillet 2002, p. 1527) showed that suppressed seedlings
of several New England tree species are capable of sprouting and that
sprouts from seedlings established before tree harvest were more
successful in regenerating forests in Massachusetts than were either
stump sprouts or new seedlings. Much of the adaptive character of
American chestnut as an understory shrub applies as well to Ozark
chinquapin.
The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Wedington Unit, is involved
in a detailed reconstruction of Ozark chinquapin in the pre-chestnut
blight forests of northwest Arkansas. Although in modern forests we
think of Ozark chinquapin growing in clumps of sprouts, most of the
original trees had a single, upright dominant trunk. Most of these
original trees did not survive by resprouting. Most surviving Ozark
chinquapin sprouts, as in the case of the American chestnut, represent
``old seedlings.'' This may represent an extreme case of a reproductive
strategy based on advanced regeneration (Paillet 2010, pers. comm.),
but limited information is available to support or refute this
hypothesis.
An understanding of adaptive genetic differentiation among
populations is of primary importance in the conservation of Castanea
species in North America (Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 2). Stillwell et
al. (2003, pp. 3-4) discuss several effects to the American chestnuts
as a consequence of chestnut blight, including ecological changes and
the diminished importance of cross pollination, seed production, and
germination on the amount and distribution of genetic diversity in the
species. First, the chestnut blight significantly alters the ecology of
American chestnut, which may reduce the overall level of genetic
diversity. Secondly, chestnut blight may affect the distribution of
genetic variance within and among populations. This could occur by
genetic drift from the reduced population size or from the vegetative
expansion of root collars, both of which would tend to diminish genetic
variance within patches.
Dane and Hawkins (1999) characterize the genetic diversity within
and between populations of the Ozark chinquapin to provide an
understanding of overall genetic composition and its relationship to
the vulnerability of the species to chestnut blight. The proportion of
genetic diversity found among the studied Ozark chinquapin populations
was slightly greater than that observed for other Castanea species,
other long-lived perennial species, wind-outcrossing (to cross-
pollinate (reproduce) by wind dispersal) species, and late-successional
species (Hamrick and Godt 1996 in Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 8). ANHC
(1996, p. 5) also found similar results in four Arkansas Ozark
chinquapin populations, although the amount of genetic diversity found
among the populations was very low. They reported a high level of
heterozygosity within populations that may have been the result of tree
recovery in clear-cut areas following the incidence of chestnut blight.
Dane et al. (2003, p. 319) found high genetic diversity in the more
narrowly distributed Ozark chinquapin, similar to that in regionally
distributed Castanea pumila var. pumila (Allegheny chinquapin). While
Fu and Dane (2003, pp. 228-229) found that genetic diversity in
Allegheny chinquapin was much higher than that observed in the American
chestnut, which is geographically sympatric (Johnson 1988, p. 42), and
is similar to that of the closely related Ozark chinquapin. The greater
level of genetic diversity in Ozark chinquapin may be related to its
origin as it is less evolved than the more common Allegheny chinquapin
as evidenced by its lack of stoloniferous (producing stolons; putting
forth suckers) growth (an adaptation for survival in early successional
stages and areas with low soil fertility), its arborescent (having the
size, form, or characteristics of a tree) habit, and other habitat
requirements (Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 8).
There are high levels of outcrossing and gene flow among Ozark
chinquapin populations. Indirect estimates of outcrossing rates suggest
that most populations are highly outcrossed (Dane and Hawkins 1999, p.
9). Johnson (1988, pp. 37-40) found the Castanea species to be mainly
wind-pollinated, and detected infrequent occurrences of self-
compatibility and apomixis (reproduction without meiosis (the process
of cell division in sexually reproducing organisms that reduces the
[[Page 37713]]
number of chromosomes) or formation of gametes (eggs)).
Knowles and Grant (1981, p. 4, in Stillwell et al. 2003) and Mitton
and Grant (1980, p. 4, in Stillwell et al. 2003) present contrasting
information on long-lived trees and the general perception that more
heterozygous individuals are less variable and better adapted in
fluctuating environments. Stillwell et al. (2003, pp. 9-11) suggest
that the chestnut blight has had significant effects on the genetics of
American chestnut populations. They found that a slight growth
advantage for heterozygous genotypes has resulted in a profound excess
of heterozygotes within populations. Studies of different age classes
(seeds, seedlings, and stands of differing ages) show an increase in
heterozygosity with increasing age within other tree species. The
difference observed by Stillwell et al. (2003, pp. 9-11) is that all
extant American chestnut genotypes are more than 70 years old and many
that succumbed to the blight as mature canopy trees are much older.
Therefore, as selection favors a population of heterozygous
individuals, there are no new recruits to restore the population toward
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (a constant state of genetic variation in a
population from one generation to the next in the absence of
disturbance). Prolonged absence of cross pollination and subsequent new
recruitment from seed germination in the American chestnut has resulted
in a change in population genetics, yet it is not well documented
whether these same effects have resulted in similar changes to
population genetics of the Ozark chinquapin due to its ability to
produce mast crops before succumbing to chestnut blight.
The high mortality of American chestnut stems in conjunction with
near total elimination of reproduction through cross pollination could
have resulted in the loss of some (mostly rare) alleles (one of two or
more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found
at the same place on a chromosome) (Loveless and Hamrick 1984; Leberg
1992 in Stillwell et al. 2003, pp. 207-213). It is not clear; however,
whether this slightly lower genetic diversity is a result of the
chestnut blight epidemic. Huang et al. (1998, pp. 1015-1019) suggested
that the low genetic diversity of the American chestnut resulted in the
high susceptibility to attack by blight, rather than that the low
genetic diversity was a direct consequence of the blight pandemic, and
that other Castanea species with more diverse allozyme variation are
less susceptible to epidemics. In the absence of knowledge of pre-
blight genetic population structure, it is difficult to make any
definitive statement on changes in genetic diversity due to the
chestnut blight pandemic (Stillwell et al. 2003, p. 10).
Grenate (1965 in Anagnostakis 1987 p. 27) isolated forms of the
chestnut blight fungus that had a different appearance and reduced
virulence in Castanea species infected by chestnut blight in Italy.
Hypovirulence is a disease, or a group of diseases, that affect the
chestnut blight, reducing the ability of the blight to kill susceptible
Castanea tree hosts (Van Alfen et al. 1975 in Anagnostakis 1987 p. 28).
Hypovirulence is controlled by genetic determinants in the cytoplasm of
the fungus (Day et al. 1977 in Anagnostakis 1987 p. 28). These
hypovirulent forms cured existing blight when they were inoculated into
cankers of infected trees. Due to successes achieved with hypovirulent
strains in Europe, research and conservation efforts began in the early
1970s with the American chestnut (Anagnostakis 1987 pp. 32-33) and
continue at present with the Ozark chinquapin. Full restoration of the
Ozark chinquapin may prove complicated and might require establishment
of a backcross breeding program designed to transfer the blight
resistance of Castanea henryi (Chinese chinquapin) (Dane and Hawkins
1999, p. 9). Similar efforts are ongoing to discover hypovirulent forms
or founder (fall in or give way; collapse) trees with natural chestnut
blight resistance in Ozark chinquapin, although there is preference
towards the latter (Ozark Chinquapin Foundation 2010, pers. comm.).
Success at bringing chestnut blight into balance in Europe (Italy
and France) demonstrates that the fungus might be controlled in North
America (Anagnostakis 1987 p. 33). Brewer (1995, pp. 54-55) found that
certain ecological factors may explain differential success of
hypovirulence in different Michigan soil types: (1) American chestnut
has a better competitive advantage on well-drained sandy soils, (2)
hypovirulence originates from sandy textured hypovirulence originates
soils, and (3) sandy textured soils provide more dispersing agents for
hypovirulent strains. While it remains unclear how important each of
these factors is in the hypovirulence phenomenon and how chestnut
blight, double-stranded RNA, and American chestnut interact, it should
enable researchers, foresters, and conservationists the opportunity to
better assess hypovirulence as a biological control that also may favor
restoration of Ozark chinquapin populations.
Despite the shift in reproductive strategy (seed production/
germination versus vegetative regeneration) and a shorter life span for
the stems, chestnut blight has not affected the distribution and
abundance of Ozark chinquapin in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma (see ``Distribution''). Tucker (1983, p. 25)
states that chestnut blight is responsible for the mortality of extant
reproductive populations (those capable of cross pollination and seed
production), reducing populations to primarily reproduction via
regeneration, and that populations capable of cross pollination and
seed production are increasingly rare. However, there are numerous
references in the scientific literature and from personal
communications with agencies and conservation groups actively involved
in the conservation of Ozark chinquapin that indicate that this species
is adapted to and capable of producing mast crops annually in areas
with active management (such as forest management and prescribed fire)
(Paillet 1993, p. 267; Paillet 2002, p. 1528; Paillet 2010, pers.
comm.; ANHC 2010, pers. comm.; USFS 2010, pers. comm.; Ozark Chinquapin
Foundation 2010, pers. comm.; Missouri Department of Natural Resources
2010, pers. comm.). While not done as extensively as for American
chestnut, genetic studies indicate that Ozark chinquapin has greater
genetic diversity than American chestnut and similar genetic diversity
to Allegheny chinquapin, both of which are more geographically
widespread than Ozark chinquapin (Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 2-9;
Stillwell et al. 2003, pp. 3-11; ANHC 1996, p. 5; Dane et al. 2003, p.
319; Fu and Dane 2003, pp. 228-229; Huang et al. 1998, pp. 1015-1019).
The greater level of genetic diversity in Ozark chinquapin may be
related to evolutionary adaptations for survival in early successional
stages and areas with low soil fertility, its arborescent habit, and
other habitat requirements (Dane and Hawkins 1999, p. 8). Thus,
information available does not indicate that chestnut blight has
resulted in a loss of genetic diversity for Ozark chinquapin. While the
ecological demise of Castanea species is well documented in scientific
literature, the seemingly endless cycle of sprouting (regeneration) and
reinfection has continued in American chestnut, as well as Ozark
chinquapin, unabated to present day (over 100 years in the former
species and 70 years in the latter) (Anagnostakis and Hillman undated,
pp. 6-7). Success at bringing chestnut blight
[[Page 37714]]
into balance in Europe (Italy and France) with hypovirulence
demonstrates that the fungus might be controlled in North America
(Anagnostakis 1987 p. 33). Moreover, similar hypo virulent efforts as
those taking place in Europe are ongoing with Ozark chinquapin (Ozark
Chinquapin Foundation, 2010 pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor C
Ink disease does not pose an imminent threat now or in the
foreseeable future to the continued existence of extant Ozark
chinquapin populations; however, chestnut blight has posed a long-term,
imminent threat to mature Ozark chinquapins for the past 70 years and
will for the foreseeable future. However, chestnut blight does not
threaten the continued existence of Ozark chinquapin at this time or in
the foreseeable future. Our conclusion is based on the following: (1)
The documented widespread distribution and abundance of Ozark
chinquapin is more complex than the picture presented by chestnut
blight alone and may represent combined effects of changes in
disturbance regime, climate, and land use history that extend over a
prolonged period (post-glacial history) in the region; (2) it is well
documented that the Ozark chinquapin remains widespread and abundant
within the Interior Highlands; and (3) due to the life history traits
of Ozark Chinquapin, it appears that cross pollination and production
of seeds, while rare, does occur, which may allow for a significant,
albeit greatly diminished, short pulse of seed production and
germination in the decade after a disturbance (release) response. Based
on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the Ozark chinquapin is not threatened by
the disease or predation now or in the foreseeable future.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The majority of Ozark chinquapin populations occur on public land.
Populations that occur on these lands are protected by State and
Federal laws and regulations.
Federal Regulations and Management
The NPS, under its National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1
et seq.), is responsible for managing the National Parks to conserve
the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife (see
``Distribution'' section and Factor A, for National Parks with extant
Ozark chinquapin populations) found on the parks. The National Parks
Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 5934 et seq.) requires the
NPS to inventory and monitor its natural resources. NPS has implemented
its resource management responsibilities through its Management
Policies, Section 4.4, which states that the NPS ``will maintain as
parts of the natural ecosystems of parks all plants and animals native
to park ecosystems.'' Section 207 of the Omnibus Management Act of 1998
allows NPS to withhold from the public any information related to the
nature and specific location of endangered, threatened, or rare species
unless disclosure would not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the
species.
Hot Springs National Park (HSNP) does not specifically manage for
Ozark chinquapin. HSNP's current General Management Plan (GMP) was
approved in the 1980s and did not specifically address the Ozark
chinquapin. However, HSNP does manage for the entire ecosystem that
includes the Ozark chinquapin. For instance, in May 2005, HSNP
abandoned its practice of total fire suppression regardless of ignition
source and has since utilized fire as an ecosystem restoration tool on
Sugarloaf Mountain (the only site in the park with an extant population
of Ozark chinquapin). As a result of the new fire regime, young Ozark
chinquapin sprouts have responded favorably at sites with suitable
habitat. Furthermore, HSNP is currently in the process of developing a
new GMP, which will incorporate ecosystem restoration that will prove
valuable to Ozark chinquapin restoration at HSNP, with expertise from
other agencies and researchers (for example, USFS Southeast Research
Station; S. Rudd, NPS, pers. comm. 2011). Similarly, Pea Ridge National
Military Park does not currently have a GMP that specifically addresses
the conservation needs of Ozark chinquapin, but it actively utilizes
fire as an ecosystem restoration tool (K. Eads, NPS, pers. comm. 2011).
Finally, Buffalo National River (BNR) is developing a predictive
geographic information system (map) model based on soil types and
aspects associated with Ozark chinquapin populations at BNR. This work
also includes a better delineation (survey) of Ozark chinquapin
populations to aid in a better understanding of its health and spatial
distribution, important modeling parameters. This information will be
available in summer 2011 and will further help guide Ozark chinquapin
habitat restoration efforts at BNR. BNR also began work in 2009 with an
arborist to gather seeds from trees at BNR seemingly unaffected by
chestnut blight for propagation (B. Wilson, NPS, pers. comm. 2011).
Ozark chinquapin is currently designated as a USFS sensitive
species (see Distribution section and Factor A for USFS lands with
extant Ozark chinquapin populations). The National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) specifies guidelines for land
management plans developed to achieve goals that include protection of
sensitive species. USFS Manual 2670, Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Plants and Animals, sections 22 and 32, requires the USFS to
develop and implement management practices that ensure that sensitive
species do not become threatened or endangered due to USFS actions.
Factor A of this finding discusses some vegetative monitoring and
management activities which include the Ozark chinquapin that are
conducted and controlled by the USFS.
State Regulations and Management
Additionally, the Ozark chinquapin currently receives protection on
State park and natural heritage owned lands (see Distribution section
and Factor A) in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. State parks in
Missouri, similar to Arkansas and Oklahoma, are acquired and managed to
protect a well-balanced system of areas with outstanding scenic,
recreational, and historic significance (10 CSR 100-1.010). Missouri
State parks currently track resiliency and recovery of Ozark chinquapin
with implementation of prescribed fire to manage for ecosystem health
(such as fire-mediated woodlands that support Ozark chinquapin) and
monitor distribution with aid from the Natural Heritage Program (A.
Vaughn, Missouri State Parks, pers. comm. 2010). Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (AGFC) has no specific management strategy for Ozark
chinquapin on Wildlife Management Areas; similar to other State
properties throughout the species range, they maintain a species list
for inventory purposes and elements of occurrence and have prescribed
fire management plans that benefit Ozark chinquapin (M. Blaney, AGFC,
pers. comm. 2011).
The ANHC System of Natural Areas provides long-term protection to
some of Arkansas' most ecologically significant lands. ANHC rules and
regulations prohibit the collection and/or removal of plants (including
fruits, nuts, or edible plant parts), animals, fungi, rocks, minerals,
fossils, archaeological artifacts, soil, downed wood, or any other
natural material, alive or dead. Natural areas are managed according to
an established management
[[Page 37715]]
plan and a conservation vision aimed at protecting, enhancing,
interpreting, and sometimes even restoring the significant ecological
values present at the site (for example, natural ecosystem health). To
do this, management plans for areas within the system are prepared and
updated regularly to set the frameworks for future management
activities. ANHC no longer tracks Ozark chinquapin as a State species
of concern, due to its widespread distribution and local abundance in
Arkansas (C. Colclasure, ANHC, pers. comm. 2010 and T. Witsell, ANHC,
pers. comm. 2011).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, we do not consider the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to be a threat to the populations of Ozark
Chinquapin in the national forests and parks and State parks and
natural areas in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The regulatory
mechanisms discussed above allow the Federal and State agencies to
prevent collection or take of Ozark chinquapin and implement management
practices to ensure long-term population viability and promote natural
ecosystem restoration and health on public property. Furthermore, we do
not consider development outside these Federal and State lands to be a
threat to Ozark chinquapin populations within these Federal lands.
Therefore, based on a review of the available information, we find that
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to Ozark
chinquapin now or in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Climate Change
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity, because the interaction of additional stressors
associated with climate change and current stressors may push species
beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The
synergistic (combined or cooperative action or force) implications of
climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet
of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4). Current
climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation
events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp.
1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181).
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe
storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). According to the Arkansas
Statewide Forest Resource Assessment (2010, p. 68), the U.S. Department
of Agriculture concluded that specie