Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 11053-11073 [2014-04232]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11053-11073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0131; FXES11130900000-145-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-AW04


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Oenothera 
avita ssp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae From the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis (now accepted as Oenothera 
californica subsp. eurekensis, with a common name of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose, Eureka evening-primrose, or Eureka Dunes evening-
primrose) and Swallenia alexandrae (with a common name of Eureka dune 
grass or Eureka Valley dune grass) from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants. This action is based on a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that 
both species no longer meet the definition of an endangered species, 
and further do not meet the definition of a threatened species, under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposed 
rule, if made final, would remove these plants from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. This document also constitutes our 
12-month finding on a petition to remove both species from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. We are seeking information and 
comments from the public regarding this proposed rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 28, 2014. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0131, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0131; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule 
and related documents (including a copy of the Background Information 
document (Service 2014, entire) referenced throughout this proposed 
rule) at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0131, or at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/ventura/ ventura/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite 
B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958. 
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Species addressed. Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis (now accepted as 
Oenothera californica subsp. eurekensis; Eureka Valley evening-
primrose) and Swallenia alexandrae (Eureka dune grass) are endemic to 
three dune systems in the Eureka Valley, Inyo County, California. 
Eureka Valley falls within federally designated wilderness within Death 
Valley National Park, and is managed accordingly by the National Park 
Service (Park Service).
    Purpose of the Regulatory Action. This document constitutes our 12-
month finding in response to a petition to delist Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass, and we are proposing to remove 
both plants from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
    Basis for the Regulatory Action. Under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, we may be petitioned to list, delist, or reclassify a species. 
Under the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of 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. We must consider the same 
factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best 
scientific and commercial data indicate the species is neither 
threatened nor endangered for one or more of the following reasons: (1) 
The species is extinct, (2) The species has recovered and is no longer 
endangered or threatened, or (3) The original scientific data used at 
the time the species was classified were in error.
    The primary threat to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass at the time of listing was off-highway vehicle (OHV) 
activity at Eureka Dunes (43 FR 17910; April 26, 1978); although not 
specifically stated in the final listing rule, this also presumes a 
lesser degree of impacts from camping that were associated with OHV 
activity on and around the dunes. Habitat protections and ongoing 
management by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM; up until

[[Page 11054]]

1994) and Park Service (since 1994) since listing have resulted in 
amelioration of the threats identified at listing. Of the remaining 
potential impacts, which consist of herbivory, seed predation, 
stochastic events, climate change, and (specifically for Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose) competition with Russian thistle, one or more may be 
causing stress to a population (or portions of a population) of either 
species. However, the stress caused by those potential impacts are not 
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to rise to the level 
that they would cause either Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka 
dune grass to be a threatened species (i.e., likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future).

Information Requested

    We intend any final action resulting from this proposal will be 
based on the best scientific and commercial information available, and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, tribes, the 
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning 
this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons why we should or should not delist Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.).
    (2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or 
lack thereof) to these plants.
    (3) New information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass. Additionally, we are seeking information to aid in determining 
trends for both species, particularly in light of varying methodologies 
employed since listing (e.g., transects, photopoints, grid systems), 
the need to extrapolate anticipated future rangewide trends, and the 
need to utilize the best methodologies possible for future monitoring, 
including post-delisting monitoring.
    (4) New information on the effects of other potential threat 
factors, including changes in the distribution and abundance of 
populations, disease, predation by small mammals, or negative effects 
resulting from the presence of invasive, nonnative species 
(particularly Salsola spp. (Russian thistle)).
    (5) New information and data on the current or planned activities 
within the ranges of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass that may adversely affect or benefit the plants.
    (6) New information or data on the projected and reasonably likely 
impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
associated with climate change.
    (7) What should be included in a post-delisting monitoring plan for 
the species, including length of monitoring period, monitoring 
intervals, what monitoring techniques are appropriate, triggers and 
thresholds for additional monitoring or initiating status reviews, and 
so forth.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please 
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the 
action under consideration without providing supporting information, 
although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as 
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether 
any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made 
``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section. If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received no later than 
April 14, 2014. Send your request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, 
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of 
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. A discussion of additional information 
related to this proposed rule--including (but not limited to) 
information on life history, taxonomy, genetics, seed bank ecology, 
survivorship and demography, rangewide distribution, and abundance 
surveys--is presented in the Background Information document (Service 
2014) available at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0131). The purpose of peer review is to ensure that decisions are 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer 
reviewers will conduct assessments of the proposed rule, and the 
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting. 
These assessments will be completed during the public comment period.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Previous Federal Actions

    Consideration of Federal protection for Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass began when the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act, prepared 
a report on native plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or 
extinct in the United States. This report (House Doc. No. 94-51) was 
presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass as endangered. On July 1, 1975, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting 
the report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now 
section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and of our intention to review the status 
of the plant taxa (groups of distinct populations considered separate 
from other such groups, such as species and subspecies) named therein. 
On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register 
(41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 vascular

[[Page 11055]]

plant taxa, including Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass, to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. On 
April 26, 1978, we published a final rule to list 11 plant taxa as 
endangered, including Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass, and 2 plant taxa as threatened (43 FR 17910); critical habitat 
was not designated.
    On July 7, 2005, we published a notice indicating our intent to 
initiate 5-year status reviews for 31 species, including Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass (70 FR 39327), and requested 
that the public provide us information within 60 days. On November 3, 
2005, we published a notice extending the comment period to January 3, 
2006 (70 FR 66842). We did not receive any information from the public 
regarding Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass during 
either comment period. Five-year reviews were completed for both taxa 
on September 24, 2007 (Service 2007a, b). Based on the best available 
information at that time, we concluded that both taxa no longer met the 
definition of an endangered species, and further do not meet the 
definition of a threatened species, under the Act, and we recommended 
their removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
    On May 18, 2010, we received a petition dated May 13, 2010, from 
the Pacific Legal Foundation requesting that the Service delist Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass. The petition was based 
on the analysis and recommendations contained in our 2007 5-year status 
reviews for these taxa. On January 19, 2011, we published a 90-day 
finding (76 FR 3069) in which we concluded that the petition and 
information in our files provided substantial information indicating 
that delisting may be warranted, announced that we were initiating 
status reviews for these taxa, and requested scientific and commercial 
data and other information regarding these taxa from governmental 
agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
and any other interested parties. We received one letter from the 
public that provided additional information relevant to Eureka dune 
grass (Bell 2011).
    On March 27, 2013, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit 
challenging our failure to issue the required 12-month findings in 
response to their petition. Pursuant to a settlement agreement approved 
by the court on August 5, 2013, and revised by a court order on 
December 19, 2013, we must deliver 12-month findings for the Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass to the Federal Register 
by February 21, 2014.
    This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the petition to 
delist Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass, and we are 
proposing to delist the two taxa, which would remove them from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Background

    For this proposal, we conducted a scientific analysis as presented 
in this document and supplemented with additional information presented 
in the Background Information document (Service 2014, entire; available 
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0131). The 
Background Information document was prepared by Service biologists to 
provide additional discussion of the environmental setting for the 
Eureka Valley, and other background information of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose's and Eureka dune grass's life history, taxonomy, 
genetics, seed bank ecology, survivorship and demography, rangewide 
distribution, and abundance surveys, as well as additional information 
on the threats that may be impacting both species.
    Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass are endemic 
(unique to a geographic area) to the sand dunes of Eureka Valley 
(Figure 1), which occurs within Death Valley National Park, Inyo 
County, California. Three dune systems occur in Eureka Valley and are 
located between the Last Chance Mountains to the east, the Saline 
Mountains to the south, and the Inyo Mountains to the west and north 
(Rowlands 1982, p. 2). The Eureka Dunes parallel the Last Chance 
Mountains (Service 1982, p. 12) and are the largest of the three dunes, 
covering a total area of about 2,003 acres (ac) (811 hectares (ha)) 
(Service 2013a based on Shovik 2010). The Saline Spur and Marble Canyon 
Dunes, two smaller dune systems, cover an area of about 238 ac (96 ha) 
and 610 ac (247 ha), respectively (Service 2013a based on Shovik 2010). 
Saline Spur Dunes and Marble Canyon Dunes, including a southern 
extension of Marble Canyon Dunes known as the unnamed site, are located 
approximately 4 miles (mi) (6.4 kilometers (km)) and 9 mi (14.4 km) 
west of Eureka Dunes (Bagley 1986, p. 4). The southern extension of 
Marble Canyon Dunes (the unnamed site) was previously treated as a 
separate dune system, but we refer to this area and the rest of the 
dune system as the Marble Canyon Dunes. See additional discussion in 
Service 2014 (pp. 4-7).

[[Page 11056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27FE14.026

Eureka Valley Evening-Primrose

Species Description, Taxonomy, and Life History
    Eureka Valley evening-primrose is a short-lived perennial in the 
evening-primrose family (Onagraceae). It forms rosettes for the first 1 
or 2 years, then develops decumbent or ascending stems up to 8 
decimeters (31.5 inches (in)) high. Plants produce clusters of white 
fading-to-pink flowers, which continue to be produced as long as 
conditions are favorable.
    The taxon was listed as Oenothera avita (W.M. Klein) W.M. Klein 
subsp. eurekensis (Munz and J.C. Roos) W.M. Klein (Klein 1965, p. 116). 
However, since that time, the accepted scientific name (Wagner 1993, p. 
803; Wagner 2002, p. 395; Wagner et al. 2007, p. 180; Wagner 2012, p. 
952; CNPS 2013) has been and will be treated in this document as O. 
californica subsp. eurekensis, and referred to as Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose throughout the remainder of this document.
    The plant spends most of the year as a small rosette of leaves 
(Pavlik 1979a, pp. 47-49, 52; 1979b, pp. 87-88). In April and May, 
plants undergo rapid stem elongation and bloom between April and July. 
Under optimal conditions, recruits (first-year plants) can bloom in the 
year in which they germinate (Pavlik 1979a, p. 66). In general, 
evening-primrose species are pollinated by hawkmoths, butterflies, and 
bees (Gregory 1963, pp. 387, 398, 403, 407; Moldenke 1976, pp. 322, 
346, 358). Following the blooming period, the elongated stems die back 
and are buried by shifting sands. Plants sometimes bloom again in the 
fall with additional summer or fall rains (Pavlik 1979a, p. 53; 1979b, 
p. 89). Eureka Valley evening-primrose also has the ability to 
reproduce clonally (produce new individuals through vegetative growth 
rather than by seed), which provides a vegetative means for 
reproduction (Pavlik 1979a, p. 68; Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 84; 
Pavlik and Barbour 1988, p. 240).
    Abundance and timing of rainfall appear to be important not only 
for germination, but for successful recruitment of individuals into the 
population; sufficient rainfall for germination in the fall months 
needs to be followed by additional rainfall events during the winter 
months for recruitment to occur. After several consecutive years of 
favorable conditions, a parent rosette may become ringed with smaller 
rosettes. In years with unfavorable climatic conditions, established 
plants may remain dormant and persist underground by their fleshy 
roots. Therefore, the number of above-ground plants observed in any 
year represents only a portion of the population.
    Pavlik and Barbour (1985, pp. 15, 21) note that Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose is capable of abundant and precocious seed production. 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose has seed characteristics that provide 
mechanisms to ensure some seeds remain near the parent plant and some 
seeds disperse far from the parent plant. These characteristics ensure 
that there is a potential source of seed to supplement existing 
populations or establish new populations. Under laboratory conditions, 
seeds may remain viable at least 8 years (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 
31, 36, 81). However, seed age or exposure to unfavorable conditions 
(such as heat and moisture) can reduce seed viability (Pavlik and 
Barbour (1986, p. 31). Some seeds may also be lost and unavailable for 
future recruitment. This may occur if wind

[[Page 11057]]

disperses seeds outside of suitable habitat.
    Age-class distribution, survival, and mortality of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose were examined by Pavlik and Barbour (1985, 1986). 
Research results indicate that despite the observed high mortality of 
young plants, short-lived cohorts (plants produced from a given year's 
reproduction that do not survive to the following year) produced large 
amounts of seed when compared to cohorts with high survivorship (plants 
produced from a given year's reproduction that have a high rate of 
survival to the following year), which produced relatively smaller 
amounts of seed (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 10). Consequently, years 
with low plant survival potentially produce seed numbers equal to or 
better than years with high survival. Coupled with the contribution of 
vegetative reproduction (i.e., production of rosettes from branched 
rootstock), this copious seed production may compensate for short 
lifespans and high mortality observed by Pavlik and Barbour (1986, p. 
14).
    Monitoring efforts were initiated by the Park Service in the Eureka 
Valley in 2007, but this level of monitoring is not expected to 
continue if the species is delisted (Cipra and Fuhrmann 2013). Between 
2010 and 2013, a combined effort by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
and Chow (Chow and Klinger 2013, entire) implemented an additional 
monitoring protocol for Eureka Valley evening-primrose. These 
monitoring efforts provided information on Eureka Valley evening-
primrose's population structure (life-history stages), spatial 
distribution, and abundance. However, due to differences in methods for 
life stage classification and estimating spatial extent, and because 
neither the Park Service or USGS tracked the survivorship of individual 
plants, we cannot make a direct comparison between these monitoring 
efforts and the study conducted by Pavlik and Barbour (1986, entire) in 
the 1980s. Consequently, we cannot determine if current populations of 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose exhibit similar survival rates observed 
by Pavlik and Barbour (1986). However, assuming Eureka Valley evening-
primrose populations continue to experience high mortality among 
recruits, recruitment from one year to the next is likely low.
Rangewide Distribution
    As stated above in the Background section, all known, extant 
populations of Eureka Valley evening-primrose occur within Eureka 
Valley in Death Valley National Park (see Figure 1, above). The first 
known distribution map of this species is from 1976 (BLM 1976, p. 16). 
However, the most recent distribution maps generated in 2007 and 2008 
(Park Service 2008a) and between 2011-2013 (Park Service 2011a, 2012a, 
2013a) are the most detailed and accurate.
    Eureka Valley evening-primrose occupies the stabilized, gentle dune 
slopes extending out onto the shallower sand fields bordering the dune 
systems of Eureka Valley (Bagley 1986, p. 10; Service 1982, p. 7). We 
have previously described in our 5-year status review (Service 2007a, 
Appendix A) the spatial distribution of Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
and the surveys that occurred following listing of the species and up 
to the late 1990s. Therefore, we are limiting our discussion in this 
proposed rule to the new information collected from the Park Service's 
monitoring program from 2007 to 2013, which was not available at the 
time of the 5-year status review.
    Since 2007, new information on the species distribution 
(specifically, the above-ground expression of rosettes and flowering 
individuals) has been provided by the Park Service (Park Service 2008a, 
2010a; 2011a; 2011b; 2012a; 2013a). As part of its survey efforts, the 
Park Service has mapped the extent of Eureka Valley evening-primrose at 
the southern end of Marble Canyon Dunes (i.e., the unnamed site), which 
had not been fully documented previously. In summary, the above-ground 
distribution of Eureka Valley evening-primrose may vary significantly 
from year to year (such as comparisons of data between 2007 and 2013, 
the latter of which captured a mass germination event that occurred on 
the sand flats of Eureka Dunes in March 2013 (Park Service 2013a, pp. 
5, 8)). These variations require us to rely on more than a single 
survey event (i.e., we rely on a composite over time of its general 
habitat and distribution) to determine how much habitat the species 
occupies. Additionally, Eureka Valley evening-primrose's distribution 
may vary geographically within the same year, as observed at the Saline 
Spur and Marble Canyon Dunes in 2008 and 2013 (Park Service 2013a, pp. 
4, 5, 12, 14).
    Quantifying changes in the distribution of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose since listing by comparing historical and current distribution 
maps is challenging due to the varying methods used to collect data, 
the level of detail that was achieved with those methods, and survey 
intensity. However, comparing historical and current distribution maps 
can indicate, over a long time period, if the population has persisted 
in certain locations. Overall, the presence and absence maps generated 
between 2007 and 2013 are more precise than any previously generated 
maps because the Park Service implemented a standardized survey method 
and created a grid system that allowed them to note specific changes in 
the distribution of the Eureka Valley evening-primrose. On a small 
scale, the usefulness of comparing recent maps with historical maps is 
limited because the 2007-2013 maps only reflect the above-ground 
expression, which shows extreme annual variation of the species for 
those particular years. On a large scale, however, these recent maps 
indicate that the populations are still present in the same general 
locations that they were known from at the time of listing and at the 
time of our 2007 5-year status review.
Abundance Surveys and Population Estimates
    Abundance data for Eureka Valley evening-primrose have been 
collected by various parties and entities between 1974 and 2013. 
However, it is difficult to compare older and newer data sets due to 
the annual fluctuation in the above-ground distribution of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose, as well as differences in methodology and 
scale. Consequently, estimating total population size is difficult at 
best. Additionally, we have no information regarding population size of 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose at the time of listing; abundance 
surveys (which could be used to estimate population size) prior to 
listing were limited to the north end of Eureka Dunes. Therefore, we 
cannot determine how populations may have changed over time and across 
the range of the species since listing.
    Our evaluation of the Park Service's 2011 data set (which is the 
only year of data collected that allows a comparison across three 
different survey methods) indicates the estimated number of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose individuals (i.e., above-ground expression) is 
within the range of 8,409 to 15,357 (see ``Abundance Surveys and 
Population Estimates--Eureka Valley evening-primrose'' section of the 
Background Information document (Service 2014, pp. 26-30)). The Park 
Service also estimated the total population size in 2011 to be 8,028 
individuals (which included a slight recalculation from the previous 
estimate), and in 2013 to be 21,286 individuals (Park Service 2013a, p. 
7), the latter of which documents a substantial increase in the above-
ground expression of plants following a mass germination event observed 
on the sand

[[Page 11058]]

flats to the east and northeast of the Eureka Dunes (Park Service 
2013a, pp. 4, 8; Chow and Klinger 2013, p. 4). Park staff theorized 
that a localized rainstorm may have triggered germination, because 
other locations for Eureka Valley evening-primrose did not respond 
similarly, and because substantial rainfall was not documented by 
weather stations surrounding Eureka Valley (Park Service 2013a, p. 14). 
The USGS and Chow (Chow and Klinger 2013, pp. 4-5) theorized that the 
mass germination event may be the result of higher soil moisture in 
this area because of soil texture or higher runoff due to the 
location's close proximity to the Last Chance mountain range. Although 
a ``high'' average density of plants was noted in the month of March at 
the sand flats, a follow-up visit in May indicated that most of these 
had disappeared; of those that survived, most had failed to flower or 
set seed (Park Service 2013a, p. 15; Cipra 2013, pers. comm.). USGS 
also noted that a lower proportion of individuals were in the 
reproductive stage at this location (Chow and Klinger 2013, pp. 4, 5). 
This information indicates that occasional mass germination events do 
occur, although such events do not necessarily result in successful 
recruitment of all individuals into the population. It also 
demonstrates how the above-ground expression of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose can fluctuate substantially over a short period of time.
    Although information on abundance and long-term population trends 
are limited in spatial extent, the best available data indicate (as 
stated above) that the Eureka Valley evening-primrose population is 
estimated to be in the thousands. However, it also is important to note 
that actual population sizes may vary greatly from the estimates 
described above for the following reasons:
    (1) The size of the area on which densities were calculated is 
small (i.e., 1-ha monitoring plots or line transects) in comparison to 
the size of the area to which the densities are being extrapolated 
(i.e., the dune systems).
    (2) Because Eureka Valley evening-primrose is clonal and exhibits a 
somewhat clumped distribution, it is often difficult to count 
individuals, and in general it is difficult to estimate the true 
population size (i.e., individuals can be both underestimated and 
overestimated).
    (3) Different survey methods will result in different estimates of 
abundance.
    (4) The density data used to estimate the 2011 population size only 
reflect the above-ground distribution of the species for that 
particular year.
    (5) The Eureka Valley evening-primrose exhibits high annual 
variation, so the estimated population size will vary depending on the 
data collected within a given year.
    (6) These population estimates include both reproductive and 
nonreproductive individuals; we do not know how many nonreproductive 
individuals survive to flower and set seed.

Eureka Dune Grass

Species Description, Taxonomy, and Life History
    Eureka dune grass is a perennial, hummock-forming (development of 
mounds of windblown soil at the base of plants on dune landscapes) 
grass comprising a monotypic genus (genus containing only one single 
species) of the grass family (Poaceae). The coarse, stiff stems reach 
20 in (50 cm) in height, and the lanceolate leaves are tipped with a 
sharp point (DeDecker 1987, p. 2). Flowers are clustered in spike-like 
panicles and produce seeds that are 0.16 in (4 millimeter (mm)) long 
and 0.08 in (2 mm) wide (Bell and Smith 2012, p. 1496). The root system 
becomes fibrous and extensive over time and can give rise to 
adventitious stems. Based on its morphological characteristics and 
taxonomic affinities, the species is thought to be a relictual species, 
which exists as a remnant of a formerly widely distributed group in an 
environment that is now different from where it originated.
    Eureka dune grass is dormant during the winter and begins to 
produce new shoot growth around February. Growth accelerates in May, 
with flowering from April to June and seed dispersal between May and 
July (Pavlik 1979a, pp. 47-49; Pavlik 1979b, p. 87; Service 1982, pp. 
4-6). Like all grass taxa, the flowers of Eureka dune grass are wind-
pollinated and therefore do not rely on insect pollinators. Eureka dune 
grass does not appear to propagate asexually (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 
p. 4); therefore, sexual reproduction is considered to be the dominant 
form of reproduction for this species.
    Individuals have been observed to continue growing for at least 12 
years with no signs of senescence (Henry n.d., pers. comm. in Pavlik 
and Barbour 1986, p. 11), and likely can grow for decades; older 
individuals form large hummocks that can reach on the order of 2,500 
cubic decimeters (88 cubic feet; extrapolated from Pavlik and Barbour 
(1988, p. 229)). Germination of new individuals appears to occur 
infrequently, typically in response to rainfall during the summer 
months (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 47-59).
    The following information on Eureka dune grass seedbank ecology is 
available related to seed production, dispersal, seed fate (based on 
wind dispersal and seed predation), viability, and germination:
     The amount of Eureka dune grass seed produced per 
individual increases with canopy size, which means that larger 
individuals may contribute more seed to the seed bank (Pavlik and 
Barbour 1985, p. 14). Compared to other perennial grass species, Eureka 
dune grass produces low numbers of seeds per individual (Pavlik and 
Barbour 1986, p. 30); this low seed production could be due to the 
inefficiency of wind pollination and the low density of individuals 
across the dunes (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, p. 17).
     Eureka dune grass seeds with floral bracts may disperse 
long distances whereas seeds without floral bracts may remain near the 
parent plant (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, pp. 40-41). Long-distance seed 
dispersal is important in forming new or supplementing existing 
populations (although wind dispersal could send seeds outside of 
suitable habitat and thus make them unavailable for future 
recruitment). In contrast, seeds remaining near the parent plant are 
important in supplementing existing populations.
     Seed predation may occur from insects and rodents. The 
amount of predation by scale insects and rodents was first studied by 
Pavlik and Barbour (1985, 1986). Pavlik and Barbour's (1985, p. 59) 
preliminary observations in 1985 indicated a small percentage (less 
than 2 percent) of pre-dispersal seed predation occurred by scale 
insects, whereas in 1986, they (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 32; 1988, 
pp. 233-234) found that 14 percent of Eureka dune grass seeds (without 
floral bracts) and 6 percent of disseminules (seeds with floral bracts) 
were removed overnight by rodents. However, these data were only 
collected from the north end of Eureka Dunes. Therefore, we cannot 
determine if the level of insect and rodent predation observed by 
Pavlik and Barbour (1985, 1986) on seeds occurs across the range of the 
species or how it may affect the population due to the limited scope 
and duration of the study. However, given the species continues to 
occupy the same general distribution, it does not appear that the level 
of seed predation is causing population-level declines.
     Under laboratory conditions, seeds may remain viable for 
at least 8 years (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 31-32;

[[Page 11059]]

1988, p. 233). However, seed age or exposure to unfavorable conditions 
such as heat and moisture can reduce seed viability (Pavlik and Barbour 
1986, pp. 31-32).
     An important factor in the persistence of Eureka dune 
grass may be the mass germination and establishment of Eureka dune 
grass seedlings (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 55), particularly from 
seeds in the seed bank. These mass germination events are likely 
dependent on rare, above-average rainfall during the summer months 
(Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 51). For instance, the extremely wet 
conditions in July 1984 led to the mass germination and establishment 
of Eureka dune grass seedlings in 1984 and 1985; these favorable 
climatic conditions occurred only once in the previous 90 years (Pavlik 
and Barbour 1986, p. 54). More frequent climatic events that occur 
every 11 to 15 years may result in smaller germination and 
establishment events, which may serve to supply new individuals and 
replace those individuals that are lost through senescence (Pavlik and 
Barbour 1986, p. 54).
    A demographic study was initiated in 1985 (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 
entire; 1986, entire) to better understand how population attributes 
affected local abundance and persistence of Eureka dune grass; the 
study tracked the fate of seedlings established in 1984 (1984 cohort), 
as well as mature and senescent individuals. However, we note two 
constraints to these data: (1) The study was spatially restricted to 
the north slope of the Eureka Dunes and thus is not representative of 
the entire range of the species; and (2) The study was carried out over 
a 2-year period that included a year with very high rainfall that 
triggered a mass germination event followed by a year with very low 
rainfall. Thus, the conclusions generated from this study may not be 
representative of the population's response over a longer period of 
time. Given these constraints, results indicate that 24 percent of the 
1984 cohort survived to develop into hummocks and 92 percent of the 
mature and senescent plants survived (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 9-
10; 1988, p. 225). The cause of mortality among recruits was attributed 
to uprooting and damage from windstorms (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 9; 
1988, p. 225). A follow-up survey in 1987 found more than 90 percent of 
the 1984 cohort alive and growing (Pavlik and Barbour 1988, p. 225). 
This information indicates that once young plants become established, 
survival rates may be equal to that of mature and senescent plants.
    Using survivorship data from the demographic study described above, 
Pavlik and Barbour (1986, p. 11) attempted to compare potential 
persistence of Eureka dune grass with other perennial grass species and 
two other Eureka Valley endemic plants (i.e., Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans (shining milk-vetch)). 
Although the comparisons were limited in scope and duration, Pavlik and 
Barbour (1986, p. 11) estimate that the established population of 
Eureka dune grass might persist for 88 years in the absence of 
recruitment. However, based on study limitations, including use of data 
collected following a rare mass germination event, this number may be 
an overestimate.
    Similar to Eureka Valley evening-primrose (see Eureka Valley 
Evening-primrose section, above), monitoring of Eureka dune grass was 
initiated in 2007 (Park Service 2008a, entire). These monitoring 
efforts have provided information on Eureka dune grass population 
structure (life-history stages), spatial distribution, and abundance. 
Results indicate that the majority of the Eureka dune grass population 
was in its reproductive stage (33 to 66 percent) and a very small 
percent (0 to 3 percent) was in the nonreproductive seedling stage 
(Park Service 2008a, p. 13). Due to differences in how life stage 
classifications were made and in spatial extent of study areas, we 
cannot make a direct comparison between the study conducted by Pavlik 
and Barbour (1985, 1986) and Bagley (1986) and the information 
collected by the Park Service (Park Service 2008a). Additionally, the 
Park Service did not track the survivorship of individual plants; 
therefore, we cannot determine if current populations of Eureka dune 
grass exhibit similar survival rates observed by Pavlik and Barbour 
(1986, pp. 9-10; 1988, p. 225) in the 1980s. Even so, information 
collected by Pavlik and Barbour (1985, 1986), Bagley (1986), and the 
Park Service (2008a) indicate that: (1) Though the age-distribution 
within the population varies depending on the time of data collection, 
adult plants typically make up the majority of the population; and (2) 
Recruitment from year to year is likely low, but high recruitment each 
year is probably not necessary for the population to persist because of 
the long lifespan and high survivorship of the plants once they are 
established. Ultimately, population persistence will depend on the 
replacement of adult and senescent plants with new recruits.
Rangewide Distribution
    As stated above in the Background section, all known, extant 
populations of Eureka dune grass occur within Eureka Valley in Death 
Valley National Park (see Figure 1, above). The first known 
distribution map of this species is from 1976 (BLM 1976, p. 16). 
However, the most recent maps generated in 2007 and 2008 (Park Service 
2008a) and between 2011 and 2013 (Park Service 2011a, 2012a, 2013a) are 
the most detailed and accurate.
    Eureka dune grass occupies the gentle to relatively steep slopes of 
the Eureka Dunes, and variable terrain of Saline Spur and Marble Canyon 
Dunes (Pavlik 1979a, pp. 35-36; Pavlik 1979b, p. 47; Service 1982, p. 
4). At the time of listing, there were three known populations of 
Eureka dune grass within Eureka Valley, with the majority of the 
distribution on the Eureka Dunes (43 FR 17910; April 26, 1978). As 
mentioned above, although additional plants were subsequently 
discovered and described at the southern end of Marble Canyon Dunes, 
these are considered and described within this document as part of the 
Marble Canyon Dunes population.
    We have previously described in our 2007 5-year status review the 
spatial distribution of Eureka dune grass and the surveys that occurred 
following listing of the species and up to the 1990s (Service 2007b, 
Appendix A). Therefore, we are limiting our discussion in this proposed 
rule to the new information collected from the Park Service's 
monitoring program from 2007 to 2013, which was not available at the 
time of the 5-year status review.
    Quantifying changes in the distribution of Eureka dune grass since 
listing by comparing historical and current distribution maps is 
challenging due to the varying methods used to collect data, the level 
of detail that was achieved with those methods, and survey intensity. 
However, comparing historical and current distribution maps can 
indicate, over a long time period, if the population has declined or 
increased in certain locations. Overall, the presence and absence maps 
generated between 2007 and 2013 are more precise than any previously 
generated maps because the Park Service implemented a standardized 
survey method and created a grid system that allowed them to note 
specific changes in the distribution of the Eureka dune grass. 
Additionally, as part of its survey efforts, the Park Service has 
mapped the extent of Eureka dune grass at the southern end of Marble 
Canyon Dunes (i.e., the

[[Page 11060]]

unnamed site), which had not been fully documented previously.
    Based on the life history of Eureka dune grass (see ``Eureka Dune 
Grass Biology'' section of the Background Information document, Service 
2014, pp. 13-14), there is likely minimal annual variation in the 
distribution of Eureka dune grass because this species is long-lived, 
and mortality of young plants (once they become established) is 
relatively low and decreases with age. Consequently, to quantify 
changes in the distribution of Eureka dune grass that have occurred 
since listing, we compared the Park Service's 2013 distribution map to 
older maps (i.e., maps from the BLM (1976) and DeDecker (1979)). Again, 
those caveats mentioned previously (i.e., differences in survey 
methods, level of detail, survey intensity) make comparing distribution 
maps spanning a 37-year period difficult; however, these comparisons 
yield information regarding areas where the changes in the distribution 
of the population may have occurred. Based on our evaluation of current 
and historical distribution maps, the distribution of Eureka dune grass 
at Eureka Dunes appears relatively unchanged, and it continues to 
occupy habitat across the entire dune system, including habitat at the 
southern end of Marble Canyon Dunes (i.e., the unnamed site), which had 
not been fully documented previously.
    Because the current Eureka dune grass distribution maps may not 
capture what is occurring on a small scale (such as localized declines 
in the density of plants) or the area occupied by the species, three 
additional analyses were conducted.
    (1) Using distribution data between 2007 and 2013, the Park Service 
(2013a, entire) calculated changes in the number of 1-ha grid cells 
occupied by Eureka dune grass. Results showed a decrease in the number 
of grid cells occupied at Eureka Dunes, and no change at Marble Canyon 
and Saline Spur Dunes (Park Service 2013a, pp. 4, 5). Specifically at 
Eureka Dunes in 2012, Eureka dune grass was present at 397 cells as 
compared to 446 cells in in 2007; in 2013, Eureka dune grass was 
present at 390 cells (Park Service 2013a, p. 4). Thus, a change in 
Eureka dune grass distribution is evident at one location, but not 
represented across the range of the species at this time.
    (2) In 2012 and 2013, the Park Service mapped individual clumps of 
Eureka dune grass on Eureka Dunes to help track the fate of individual 
clumps over time and to further ground-truth the 1-ha plot GPS-
referenced grid system study employed between 2007 and 2013 (Park 
Service 2012a, 2013a). In 2013, the Park Service (2013a, p. 4) noted 
dead and dying hummocks on the northeast and southwest side of Eureka 
Dunes, which is consistent with the change in distribution observed in 
the Park Service's (2013a, p. 4) analysis at Eureka Dunes. Based on the 
Park Service's 2013 map, we calculated that 86 ac (35 ha) of the 
surface of the 2,003-ac (811-ha) Eureka Dunes (less than 4.3 percent) 
is occupied by Eureka dune grass (Service 2013b, unpublished data). 
While this new mapping effort will help refine existing monitoring, 
this information is limited in use because (to date) it only represents 
2 years of data at two locations on one of three dunes where the 
species occurs. If the Park Service conducts additional mapping surveys 
in the future, new data could be more useful to help determine how the 
distribution of Eureka dune grass is changing over time.
    (3) We inspected photopoints taken at Eureka Dunes as early 1974 to 
those in 2013 in an attempt to observe possible changes in Eureka dune 
grass abundance and distribution over time. Our visual inspection 
indicates a reduction, or in some cases a loss, in the visible Eureka 
dune grass individuals (especially in the number of large reproductive 
plants) at the north and southwest end of Eureka Dunes, and portion of 
Marble Canyon Dunes. We also calculated what proportion of the dunes 
were represented by the ``viewshed'' in the photopoints to determine to 
what extent the observed reduction represented conditions for the 
species dunewide. Results indicate that approximately 670 ac (271 ha), 
or 33.4 percent of the Eureka Dunes was visible in the photopoints 
taken from the north and south end of the dune (Service 2013c, 
unpublished data). Repeat photopoints were also made at a portion of 
Marble Canyon Dunes. The photopoints captured 130 ac (53 ha) out of a 
total 610 ac (247 ha) of the Marble Canyon Dunes, which constituted 21 
percent of the dune and showed a similar visible reduction in the 
Eureka dune grass individuals over time. While our ``viewshed'' 
analysis likely overestimates the area visible from these photopoints, 
it represents our best estimate of the area covered by these repeat 
photopoints. The observation that a portion of the population at the 
north and southwest end of Eureka Dunes and part of Marble Canyon Dunes 
may be experiencing a decline in the abundance and distribution of 
large, reproductive individuals may be important if these individuals 
are not replaced. However, while a reduction in visible Eureka dune 
grass individuals is clearly noticeable from a visual inspection, it is 
difficult to quantify this reduction in terms of estimating changes in 
population distribution, densities, or abundance. Additionally, without 
other quantitative data to assist in interpretation, it is difficult to 
distinguish whether visual changes represent local shifts in 
distribution and density or rangewide changes in the population. 
Because our analysis is limited to only a portion of the range of the 
species, we cannot determine what changes in distribution and abundance 
have occurred over this same time period across the rest of the 
species' range within Eureka Valley.
    On a small scale, the usefulness of comparing recent maps with 
historical maps is limited because of the higher precision that was 
possible in the 2007 to 2013 surveys. Overall and on a large scale, 
however, the most recent maps indicate that Eureka dune grass 
populations are still present in the same general locations that they 
were known from at the time of our 2007 5-year status review.
Abundance Surveys and Population Estimates
    Developing population estimates for Eureka dune grass is 
challenging. We have no information regarding population size at the 
time of listing, and abundance surveys (which could be used to estimate 
population size) prior to listing were limited to the northern end of 
Eureka Dunes. Data collected since listing that could be used to 
estimate the abundance or population size of Eureka dune grass vary in 
methods, study areas, timing, and environmental conditions. Abundance 
data have been collected by various parties and entities between 1974 
and 2013 (e.g., Henry 1976; Bagley 1986; Park Service 2008a, 2010a, 
2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2013a). It is difficult to compare these data sets 
primarily due to the use of different methodologies used and because 
the earlier efforts were limited in spatial extent. Therefore, we 
cannot determine how Eureka dune grass populations may have changed 
over time and across the range of the species since listing. 
Nevertheless, as discussed above for Eureka Valley evening-primrose, 
there is some usefulness to calculating these estimations as they 
provide an approximation of the size of each of the populations over 
time.
    Park Service (2008a) data (e.g., resurveys of Henry (1976) and 
Bagley (1986) transects) provide the most site-specific comparison at 
this point in time, identifying statistically significant

[[Page 11061]]

declines in Eureka dune grass at the north end of Eureka Dunes (Park 
Service 2008b, pp. 5-6 and 17-18), which indicate a reduced number of 
large, reproductive Eureka dune grass individuals in this portion of 
Eureka Dunes. Additionally, photopoint comparisons over time at the 
north and southwest end of Eureka Dunes and a portion of Marble Canyon 
Dunes also indicate a loss of large, reproductive individuals at these 
locations. Because large reproductive individuals contribute 
disproportionately to the seed bank (see ``Ecology--Eureka dune grass'' 
section of the Background Information document, Service 2014), the loss 
of these individuals could affect the extent of seed bank available for 
future recruitment, at least at these locations where losses have been 
indicated. Finally, between 2007 and 2010, the Park Service also 
recorded the number of individuals in four life stages (i.e., 
vegetative, reproductive, seedling, and senescent) within monitoring 
plots (a subset of the grid system) in an attempt to provide a better 
understanding of population density and detect possible changes in 
population size. Because mortality is high in Eureka dune grass 
individuals until they become established and reproductive individuals 
are necessary to maintain the seedbank, we are interested in knowing 
how the number of reproductive individuals changes over time. However, 
it is difficult to determine how the number of individuals changes over 
time because it is difficult to classify and count individuals, there 
were a small number of plots established at each dune, and the Park 
Service only monitored these plots for 3 years.
    Because of the limitations identified above, as well as the fact 
that previous studies documenting the abundance of Eureka dune grass 
were limited to the north end of Eureka Dunes (and thus may not be 
representative of the species' abundance at Eureka Dunes or at the 
other dunes), we are only using data from the monitoring plots 
established by the Park Service (Cipra in litt. 2011) at all three 
dunes (i.e., survey data from 2011 and 2013) to provide a population 
estimate for Eureka dune grass. For the same reasons as presented above 
for Eureka Valley evening-primrose, in order to compare survey methods 
across years prior to 2013, we only used 2011 data (i.e., the most 
complete data set prior to 2013 that included habitat-wide surveys of 
all three dunes in the same year). The Park Service estimated the total 
population size to be 8,014 individuals in 2011, and 8,176 individuals 
in 2013 (Park Service 2013a, p. 7). Based on this information, 
thousands of Eureka Dune grass individuals exist, and the number was 
relatively stable across the 2 years compared.
    Finally, it is important to note that these population estimates 
are extrapolations; therefore, the true population size may vary 
greatly for the following reasons:
    (1) The size of the area on which abundance counts were calculated 
is small (i.e., 1-ha monitoring plots or estimates of relative density 
within the grid system) in comparison to the size of the area to which 
the densities are being extrapolated (i.e., the dune systems).
    (2) Because Eureka dune grass exhibits a somewhat clumped 
distribution, it is often difficult to count individuals, and in 
general it is difficult to estimate the true population size (i.e., 
individuals can be both underestimated and overestimated).
    (3) These population estimates include both reproductive and 
nonreproductive individuals; we do not know the abundance of 
reproductive individuals within the population.
    Regardless of these limitations in extrapolating population 
estimates for Eureka Dune grass, the best available data indicate the 
species continues to persist within Eureka Valley across its range (and 
as stated above, we have no information regarding population size at 
the time of listing for comparison, with population surveys prior to 
listing being limited to the northern end of Eureka Dunes). Currently, 
Eureka Dune grass is known to persist at all three dunes and is 
represented by thousands of individuals at each of these locations per 
the best data available from the Park Service.

Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include: 
``Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the 
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions 
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect 
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the 
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of 
five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the 
determination be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should help 
indicate when we would anticipate an analysis of the five threat 
factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that a 
species is no longer an endangered species or threatened species 
because of any of the five statutory factors.
    Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the 
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to 
listed species and measurable objectives against which to measure 
progress towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the 
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) is ultimately based on an analysis of 
the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine 
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened 
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the 
recovery plan.
    In 1982, we finalized the Eureka Valley Dunes Recovery Plan, which 
included both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
(Recovery Plan; Service 1982). Following guidance in effect at that 
time, the Recovery Plan did not include criteria that specifically 
addressed the point at which threats identified for each species would 
be removed or sufficiently ameliorated. Instead, the Recovery Plan 
identified two objectives, each with specific recovery tasks, to 
consider Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass for 
downlisting to threatened status, and eventually, delisting (Service 
1982, pp. 26-41). These two objectives are:
    (1) Restore the Eureka dune grass and the Eureka Valley evening-
primrose to threatened status by protecting extant populations from 
existing (i.e., in 1982) and potential human threats.
    (2) Determine the number of individuals, populations, and acres of 
habitat necessary for each species to maintain itself without intensive 
management, in a vigorous, self-sustaining manner within their natural 
historical dune habitat (estimated 6,000 ac (2,428 ha)) and implement 
recovery tasks to attain these objectives.


[[Page 11062]]


Objective 1: Restore the Eureka dune grass and the Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose to threatened status by protecting extant populations 
from existing (i.e., in 1982) and potential human threats

    Objective 1 is intended to remove existing human threats to 
populations of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
through enforcement of existing laws and regulations, and management of 
human access to Eureka Valley (Service 1982, p. 26). At the time of 
listing, the primary threat to both species was off-highway vehicle 
(OHV) activity, and a lesser threat was camping on and around the dunes 
(43 FR 17910; April 26, 1978). Since listing, potential human threats 
have included other recreational activities such as sandboarding and 
horseback riding.
    Various land management activities have been implemented by the BLM 
(prior to Park Service acquisition of the Eureka Valley area in 1994) 
and the Park Service (since 1994). All of the dune systems within 
Eureka Valley have also been designated as Federal wilderness areas. A 
number of management activities have been implemented to support the 
long-term protection of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass within the Federal wilderness area, including (but not limited 
to): making OHV activity illegal; conducting patrols to enforce laws, 
regulations, and restrictions; closing and restoring unauthorized 
roads; installing interpretative signs, barriers, and wilderness 
boundary signs; and delineating and maintaining campsites (Park Service 
2008b, 2009, 2010b).
    Additionally, various education and public outreach (e.g., public 
awareness program, interpretive displays) has been conducted to reduce 
overall impacts to the species. Because all three populations occur 
within Federal wilderness areas that are now protected against the 
threats identified as imminent at the time of listing and in the 
Recovery Plan, we conclude that this recovery objective has been met.

Objective 2: Determine the number of individuals, populations, and 
acres of habitat necessary for each species to maintain itself without 
intensive management, in a vigorous, self-sustaining manner within 
their natural historical dune habitat (estimated 6,000 ac (2,428 ha)) 
and implement recovery tasks to attain these objectives

    Although this objective in the 1982 recovery plan is not the 
clearest example of a measurable and objective criterion, the intent is 
to evaluate the status of both species with regards to demographic 
characteristics to determine whether they could be considered recovered 
as opposed to meeting either the definition of an endangered species or 
the definition of a threatened species, and more importantly to attain 
the desired demographic levels necessary for recovery. While we have 
not yet developed precise values for all of the various demographic 
characteristics that help us determine whether the removal of threats 
have the desired effect (e.g., stable populations, positive growth), 
both species still occupy all three dune systems, and the best 
available monitoring data indicate thousands of plants are present at 
each dune system. Additionally, the best available information 
indicates that the BLM and Park Service have sufficiently minimized OHV 
and other recreation activities that were previously impacting the 
populations and their habitat. Even though the precise values of all 
demographic characteristics are not known, we note that many research 
and monitoring efforts have occurred for both species since the time of 
listing (unless otherwise noted), which have provided information on 
the life-history needs of both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass, as well as potential impacts to both species, 
including (but not limited to) the following studies:
    (1) Conducting a series of studies on both species to investigate 
effects of pollination on seed set, seed ecology, species' demography, 
and plant and animal interactions (herbivory, seed predation, and 
dispersal) (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 1986).
    (2) Establishing baseline conditions for monitoring trends of both 
species across all three dune systems (Bagley 1986).
    (3) Studying the genetic diversity of all Eureka dune grass 
populations (Bell 2003).
    (4) Conducting partial distribution surveys of both species on 
portions of various dunes (Beymer in litt. 1997a; Peterson in litt. 
1998), as well as documenting the distribution and abundance of Russian 
thistle, a potential competitor, across all three dune systems (Park 
Service 2011b).
    (5) Documenting distribution, abundance, and demography of both 
species (Park Service 2008a, 2008c, 2010a, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2013a).
    (6) Determining if vegetation succession at the northern end of 
Eureka Dunes (Eureka dune grass habitat) is associated with changes in 
subsurface hydrology (Park Service 2008c, p. 4).
    (7) Investigating potential competition between Russian thistle and 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose, and the effects of herbivory on Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose (Chow and Klinger 2013; Chow in litt. 2011).
    (8) Monitoring photopoint stations over time, starting in 1985, and 
retaken at various intervals (Park Service 2008c, 2011b).
    As a result of the considerable work that has been undertaken to 
understand the population dynamics and life histories of these two 
species, we consider the intent of Objective 2 has been partially met. 
Based on our review of the Recovery Plan and the information obtained 
from the various surveys and research activities that have occurred to 
date, we conclude that the status of the habitat for Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass has improved due to activities 
that have been implemented by BLM and the Park Service. The effects of 
these activities on the status of the two taxa are discussed in further 
detail below.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined 
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 
1532(16)). A species may be determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human made 
factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be 
reclassified or removed from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) on the same basis.
    Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the 
point that it can be downlisted or delisted requires consideration of 
whether the species is endangered or threatened because of the same 
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, this 
analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently 
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect 
the species in the foreseeable future

[[Page 11063]]

following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of 
the Act's protections.
    A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in the significant 
portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species 
currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the value of 
that portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the 
species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over which 
events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends 
extrapolated. For the purposes of this analysis, we first evaluate the 
status of the species throughout all its range, then consider whether 
the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any 
significant portion of its range.

Brief History of Threats Analysis

    At the time of listing, the primary threat to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass was OHV activity at Eureka Dunes 
(43 FR 17910; April 26, 1978); although not specifically stated in the 
final listing rule, this also presumes a lesser degree of impacts from 
camping that were associated with OHV activity on and around the dunes. 
By the time the Recovery Plan was developed in 1982 (Service 1982, 
entire), threats to both plants from these activities had been 
substantially ameliorated. Subsequently, we conducted a 5-year status 
review (which included an analysis of threats that affect the species) 
in 2007 (Service 2007a, 2007b, entire). By this point in time, the 
primary threat at the time of listing (OHV activity at Eureka Dunes) 
had been addressed with closure of Eureka Dunes by BLM, subsequent land 
use designations, and management measures undertaken by BLM and later 
by the Park Service (Service 2007a, pp. 8-10, 11-12, 13; Service 2007b, 
pp. 5-7, 9, 11). We also identified camping, horseback riding, and 
sandboarding as potential threats since the time of listing; however, 
we determined that these activities no longer posed a threat to the two 
species because of successful management implemented by the Park 
Service (Service 2007a, pp. 10-12, 13; Service 2007b, pp. 7-8, 11). 
Finally, we identified potential threats to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass in our 2007 5-year status reviews, 
including: Russian thistle, predation, and stochastic events; we 
determined that we did not have sufficient information to conclude that 
these impacts were a threat to the continued existence of both species 
(Service 2007a, pp. 11, 12-13; Service 2007b, pp. 9, 10-11).
    For a detailed discussion of the current status review initiated 
with our 2011 90-day finding (76 FR 3069), please see the Background 
Information document (Service 2014, pp. 38-65). The following sections 
provide analyses of the potential current or future impacts to Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka Dune grass, including: OHV activity 
(Factors A and E); other recreational activities (i.e., horseback 
riding, sandboarding, camping, and associated access routes) (Factors A 
and E); overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes (Factor B); herbivory and seed predation (Factor 
C); inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); 
competition with Russian thistle (Factor E); climate change (Factor E); 
and stochastic events (Factor E).

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

OHV Activity
    OHV activity generally includes 4-wheel drive vehicular use of 
roads and trails, predominantly on public lands, for the purpose of 
touring, hunting, fishing, or other public land use. Within the Eureka 
Valley, OHV activity was an authorized use until 1976, when BLM closed 
Eureka Dunes and some of the surrounding area to OHVs following 
publication of the proposed rule to list Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
and Eureka dune grass. Subsequently in 1980, BLM designated Eureka 
Dunes and some of the surrounding area as an Area of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACEC) and began compliance monitoring and 
management (BLM 1982, pp. 3-5). BLM's efforts resulted in few observed 
violations of the OHV closures between 1979 and 1994 (Service 1982, p. 
24; DeDecker 1994, Harris 1994, and Stormo 1994 in Noell 1994, p. 9).
    In general, the impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass associated with OHV activity have essentially been 
ameliorated, in large part due to the designation of Federal wilderness 
areas throughout both species' ranges. First, the management of Eureka 
Valley was transferred from BLM to the Park Service in 1994. 
Subsequently in 1994, all of the dune systems within Eureka Valley were 
designated as Federal wilderness areas. Under the authority of the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), use of mechanized 
vehicles were no longer allowed throughout the entire ranges of both 
species. This OHV prohibition throughout the range of both species, 
along with the benefits associated with the prohibition of other 
activities in Federal wilderness areas (e.g., development of new roads 
or structures, use of motorized equipment), all of which must be 
implemented by the Park Service (per various laws, directives, and 
plans specific to the Park Service and Death Valley National Park), 
have essentially ameliorated the threat of OHV activity and other 
ground disturbance activities to both species.
    Since 1994, the Park Service has documented occasional illegal OHV 
activity in Federal wilderness areas and has proposed additional 
measures to further reduce this activity; however, the Park Service 
acknowledges that the remote location of the dunes and limited 
resources make enforcing restrictions difficult (Park Service 2011b, p. 
17).
    OHV activity could affect Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass habitat in multiple ways, as evidenced from many studies 
that have occurred within dune ecosystems (such as Wilshire and Nakata 
1976, Webb and Wilshire 1983). Physical impacts on dunes can include 
compaction or erosion of sandy substrates, acceleration of wind erosion 
(Gillette and Adams 1983, pp. 97-109), and acceleration of dune drift 
(Gilberston 1983, pp. 362-365). OHV activity can also change the unique 
hydrologic conditions of dunes. Because dunes have the capacity to hold 
moisture for long periods of time, disturbance of the surface sands 
resulting in exposure of moist sands underneath can increase moisture 
loss from the dunes (Geological Society of America 1977, p. 4). Changes 
in physical and hydrologic properties of the dunes from heavy OHV 
activity could in turn affect the suitability of the dune habitat for 
germination and recruitment of seedlings, clonal expansion of existing 
individuals, and dispersal of seeds to favorable microsites.
    The same potential OHV impacts that affect dune habitat can also 
affect Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass individual 
plants. Normally, these types of impacts would be discussed under 
Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence), but are included here in the Factor A discussion for ease 
of analysis. OHV impacts to individual plants within

[[Page 11064]]

dune systems and other desert ecosystems have been extensively studied 
(such as Bury and Luckenbach 1983, Gilbertson 1983, and Lathrop 1983). 
Within dunes systems, for instance, while OHV activity alters the 
physical structure and hydrology of the dunes (rendering the dune 
habitat less suitable for supporting individuals and populations of the 
two species), it also affects individuals directly by shredding plants 
or damaging root systems, thereby killing or injuring (e.g., reducing 
the reproduction or survival of individuals) the plants.
    Although unauthorized OHV activity has occasionally occurred on the 
Eureka Dunes, it has not approached the levels seen prior to listing 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass as endangered 
species. Management actions initially taken by BLM prior to listing 
(i.e., closure to OHV recreation) and following listing of these 
species (e.g., vehicle route closures, control of visitor use, visitor 
education, enforcement of wilderness closures) have continued and 
increased under Park Service management, and all populations of both 
species are now within designated wilderness area where OHVs are 
prohibited. The management of OHV activity through land use 
designations (i.e., ACEC, Federal wilderness areas) has resulted in the 
near elimination of OHV activity on Eureka Dunes at the current time. 
We anticipate this will continue into the future because we expect 
Federal wilderness areas to remain in place indefinitely, and we expect 
the Park Service's current management to be implemented over the next 
20 years, as well as modified periodically into the future with 
adaptive management strategies (as demonstrated by the Park Service's 
natural resource management strategies to date and anticipated in the 
future per Park Service policies and regulations (see Factor D)). 
Additionally, the remote location, inaccessibility, and wilderness 
status of the Saline Spur and Marble Canyon Dunes appear to be 
providing sufficient protection for dune habitats and plants at these 
locations both currently and in the future. Although the Park Service 
has documented sporadic occurrences of unauthorized OHV activity, these 
occurrences are almost entirely localized to areas on and adjacent to 
the northern end of Eureka Dunes (Beymer 1996; Beymer in litt. 
1997b,d,g; Beymer 1997c,e,f; Anderson 1998; Dellingers 1998a-c; 
Peterson in litt. 1998b,c; Rods 1998; Park Service circa 2000; Rods 
2000; Park Service 2011b). Therefore, we conclude, based on the best 
available information, that the Wilderness Area designation, coupled 
with Park Service management of OHV activity and other visitor uses, 
have significantly reduced these impacts to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass and their habitat currently and into the 
future.
Other Recreational Activities
    In addition to unauthorized OHV activity that may occur currently 
(as described above), other recreational activities have been known 
historically and currently occur (occasionally) within the Eureka 
Dunes, including horseback riding, sandboarding, camping outside of 
designated areas, and creation of access routes.
    Camping and associated access routes were identified as a minor 
threat in the Recovery Plan because their proximity to Eureka Dunes 
facilitated unauthorized OHV activity (Service 1982, pg. 22, 23). 
Horseback riding and sandboarding were potential threats to Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass identified after listing, 
and were discussed in the 5-year status reviews published in 2007 
(Service 2007a, p. 10; Service 2007b, pp. 78). All of these activities 
were discussed in our 5-year review under Factor A because, like OHV 
activity, they have the ability to have physical impacts on the dune 
habitat (such as destabilization and displacement of sands); however, 
these same activities have the potential for damaging individual plants 
through crushing, trampling, and uprooting. Although impacts to 
individual plants are more appropriately discussed under Factor E, for 
ease of analysis we also discuss impacts to individual plants here.
    Although horseback riding was first identified by the Park Service 
as a potential concern in the late 1990s, there is no information 
regarding the extent of an impact to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass during this period, nor is there specific evidence 
related to the adverse effects of trampling by horses. Regardless, the 
Park Service considered potential adverse effects from horseback riding 
to be similar to those of light to moderate OHV activity (as described 
by Pavlik (1979a) as one to multiple tire passes over individual 
plants), which in turn could trample or crush (Factor E) Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass plants.
    Sandboarding became popular in the late 1990s, and this activity 
increased within Eureka Valley specifically following an October 1997 
article in Esquire Magazine that identified Eureka Dunes as a location 
to pursue this activity (Warren 1997, p. 143). There is no information 
regarding the extent of the adverse effects that this activity had on 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass, but crushing 
(Factor E) of individual Eureka dune grass plants was observed in 1997 
(Beymer 1997h).
    Camping and access routes were first identified as a concern to 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass habitat and plants 
as a result of observed OHV activity concentrating near the northwest 
corner of Eureka Dunes (BLM 1982, p. 4; Service 1982, pp. 22-23). The 
Recovery Plan discusses camping and associated access routes as 
facilitating unauthorized OHV activity, which in turn caused adverse 
effects to habitat for both species (Service 1982, p. 24); although the 
plan does not specify, we assume these activities were identified as 
threats because the concentration of activity could result in trampling 
of individual plants (Factor E) or alteration of habitat due to 
compaction or erosion (Factor A).
    Since the time of listing, a number of actions have been 
implemented to reduce and eliminate impacts associated with horseback 
riding, sandboarding, camping, and establishment of associated access 
points within and around Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass habitat (e.g., establishing designated wilderness areas 
throughout the Eureka Valley, with attendant restrictions on the 
development of new roads and structures, and not allowing the use of 
motorized vehicles off designated roads). The BLM and Park Service have 
implemented recommendations from the Recovery Plan (e.g., establishment 
of defined camping areas away from the dunes, transforming the 
northwest access point into a day-use-only area) (Park Service 2000, p. 
11; Park Service 2006, pp. 6-7), and horseback riding and sandboarding 
have been prohibited since 2002 (Park Service 2002, p. 3; 2006, p. 10). 
The Park Service enforces the restrictions, including the wilderness 
area designation that prohibits OHV activity (and thus potential 
unauthorized camping and access routes) on the dunes. Beginning in 
2007, the Park Service also expanded a program to further increase 
visitor compliance with the rules and regulations that outline 
authorized activities in the Eureka Dunes, which includes: Conducting 
patrols; closing and restoring illegal roads; installing interpretative 
signs, barriers, and wilderness boundary signs; and delineating and 
maintaining campsites (Park Service 2008b, 2009, 2010b). While the NPS 
has documented some

[[Page 11065]]

unauthorized activity (e.g., sandboarding, OHV activity in closed 
areas) that may result in minor or occasional impact to individual 
plants, these are infrequent occurrences and affect very small areas 
and are not spread throughout the range of either species (Beymer 1996; 
Beymer in litt. 1997b,d,g; Beymer 1997c,e,f; Anderson 1998; Dellingers 
1998a-c; Peterson in litt. 1998b,c; Rods 1998; Park Service circa 2000; 
Rods 2000; Park Service 2011b). Therefore, the best available 
information at this time indicates that unauthorized OHV and other 
recreational activities, if they occur, are not causing population-
level effects (as compared to pre-listing levels) for either species 
currently, nor are they expected to do so in the future, in large part 
due to the extensive protections and management provided by the Park 
Service.

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

    Utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes was not identified as a threat to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass in the listing rule. Both taxa 
have no known commercial or recreational value that we consider 
consumptive (that is, based on physical use or removal of the plants). 
Educational groups frequently visit Eureka Dunes, but we are unaware of 
any activities that would be considered consumptive use. Since listing, 
there have been three section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for studies 
involving the removal of plants, seeds, or plant parts. These studies 
usually involve collection of seeds or leaves for laboratory 
experiments or collection of voucher specimens for herbaria; in each 
case we analyzed potential impacts during the permitting process and 
determined that the collection activities would not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Additionally, Eureka dune grass 
seeds were collected in 2007, as part of a joint project between the 
Park Service and the Center for Plant Conservation to preserve 
germplasm (a collection of genetic resources) of federally listed 
species (Fraga 2007). We do not consider this level of research and 
collection to pose any potential threat of overutilization for either 
of the species. Furthermore, the State of California and Park Service 
have regulatory mechanisms in place to control any potential 
utilization in the future (see also Factor D below). Any collection of 
plants would require permits from the State of California and the Park 
Service. We conclude that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is not a short-term or long-term 
threat to the continued existence of Eureka Valley evening-primrose or 
Eureka dune grass.

C. Disease or Predation

    At the time of listing, disease and predation were not identified 
as potential threats to Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune 
grass. Since then, studies on both species imply that herbivory and 
seed predation are potential threats for both species.
    (1) Pavlik and Barbour (1985, pp. 62-63) concluded that jackrabbit 
pruning of Eureka dune grass would seldom lead to the death of mature 
plants; however, in contrast, pruning could remove branches of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose or jackrabbits may cause mortality of 
individual plants by uprooting them. Additionally, the pruning could 
have a negative effect on seed production if it occurs prior to 
ripening and dispersal (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, pp. 60, 62-63. Pavlik 
and Barbour (1985, pp. 62-63) suggested that herbivory of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose could result in a substantial loss of seeds entering 
the seed bank if peak herbivory coincided with peak seed production in 
a given season, though they noted that most seed production occurred 
prior to the start of intense herbivory.
    (2) Chow (in litt. 2011) hypothesized that herbivory of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose may affect the size, survivability, and 
fecundity of individual plants. Chow (in litt. 2011) collected 
preliminary information on the effects of herbivory at all three dunes 
in 2011. This information indicates that the level of herbivory varies 
at each dune, ranging from either no evidence of herbivory to the 
complete loss of individuals (although we note this information was 
limited to one season).
    (3) USGS initiated a 3-year study in 2013 that includes the 
potential effects of herbivory on the two species. First-year data 
indicate that herbivore damage had a strong impact on both species, 
with 50 to 89 percent of tagged Eureka dune grass stems consumed or 
nipped off each month from March to July; and up to 99 percent of the 
surface area of Eureka Valley evening-primrose individuals consumed, 
contributing to low survival rates at all dune sites (Scoles-Sciulla 
and DeFalco 2013).
    Although herbivory and seed predation are documented to occur, as 
indicated above (Pavlik and Barbour 1985; Chow in litt. 2011; Scoles-
Sciulla and DeFalco 2013), the best available information is based on 
observations from single season evaluations, and in the case of Pavlik 
and Barbour's (1985) studies, limited to a portion of one population 
(i.e., north end of Eureka Dunes).
    Seed predation and herbivory are naturally occurring processes. We 
expect that both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
are adapted to withstand some level of herbivory and seed predation. 
Given that both species have persisted since listing (and since the 
studies in 1985 and 1986), and continue to occupy the same general 
distribution, it does not appear that herbivory and seed predation by 
themselves are occurring at such a level to cause population-level 
declines or other adverse effects to either species as a whole. Based 
on the best available information at this time (i.e., a single season 
of herbivory/seed predation study; the expectation that these species 
have evolved with some level of herbivory/seed predation; and that 
herbivory/seed predation is naturally occurring, and some level of 
herbivory/seed predation is expected for both species), we conclude 
that the observed impacts are not causing population-level effects for 
either species currently, nor are they expected to do so in the future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Because the ranges of both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass now occur entirely on Park Service land, any 
potential for impacts to the two species would be those from Park 
Service activities or from activities under their jurisdiction. 
Regulatory mechanisms (as they relate to OHV and other recreational 
activities) that protect the Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass habitat were discussed under Factor A above (i.e., 
protections afforded currently and into the future as a result of the 
congressionally designated wilderness). These protections, taken 
together, would provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent the 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass from becoming 
endangered or threatened after they are removed from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Additional regulatory mechanisms 
(not discussed above under Factor A) as they relate to Factors A, B, C, 
and E include the following:
    (1) Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, as amended). This Act 
promotes and regulates the use of National Parks to conserve scenery, 
national and historical objects, and wildlife to

[[Page 11066]]

provide for the enjoyment of current and future generations. 
Furthermore, Park Service management policies (Park Service 2006) 
interpret the Park Service's Organic Act in a manner that prohibits the 
impairment of any significant park resource. For example, there is a 
legal mandate to conserve and protect significant park resources; 
Eureka Dunes are recognized by the Park Service as a significant park 
resource.
    (2) General Management Plan (2002). The Park Service manages the 
Eureka Valley under a broad general management plan, which identified 
the need for development of site-specific management for Eureka Valley 
(Park Service 2002, p. 7); however, such a plan has not yet been 
developed. Despite the lack of a site-specific management plan for the 
Eureka Valley, the general management plan must be consistent with the 
legal and stewardship mandates outlined in national and Park Service-
wide laws and policies (Park Service 2002; Park Service 2006).
    (3) Wilderness and Backcountry Stewardship Plan (2013). In 2013, 
the Park Service finalized its Wilderness and Backcountry Stewardship 
Plan and environmental assessment, which is considered an 
implementation plan tiered from the 2002 General Management Plan. The 
Park Service selected a modification of one of the alternatives (i.e., 
Alternative D) that would provide benefits to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass, and their habitat, by delineating 
existing campsites and designating additional campsites at Eureka 
Dunes, prohibiting camping and sandboarding on Eureka Dunes, upgrading 
or replacing the existing vault toilet and installing a second low 
maintenance toilet on the east side of the dunes, supporting a 
campground host during heavy visitor use periods, and increasing 
visitor education on- and off-site (Park Service 2013b, pp. 4, 5, 10, 
16). This plan also discusses the Park Service's methods for managing 
nonnative plant species including (but not limited to) Russian thistle.
    Removing Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass from 
the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened Plants would not 
significantly change the protections afforded these species. At the 
time of listing, the existing regulatory mechanisms were a concern 
because we determined they were inadequate to address the threat to the 
habitat posed by OHV recreation. Currently, because the ranges of both 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass occur entirely on 
Park Service land, any potential for impacts to the two species would 
be those from Park Service activities or from activities under their 
jurisdiction. All areas containing populations of both species are 
within congressionally designated wilderness (Park Service 2002). The 
Park Service has also prohibited other activities, such as sandboarding 
and horseback riding, that have potential adverse effects to 
populations of these species (Croissant in litt. 2005), and the Park 
Service implements extensive public outreach, promotes research, and 
ensures enforcement of its laws and regulations (either through patrols 
or potentially the future use of a campground host) to ensure impacts 
to both species are minimized to the maximum extent practicable (Park 
Service 2002, 2006, 2013b).
    While most of these laws, regulations, and policies are not 
specifically directed toward protection of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass, they mandate consideration, management, 
and protection of resources that benefit these species. Additionally, 
these laws contribute to and provide mechanisms for agency planning and 
implementation directed specifically toward management of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass and their habitat. Because most 
of these laws and regulations are national in scope and are not 
conditional on the listed status of the plants, we expect these laws 
and regulatory mechanisms to remain in place after Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass are delisted. Therefore, the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass now or in the future. 
Additionally, although some factors described in this document may 
continue to cause stress to either one or both species, the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to manage the continued existence 
of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass currently and 
in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

OHV Activity and Other Recreational Activities
    See the ``OHV Activity'' and ``Other Recreational Activities'' 
sections, above under Factor A, for a complete discussion of realized 
and potential impacts since the time of listing. As stated there, we 
included a complete discussion of potential impacts to both habitat and 
individual plants under Factor A for ease of analysis. We conclude, 
based on the best available information, that the Wilderness Area 
designation, coupled with Park Service management of OHV activity and 
other recreational activity, have significantly reduced potential 
impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
individuals currently and into the future. See additional discussion 
above under Factors A and D.
Competition With Russian Thistle
    Invasive, nonnative plants can potentially impact the long-term 
persistence of endemic species. Salsola spp. (Russian thistle) is the 
only invasive, nonnative species that has spread onto the dunes in the 
Eureka Valley. Previous information (available at the time of our 2007 
5-year reviews) was generally limited to personal observations and 
collections with no specific information regarding the density or 
distribution of Russian thistle. However, due to continuing concerns 
expressed by the Park Service and other parties since 2007, we 
conducted a more thorough review of the life-history characteristics of 
Russian thistle and the potential impacts it could have on both 
species, particularly the potential for Russian thistle to compete with 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass for resources such 
as water and nutrients.
    Russian thistle is known to spread in areas where soil has been 
disturbed, and is commonly found along road margins, rail lines, feed 
lots, and abandoned agricultural fields, and in grain seed. Although 
the source of spread is unknown for the Eureka Valley, it was first 
noted there in the 1970s; agricultural activities (grazing and farming) 
still occur in the northern portion of Eureka Valley to the north of 
Death Valley National Park, likely serving as a continuing seed source.
    At the time of our 2007 5-year status reviews, we briefly discussed 
potential competition with Russian thistle as a threat to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass. We concluded that Russian 
thistle was not a substantial threat to Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
because the latter continued to occupy areas containing Russian 
thistle, and there was no information regarding the effects of Russian 
thistle on the stability of the population (Service 2007a, p. 12). For 
Eureka dune grass, we also concluded that Russian thistle was not a 
substantial threat because there was no information to support a 
competitive relationship between it and Russian

[[Page 11067]]

thistle (Service 2007b, p. 10). Nevertheless, there was a general 
perception that the distribution of Russian thistle had increased since 
the 1980s. Therefore, since the time of our 2007 5-year reviews, we 
have continued to review literature pertaining to Russian thistle, and 
have obtained additional information from the Park Service regarding 
the distribution and relative density of Russian thistle within the 
habitat of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
(Service 2014, pp. 51-58).
    In 2011, the distribution and density pattern of Russian thistle 
and Eureka Valley evening-primrose was mapped by the Park Service 
across all three dunes over several years (Park Service 2011a, pp. 18-
21). In addition, the USGS noted an inverse relationship in the spatial 
distribution and abundance of the two species along a series of 
transects. Both of these studies suggested that there may be a 
competitive relationship for resources (for instance, water or light) 
between Russian thistle and Eureka Valley evening-primrose (Chow and 
Klinger 2013, p. 15). Therefore, in 2012, USGS initiated an ex situ 
pilot study to determine if there is a potential competitive 
relationship between Russian thistle and Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
(Chow and Klinger 2013, pp. 15-18). Preliminary information provided by 
Chow and Klinger (2013, pp. 17-18) indicates that intraspecific 
competition (competition between individuals of the same species) had a 
greater effect on Eureka Valley evening-primrose than interspecific 
competition (competition between individuals of different species) with 
Russian thistle. However, we note that the results of this study are 
preliminary and limited to a short time period (i.e., 10 weeks). Based 
on past and current Park Service management practices, we reasonably 
anticipate that the Park Service would incorporate new information 
received from future management and research studies into their future 
management plans for Eureka Valley.
    Limited information is available on the effects of Russian thistle 
to native plant species and ecosystems, likely because Russian thistle 
tends to invade disturbed areas; thus, almost all available literature 
is based on its effects to agricultural crops and grazing lands. 
Regardless, general impacts to native flora, including Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass, from Russian thistle could 
include increased competition when water is limited (Allen 1982, p. 
739), or potentially reduced recruitment (such as exhibited by other 
invasive, nonnative plants that occur in high abundance) (Thomson 2005, 
pp. 615-624; Barrows et al. 2009, pp. 679, 683).
    To better understand the overlap in distribution of Russian thistle 
and Eureka Valley evening-primrose, we examined the Park Service's best 
available data layers for each species (i.e., 2010 data for Russian 
thistle and 2011 data for Eureka Valley evening-primrose, which were 
the years in which each species had the greatest above-ground 
expression). Based on our analysis, the distribution of Russian thistle 
overlaps the Eureka Valley evening-primrose distribution over all three 
dunes by 84 percent (Service 2013a). However, the extent of overlap 
does not necessarily indicate that competition is occurring. Since 
2010, there have been years with very little to virtually no 
germination of Russian thistle (Park Service 2011a, p. 18; 2012a, p. 4; 
2013a p. 4). It is unclear whether the conditions that stimulate 
germination of Eureka Valley evening-primrose are the same conditions 
that would stimulate the germination of Russian thistle. For instance, 
in 2013, there was mass germination of Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
in the sand flats to the east of Eureka Dunes, but there was little 
germination of Russian thistle (Park Service 2013a, p. 4), indicating 
that different environmental factors are needed to trigger mass 
germination events in these two species. It is possible that, during 
years when Russian thistle is abundant, this plant may compete with 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose for resources such as water and 
nutrients. However, the best available information does not indicate 
that Russian thistle may outcompete Eureka Valley evening-primrose for 
these resources either currently or in the future.
    At this time, competition with Russian thistle does not appear to 
be impacting the Eureka Valley evening-primrose at a level that would 
cause population-level or species-level effects. We have reached this 
conclusion for the following reasons:
    (1) Russian thistle abundance, like that of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose, varies annually; therefore, the degree to which these species 
overlap will vary annually.
    (2) The best available information does not indicate that the same 
conditions that stimulate the germination of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose also stimulate germination of Russian thistle, which in turn 
reduces the likelihood of a competitive relationship between these 
species either in the short term or long term. The mass germination of 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose individuals in 2013 implies different 
environmental factors are needed to get a similar mass germination of 
Russian thistle to potentially impact Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
seedlings or established plants. Therefore, this reduces the likelihood 
of a competitive relationship between these species either in the 
short-term or long-term.
    With regard to Eureka dune grass, we have already noted above that 
the distribution of Russian thistle occurs across all three dunes. 
However, the best available data indicate that the potential for 
Russian thistle to impact Eureka dune grass is unlikely because:
    (1) Eureka dune grass typically occurs on the steeper, unstable 
slopes of the dunes, which appears to limit the establishment of 
Russian thistle; and
    (2) Russian thistle roots are more shallow than those of Eureka 
dune grass, which reduces the likelihood of potential competition 
between the two species.
    Additionally, based on our analysis of the Park Service's data on 
Russian thistle presence/absence in 1-ha grid cells, the extent of 
overlap between these two species at all three dunes combined is 36 
percent, ranging from 19 to 91 percent among the three dunes (Service 
2013b). Because the Park Service's data is limited to the presence of 
both species within the same 1-ha grid, these data alone do not 
indicate that these two species are in close proximity to each other on 
a smaller spatial scale (which could indicate they are competing for 
the same resources). However, because the abundance of Eureka dune 
grass is sparse (i.e., covers 4.3 percent of the entire dune habitat on 
Eureka Dunes), and Russian thistle is unable to colonize the steeper, 
unstable slopes where Eureka dune grass occurs, it is unlikely that 
there is much overlap between these two species at a small spatial 
scale, even when they both are present in the same 1-ha grid cell. 
Therefore, based on the best available information, we conclude that 
competition with Russian thistle does not pose a threat to Eureka dune 
grass at this time, nor is it expected to become a threat in the 
future.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different 
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical 
period for such

[[Page 11068]]

measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 
2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in 
the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., 
temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, 
typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural 
variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types 
of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. 
These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may 
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with 
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant 
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various 
aspects of climate change.
    The final listing rule, recovery plan, and 2007 5-year status 
reviews did not identify climate change as potentially impacting Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass. For this evaluation we 
used regional projections modeled until 2050, which results in an 
expected transition to a drier climate (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-
1184). However, other regional modeling efforts indicate that rainfall 
will increase throughout the Southwest (Weltzen et al. 2003). Of note 
is that that there is a substantial level of uncertainty associated 
with such projections for topographically complex regions, such as the 
western United States (Weltzen et al. 2003).
    Local projections into the future for Eureka Valley were conducted 
using ClimateWizard (2011), which evaluates past trends in temperature 
or rainfall to project future climate conditions:
    (1) For temperature, Eureka Valley has increased an average of 0.04 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to 0.05[emsp14][deg]F per year, resulting 
in a total increase of average temperature of 2.0[emsp14][deg]F to 
2.5[emsp14][deg]F over the last 50 years. Additionally, the temperature 
is projected to rise an additional 4[emsp14][deg]F by the 2050s.
    (2) For rainfall, historical trends from 1951 to 2006 in the Eureka 
Valley indicate that rainfall has increased from 0 to 1 percent. The 
rainfall is anticipated to be an average of 4 in (102 mm) per year by 
the 2050s.
    What the above projections indicate is that while there has been 
annual variation in climatic variables (e.g., the amount and timing of 
rainfall, seasonal low and high temperatures), the norms (or averages) 
of these variables are starting (and will likely continue) to change in 
response to climate change.
    Long-term data on average rainfall in Eureka Valley are not 
available due to the lack of a weather station at this location, and 
trying to estimate annual rainfall or establish trends for this 
specific area is difficult because data used from surrounding weather 
stations may not accurately portray rainfall in Eureka Valley (e.g., 
localized storms). Pavlik (1979a, pp. 14-18; 1979b, pp. 15-20) 
estimated average annual rainfall in Eureka Valley was 5 in (115 mm). 
However, the timing of rainfall may be as important as the total amount 
of rainfall within a given year. For example, for recruitment of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose to occur, germination during the fall months 
needs to be followed by additional rainfall events during the winter 
months (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, p. 10). Conversely, Eureka dune grass 
germination is dependent on above-average rainfall during the late 
summer months (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp. 47-59). The Park Service 
(2012b) recently examined the timing and amount of rainfall (based on a 
dataset from the closest weather station) between 1987 and 2012, 
examining the two periods of rainfall that would stimulate germination 
of Eureka Valley evening primrose (i.e., September through February) 
and Eureka dune grass (i.e., April through September). While annual 
rainfall during these two periods is highly variable, between 1987 and 
2012, there appears to be a slight increasing trend in the amount of 
annual rainfall for the first period (September through February) and a 
decreasing trend for the second period (April through September) (Park 
Service 2012b). This highlights the complexity in predicting future 
impacts of climate change on Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass because the timing of the rainfall may be as important as 
the total amount of annual rainfall. While the amount of rainfall will 
determine how deeply water infiltrates into the dune system, the timing 
will affect how much of this water is lost to evaporation and 
transpiration (Weltzin et al. 2003, p. 943). These factors (i.e., 
timing and amount of rainfall) compound the problem of trying to 
predict how climate change will affect these two species now and into 
the future.
    The analysis conducted by the Park Service (2012b) indicates that 
the long-term trend in timing of rainfall may be beneficial for the 
germination of Eureka Valley evening-primrose. Additionally, Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose has adapted strategies to cope with drought. 
For instance, established plants may remain dormant and persist 
underground by their fleshy roots. In contrast, the long-term trend may 
not favor the germination of Eureka dune grass; however, Eureka dune 
grass utilizes a C4 carbon fixation pathway, which means this species 
uses water more efficiently during carbon fixation than plants that use 
the more common C3 pathway--an adaptation found more frequently in 
species that occur in hot, dry environments (Peterson and Soreng 2007, 
p. 8). This indicates that Eureka dune grass is already well-adapted to 
a hot, dry environment, and we expect these adaptations will help it 
persist.
    Potential impacts from climate change may include a variety of 
potential changes, such as the following:
    (1) A decrease in the level of soil moisture that could increase 
evaporation and transpiration rates and thus impact the growth or 
performance of individual plants (Weltzin et al. 2003, p. 943).
    (2) Altered timing and amount of rainfall could influence 
germination and possibly establishment of Eureka dune grass (Pavlik and 
Barbour 1986, p. 47).
    (3) The timing of phenological phases, such as flowering, leafing 
out, and seed release in both Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass, could change, which has been noted in many other plant 
species (Bertin 2008, p. 130-131). Additionally, pollinator 
availability could become limited (Hegland et al. 2009) during the time 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose is flowering, which in turn could affect 
pollination effectiveness, and consequently the amount of seed it 
produces.
    (4) Lower rainfall could affect survival of individual plants 
(e.g., reproductive adults, seedlings) and result in less frequent 
germination events, both of which could affect recruitment. 
Alternatively, increased rainfall could increase germination and 
survival, but could also increase competition with invasive, nonnative 
plants or increase the population size of herbivores. With respect to 
herbivores, a subsequent decrease in rainfall could result in increased 
herbivory of certain plants due to a decreased availability in the 
variety of vegetation.
    Although reproduction and survival could be affected by changes in 
climate conditions as outlined in the potential impacts, both Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass have evolved in and are 
adapted to a dry environment with considerable variation in temperature 
and rainfall (seed banks, rootstock, C4 carbon fixation, etc.). The 
species have evolved

[[Page 11069]]

mechanisms to persist through drought and variable conditions. While 
there is considerable uncertainty in local climate projections, we 
expect both species are adapted to withstand drier climate conditions.
    In summary, impacts from climate change on Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka Dune grass may occur in the future, although we 
cannot predict what the effects will be. Regardless, climate change 
will be affecting the climatic norms that these two species have 
previously persisted with, and it is probable that this shift could 
cause stress to both species. Even so, the best available information 
currently indicates these species are physiologically adapted to the 
specific hydrologic and soil conditions on the dunes, and the stress 
imposed by projected climate change currently and in the future is not 
likely to rise to the level that the long-term viability of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass would be impacted. Given 
the potential for continued climate change in the region, this 
potential stressor should be evaluated into the future.
Stochastic Events
    Stochastic events (environmental and genetic stochasticity) could 
affect populations of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass. The small number of populations and restricted geographic range 
of the populations of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass to Eureka Valley makes them especially vulnerable to stochastic 
events.
    Environmental stochasticity refers to variation in recruitment and 
mortality rates in response to weather, disease, competition, 
predation, or other factors external to the population. In our 2007 5-
year status reviews, we provided a brief discussion regarding 
stochastic events, which included windstorms, extended drought (below-
average rainfall over a time period greater than the historical range 
of variability), or a combination of these events with other 
unidentified catastrophic events and their potential effects, on Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass (Service 2007a, p. 13; 
Service 2007b, p. 10). We concluded that neither windstorms nor a 
variation in rainfall represent a substantial threat to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass. Our discussion below elaborates 
on the potential effects associated with these types of events.
    While windstorms may adversely affect individuals of the Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass populations (by causing 
individual mortality from uprooting, damaging, or burying plants, or 
dispersing seed into unsuitable habitat such that it is unavailable for 
future recruitment), it is unlikely that these events have population-
level effects because these species have developed adaptations (e.g., 
ability to reproduce vegetatively (Pavlik 1979a, p. 68; Pavlik and 
Barbour 1986, p. 84; Pavlik and Barbour 1988, p. 240), ability to 
ensure seeds remain near parent plant and disperse into uncolonized 
habitat (Pavlik 1979a, p. 59; 1979b, p. 71; Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 
pp. 27, 34, 40, 41) to counter the effects of occupying the dynamic 
habitat on or around the sand dune (as discussed in the ``Species 
Description, Taxonomy, and Life History'' sections, above, for each 
species).
    Timing and amount of rainfall (along with other factors that 
stimulate seed germination) are likely important factors in the 
germination and establishment of Eureka Valley evening-primrose or 
Eureka dune grass (Pavlik and Barbour 1986, pp 10, 47-59). In the short 
term, unfavorable climatic conditions (such as low rainfall) may result 
in fewer plants, plants producing fewer seeds, and (due to stressful 
conditions) an increase in mortality of seedlings. This could limit 
recruitment during this period; however, established individuals would 
likely survive these conditions and continue to reproduce or go 
dormant. The seed banks of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass would provide some buffer to ensure the persistence of the 
species when conditions are less favorable. However, we note that over 
the long term, the increasing time between the favorable climatic 
conditions that favor the replenishment of the seed bank could 
potentially affect the amount of the seed bank that is available for 
future recruitment efforts.
    Overall, it is possible that environmental stochasticity (in the 
form of extreme weather events) could cause stress to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass. However, the best available 
information at this time does not indicate the current and projected 
future impacts associated with stochastic events would rise to the 
level that the long-term persistence of Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
and Eureka dune grass would be impacted.
    With regard to genetic stochasticity, low genetic diversity may 
affect the ability of plant species to adjust to novel or fluctuating 
environments, survive stochastic events, or maintain high levels of 
reproductive performance (Huenneke 1991, p. 40). Although Bell (2003, 
p. 6) concluded that there was low genetic diversity within and among 
the three populations of Eureka dune grass, there is no past 
information available regarding the level of genetic diversity within 
and among the three populations of Eureka dune grass, which would allow 
us to determine if genetic diversity has changed over time. 
Additionally, the best available information does not indicate any low 
genetic diversity within and among the Eureka Valley evening-primrose 
populations. Consequently, we conclude that genetic stochasticity does 
not pose a threat to Eureka dune grass or Eureka Valley evening-
primrose currently or in the future.

Combination of Factors

    A species may be affected by more than one threat in combination 
(Brook et al. 2008). Within the preceding review of the potential 
impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass, we 
identified multiple potential impacts that may have interrelated 
impacts that stress one or both species. For example, during years with 
favorable climatic conditions (such as increased rainfall), food 
sources (such as plant parts and seeds) become more abundant and may 
lead to an increase in small mammal populations (Hoffmann 1958, pp. 
79109; Johnson and Peek 1984, pp. 8-9; Anderson and Shumar 1986, p. 
154; Krebs 1996, pp. 824). However, environmental stochasticity (such 
as short-term drought) could lead to a decrease in food sources, and 
the small mammal activity may increase in those areas with remaining 
vegetation. Further, the stress from increased seed predation, 
herbivory, or climate change, either singularly or in combination, may 
reduce the reproductive vigor of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass (for example, Dangremond et al. 2010, pp. 2261-2270). 
The species' productivity may be reduced because of these stressors, 
either singularly or in combination. However, without further study, it 
is difficult to determine (nor is it necessarily determinable) whether 
a particular impact is having the greatest effect on the viability of 
the species, or whether it is exacerbated by or working in combination 
with other impacts to have cumulative or synergistic effects on the 
species. While the combination of factors could potentially impact 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass, the best 
available information does not indicate that the magnitude or extent of 
cumulative or synergistic effects is impacting either species to the 
point that they are affecting the viability of the species at this time 
or into the future (although the available information indicates some

[[Page 11070]]

uncertainty about how synergistic effects could impact both species in 
the future).

Finding

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so because of any of 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. As required by section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, we conducted a review of the status of these plants and 
assessed the five factors to evaluate whether Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass are endangered or threatened throughout 
all of their ranges. We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the species. We reviewed information presented in the 2010 
petition, information available in our files and gathered through the 
status review initiated with our 90-day finding in response to this 
petition, additional information that became available since the time 
our 2007 5-year status reviews were completed, and other available 
published and unpublished information. We also consulted with species 
experts and land management staff with Death Valley National Park who 
are actively managing for the conservation of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass.
    For the purposes of this discussion, we note that the 
implementation timeline of Death Valley National Park's Wilderness and 
Backcountry Stewardship Plan (Park Service 2013b) is 20 years. We think 
this is an appropriate timeframe over which events or effects 
reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends extrapolated, 
because it is the length of time that the Park has planned for managing 
the habitat of these species, and during which time the Park will be 
monitoring the status of the populations. Although we expect threats to 
be managed for at least the length of this timeframe, we expect 
management of the Eureka Dunes to continue well into the future beyond 
20 years. Based on the Park Service's track record for natural resource 
management and revisions to management plans, we can reasonably expect 
revisions of management plans to incorporate protective management 
consistent with the needs of both species well into the future and 
beyond the existing 20-year stewardship plan timeframe described above. 
We expect future revisions to be consistent with laws, regulations, and 
policies governing Federal land management planning; however, we cannot 
predict the exact contents of future plans. For additional information 
used to determine foreseeable future for these species, see the 
discussion of the Park Service's responsibilities and a description of 
Death Valley National Park's Wilderness and Backcountry Stewardship 
Plan in the ``Recovery'' and ``Factor D'' sections of the Background 
Information document (Service 2014, pp. 32-38, 48-51).
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, 
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to 
determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, 
it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require 
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some 
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could 
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is 
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative 
threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the 
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    Significant impacts to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass populations at the time of listing (i.e., OHV activity, and 
to a lesser extent camping and unauthorized OHV activity) that could 
have resulted in the extirpation of all or parts of populations have 
been eliminated or reduced to the extent that they are considered 
negligible currently, and are expected to continue to be negligible 
into the future. We also conclude that the previously recognized 
potential impacts and those identified in this document for both 
species either have been ameliorated, are negligible, or do not rise to 
a level of significance, either individually or in combination, such 
that either species is in danger of extinction throughout its range. We 
came to this conclusion based on our evaluation of the following 
potential impacts: The present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range (i.e., unauthorized OHV 
activity, other unauthorized recreational activities (specifically, 
horseback riding, sandboarding, campgrounds, and access routes)) 
(Factor A); overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes (Factor B); disease or predation (specifically, 
herbivory and seed predation) (Factor C); the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence (specifically, other 
unauthorized recreational activities (i.e., horseback riding, 
sandboarding, camping, and access routes), competition with Russian 
thistle, climate change, and stochastic events) (Factor E).
    Of the factors identified above, herbivory, seed predation, 
stochastic events, climate change, and (specifically for Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose) competition with Russian thistle during years the 
thistle is abundant have the potential to impact Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass currently or into the foreseeable 
future. However, we found that the best available information does not 
indicate that these stressors are impacting individual populations or 
each species as a whole across their ranges to the extent that they are 
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to rise to the level 
of a threatened species (i.e., likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future). We came to this conclusion primarily 
due to the best available information indicating a negligible impact or 
lack of impact to the species across their ranges, although some may be 
causing stress to portions of populations within the range of one or 
both species (e.g., documented herbivory and seed predation at the 
north end of the Eureka Dunes). Although some of these impacts may 
continue to cause stress to either or both species, the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to manage the continued existence 
of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass currently and 
into the foreseeable future.
    Finally, it is important to acknowledge the significant commitment 
made initially by BLM and subsequently by the Park Service in their 
efforts to provide permanent protection to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass and their habitat, as well as ongoing

[[Page 11071]]

management, research, and public outreach opportunities.
    In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass. After review and analysis of the information regarding threats 
as related to the five statutory factors, we find that the ongoing 
threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 
indicate that these species are presently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of their ranges. Additionally, no threats exist 
currently nor are any potential stressors described herein expected to 
rise to the level that would likely cause either species to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having examined the status of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass throughout all of their ranges, we next examine 
whether either species could be in danger of extinction, or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future, in a significant portion of 
their ranges. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose in 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant or in analyzing portions of the range in which there is no 
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To 
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we 
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) 
The portions may be ``significant'' and (2) The species may be in 
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, 
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address 
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if 
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do 
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened 
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened 
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion 
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a 
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its 
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the level of threats to the species is essentially uniform 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration.
    We consider the ``range'' of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and 
Eureka dune grass to include three populations each, all encompassed 
within the three dune systems (Marble Canyon Dunes, Saline Spur Dunes, 
and the Eureka Dunes) that span a distance of 9 mi (14.4 km) from west 
to east within Eureka Valley in Death Valley National Park, Inyo 
County, California. The three populations of each species have likely 
been present since the beginning of the Holocene era when pluvial lakes 
retreated during a warming phase, leaving behind the dune systems in 
Eureka Valley. Historical distribution of Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass beyond the three currently recognized 
populations of each species is unknown. In other words, the current 
distribution of both species is the only known distribution, which has 
remained generally the same since their distributions were first 
recorded in 1976.
    We considered whether the factors that could cause stress to Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass individuals or to the 
populations as a whole might be different at any one of the populations 
relative to each other. The factors we identified that could still 
cause stress to both species include: Herbivory, seed predation, 
stochastic events, climate change, and (specifically for Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose) competition with Russian thistle during years the 
thistle is abundant. There are two characteristics of the habitat for 
these species that could influence the extent to which these factors 
cause stress to either species: (1) The type of dune system that 
supports each of the populations, and (2) The extent of the sandy dune 
habitat that supports each of the populations (please see the 
``Environmental Setting'' section of the Background Information 
document (Service 2014, pp. 4-7) for more information). We compare the 
three dunes to each other as follows.

    Table 1--Comparison of Dune Habitat Characteristics at Three Dune
                        Systems in Eureka Valley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Extent of dune habitat
         Dune system             Type of dune     (acres (ac) (hectares
                                    system                (ha))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Marble Canyon Dunes.......  Obstacle dune..  610 ac (247 ha).
2. Saline Spur Dunes.........  Obstacle dune..  238 ac (96 ha).
3. Eureka Dunes..............  Sand mountain/   2,003 ac (811 ha).
                                Transverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The type of dune system is important because of the way each of 
them intercepts, stores, and delivers moisture (from precipitation) to 
a plant at critical times in its life cycle, specifically during seed 
germination (needs moisture closer to the surface where the seeds are), 
and during growth (needs moisture deeper below the surface where the 
roots are). As Park Service monitoring over the last 5 years indicates, 
a ``good'' year for Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune grass 
at one dune system is not necessarily a ``good'' year for either 
species at another dune system. Although the mechanisms are complex and 
not entirely understood, it is likely that obstacle dunes have little 
capacity to store water, and thus intercept and deliver moisture over a 
shorter period of time. In comparison, the sand mountain type of dune 
system has a greater capacity to store water, and to deliver moisture 
to plants over a longer period of time. Therefore, if rainfall were 
abundant and equal at all three dune systems, the Eureka Dunes would 
provide an inherent advantage relative to Marble Canyon Dunes and 
Saline Spur Dunes, with respect to the ability of the dune system to 
provide sustained moisture for germination and growth of Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass.
    The extent of dune habitat is important because, if rainfall were 
abundant and equal at all three dune systems, the greater extent of 
dune habitat would provide more space for Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass to germinate and grow than at Marble 
Canyon Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes. While not every hectare of each 
dune provides suitable conditions for germination and growth of Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass, a comparison of the

[[Page 11072]]

extent of dune habitat is still a useful relative measure of 
potentially suitable habitat: Eureka Dunes is over three times as large 
as Marble Canyon Dunes, and eight times as large as Saline Spur Dunes. 
Thus, if rainfall were abundant and equal at all three dune systems, 
Eureka Dunes provides an inherent advantage to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass relative to Marble Canyon Dunes and 
Saline Spur Dunes, both with respect to type of dune system and extent 
of dune habitat, and would theoretically support the largest population 
of each species.
    The factors we identified that could cause stress to Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass currently or in the future are 
herbivory, seed predation, stochastic events, climate change, and 
(specifically for Eureka Valley evening-primrose) competition with 
Russian thistle during years the thistle is abundant. All of these 
factors are known to cause stress in plant species; the extent to which 
they cause stress to Eureka Valley evening-primrose or Eureka dune 
grass has not been studied in detail. Stress in plant populations can 
manifest in many forms, ranging from death of individuals to reduced 
vigor and growth of individuals to reduced reproductive success. In 
general, small plant populations are more vulnerable than large plant 
populations to factors that cause stress because there are fewer 
numbers of individuals to act as a ``reserve'' from which the species 
can recover. Moreover, once populations become small because of stress 
caused by one factor, they are more vulnerable to stress caused by 
other factors, hence the ``combination of factors'' phenomenon as 
discussed under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section. 
The best available information indicates that the factors that cause 
stress could be equally present at all three dunes.
    Because Marble Canyon Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes are obstacle 
dunes with less water-holding capacity than Eureka Dunes and comprise a 
smaller extent of dune habitat than Eureka Dunes, they likely will, 
over time (under conditions of abundant and equal rainfall), support 
smaller populations of Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass than Eureka Dunes. Furthermore, these smaller populations could 
be more vulnerable to factors that cause stress than the population at 
Eureka Dunes; therefore, the level of stress to which populations at 
Marble Canyon Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes are subjected could be higher 
than the level of stress to which the populations at Eureka Dunes are 
subjected. However, the best available data at this time do not 
indicate a higher level of stress at any of the populations/dunes as 
compared to other populations/dunes. In addition, we think that the 
three dune systems are close enough in proximity to each other that:
    (1) For Eureka Valley evening-primrose, given its abundant seed 
production in favorable years, migration of propagules from areas of 
higher concentration to areas of lower concentration likely mitigates 
for the increased vulnerability of the populations at Marble Canyon 
Dunes and Saline Spur Dunes as compared to Eureka Dunes (Pavlik and 
Barbour 1985, pp. 24-53; and see discussion on seed dispersal and 
metapopulations in Cain et al. 2000, p. 1,220).
    (2) For Eureka dune grass, given its modest seed production in 
favorable years and longevity of established individuals, migration of 
Eureka dune grass propagules from areas of higher concentration to 
areas of lower concentration over time likely mitigates for the 
increased vulnerability of the populations at Marble Canyon Dunes and 
Saline Spur Dunes as compared to Eureka Dunes (Pavlik and Barbour 1985, 
pp. 24-53; and see discussion on seed dispersal and metapopulations in 
Cain et al. 2000, p. 1,220).
    Therefore, it is our conclusion, based on our evaluation of the 
factors that cause stress to Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka 
dune grass at the three populations where each occurs, that the factors 
that cause stress are neither sufficiently concentrated nor of 
sufficient magnitude to indicate that the species is in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, at 
any of the areas that support populations of either species.
    In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune 
grass. After review and analysis of the information regarding threats 
as related to the five statutory factors, we find that the ongoing 
threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 
indicate that these species are presently in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Additionally, 
no threats exist currently nor are any potential stressors described 
herein expected to rise to the level that would likely cause either 
species to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all 
or a significant portion of their ranges.
    Accordingly, we find that the petitioned action is warranted, that 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass no longer meet the 
Act's definition of an endangered species and further do not meet the 
Act's definition of a threatened species, and we propose to remove both 
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    If finalized, the proposed action would remove Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a 
series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered plants. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the Act 
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to import or export any such species; transport any such 
species in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity; sell or offer for sale any such species in interstate or 
foreign commerce; remove and reduce to possession or maliciously damage 
or destroy any such species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; or 
remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other 
area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation or in the 
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. Section 7 of 
the Act requires that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that 
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. If Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass are removed from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants, these prohibitions would no longer 
apply. Delisting Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass 
is expected to have no or positive effects in terms of management 
flexibility to the State and Federal governments. We fully expect that 
the Park Service would continue to implement its management plans 
consistent with existing laws, regulations, and policies to conserve 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass and their habitat. 
However, we note that funding to carry out monitoring to track these 
species could be curtailed dependent on Federal budget constraints 
(Cipra and Fuhrmann 2013).

Future Conservation Measures

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively for not less than 
5 years the

[[Page 11073]]

status of all species that have been recovered and delisted. The 
purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that detects the 
failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without the 
protective measures provided by the Act. If at any time during the 
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act 
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if 
appropriate, emergency listing. The management practices of, and 
commitments by, the Park Service under existing laws, regulations, and 
policies should afford adequate protection to Eureka Valley evening-
primrose and Eureka dune grass into the foreseeable future upon 
delisting, as the entire known ranges of these species occur within 
Death Valley National Park.
    We will work cooperatively with the National Park and other 
interested parties (prior to delisting should it occur) to develop a 
strategy to implement appropriate monitoring activities for Eureka 
Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass for not less than 5 
years. The results of such monitoring, if not consistent with a 
recovered status for one or both species, could trigger additional 
management actions, trigger additional or extended monitoring, or 
trigger status reviews or listing actions. We anticipate coordinating 
with the Park Service, USGS, local universities, and other sources that 
may be able to contribute funding or resources to assist us in our 
efforts to monitor these species, thereby providing the information 
necessary to determine whether protections under the Act should be 
reinstated. We currently appreciate any information on what should be 
included in a post-delisting monitoring strategy for these species (see 
Information Requested section, above).
    Given the mission of the Park Service and its past and current 
stewardship efforts, it is important to note that management for both 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass has been effective 
to date, and it is reasonable to expect that management will continue 
to be effective for both species and their habitat beyond a post-
delisting monitoring period, the 20-year timeframe associated with the 
Wilderness and Backcountry Stewardship Plan (Park Service 2013b), and 
well into the future. In addition to post-delisting monitoring 
activities that would occur if this proposed rule becomes final, the 
Park Service anticipates continuing to manage the Eureka Valley dunes, 
including such tasks as conducting ranger patrols, maintaining 
educational signs, and making contact with visitors within the range of 
the species (Cipra in litt. 2013). Additional monitoring or research 
(beyond post-delisting monitoring requirements) may occur in the future 
for these and other rare endemics within the Park based on 
congressional funding and resource levels (Cipra in litt. 2013). We 
will work closely with the Park Service to ensure post-delisting 
monitoring is conducted if these species are delisted and to ensure 
future management strategies are implemented (as warranted) to benefit 
Eureka Valley evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rulemaking 
documents in plain language. This means that each rulemaking we publish 
must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as 
specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the 
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or 
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables 
would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment 
or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0131 or upon request from the Deputy Field 
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary author of this proposed rule is the Pacific Southwest 
Regional Office in Sacramento, California, in coordination with the 
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office in Ventura, California (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Lists of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entries for Oenothera avita 
ssp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae under FLOWERING PLANTS from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

     Dated: February 19, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04232 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P