Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii and Eriogonum diatomaceum, 57032-57041 [2014-22668]
Download as PDF
57032
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1852.227–88 Government-Furnished
Computer Software and Related Technical
Data.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
As prescribed in 1827.409(m), insert
the following clause:
(a) Definitions. As used in this
clause—
Government-furnished computer software’’
or GFCS means computer software:
(1) In the possession of, or directly
acquired by, the Government whereby the
Government has title or license rights thereto;
and
(2) Subsequently furnished to the
Contractor for performance of a Government
contract.
‘‘Computer software, data and technical
data have the meaning provided in the
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)
Subpart 2.1—Definitions or the Rights in
Data—General clause (FAR 52.227–14).
(b) The Government shall furnish to the
Contractor the GFCS described in this
contract or in writing by the Contracting
Officer. The Government shall furnish any
related technical data needed for the
intended use of the GFCS.
(c) Use of GFCS and related technical data.
The Contractor shall use the GFCS and
related technical data, and any modified or
enhanced versions thereof, only for
performing work under this contract unless
otherwise provided for in this contract or
approved in writing by the Contracting
Officer.
(1) The Contractor shall not, without the
express written permission of the Contracting
Officer, reproduce, distribute copies, prepare
derivative works, perform publicly, display
publicly, release, or disclose the GFCS or
related technical data to any person except
for the performance of work under this
contract.
(2) The Contractor shall not modify or
enhance the GFCS unless this contract
specifically identifies the modifications and
enhancements as work to be performed. If the
GFCS is modified or enhanced pursuant to
this contract, the Contractor shall provide to
the Government the complete source code, if
any, and all related documentation of the
modified or enhanced GFCS.
(3) Allocation of rights associated with any
GFCS or related technical data modified or
enhanced under this contract shall be
defined by the FAR Rights in Data clause(s)
included in this contract (as modified by any
applicable NASA FAR Supplement clauses).
If no Rights in Data clause is included in this
contract, then the FAR Rights in Data—
General (52.227–14) as modified by the
NASA FAR Supplement (1852.227–14) shall
apply to all data first produced in the
performance of this contract and all data
delivered under this contract.
(4) The Contractor may provide the GFCS,
and any modified or enhanced versions
thereof, to subcontractors as necessary for the
performance of work under this contract.
Before release of the GFCS, and any modified
or enhanced versions thereof, to such
subcontractors (at any tier), the Contractor
shall insert, or require the insertion of, this
clause, including this paragraph (c)(4),
suitably modified to identify the parties as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
follows: references to the Government are not
changed, and in all references to the
Contractor the subcontractor is substituted
for the Contractor so that the subcontractor
has all rights and obligations of the
Contractor in the clause.
(d) The Government provides the GFCS in
an ‘‘AS–IS’’ condition. The Government
makes no warranty with respect to the
serviceability and/or suitability of the GFCS
for contract performance.
(e) The Contracting Officer may by written
notice, at any time—
(1) Increase or decrease the amount of
GFCS under this contract;
(2) Substitute other GFCS for the GFCS
previously furnished, to be furnished, or to
be acquired by the Contractor for the
Government under this contract;
(3) Withdraw authority to use the GFCS or
related technical data; or
(4) Instruct the Contractor to return or
dispose of the GFCS and related technical
data.
(f) Title to or license rights in GFCS. The
Government shall retain title to or license
rights in all GFCS. Title to or license rights
in GFCS shall not be affected by its
incorporation into or attachment to any data
not owned by or licensed to the Government.
(g) Waiver of Claims and Indemnification.
The Contractor agrees to waive any and all
claims against the Government and shall
indemnify and hold harmless the
Government, its agents, and employees from
every claim or liability, including attorney’s
fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of,
or in any way related to, the misuse or
unauthorized modification, reproduction,
release, performance, display, or disclosure
of the GFCS and related technical data by the
Contractor, a subcontractor, or by any person
to whom the Contractor has released or
disclosed such GFCS or related technical
data.
(h) Flow-down of Waiver of Claims and
Indemnification. In the event a contract
includes this NASA FAR Supplement clause
1852.227–88, the Contractor shall include the
foregoing clause 1852.227–88(g), suitably
modified to identify the parties, in all
subcontracts, regardless of tier, which
involve use of the GFCS and/or related
technical data in any way. At all tiers, the
clause shall be modified to define GFCS as
it is defined herein and to identify the parties
as follows: references to the Government are
not changed, and in all references to the
Contractor the subcontractor is substituted
for the Contractor so that the subcontractor
has all rights and obligations of the
Contractor in the clause. In subcontracts, at
any tier, the Government, the subcontractor,
and the Contractor agree that the mutual
obligations of the parties created by this
clause 1852.227–88 constitute a contract
between the subcontractor and the
Government with respect to the matters
covered by the clause.
(End of clause)
1852.228-73
[Removed]
65. Section 1852.228–73 is removed.
66. in section 1852.231–71, paragraph
(d) is revised to read as follow
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1852.231–71 Determination of
Compensation Reasonableness.
* * *
Determination of Compensation
Reasonableness
(XX/XX)
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The offeror shall require all service
subcontractors provide, as part of their
proposal, the information identified in
(a) through (c) of this provision for cost
reimbursement or non-competitive
fixed-price type subcontracts having a
total potential value expected to exceed
the threshold for requiring certified cost
or pricing data as set forth in FAR
15.403–4.
(End of provision)
■ 67. In section 1852.232–70,
paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(3) are revised
to read as follows:
1852.232–70
52.232–12 .
*
*
NASA Modification of FAR
*
*
*
NASA Modification of FAR 52.232–12
(XX/XX)
(a) * * *
(2) In paragraph (m)(1), delete ‘‘in the
form prescribed by the administering
office’’ and substitute ‘‘and Standard
Form 425, Federal Financial Report.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) In paragraph (j)(1), insert between
‘‘statements,’’ and ‘‘and’’ ‘‘together with
Standard Form 425, Federal Financial
Report’’
*
*
*
*
*
1852.237-72, 1852.237-73, 1852.242-70,
1852.249-72 [Removed]
68. Sections 1852.237–72 and
1852.237–73 are removed.
■ 69. Section 1852.242–70 is removed.
■ 70. Section 1852.249–72 is removed.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–21476 Filed 9–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8– ES–2014–0039;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii and
Eriogonum diatomaceum
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ACTION:
Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the plants Eriogonum diatomaceum
(Churchill Narrows buckwheat) and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii (Las
Vegas buckwheat) as endangered or
threatened species and to designate
critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that listing either Eriogonum
diatomaceum or Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the threats to the Eriogonum
diatomaceum or Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii or their habitats
at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on September 24,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0039. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502;
telephone 775–861–6300; or facsimile
775–861–6301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish
and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502;
telephone 775–861–6300; or facsimile
775–861–6301. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Previous Federal Actions
We identified Eriogonum
diatomaceum as a candidate species in
the May 4, 2004, candidate notice of
review (CNOR; 69 FR 24876).
Eriogonum diatomaceum was included
in all subsequent annual CNORs (70 FR
24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756,
September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034,
December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176,
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804,
November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013). When it was first
identified as a candidate, we assigned a
listing priority number (LPN) of 2,
reflecting a species with threats that
were high in magnitude and imminent.
The LPN was changed to 5 in 2008 (73
FR 75176, December 10, 2008) to reflect
a species with threats that were high in
magnitude but not imminent; the LPN
remained at 5 in all subsequent CNORs.
We identified Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii as a candidate
species in the December 6, 2007, CNOR
(72 FR 69034). Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii was included in all
subsequent annual CNORs (73 FR
75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804,
November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013). On April 22, 2008,
we received a petition (Center for
Biological Diversity 2008) to list E. c.
var. nilesii as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). We did not publish separate
substantial 90-day and warranted-butprecluded 12-month petition findings,
but made these findings in the 2008
CNOR (73 FR 75176, December 10,
2008). When it was first identified as a
candidate, we assigned a LPN of 6,
reflecting a species with threats that
were high in magnitude but not
imminent; the LPN remained at 6 in all
subsequent CNORs.
Background
We completed comprehensive
assessments of the biological status of
Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, and
we prepared reports of the assessments
(Species Reports), which provide a
thorough account for each of the plants.
This finding is based upon these
Species Reports for Eriogonum
diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii and scientific
analyses of available information
prepared by the Service and an
application of section 4(a) of the Act.
The Species Reports contain the best
scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of Eriogonum
diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii, including the
past, present, and future stressors to the
plants. As such, the Species Reports
provide the scientific basis that informs
our regulatory decision in this
document, which involves the further
application of standards within the Act
and its regulations and policies. The
Species Reports (including all
references) and other materials relating
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57033
to this finding can be found on the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office Web
site at: https://www.fws.gov/nevada/
highlights/species_actions/species_
actions.html and at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0039.
A summary of the biology, taxonomy,
life history, and distribution for each of
the plants follows. The reader is
directed to the Species Reports for a
more detailed discussion of these topics
as well as the current conditions of
Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
(Service 2014a; Service 2014b; https://
www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/
species_actions/species_actions.html).
Eriogonum diatomaceum
Eriogonum diatomaceum is a member
of the Polygonaceae (buckwheat family).
It is a low, matted, herbaceous perennial
forb with leaves that have densely
matted, wooly hairs and with head-like
clusters of creamy-white flowers.
Flowering typically occurs between the
months of June and September. E.
diatomaceum occurs between 4,300 and
4,560 feet (ft) (1,311 and 1,390 meters
(m)) in elevation on diatomaceous
outcrops, and is a narrow endemic of
the Lahontan Basin section of the
western Great Basin (Service 2014a, pp.
3–6). We recognize four populations of
this species that are restricted to
approximately 3 square miles (7.8
square kilometers) in the Churchill
Narrows area of the Pine Nut Mountains
in Lyon County, Nevada. These four
populations occupy approximately 18
acres (ac) (7.3 hectares (ha)) on lands
managed entirely by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) (Service 2014a, pp.
7–10), and E. diatomaceum’s historical
range is the same as its current range. E.
diatomaceum was added to the Nevada
State list of fully protected species of
native flora in 2004. In addition, E.
diatomaceum is recognized by the BLM
as a sensitive species (Service 2014a, p.
3).
BLM monitored each of the four
populations from 2005–2007 and in
2012. This sampling data and estimated
abundance data for Eriogonum
diatomaceum in each monitoring
location are presented in the Species
Report (Service 2014a, pp. 10–13).
Overall, BLM sampled 1,104–1,604
plants during each sampling year, and
of those, approximately 638–994 were
live plants. The estimated abundance of
Eriogonum diatomaceum in each
monitoring location extrapolated from
data collected in BLM monitoring
macroplots, for each year of data
collection, showed a range from 35,950
to 59,307 plants present depending on
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
57034
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the year of the monitoring effort (Service
2014a, p. 13).
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
(Las Vegas buckwheat) is a member of
the Polygonaceae (buckwheat family)
(Service 2014b, pp. 4–8). It is an open
to somewhat spreading perennial shrub
with numerous yellow to pale yellow
flowers. Flowering typically occurs
between the months of August and
November. Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii occurs between 656 and 2,789 ft
(200–850 m) in elevation on clayey,
gravelly, or rarely sandy flats and slopes
(0–3 percent) or gypsum flats and
mounds (Service 2014b, pp. 17–18). We
recognize the geographic range of E. c.
var. nilesii as restricted to southern
Nevada, in contrast to some prior
accounts showing a range extending
into southern Utah and northern
Arizona based on morphological and
genetic data described in detail in the
Species Report (Service 2014b, pp. 4–
11). In southern Nevada, E. c. var. nilesii
is found northwest of the Virgin River
(in Lincoln County) and west of Lake
Mead (in Clark County). Within this
region, E. c. var. nilesii currently
occupies a total of approximately 795.3
ac (321.85 ha) (Service 2014b, pp. 11–
12). The majority (80 percent) of this
occupied acreage is federally owned,
with 72 percent administered by the
BLM, and another 8.15 percent by the
Department of Defense (DOD), at Nellis
Air Force Base. Landownership for the
remainder of occupied habitat is as
follows: City of Las Vegas (0.13 percent),
Clark County (0.80 percent), State of
Nevada (0.001 percent), and private
landowners (18.81 percent). Of 12
historically recognized populations of
the plant (all located in southern
Nevada), 9 populations remain extant (4
in Las Vegas Valley, 2 in White Basin
Mountains, 1 in Muddy Mountains, 1 in
Coyote Springs Valley, and 1 in Toquop
Wash), and 3 have been extirpated (2 in
the Las Vegas Valley and 1 in the White
Basin Mountains) (Service 2014b, pp.
14–16). In addition, four of the extant
populations (Las Vegas Valley) have
been partially extirpated. Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii is not listed by
the State of Nevada, but it is recognized
as a sensitive species by the BLM
(Service 2014b, p. 3).
Expressed in terms of acreage,
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii has
been extirpated from 1,303.5 ac (527.5
ha) of formerly occupied habitat,
corresponding to nearly 62 percent of its
range. Most of the lands from which the
plant has been extirpated are in private
ownership (94.9 percent) (Service
2014b, pp. 11–12). Within the range of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
the plant, the combined total of
available estimates of plants at the nine
extant populations ranges between
31,176–31,773 individuals across a total
of 795.3 ac (321.85 ha). Of the total
31,176–31,773 estimated individuals,
7,529–7,817+ are located in four
populations in Las Vegas Valley, 296+
are located in one population in Muddy
Mountains, 308–550+ are located in two
populations in White Basin, 13,043–
13,110+ are located in Coyote Springs,
and 10,000+ are located in Toquop
Wash (Service 2014b, pp. 14–16).
However, reliable estimation of
population size or trends in E. c. var.
nilesii is complicated by many factors
including varied survey methods, and as
a result, the data are not always directly
comparable and must be interpreted
with caution (Service 2014b, pp. 18–19).
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
The Act directs us to determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any factors affecting its continued
existence. We completed
comprehensive assessments of the
biological status of Eriogonum
diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii, and we
prepared reports of the assessments
(Species Reports), which provide a
thorough account for each of the plants.
In this section, we summarize the
conclusions of those reports, which can
be accessed at Docket FWS–R8–ES–
2014–0039 on https://
www.regulations.gov, and at https://
www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/
species_actions/species_actions.html.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, and
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
species if it is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. For
purposes of this analysis, we first
evaluate the status of the species
throughout all of its range, and then
consider whether the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in any significant portion of its range.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to Eriogonum diatomaceum
and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
in relation to the five factors provided
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
summarized below, based on the
analysis of stressors contained in the
Species Reports. In considering what
factors might constitute threats, we must
look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or
only a positive response, that factor
stressor 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 the
scope and severity of the potential
threat. 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 an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Analysis Under Section 4(a)(1) of the
Act
The Act requires that the Secretary
determine whether a species is an
endangered or threatened species
because of any of the five factors
enumerated in 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). Our
discussion of the threats, which we have
categorized here under each of these
five factors, is contained in the Species
Reports (can be accessed at Docket
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0039 on https://
www.regulations.gov, and at https://
www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/
species_actions/species_actions.html).
In the Species Reports, we present
detailed discussions of current and
future stressors to Eriogonum
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii. We consider in
this document how threats categorized
under each of the five factors are
affecting each of the plants. In our
Species Reports, we describe the timing,
scope, and severity for each stressor
associated with each of the plants. We
describe the scope as the percentage of
the plant’s distribution that is
reasonably expected to be affected by a
stressor within a specified, foreseeable
amount of time, given continuation of
current circumstances and trends.
Within the scope of the threat, the
severity is the level of damage to the
plant’s population or breeding
occurrences that is reasonably expected
from the stressor within a specified,
foreseeable amount of time, given
continuation of current circumstances
and trends.
All potential stressors currently acting
upon Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii or
likely to affect either of the plants in the
foreseeable future (and consistent with
the five listing factors identified above)
are evaluated and addressed in the
Species Reports, and summarized in the
following paragraphs. The reader is
directed to the Species Reports (can be
accessed at Docket FWS–R8–ES–2014–
0039 on https://www.regulations.gov,
and at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/
highlights/species_actions/species_
actions.html) for a more detailed
discussion of the stressors summarized
in this document.
Eriogonum Diatomaceum
The Species Report evaluated the
biological status of the species and each
of the potential stressors affecting its
continued existence (Service 2014a,
entire). It was based upon the best
available scientific and commercial data
and the expert opinion of the Species
Report team members. Based on the
analysis and discussion contained in the
Species Report, we evaluated the
potential threats under the five statutory
factors: Mineral exploration and
development (Factors A and E);
livestock grazing (Factors A and E);
herbivory (Factor C); off-highway
vehicle (OHV) activity and road
development (Factors A and E);
nonnative, invasive plant species
(Factors A and E); disease (Factor C);
and climate change (Factors A and E).
We found that these factors currently
may have minor impacts on individuals
in some locations, but they are not
impacting the species as a whole
currently and are not expected to in the
future. The full analyses of these
possible stressors are documented in the
Species Report and are summarized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
below. Based on the analysis contained
in the Species Report, we find that the
best available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that these
stressors are causing a decline in the
species or its habitat, either now or into
the future.
Mineral Exploration and Development
(Factors A and E)
Eriogonum diatomaceum occurs on
diatomaceous soil deposits, which is an
economically valuable mineral that is in
increasing demand. Mineral activity
(exploration and development of
diatomaceous earth deposits) has
impacted E. diatomaceum habitat and
resulted in the loss of individual plants
and habitat at one of the four
populations, corresponding to a loss of
5 ac (1.67 ha) or 22 percent of
historically occupied habitat for the
species. Two active mining claims still
remain open within the plant’s range,
and 95 claims are closed within this
area; all lands occupied by E.
diatomaceum are open to mineral entry.
The BLM requires that all operations
comply with State law and permits, and
since E. diatomaceum is listed as
threatened by the State, the BLM
requires claimants to be in compliance
with State law (Service 2014a, p. 29).
The BLM has affirmed that protecting E.
diatomaceum and its habitat from
impacts is clearly within the BLM’s
discretion when it comes to mineral
material sales, and expressed its intent
to continue managing the species as a
Special Status Species, avoid impacts to
the species and its habitat, and
otherwise coordinate with the Service to
develop effective mitigation measures
(Service 2014a, p. 21). The scope of the
mining stressor historically was 100
percent, because all populations were
thought to be affected by the potential
for mining. In addition, the severity of
the stressor of mining historically was
moderate, because of the loss of 5.5 ac
(2.2 ha) of historically occupied habitat
from mining. However, this stressor is
one of historical significance, because it
is not known to be occurring at present.
Given the limited number of mining
claims and the active management of
these claims by BLM, we do not
consider mining (Factors A and E) to be
a current or future threat to the species
such that the species would warrant
listing.
Livestock Grazing (Factors A and E)
All populations of Eriogonum
diatomaceum are within grazing
allotments and are potentially exposed
to livestock grazing, so the scope of
livestock grazing is 100 percent.
Livestock grazing may result in impacts,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57035
such as trampling, resulting in broken
stems and leaves of plants, and soil
compaction, to individual Eriogonum
diatomaceum plants, but we have no
data indicating (qualitatively or
quantitatively) the numbers (or
percentages) of individuals or habitat
acreage lost as a result of grazing. In
addition, BLM monitored each of the
four populations from 2005–2007 and in
2012, and the results of these surveys do
not indicate that the population
numbers are declining or that grazing is
affecting the species through habitat loss
(Service 2014a, p. 13). Therefore, while
livestock grazing may affect individuals,
based on the information that is
available at this time, the information
does not indicate that grazing is a
current or future threat to the species
such that the species would warrant
listing.
Herbivory (Factor C)
Herbivory by jackrabbits, resulting in
clipping of flower stems and tunneling
into roots, has been documented on
individuals at all four populations of
Eriogonum diatomaceum; however, the
best available scientific information
does not provide any indication of a
significant effect on recruitment of E.
diatomaceum. In addition, BLM
monitored each of the four populations
from 2005–2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate
that the population numbers are
declining or that herbivory is affecting
the species (Service 2014a, p. 13).
Therefore, while herbivory may affect
individuals, based on the information
that is available at this time, the
information does not indicate that
herbivory is a current or future threat to
the species such that the species would
warrant listing.
OHV Activity and Road Development
(Factors A and E)
OHV activity and road development is
known to occur at three of the four
Eriogonum diatomaceum populations;
roads can alter the hydrology of a site,
and OHV activity can compact soils,
crush plants, and provide a means for
nonnative plant species to invade
otherwise remote, intact habitats.
However, we are currently not aware of
individuals or habitat having been lost
as a result of these activities, and the
best available scientific information
does not provide an indication of the
level to which OHV activity and road
development currently affects E.
diatomaceum or is likely to affect the
species into the future. In addition, BLM
monitored each of these populations
from 2005–2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
57036
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that the population numbers are
declining or that OHV activity and road
development is affecting the species
through habitat loss (Service 2014a, p.
13). Therefore, while OHV activity and
road development may affect
individuals, based on the information
that is available at this time, the
information does not indicate that OHV
activity and road development is a
current or future threat to the species
such that the species would warrant
listing.
populations of E. diatomaceum from
2005–2007 and in 2012, and the results
of these surveys do not indicate that the
population numbers are declining or
that pathogens are affecting the species
(Service 2014a, p. 13). Therefore, based
on the best information that is available
at this time, the information does not
indicate that disease is a current or
future threat to the species such that the
species would warrant listing.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species
(Factors A and E)
Nonnative, invasive plant species can
negatively affect Eriogonum
diatomaceum through competition with
and displacement of native plant
species and degradation of habitat.
When E. diatomaceum habitat is
undisturbed, nonnative, invasive plant
species are not a threat because the
specialized habitat of E. diatomaceum
does not appear to be conducive to their
spread. However, when soil
disturbances occur within occupied E.
diatomaceum habitat, nonnative,
invasive plant species can impact E.
diatomaceum due to their ability to
potentially compete with and displace
this species from its habitat. Nonnative,
invasive plant species are present
within all E. diatomaceum populations.
However, the severity of nonnative,
invasive plant species is unknown
because the best available scientific
information does not provide any
indication of the level to which
nonnative, invasive plant species affect
E. diatomaceum. In addition, BLM
monitored each of the four populations
from 2005–2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate
that the population numbers are
declining or that nonnative, invasive
plant species are affecting the species
(Service 2014a, p. 13). Therefore, while
nonnative, invasive plant species may
affect individuals, based on the
information that is available at this time,
the information does not indicate that
nonnative, invasive plant species are a
current or future threat to the species
that the species would warrant listing.
Climate Change (Factors A and E)
In the Great Basin, temperatures have
risen, and current climate change
projections indicate further warming
over the rest of the century. Winter
temperatures are projected to increase,
which will change the balance of
temperature and precipitation resulting
in earlier spring snow runoff, declines
in snowpack, and increased frequency
of drought and fire events. Warmer
temperatures and greater concentration
of atmospheric carbon dioxide can
create conditions favorable for
nonnative, invasive plant species. We
anticipate that the alteration of
precipitation and temperature patterns
could result in decreased survivorship
of Eriogonum diatomaceum due to
physiological stress of individual plants,
altered phenology, and reduced seedling
establishment and plant recruitment.
However, the severity of climate change
is unknown because even though
climate projections exist for the Great
Basin, we do not know how E.
diatomaceum is likely to respond to
these climatic changes. In addition,
BLM monitored each of the four
populations of E. diatomaceum from
2005–2007 and in 2012, and the results
of these surveys do not indicate that the
population numbers are declining or
that climate change is currently
affecting the species (Service 2014a, p.
13). In addition, we do not know of any
information that demonstrates climate
change is affecting the species.
Therefore, based on the information that
is available at this time, the information
does not indicate that climate change is
a current or future threat to the species
such that the species would warrant
listing.
Disease (Factor C)
A rust (fungal) pathogen was observed
on approximately 26 percent of the
overall Eriogonum diatomaceum
population during survey work in the
late 1990s. At this time, no studies are
known that identify this pathogen, its
origin, or its ultimate effect on this
plant, and the long-term survival rate of
rust-infected plants has not been
determined or monitored. However,
BLM monitored each of the four
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms (Factor D)
The Act requires that the Secretary
assess existing regulatory mechanisms
in order to determine whether they are
adequate to address threats to the
species (Factor D). The Species Report
includes discussions of applicable
regulatory mechanisms for Eriogonum
diatomaceum (Service 2014a, pp. 16–
30). In the Species Report, the Service
examines the applicable Federal, State,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and other statutory and regulatory
mechanisms to determine whether these
mechanisms provide protections to E.
diatomaceum. For E. diatomaceum, all
four populations occur on BLM land,
and BLM has monitored these
populations over time. E. diatomaceum
is identified as a BLM sensitive species,
which means that BLM’s management
objective is to initiate proactive
conservation measures that reduce or
eliminate threats to minimize the
likelihood of and need for listing.
Occupied and potential habitat for this
species was nominated as an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
in 2008; however, BLM has postponed
finalizing this ACEC designation
pending the completion of an
amendment to the Carson City District
Resource Management Plan (RMP). A
decision for the RMP is not expected
until 2016. During the preparation of the
Species Report, we met with BLM
managers to discuss the status of E.
diatomaceum and BLM’s ongoing
management of the species. During
those conversations, the BLM affirmed
its intent to continue managing the
species as a BLM sensitive species,
regardless of the species’ status under
the Act, and to avoid impacts to the
species or its habitat, particularly in the
context of mining activity (Service
2014a, p. 16).
Based on the analysis contained
within the Species Report, we conclude
that the best available scientific and
commercial information does not
indicate that there is an inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to
address impacts from the identified
potential threats such that listing would
be warranted.
Interaction Among Factors
When conducting our analysis about
the potential threats affecting
Eriogonum diatomaceum, we also
assessed whether the species may be
affected by a combination of factors. In
the Species Report (Service 2014a, p.
30), we identified multiple potential
stressors that may have interrelated
impacts on E. diatomaceum or its
habitat. Mineral development and
exploration result in the loss of habitat;
depending on the nature of mining
activities, these impacts can be
permanent and irreversible (conversion
to land uses unsuitable to the species)
or less so (minor ground disturbance
and loss of individual plants) (Factors A
and E). When mineral development and
exploration occurs in between (but not
within) populations, this can eliminate
corridors for pollinator movement, seed
dispersal, and population expansion.
Livestock grazing may result in direct
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
impacts to individual Eriogonum
diatomaceum plants due to trampling
(Factors A and E). Both livestock grazing
and OHV/road corridors create patterns
of soil disturbance that in turn alter
habitat function and create conditions
conducive to the invasion of nonnative
plant species (Factors A and E). Once
nonnative, invasive plant species are
established, these species tend to spread
beyond the footprint of mineral
development and exploration or OHV/
road corridors, further deteriorating
otherwise intact habitat and native
vegetation, including E. diatomaceum.
Herbivory, when combined with climate
change and altered precipitation and
temperature regimes, may interfere with
seedling recruitment and persistence of
the species on the landscape (Factors A,
C, and E). Each of these potential
stressors may affect individuals of E.
diatomaceum. However, BLM
monitored each of the four populations
of E. diatomaceum from 2005–2007 and
in 2012, and the results of these surveys
do not indicate that the population
numbers are declining or that these
stressors are currently affecting the
species (Service 2014a, p. 13).
Therefore, the current best available
scientific and commercial information
does not show that these combined
impacts are resulting in current or
future impacts to the species such that
the species would warrant listing.
All or some of the potential stressors
could act in concert to result in
cumulative stress on Eriogonum
diatomaceum. However, the best
available scientific and commercial
information currently does not indicate
that these stressors singularly or
cumulatively are resulting now or will
in the future result in a substantial
decline of the total extant population of
the plant or have impacts to E.
diatomaceum at the species level.
Therefore, we do not consider the
cumulative impact of these stressors to
E. diatomaceum to be substantial at this
time, nor into the future such that the
species would warrant listing under the
Act.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
The Species Report for Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii evaluated the
biological status of the plant and each
of the potential stressors affecting its
continued existence (Service 2014b,
entire). It was based upon the best
available scientific and commercial data
and the expert opinion of the Species
Report team members. Based on the
analysis and discussion contained in the
Species Report, we evaluated the
potential threats under the five statutory
factors: Development for residential,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
commercial, or other purposes (A and
E); OHV use and road development
(Factors A and E); mineral exploration
and development (Factors A and E);
nonnative, invasive plant species
(Factors A and E); modified wildfire
regime (Factors A and E); and climate
change (Factors A and E). We found that
these factors are not likely to impact the
plant as a whole currently and are not
expected to in the future. The full
analyses of possible stressors are
documented in the Species Report and
summarized below. Based on the
analysis contained in the Species Report
and under the five statutory factors, we
find that the best available scientific and
commercial information does not
indicate that current and future threats
are causing or going to cause a decline
in the plant or its habitat, either now or
into the future. We recognize that
habitat and individuals have been lost
from 62 percent of the historical
occurrences of E. c. var. nilesii through
past development on private lands, and
we anticipate that approximately 5.5
percent of remaining habitat will be lost
into the future as a result of
development. However, we do not
anticipate future development to be a
threat to the remaining populations
because most are on public lands (many
of which are in conservation areas)
where we do not anticipate similar
losses.
Development for Residential,
Commercial, or Other Purposes (Factors
A and E)
We found that past development has
had an impact on Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii and has
resulted in the loss of 1,303.5 ac (527.5
ha) of formerly occupied habitat mostly
on private lands (Service 2014b, pp. 11–
12, 24)). Future development is likely to
impact an additional 43.93 ac (17.78 ha)
of E. c. var. nilesii habitat (Service
2014b, pp. 24–30). Development has
occurred in the past and is imminent
into the future in these limited areas
(43.93 ac (17.78 ha)). The future
development of 43.93 ac (17.78 ha) will
result in partial loss of two populations
and entire loss of one population in Las
Vegas Valley, and it will also result in
partial loss of one population in Coyote
Springs (Service 2014b, pp. 14–16).
There should be no future development
loss in one other population in Las
Vegas Valley, one population in the
Muddy Mountain Wilderness, two
populations in White Basin, and one
population in Toquop Wash. Even
though some limited development will
occur in the future, we found that
development is not imminent in the
future over most of the remaining extant
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57037
habitat, because 80 percent of the
remaining occupied habitat is on
Federal lands where development is
unlikely due to conservation plans,
conservation areas, wilderness areas,
ACECs, and other protective means. The
best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that even though
development has resulted in losses of
historical occurrences of E. c. var.
nilesii, we do not anticipate future
development to result in large losses
that would be a threat to the plant such
that listing the plant would be
warranted.
OHV Activity and Road Development
(Factors A and E)
OHV use and road development can
cause loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii habitat and
compact soils, crush plants, and provide
a means for nonnative plant species to
enter otherwise remote, intact habitats.
OHV use and road development is
authorized and currently occurs to some
degree in six of the nine extant
populations of E. c. var. nilesii. The
1998 BLM Las Vegas District Resource
Management Plan (RMP) includes
provisions limiting OHV activity to
designated roads, trails, and/or dry
washes in all ACECs and Wilderness
Study Areas. We do know that OHV use
and road development do occur to some
degree in many of the extant
populations, but we are not currently
aware of individuals or habitat having
been lost as a result of these activities
(Service 2014b, pp. 30–31). Therefore,
while OHV activity and road
development may affect individuals,
based on the information that is
available at this time, the information
does not indicate that OHV activity and
road development are a current or future
threat to the plant such that the plant
would warrant listing.
Mineral Exploration and Development
(Factors A and E)
When Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii became a candidate for Federal
listing in 2007 (72 FR 69034, December
6, 2007), mining activities were
identified as having the potential to
impact 2 of the 12 populations
recognized in that document. In 2013,
we reviewed the status of all locatable
mining claims within the legal sections
containing the plant. According to this
review, there are 74 ‘‘closed’’ (an
administrative term that indicates a
prior claim that is no longer current)
and no ‘‘active’’ (meaning paperwork
and fees filed with the BLM in support
of the claim are current) locatable
mineral claims within the sections
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
57038
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
occupied by this plant (Service 2014b,
p. 33).
With regard to the timing of miningrelated impacts, although this activity
has been previously identified as having
the potential to affect Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii, we are
unaware of mining having directly
affected this plant in the form of losses
of individuals or habitat. With regard to
scope, to the best of our knowledge,
historically no populations have been
affected by this activity, and no open
locatable mineral claims currently exist
within occupied habitat. In light of the
above information, severity is low to
nonexistent.
Overall, mineral exploration and
development has been previously
identified as having the potential to
affect Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii, but we are unaware of mining
having directly affected this plant in the
form of losses of individuals or habitat.
Historically, no populations have been
affected by this activity, and no open
locatable mineral claims currently exist
within occupied habitat (Service 2014b,
pp. 31–33); therefore, we do not
consider mining to be a current or future
threat to the plant such that the plant
would warrant listing.
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species
(Factors A and E)
The majority of Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii habitat is not
affected by nonnative, invasive plant
species, likely because the specialized
habitat of the plant has not experienced
high levels of soil disturbances
conducive to their spread. However, in
areas where soil disturbances have
occurred, nonnative, invasive plant
species may pose a threat to E. c. var.
nilesii due to their ability to potentially
compete with and displace the plant
and other native species from its habitat.
Nonnative, invasive plant species are
present to some degree in five of the
nine extant populations; however, the
severity of nonnative, invasive plant
species is unknown because the best
available scientific information does not
provide any indication of the level of
which nonnative, invasive plant species
affect E. c. var. nilesii, and the majority
of E. c. var. nilesii habitat is not affected
by nonnative, invasive plant species
(Service 2014b, pp. 33–34). Therefore,
we do not consider nonnative, invasive
plant species to be a current or future
threat to the plant such that the plant
would warrant listing.
Modified Wildfire Regime (Factors A
and E)
Historically, wildfire has been
infrequent in the Mojave Desert due to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
limited fuels created by sparse
vegetation. However, since the 1970s,
fires have become more frequent due to
recent invasions by annual grasses
(Service 2014b, p. 34). Due to increasing
invasion by nonnative, annual grasses,
wildfire is now considered one of the
primary stressors to the conservation of
native plants and animals and to the
maintenance of ecosystem integrity in
the Mojave Desert. Regardless of an
overall increase of wildfire in the
Mojave Desert, there are no reported
accounts of wildfire within Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii habitat (Service
2014b, pp. 34–35). We are unaware of
wildfire having directly affected this
plant in the form of losses of individuals
or habitat, and we do not have
information indicating that this plant
would be negatively affected by
wildfire. Therefore, based on the
information that is available at this time,
the information does not indicate that a
modified wildfire regime is a current or
future threat to the plant such that the
plant would warrant listing.
Climate Change (Factors A and E)
The direct, long-term impact from
climate change to Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii is yet to be
determined. Current climate change
projections for the Mojave Desert
indicating warming temperatures, and
climate predictions for the geographic
range of E. c. var. nilesii suggest there
will be more frequent and/or prolonged
drought. However, predictions for this
area in particular suggest localized,
increasing August precipitation. We
anticipate that the alteration of
precipitation and temperature patterns
could result in decreased survivorship
of E. c. var. nilesii due to physiological
stress of individual plants, altered
phenology, and reduced seedling
establishment and plant recruitment.
Climate change also may exacerbate
impacts from other factors currently
affecting this plant and its habitat.
However, the severity of climate change
is unknown because even though
climate projections indicating warming
temperatures exist for the Mojave
Desert, we do not know how E. c. var.
nilesii is likely to respond to these
climatic changes (Service 2014b, pp.
35–37). In addition, we do not know of
any information that demonstrates
climate change is affecting the plant.
Therefore, based on the information that
is available at this time, the information
does not indicate that climate change is
a current or future threat to the plant
such that the plant would warrant
listing.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms (Factor D)
The Act requires that the Secretary
assess existing regulatory mechanisms
in order to determine whether they are
adequate to address threats to the
species (Factor D). The Species Report
includes discussions of applicable
regulatory mechanisms (Service 2014b,
entire). In the Species Report, the
Service examines the applicable
Federal, State, and other statutory and
regulatory mechanisms to determine
whether these mechanisms provide
protections to Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii. E. c. var. nilesii is a BLM
sensitive species (Service 2014b, p. 3).
In addition, BLM has entered into
conservation agreements (CA) for many
lands to preserve, enhance, and restore
riparian areas and their associated
uplands for the plant (Service 2014b,
pp. 38–42).
In 2002, the Muddy Mountains
Wilderness, which supports the Muddy
Mountains population of Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii, was added to
the National Wilderness Preservation
System by the Clark County
Conservation of Public Land and
Natural Resources Act of 2002 (Pub. L.
107–282). This designation protects this
population from mining, grazing, OHV
use, and human development (Service
2014b, p. 41).
In 2005, BLM, the Service, Nevada
Division of Forestry (NDF), and the City
of North Las Vegas entered a CA to
retain 300 ac (121 ha) of the Upper Las
Vegas Wash area in Federal ownership
to establish it as the Eglington Preserve.
The goal is to preserve, enhance, and
restore riparian areas and their
associated uplands within the Eglington
Preserve. In 2011, the BLM established
the 10,669-ac (4,318-ha) conservation
transfer area (CTA), which contains the
300-ac (121-ha) Eglington Preserve, and
encompasses one of the populations in
the Las Vegas Valley. The BLM’s vision
for the CTA is ‘‘to preserve the natural
functioning of the Upper Wash, protect
the sensitive resources within, and
support education, research, and lowimpact recreational use. The CTA is
ecologically functional to the maximum
extent possible and managed to ensure
the long-term integrity of the Las Vegas
Formation and associated fossil beds,
the rare plant habitat for Arctomecon
californica, Arctomecon merriamii, and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, as
well as natural flood water capacity for
present and future generations.’’ The
BLM will require mitigation and
monitoring measures to minimize
impacts to resources caused by future
allowable uses in the CTA as
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
determined on a case-by-case basis
(Service 2014b, pp. 39–41).
In 2007, BLM re-purchased
approximately 1,103 ac (446 ha) of land
that supports one of the White Basin
populations of Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii. Ongoing revisions to the Las
Vegas BLM’s RMP are expected to
include a proposal to designate the
property and the surrounding area as
the Bitter Spring ACEC, for the
protection of E. c. var. nilesii and two
other special status plant species
(Service 2014b, p. 41).
Another population in the Las Vegas
Valley was designated as a ‘‘Buckwheat
Conservation Area’’ by Clark County in
2010. Also in 2010, the Nellis Air Force
Base (AFB) established a conservation
area where sites containing Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii would remain
undeveloped unless military mission
requirements dictate otherwise, and the
DOD would not allow further
development for activities that are
purely recreational. In addition, Nellis
AFB will also consult with NDF and the
Service to incorporate conservation
measures for the plant if development is
to occur within occupied habitat.
As described in the Species Report,
there are several Federal, State, and
County protections for Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii. In addition,
BLM has entered into CAs for many
lands to preserve, enhance, and restore
riparian areas and their associated
uplands for the plant (Service 2014b,
pp. 38–42). Overall, there are
conservation protections (such as
conservation areas, ACECs, and
wilderness areas) or limits on activities
(such as OHV activity) within eight of
the nine extant populations.
Based on the analysis contained
within the Species Report, we conclude
that the best available scientific and
commercial information does not
indicate that there is an inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to
address impacts from the identified
potential threats such that listing the
plant would be warranted.
E). Development and OHV/road
corridors tend to create conditions that
favor the establishment of nonnative,
invasive plant species; once established,
these species tend to spread well
beyond the footprint of development
actions or OHV/road corridors, further
deteriorating otherwise intact habitat
and native vegetation (Factors A and E).
Some nonnative, invasive plant species,
particularly annual grasses, then
increase the frequency of wildfire,
leading to modified wildfire regimes
(Factors A and E). Climate change has
the potential to alter many patterns of
land use, including development and
associated infrastructure, but also the
precipitation and temperature regimes
that in turn influence the establishment
and persistence of vegetation, both
native and nonnatives alike (Factors A
and E). However, the current best
available scientific and commercial
information does not show that these
combined impacts are resulting in
current impacts or are likely to result in
future impacts to the plant.
All or some of the potential stressors
could act in concert to result in
cumulative stress on Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii. However, the
best available scientific and commercial
information currently does not indicate
that these stressors singularly or
cumulatively are resulting now or will
in the future result in a substantial
decline of the total extant population of
the plant or have impacts to E. c. var.
nilesii at the taxon level. Therefore, we
do not consider the cumulative impact
of these stressors to E. c. var. nilesii to
be substantial at this time, nor into the
future.
Determination
As required in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we conducted a review of the status
of Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii and
assessed the five factors in
consideration of whether E.
diatomaceum and E. c. var. nilesii are
endangered or threatened species
throughout all of their ranges. We have
Interaction Among Factors
carefully assessed the best scientific and
When conducting our analysis about
commercial information available
the potential stressors affecting
regarding the past, present, and future
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, we threats to these plants. We reviewed
also assessed whether the plant may be
information available in our files and
affected by a combination of factors. In
other available published and
the Species Report (Service 2014b, p.
unpublished information. We also
38), we identified multiple potential
consulted with species experts and land
stressors that may have interrelated
managers in the areas where these
impacts on E. c. var. nilesii or its habitat. plants occur.
OHV and other road corridors can
Eriogonum diatomaceum
exacerbate habitat loss and
We evaluated each of the potential
fragmentation, and tend to be associated
stressors in the Species Report for
with (accompanying or following)
Eriogonum diatomaceum, and we
development activities (Factors A and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57039
determined that mineral exploration
and development (Factors A and E);
livestock grazing (Factors A and E);
herbivory (Factor C); OHV activity and
road development (Factors A and E);
nonnative, invasive plant species
(Factors A and E); disease (Factor C);
and climate change (Factors A and E)
are factors that have had impacts on
individuals in some locations, but they
are not impacting the species currently
or into the future such that listing
would be warranted. Based on the
analysis contained within the Species
Report, we conclude that the best
available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that these
stressors are going to cause a decline in
the species or its habitat, either now or
are likely to do so into the future. In
addition, we evaluated existing
regulatory mechanisms and did not
determine an inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for E.
diatomaceum. Finally, although there is
uncertainty in extrapolations of
population estimates based on survey
results, the best available scientific and
commercial information shows that E.
diatomaceum population numbers do
not appear to be in decline (Service
2014a, pp. 12–13).
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
We evaluated each of the potential
stressors in the Species Report for
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, and
we determined that development for
residential, commercial, or other
purposes (Factors A and E); OHV use
and road development (Factors A and
E); mineral exploration and
development (Factors A and E);
nonnative, invasive plant species
(Factors A and E); modified wildfire
regime (Factors A and E); and climate
change (Factors A and E) are factors that
may have impacts on individuals in
some locations, but they are not
impacting the plants currently or into
the future such that listing would be
warranted. Based on the analysis
contained within the Species Report, we
conclude that the best available
scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that these stressors
currently are going to cause a decline in
the plant or its habitat, either now or are
likely to do so into the future. In
addition, we evaluated existing
regulatory mechanisms and did not
determine an inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for E. c. var.
nilesii. Even though we found that some
of the potential stressors have caused
the loss of E. c. var. nilesii populations
in the past, we do not anticipate that the
potential threats are likely to impact the
remaining populations in the future
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57040
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
such that listing the plant would be
warranted, because of the large amount
of occupied habitat being conserved and
the land ownership of much of E. c. var.
nilesii’s habitat.
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
Based on our analyses conducted in the
Species Reports and summarized in this
finding, and using the best scientific
and commercial information available,
we find that the magnitude and
imminence of threats do not indicate
that Eriogonum diatomaceum or
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii are
in danger of extinction (endangered), or
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout their ranges. In the Species
Report, we describe how our ability to
project future trends in the various
factors identified as relevant to E.
diatomaceum and E. c. var. nilesii
differs for each factor, with some factors
better assessed in terms of relatively
short time periods, whereas others are
more appropriately assessed in terms of
longer time horizons. Our ability to
project future trends in the various
factors identified as relevant to each of
the plants differs for each factor, with
some factors (such as development and
grazing) more easily predicted in terms
of relatively short time periods (such as
the 1–10 years for which future
development is anticipated based on
plans and the 10–15 year time period for
grazing allotment permits). Others (such
as climate change) can often be
predicted over longer time horizons
(such as 50 years for most climate
models). We do not have a single
foreseeable future timeframe because
each of the potential stressors can be
predicted into the future over different
time horizons, and we do not have data
to support a single foreseeable future
timeframe.
In general, we assessed the potential
stressors as a continuation of current
circumstances as discussed in the
Species Reports (Service 2014, p. 17;
Service 2014b, p. 24). In the case of
Eriogonum diatomaceum, as discussed
above, the best available information
indicates that there is no evidence of
population declines within the species
at current threat levels. In a
continuation of current conditions, it is
therefore likely that the populations will
remain stable in the future. For
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, our
information shows that development is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
likely to reduce the overall population
and habitat by a small percentage within
a reasonably short timeframe, however,
aside from this stressor, the best
available information indicates that
populations are not currently being
affected by other potential stressors.
Additionally, much of the remaining
populations and habitat are in
conserved areas, or areas with limited
activity, whereby the species would not
likely be impacted by these potential
stressors or the species exposure to
these potential stressors would be
reduced. Therefore, a continuation of
current conditions would indicate that
the remaining populations will likely be
stable in the future. With regard to both
species, although models can predict
climate changes over longer timeframes,
the best available scientific information
does not indicate how climate change
effects will impact either of these plants
into the future. Therefore, our ability to
predict future climate change effects is
limited.
Therefore, based on our assessment of
the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
listing Eriogonum diatomaceum or
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges as endangered or threatened
species is not warranted at this time.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any
species which is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment
[DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.’’ We published a final policy
interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant
portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy
states that (1) if a species is found to be
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its
range, the entire species is listed as an
endangered or a threatened species,
respectively, and the Act’s protections
apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the
species is not currently an endangered
or a threatened species throughout all of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
its range, but the portion’s contribution
to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in
that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all of its range; (3) the range of a species
is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the
Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, and the
population in that significant portion is
a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather
than the entire taxonomic species or
subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status
determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing,
delisting, and reclassification
determinations. The procedure for
analyzing whether any portion is an
SPR is similar, regardless of the type of
status determination we are making.
The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its
status throughout all of its range. If we
determine that the species is in danger
of extinction, or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future, throughout all of
its range, we list the species as an
endangered (or threatened) species and
no SPR analysis will be required. If the
species is neither an endangered nor a
threatened species throughout all of its
range, we determine whether the
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout a significant portion
of its range. If it is, we list the species
as an endangered or a threatened
species, respectively; if it is not, we
conclude that listing the species is not
warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis,
we first identify any portions of the
species’ range that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and either an endangered or a
threatened species. 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 in those portions or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the
affirmative is not a determination that
the species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout a
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
significant portion of its range—rather,
it is a step in determining whether a
more detailed analysis of the issue is
required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
affecting it uniformly throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats applies only to
portions of the range that clearly do not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not be expected to
increase the vulnerability to extinction
of the entire species), those portions
will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may
be both (1) significant and (2)
endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis to determine
whether these standards are indeed met.
The identification of an SPR does not
create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the
species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We
must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species in
the SPR. To determine whether a
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, we will use
the same standards and methodology
that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient to address
the ‘‘significant’’ 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 an
endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species
is not an endangered or a threatened
species in a portion of its range, we do
not need to determine if that portion is
‘‘significant.’’
We evaluated the current ranges of
Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii to
determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of potential
threats for either of the plants. We
examined potential threats to E.
diatomaceum from mineral exploration
and development; livestock grazing;
herbivory; OHV activity and road
development; nonnative, invasive plant
species; disease; and climate change.
We examined potential threats to E. c.
var. nilesii from development for
residential, commercial, or other
purposes; OHV use and road
development; mineral exploration and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Sep 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
development; nonnative, invasive plant
species; modified wildfire regime; and
climate change. Even though we found
that some of the potential threats have
caused the loss of E. c. var. nilesii
populations in the past, we do not
anticipate that the potential threats are
likely to impact the remaining
populations in the future such that
listing the plant would be warranted,
because of the large amount of occupied
habitat being conserved and the land
ownership of much of E. c. var. nilesii’s
habitat. Overall, we found no current
concentration of threats now or into the
future that suggests that either of these
plants may be in danger of extinction in
a portion of its range. We found no
portions of their ranges where current or
future potential threats are significantly
concentrated or substantially greater
than in other portions of their ranges.
Therefore, we find that potential threats
affecting each plant are essentially
uniform throughout its range, indicating
no portion of the range of either plant
warrants further consideration of
possible endangered or threatened
species status under the Act.
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that neither Eriogonum
diatomaceum nor Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii are in danger of
extinction (an endangered species) or
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges. Therefore, we find that
listing either of these two plants as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii to
our Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us
monitor these plants and encourage
their conservation. If an emergency
situation develops for either of these
two plants, we will act to provide
immediate protection.
References Cited
Service 2014a. Species Report for Eriogonum
diatomaceum (Churchill Narrows
buckwheat). Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office. March 28, 2014.
Service 2014b. Species Report for Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii (Las Vegas
buckwheat). Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office. March 28, 2014.
A complete list of references cited in
each of the Species Reports (Service
2014a; Service 2014b) is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
or at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57041
highlights/species_actions/species_
actions.html and upon request from the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this finding
are the staff members of the Pacific
Southwest Regional Office and the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 12, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–22668 Filed 9–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BE24
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Establishing Transit
Areas Through Walrus Protection
Areas at Round Island and Cape
Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska;
Amendment 107
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
management plan amendment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
submitted Amendment 107 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
(BSAI FMP). Amendment 107, if
approved, would establish seasonal
transit areas for vessels designated on
Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs)
through Walrus Protection Areas in
northern Bristol Bay, AK. This action
would allow vessels designated on FFPs
to transit through Walrus Protection
Areas in the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) near Round Island and Cape
Peirce from April 1 through August 15,
annually. This action is necessary to
restore the access of Federally-permitted
vessels to transit through Walrus
Protection Areas that was limited by
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24SEP1.SGM
24SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57032-57041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8- ES-2014-0039; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii and Eriogonum
diatomaceum
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
[[Page 57033]]
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the plants Eriogonum diatomaceum
(Churchill Narrows buckwheat) and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
(Las Vegas buckwheat) as endangered or threatened species and to
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing either Eriogonum
diatomaceum or Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is not warranted at
this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the threats to the
Eriogonum diatomaceum or Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii or their
habitats at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 24,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0039. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300;
or facsimile 775-861-6301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300;
or facsimile 775-861-6301. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
We identified Eriogonum diatomaceum as a candidate species in the
May 4, 2004, candidate notice of review (CNOR; 69 FR 24876). Eriogonum
diatomaceum was included in all subsequent annual CNORs (70 FR 24870,
May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6,
2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75
FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013). When it was
first identified as a candidate, we assigned a listing priority number
(LPN) of 2, reflecting a species with threats that were high in
magnitude and imminent. The LPN was changed to 5 in 2008 (73 FR 75176,
December 10, 2008) to reflect a species with threats that were high in
magnitude but not imminent; the LPN remained at 5 in all subsequent
CNORs.
We identified Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii as a candidate
species in the December 6, 2007, CNOR (72 FR 69034). Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii was included in all subsequent annual CNORs (73
FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR
69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013). On April 22, 2008,
we received a petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2008) to list
E. c. var. nilesii as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We did
not publish separate substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-
month petition findings, but made these findings in the 2008 CNOR (73
FR 75176, December 10, 2008). When it was first identified as a
candidate, we assigned a LPN of 6, reflecting a species with threats
that were high in magnitude but not imminent; the LPN remained at 6 in
all subsequent CNORs.
Background
We completed comprehensive assessments of the biological status of
Eriogonum diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, and we
prepared reports of the assessments (Species Reports), which provide a
thorough account for each of the plants. This finding is based upon
these Species Reports for Eriogonum diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii and scientific analyses of available
information prepared by the Service and an application of section 4(a)
of the Act. The Species Reports contain the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning the status of Eriogonum
diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, including the past,
present, and future stressors to the plants. As such, the Species
Reports provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decision in this document, which involves the further application of
standards within the Act and its regulations and policies. The Species
Reports (including all references) and other materials relating to this
finding can be found on the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office Web site
at: https://www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/speciesactions/
speciesactions.html and at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0039.
A summary of the biology, taxonomy, life history, and distribution
for each of the plants follows. The reader is directed to the Species
Reports for a more detailed discussion of these topics as well as the
current conditions of Eriogonum diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii (Service 2014a; Service 2014b; https://www.fws.gov/nevada/
highlights/speciesactions/speciesactions.html).
Eriogonum diatomaceum
Eriogonum diatomaceum is a member of the Polygonaceae (buckwheat
family). It is a low, matted, herbaceous perennial forb with leaves
that have densely matted, wooly hairs and with head-like clusters of
creamy-white flowers. Flowering typically occurs between the months of
June and September. E. diatomaceum occurs between 4,300 and 4,560 feet
(ft) (1,311 and 1,390 meters (m)) in elevation on diatomaceous
outcrops, and is a narrow endemic of the Lahontan Basin section of the
western Great Basin (Service 2014a, pp. 3-6). We recognize four
populations of this species that are restricted to approximately 3
square miles (7.8 square kilometers) in the Churchill Narrows area of
the Pine Nut Mountains in Lyon County, Nevada. These four populations
occupy approximately 18 acres (ac) (7.3 hectares (ha)) on lands managed
entirely by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Service 2014a, pp. 7-
10), and E. diatomaceum's historical range is the same as its current
range. E. diatomaceum was added to the Nevada State list of fully
protected species of native flora in 2004. In addition, E. diatomaceum
is recognized by the BLM as a sensitive species (Service 2014a, p. 3).
BLM monitored each of the four populations from 2005-2007 and in
2012. This sampling data and estimated abundance data for Eriogonum
diatomaceum in each monitoring location are presented in the Species
Report (Service 2014a, pp. 10-13). Overall, BLM sampled 1,104-1,604
plants during each sampling year, and of those, approximately 638-994
were live plants. The estimated abundance of Eriogonum diatomaceum in
each monitoring location extrapolated from data collected in BLM
monitoring macroplots, for each year of data collection, showed a range
from 35,950 to 59,307 plants present depending on
[[Page 57034]]
the year of the monitoring effort (Service 2014a, p. 13).
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii (Las Vegas buckwheat) is a member
of the Polygonaceae (buckwheat family) (Service 2014b, pp. 4-8). It is
an open to somewhat spreading perennial shrub with numerous yellow to
pale yellow flowers. Flowering typically occurs between the months of
August and November. Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii occurs between
656 and 2,789 ft (200-850 m) in elevation on clayey, gravelly, or
rarely sandy flats and slopes (0-3 percent) or gypsum flats and mounds
(Service 2014b, pp. 17-18). We recognize the geographic range of E. c.
var. nilesii as restricted to southern Nevada, in contrast to some
prior accounts showing a range extending into southern Utah and
northern Arizona based on morphological and genetic data described in
detail in the Species Report (Service 2014b, pp. 4-11). In southern
Nevada, E. c. var. nilesii is found northwest of the Virgin River (in
Lincoln County) and west of Lake Mead (in Clark County). Within this
region, E. c. var. nilesii currently occupies a total of approximately
795.3 ac (321.85 ha) (Service 2014b, pp. 11-12). The majority (80
percent) of this occupied acreage is federally owned, with 72 percent
administered by the BLM, and another 8.15 percent by the Department of
Defense (DOD), at Nellis Air Force Base. Landownership for the
remainder of occupied habitat is as follows: City of Las Vegas (0.13
percent), Clark County (0.80 percent), State of Nevada (0.001 percent),
and private landowners (18.81 percent). Of 12 historically recognized
populations of the plant (all located in southern Nevada), 9
populations remain extant (4 in Las Vegas Valley, 2 in White Basin
Mountains, 1 in Muddy Mountains, 1 in Coyote Springs Valley, and 1 in
Toquop Wash), and 3 have been extirpated (2 in the Las Vegas Valley and
1 in the White Basin Mountains) (Service 2014b, pp. 14-16). In
addition, four of the extant populations (Las Vegas Valley) have been
partially extirpated. Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is not listed
by the State of Nevada, but it is recognized as a sensitive species by
the BLM (Service 2014b, p. 3).
Expressed in terms of acreage, Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
has been extirpated from 1,303.5 ac (527.5 ha) of formerly occupied
habitat, corresponding to nearly 62 percent of its range. Most of the
lands from which the plant has been extirpated are in private ownership
(94.9 percent) (Service 2014b, pp. 11-12). Within the range of the
plant, the combined total of available estimates of plants at the nine
extant populations ranges between 31,176-31,773 individuals across a
total of 795.3 ac (321.85 ha). Of the total 31,176-31,773 estimated
individuals, 7,529-7,817+ are located in four populations in Las Vegas
Valley, 296+ are located in one population in Muddy Mountains, 308-550+
are located in two populations in White Basin, 13,043-13,110+ are
located in Coyote Springs, and 10,000+ are located in Toquop Wash
(Service 2014b, pp. 14-16). However, reliable estimation of population
size or trends in E. c. var. nilesii is complicated by many factors
including varied survey methods, and as a result, the data are not
always directly comparable and must be interpreted with caution
(Service 2014b, pp. 18-19).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors
affecting its continued existence. We completed comprehensive
assessments of the biological status of Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, and we prepared reports of the
assessments (Species Reports), which provide a thorough account for
each of the plants. In this section, we summarize the conclusions of
those reports, which can be accessed at Docket FWS-R8-ES-2014-0039 on
https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/
highlights/speciesactions/speciesactions.html.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, and reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
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. For purposes of this analysis, we
first evaluate the status of the species throughout all of its range,
and then consider whether the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in any significant portion of its range.
In making this finding, information pertaining to Eriogonum
diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii in relation to the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is summarized
below, based on the analysis of stressors contained in the Species
Reports. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must
look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor stressor 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 the scope and
severity of the potential threat. 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 an
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Analysis Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
The Act requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is
an endangered or threatened species because of any of the five factors
enumerated in 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). Our discussion of the threats,
which we have categorized here under each of these five factors, is
contained in the Species Reports (can be accessed at Docket FWS-R8-ES-
2014-0039 on https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fws.gov/
nevada/highlights/speciesactions/
speciesactions.html). In the Species Reports, we present
detailed discussions of current and future stressors to Eriogonum
[[Page 57035]]
diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii. We consider in this
document how threats categorized under each of the five factors are
affecting each of the plants. In our Species Reports, we describe the
timing, scope, and severity for each stressor associated with each of
the plants. We describe the scope as the percentage of the plant's
distribution that is reasonably expected to be affected by a stressor
within a specified, foreseeable amount of time, given continuation of
current circumstances and trends. Within the scope of the threat, the
severity is the level of damage to the plant's population or breeding
occurrences that is reasonably expected from the stressor within a
specified, foreseeable amount of time, given continuation of current
circumstances and trends.
All potential stressors currently acting upon Eriogonum diatomaceum
and Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii or likely to affect either of the
plants in the foreseeable future (and consistent with the five listing
factors identified above) are evaluated and addressed in the Species
Reports, and summarized in the following paragraphs. The reader is
directed to the Species Reports (can be accessed at Docket FWS-R8-ES-
2014-0039 on https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fws.gov/
nevada/highlights/speciesactions/speciesactions.html)
for a more detailed discussion of the stressors summarized in this
document.
Eriogonum Diatomaceum
The Species Report evaluated the biological status of the species
and each of the potential stressors affecting its continued existence
(Service 2014a, entire). It was based upon the best available
scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the Species
Report team members. Based on the analysis and discussion contained in
the Species Report, we evaluated the potential threats under the five
statutory factors: Mineral exploration and development (Factors A and
E); livestock grazing (Factors A and E); herbivory (Factor C); off-
highway vehicle (OHV) activity and road development (Factors A and E);
nonnative, invasive plant species (Factors A and E); disease (Factor
C); and climate change (Factors A and E). We found that these factors
currently may have minor impacts on individuals in some locations, but
they are not impacting the species as a whole currently and are not
expected to in the future. The full analyses of these possible
stressors are documented in the Species Report and are summarized
below. Based on the analysis contained in the Species Report, we find
that the best available scientific and commercial information does not
indicate that these stressors are causing a decline in the species or
its habitat, either now or into the future.
Mineral Exploration and Development (Factors A and E)
Eriogonum diatomaceum occurs on diatomaceous soil deposits, which
is an economically valuable mineral that is in increasing demand.
Mineral activity (exploration and development of diatomaceous earth
deposits) has impacted E. diatomaceum habitat and resulted in the loss
of individual plants and habitat at one of the four populations,
corresponding to a loss of 5 ac (1.67 ha) or 22 percent of historically
occupied habitat for the species. Two active mining claims still remain
open within the plant's range, and 95 claims are closed within this
area; all lands occupied by E. diatomaceum are open to mineral entry.
The BLM requires that all operations comply with State law and permits,
and since E. diatomaceum is listed as threatened by the State, the BLM
requires claimants to be in compliance with State law (Service 2014a,
p. 29). The BLM has affirmed that protecting E. diatomaceum and its
habitat from impacts is clearly within the BLM's discretion when it
comes to mineral material sales, and expressed its intent to continue
managing the species as a Special Status Species, avoid impacts to the
species and its habitat, and otherwise coordinate with the Service to
develop effective mitigation measures (Service 2014a, p. 21). The scope
of the mining stressor historically was 100 percent, because all
populations were thought to be affected by the potential for mining. In
addition, the severity of the stressor of mining historically was
moderate, because of the loss of 5.5 ac (2.2 ha) of historically
occupied habitat from mining. However, this stressor is one of
historical significance, because it is not known to be occurring at
present. Given the limited number of mining claims and the active
management of these claims by BLM, we do not consider mining (Factors A
and E) to be a current or future threat to the species such that the
species would warrant listing.
Livestock Grazing (Factors A and E)
All populations of Eriogonum diatomaceum are within grazing
allotments and are potentially exposed to livestock grazing, so the
scope of livestock grazing is 100 percent. Livestock grazing may result
in impacts, such as trampling, resulting in broken stems and leaves of
plants, and soil compaction, to individual Eriogonum diatomaceum
plants, but we have no data indicating (qualitatively or
quantitatively) the numbers (or percentages) of individuals or habitat
acreage lost as a result of grazing. In addition, BLM monitored each of
the four populations from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the results of
these surveys do not indicate that the population numbers are declining
or that grazing is affecting the species through habitat loss (Service
2014a, p. 13). Therefore, while livestock grazing may affect
individuals, based on the information that is available at this time,
the information does not indicate that grazing is a current or future
threat to the species such that the species would warrant listing.
Herbivory (Factor C)
Herbivory by jackrabbits, resulting in clipping of flower stems and
tunneling into roots, has been documented on individuals at all four
populations of Eriogonum diatomaceum; however, the best available
scientific information does not provide any indication of a significant
effect on recruitment of E. diatomaceum. In addition, BLM monitored
each of the four populations from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate that the population numbers
are declining or that herbivory is affecting the species (Service
2014a, p. 13). Therefore, while herbivory may affect individuals, based
on the information that is available at this time, the information does
not indicate that herbivory is a current or future threat to the
species such that the species would warrant listing.
OHV Activity and Road Development (Factors A and E)
OHV activity and road development is known to occur at three of the
four Eriogonum diatomaceum populations; roads can alter the hydrology
of a site, and OHV activity can compact soils, crush plants, and
provide a means for nonnative plant species to invade otherwise remote,
intact habitats. However, we are currently not aware of individuals or
habitat having been lost as a result of these activities, and the best
available scientific information does not provide an indication of the
level to which OHV activity and road development currently affects E.
diatomaceum or is likely to affect the species into the future. In
addition, BLM monitored each of these populations from 2005-2007 and in
2012, and the results of these surveys do not indicate
[[Page 57036]]
that the population numbers are declining or that OHV activity and road
development is affecting the species through habitat loss (Service
2014a, p. 13). Therefore, while OHV activity and road development may
affect individuals, based on the information that is available at this
time, the information does not indicate that OHV activity and road
development is a current or future threat to the species such that the
species would warrant listing.
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species (Factors A and E)
Nonnative, invasive plant species can negatively affect Eriogonum
diatomaceum through competition with and displacement of native plant
species and degradation of habitat. When E. diatomaceum habitat is
undisturbed, nonnative, invasive plant species are not a threat because
the specialized habitat of E. diatomaceum does not appear to be
conducive to their spread. However, when soil disturbances occur within
occupied E. diatomaceum habitat, nonnative, invasive plant species can
impact E. diatomaceum due to their ability to potentially compete with
and displace this species from its habitat. Nonnative, invasive plant
species are present within all E. diatomaceum populations. However, the
severity of nonnative, invasive plant species is unknown because the
best available scientific information does not provide any indication
of the level to which nonnative, invasive plant species affect E.
diatomaceum. In addition, BLM monitored each of the four populations
from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the results of these surveys do not
indicate that the population numbers are declining or that nonnative,
invasive plant species are affecting the species (Service 2014a, p.
13). Therefore, while nonnative, invasive plant species may affect
individuals, based on the information that is available at this time,
the information does not indicate that nonnative, invasive plant
species are a current or future threat to the species that the species
would warrant listing.
Disease (Factor C)
A rust (fungal) pathogen was observed on approximately 26 percent
of the overall Eriogonum diatomaceum population during survey work in
the late 1990s. At this time, no studies are known that identify this
pathogen, its origin, or its ultimate effect on this plant, and the
long-term survival rate of rust-infected plants has not been determined
or monitored. However, BLM monitored each of the four populations of E.
diatomaceum from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the results of these
surveys do not indicate that the population numbers are declining or
that pathogens are affecting the species (Service 2014a, p. 13).
Therefore, based on the best information that is available at this
time, the information does not indicate that disease is a current or
future threat to the species such that the species would warrant
listing.
Climate Change (Factors A and E)
In the Great Basin, temperatures have risen, and current climate
change projections indicate further warming over the rest of the
century. Winter temperatures are projected to increase, which will
change the balance of temperature and precipitation resulting in
earlier spring snow runoff, declines in snowpack, and increased
frequency of drought and fire events. Warmer temperatures and greater
concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide can create conditions
favorable for nonnative, invasive plant species. We anticipate that the
alteration of precipitation and temperature patterns could result in
decreased survivorship of Eriogonum diatomaceum due to physiological
stress of individual plants, altered phenology, and reduced seedling
establishment and plant recruitment. However, the severity of climate
change is unknown because even though climate projections exist for the
Great Basin, we do not know how E. diatomaceum is likely to respond to
these climatic changes. In addition, BLM monitored each of the four
populations of E. diatomaceum from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate that the population numbers
are declining or that climate change is currently affecting the species
(Service 2014a, p. 13). In addition, we do not know of any information
that demonstrates climate change is affecting the species. Therefore,
based on the information that is available at this time, the
information does not indicate that climate change is a current or
future threat to the species such that the species would warrant
listing.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D)
The Act requires that the Secretary assess existing regulatory
mechanisms in order to determine whether they are adequate to address
threats to the species (Factor D). The Species Report includes
discussions of applicable regulatory mechanisms for Eriogonum
diatomaceum (Service 2014a, pp. 16-30). In the Species Report, the
Service examines the applicable Federal, State, and other statutory and
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether these mechanisms provide
protections to E. diatomaceum. For E. diatomaceum, all four populations
occur on BLM land, and BLM has monitored these populations over time.
E. diatomaceum is identified as a BLM sensitive species, which means
that BLM's management objective is to initiate proactive conservation
measures that reduce or eliminate threats to minimize the likelihood of
and need for listing. Occupied and potential habitat for this species
was nominated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in
2008; however, BLM has postponed finalizing this ACEC designation
pending the completion of an amendment to the Carson City District
Resource Management Plan (RMP). A decision for the RMP is not expected
until 2016. During the preparation of the Species Report, we met with
BLM managers to discuss the status of E. diatomaceum and BLM's ongoing
management of the species. During those conversations, the BLM affirmed
its intent to continue managing the species as a BLM sensitive species,
regardless of the species' status under the Act, and to avoid impacts
to the species or its habitat, particularly in the context of mining
activity (Service 2014a, p. 16).
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report, we
conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that there is an inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to address impacts from the identified potential threats
such that listing would be warranted.
Interaction Among Factors
When conducting our analysis about the potential threats affecting
Eriogonum diatomaceum, we also assessed whether the species may be
affected by a combination of factors. In the Species Report (Service
2014a, p. 30), we identified multiple potential stressors that may have
interrelated impacts on E. diatomaceum or its habitat. Mineral
development and exploration result in the loss of habitat; depending on
the nature of mining activities, these impacts can be permanent and
irreversible (conversion to land uses unsuitable to the species) or
less so (minor ground disturbance and loss of individual plants)
(Factors A and E). When mineral development and exploration occurs in
between (but not within) populations, this can eliminate corridors for
pollinator movement, seed dispersal, and population expansion.
Livestock grazing may result in direct
[[Page 57037]]
impacts to individual Eriogonum diatomaceum plants due to trampling
(Factors A and E). Both livestock grazing and OHV/road corridors create
patterns of soil disturbance that in turn alter habitat function and
create conditions conducive to the invasion of nonnative plant species
(Factors A and E). Once nonnative, invasive plant species are
established, these species tend to spread beyond the footprint of
mineral development and exploration or OHV/road corridors, further
deteriorating otherwise intact habitat and native vegetation, including
E. diatomaceum. Herbivory, when combined with climate change and
altered precipitation and temperature regimes, may interfere with
seedling recruitment and persistence of the species on the landscape
(Factors A, C, and E). Each of these potential stressors may affect
individuals of E. diatomaceum. However, BLM monitored each of the four
populations of E. diatomaceum from 2005-2007 and in 2012, and the
results of these surveys do not indicate that the population numbers
are declining or that these stressors are currently affecting the
species (Service 2014a, p. 13). Therefore, the current best available
scientific and commercial information does not show that these combined
impacts are resulting in current or future impacts to the species such
that the species would warrant listing.
All or some of the potential stressors could act in concert to
result in cumulative stress on Eriogonum diatomaceum. However, the best
available scientific and commercial information currently does not
indicate that these stressors singularly or cumulatively are resulting
now or will in the future result in a substantial decline of the total
extant population of the plant or have impacts to E. diatomaceum at the
species level. Therefore, we do not consider the cumulative impact of
these stressors to E. diatomaceum to be substantial at this time, nor
into the future such that the species would warrant listing under the
Act.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
The Species Report for Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii evaluated
the biological status of the plant and each of the potential stressors
affecting its continued existence (Service 2014b, entire). It was based
upon the best available scientific and commercial data and the expert
opinion of the Species Report team members. Based on the analysis and
discussion contained in the Species Report, we evaluated the potential
threats under the five statutory factors: Development for residential,
commercial, or other purposes (A and E); OHV use and road development
(Factors A and E); mineral exploration and development (Factors A and
E); nonnative, invasive plant species (Factors A and E); modified
wildfire regime (Factors A and E); and climate change (Factors A and
E). We found that these factors are not likely to impact the plant as a
whole currently and are not expected to in the future. The full
analyses of possible stressors are documented in the Species Report and
summarized below. Based on the analysis contained in the Species Report
and under the five statutory factors, we find that the best available
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that current
and future threats are causing or going to cause a decline in the plant
or its habitat, either now or into the future. We recognize that
habitat and individuals have been lost from 62 percent of the
historical occurrences of E. c. var. nilesii through past development
on private lands, and we anticipate that approximately 5.5 percent of
remaining habitat will be lost into the future as a result of
development. However, we do not anticipate future development to be a
threat to the remaining populations because most are on public lands
(many of which are in conservation areas) where we do not anticipate
similar losses.
Development for Residential, Commercial, or Other Purposes (Factors A
and E)
We found that past development has had an impact on Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii and has resulted in the loss of 1,303.5 ac
(527.5 ha) of formerly occupied habitat mostly on private lands
(Service 2014b, pp. 11-12, 24)). Future development is likely to impact
an additional 43.93 ac (17.78 ha) of E. c. var. nilesii habitat
(Service 2014b, pp. 24-30). Development has occurred in the past and is
imminent into the future in these limited areas (43.93 ac (17.78 ha)).
The future development of 43.93 ac (17.78 ha) will result in partial
loss of two populations and entire loss of one population in Las Vegas
Valley, and it will also result in partial loss of one population in
Coyote Springs (Service 2014b, pp. 14-16). There should be no future
development loss in one other population in Las Vegas Valley, one
population in the Muddy Mountain Wilderness, two populations in White
Basin, and one population in Toquop Wash. Even though some limited
development will occur in the future, we found that development is not
imminent in the future over most of the remaining extant habitat,
because 80 percent of the remaining occupied habitat is on Federal
lands where development is unlikely due to conservation plans,
conservation areas, wilderness areas, ACECs, and other protective
means. The best available scientific and commercial information
indicates that even though development has resulted in losses of
historical occurrences of E. c. var. nilesii, we do not anticipate
future development to result in large losses that would be a threat to
the plant such that listing the plant would be warranted.
OHV Activity and Road Development (Factors A and E)
OHV use and road development can cause loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii habitat and compact
soils, crush plants, and provide a means for nonnative plant species to
enter otherwise remote, intact habitats. OHV use and road development
is authorized and currently occurs to some degree in six of the nine
extant populations of E. c. var. nilesii. The 1998 BLM Las Vegas
District Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes provisions limiting
OHV activity to designated roads, trails, and/or dry washes in all
ACECs and Wilderness Study Areas. We do know that OHV use and road
development do occur to some degree in many of the extant populations,
but we are not currently aware of individuals or habitat having been
lost as a result of these activities (Service 2014b, pp. 30-31).
Therefore, while OHV activity and road development may affect
individuals, based on the information that is available at this time,
the information does not indicate that OHV activity and road
development are a current or future threat to the plant such that the
plant would warrant listing.
Mineral Exploration and Development (Factors A and E)
When Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii became a candidate for
Federal listing in 2007 (72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007), mining
activities were identified as having the potential to impact 2 of the
12 populations recognized in that document. In 2013, we reviewed the
status of all locatable mining claims within the legal sections
containing the plant. According to this review, there are 74 ``closed''
(an administrative term that indicates a prior claim that is no longer
current) and no ``active'' (meaning paperwork and fees filed with the
BLM in support of the claim are current) locatable mineral claims
within the sections
[[Page 57038]]
occupied by this plant (Service 2014b, p. 33).
With regard to the timing of mining-related impacts, although this
activity has been previously identified as having the potential to
affect Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, we are unaware of mining
having directly affected this plant in the form of losses of
individuals or habitat. With regard to scope, to the best of our
knowledge, historically no populations have been affected by this
activity, and no open locatable mineral claims currently exist within
occupied habitat. In light of the above information, severity is low to
nonexistent.
Overall, mineral exploration and development has been previously
identified as having the potential to affect Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii, but we are unaware of mining having directly affected this
plant in the form of losses of individuals or habitat. Historically, no
populations have been affected by this activity, and no open locatable
mineral claims currently exist within occupied habitat (Service 2014b,
pp. 31-33); therefore, we do not consider mining to be a current or
future threat to the plant such that the plant would warrant listing.
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species (Factors A and E)
The majority of Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii habitat is not
affected by nonnative, invasive plant species, likely because the
specialized habitat of the plant has not experienced high levels of
soil disturbances conducive to their spread. However, in areas where
soil disturbances have occurred, nonnative, invasive plant species may
pose a threat to E. c. var. nilesii due to their ability to potentially
compete with and displace the plant and other native species from its
habitat. Nonnative, invasive plant species are present to some degree
in five of the nine extant populations; however, the severity of
nonnative, invasive plant species is unknown because the best available
scientific information does not provide any indication of the level of
which nonnative, invasive plant species affect E. c. var. nilesii, and
the majority of E. c. var. nilesii habitat is not affected by
nonnative, invasive plant species (Service 2014b, pp. 33-34).
Therefore, we do not consider nonnative, invasive plant species to be a
current or future threat to the plant such that the plant would warrant
listing.
Modified Wildfire Regime (Factors A and E)
Historically, wildfire has been infrequent in the Mojave Desert due
to limited fuels created by sparse vegetation. However, since the
1970s, fires have become more frequent due to recent invasions by
annual grasses (Service 2014b, p. 34). Due to increasing invasion by
nonnative, annual grasses, wildfire is now considered one of the
primary stressors to the conservation of native plants and animals and
to the maintenance of ecosystem integrity in the Mojave Desert.
Regardless of an overall increase of wildfire in the Mojave Desert,
there are no reported accounts of wildfire within Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii habitat (Service 2014b, pp. 34-35). We are unaware of
wildfire having directly affected this plant in the form of losses of
individuals or habitat, and we do not have information indicating that
this plant would be negatively affected by wildfire. Therefore, based
on the information that is available at this time, the information does
not indicate that a modified wildfire regime is a current or future
threat to the plant such that the plant would warrant listing.
Climate Change (Factors A and E)
The direct, long-term impact from climate change to Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii is yet to be determined. Current climate change
projections for the Mojave Desert indicating warming temperatures, and
climate predictions for the geographic range of E. c. var. nilesii
suggest there will be more frequent and/or prolonged drought. However,
predictions for this area in particular suggest localized, increasing
August precipitation. We anticipate that the alteration of
precipitation and temperature patterns could result in decreased
survivorship of E. c. var. nilesii due to physiological stress of
individual plants, altered phenology, and reduced seedling
establishment and plant recruitment. Climate change also may exacerbate
impacts from other factors currently affecting this plant and its
habitat. However, the severity of climate change is unknown because
even though climate projections indicating warming temperatures exist
for the Mojave Desert, we do not know how E. c. var. nilesii is likely
to respond to these climatic changes (Service 2014b, pp. 35-37). In
addition, we do not know of any information that demonstrates climate
change is affecting the plant. Therefore, based on the information that
is available at this time, the information does not indicate that
climate change is a current or future threat to the plant such that the
plant would warrant listing.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D)
The Act requires that the Secretary assess existing regulatory
mechanisms in order to determine whether they are adequate to address
threats to the species (Factor D). The Species Report includes
discussions of applicable regulatory mechanisms (Service 2014b,
entire). In the Species Report, the Service examines the applicable
Federal, State, and other statutory and regulatory mechanisms to
determine whether these mechanisms provide protections to Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii. E. c. var. nilesii is a BLM sensitive species
(Service 2014b, p. 3). In addition, BLM has entered into conservation
agreements (CA) for many lands to preserve, enhance, and restore
riparian areas and their associated uplands for the plant (Service
2014b, pp. 38-42).
In 2002, the Muddy Mountains Wilderness, which supports the Muddy
Mountains population of Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, was added to
the National Wilderness Preservation System by the Clark County
Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (Pub. L.
107-282). This designation protects this population from mining,
grazing, OHV use, and human development (Service 2014b, p. 41).
In 2005, BLM, the Service, Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF), and
the City of North Las Vegas entered a CA to retain 300 ac (121 ha) of
the Upper Las Vegas Wash area in Federal ownership to establish it as
the Eglington Preserve. The goal is to preserve, enhance, and restore
riparian areas and their associated uplands within the Eglington
Preserve. In 2011, the BLM established the 10,669-ac (4,318-ha)
conservation transfer area (CTA), which contains the 300-ac (121-ha)
Eglington Preserve, and encompasses one of the populations in the Las
Vegas Valley. The BLM's vision for the CTA is ``to preserve the natural
functioning of the Upper Wash, protect the sensitive resources within,
and support education, research, and low-impact recreational use. The
CTA is ecologically functional to the maximum extent possible and
managed to ensure the long-term integrity of the Las Vegas Formation
and associated fossil beds, the rare plant habitat for Arctomecon
californica, Arctomecon merriamii, and Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii, as well as natural flood water capacity for present and future
generations.'' The BLM will require mitigation and monitoring measures
to minimize impacts to resources caused by future allowable uses in the
CTA as
[[Page 57039]]
determined on a case-by-case basis (Service 2014b, pp. 39-41).
In 2007, BLM re-purchased approximately 1,103 ac (446 ha) of land
that supports one of the White Basin populations of Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii. Ongoing revisions to the Las Vegas BLM's RMP
are expected to include a proposal to designate the property and the
surrounding area as the Bitter Spring ACEC, for the protection of E. c.
var. nilesii and two other special status plant species (Service 2014b,
p. 41).
Another population in the Las Vegas Valley was designated as a
``Buckwheat Conservation Area'' by Clark County in 2010. Also in 2010,
the Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) established a conservation area where
sites containing Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii would remain
undeveloped unless military mission requirements dictate otherwise, and
the DOD would not allow further development for activities that are
purely recreational. In addition, Nellis AFB will also consult with NDF
and the Service to incorporate conservation measures for the plant if
development is to occur within occupied habitat.
As described in the Species Report, there are several Federal,
State, and County protections for Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii. In
addition, BLM has entered into CAs for many lands to preserve, enhance,
and restore riparian areas and their associated uplands for the plant
(Service 2014b, pp. 38-42). Overall, there are conservation protections
(such as conservation areas, ACECs, and wilderness areas) or limits on
activities (such as OHV activity) within eight of the nine extant
populations.
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report, we
conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that there is an inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to address impacts from the identified potential threats
such that listing the plant would be warranted.
Interaction Among Factors
When conducting our analysis about the potential stressors
affecting Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, we also assessed whether
the plant may be affected by a combination of factors. In the Species
Report (Service 2014b, p. 38), we identified multiple potential
stressors that may have interrelated impacts on E. c. var. nilesii or
its habitat. OHV and other road corridors can exacerbate habitat loss
and fragmentation, and tend to be associated with (accompanying or
following) development activities (Factors A and E). Development and
OHV/road corridors tend to create conditions that favor the
establishment of nonnative, invasive plant species; once established,
these species tend to spread well beyond the footprint of development
actions or OHV/road corridors, further deteriorating otherwise intact
habitat and native vegetation (Factors A and E). Some nonnative,
invasive plant species, particularly annual grasses, then increase the
frequency of wildfire, leading to modified wildfire regimes (Factors A
and E). Climate change has the potential to alter many patterns of land
use, including development and associated infrastructure, but also the
precipitation and temperature regimes that in turn influence the
establishment and persistence of vegetation, both native and nonnatives
alike (Factors A and E). However, the current best available scientific
and commercial information does not show that these combined impacts
are resulting in current impacts or are likely to result in future
impacts to the plant.
All or some of the potential stressors could act in concert to
result in cumulative stress on Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii.
However, the best available scientific and commercial information
currently does not indicate that these stressors singularly or
cumulatively are resulting now or will in the future result in a
substantial decline of the total extant population of the plant or have
impacts to E. c. var. nilesii at the taxon level. Therefore, we do not
consider the cumulative impact of these stressors to E. c. var. nilesii
to be substantial at this time, nor into the future.
Determination
As required in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of
the status of Eriogonum diatomaceum and Eriogonum corymbosum var.
nilesii and assessed the five factors in consideration of whether E.
diatomaceum and E. c. var. nilesii are endangered or threatened species
throughout all of their ranges. We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats to these plants. We reviewed information
available in our files and other available published and unpublished
information. We also consulted with species experts and land managers
in the areas where these plants occur.
Eriogonum diatomaceum
We evaluated each of the potential stressors in the Species Report
for Eriogonum diatomaceum, and we determined that mineral exploration
and development (Factors A and E); livestock grazing (Factors A and E);
herbivory (Factor C); OHV activity and road development (Factors A and
E); nonnative, invasive plant species (Factors A and E); disease
(Factor C); and climate change (Factors A and E) are factors that have
had impacts on individuals in some locations, but they are not
impacting the species currently or into the future such that listing
would be warranted. Based on the analysis contained within the Species
Report, we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that these stressors are going to cause a
decline in the species or its habitat, either now or are likely to do
so into the future. In addition, we evaluated existing regulatory
mechanisms and did not determine an inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for E. diatomaceum. Finally, although there is uncertainty
in extrapolations of population estimates based on survey results, the
best available scientific and commercial information shows that E.
diatomaceum population numbers do not appear to be in decline (Service
2014a, pp. 12-13).
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
We evaluated each of the potential stressors in the Species Report
for Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, and we determined that
development for residential, commercial, or other purposes (Factors A
and E); OHV use and road development (Factors A and E); mineral
exploration and development (Factors A and E); nonnative, invasive
plant species (Factors A and E); modified wildfire regime (Factors A
and E); and climate change (Factors A and E) are factors that may have
impacts on individuals in some locations, but they are not impacting
the plants currently or into the future such that listing would be
warranted. Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report,
we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that these stressors currently are going
to cause a decline in the plant or its habitat, either now or are
likely to do so into the future. In addition, we evaluated existing
regulatory mechanisms and did not determine an inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for E. c. var. nilesii. Even though we found that
some of the potential stressors have caused the loss of E. c. var.
nilesii populations in the past, we do not anticipate that the
potential threats are likely to impact the remaining populations in the
future
[[Page 57040]]
such that listing the plant would be warranted, because of the large
amount of occupied habitat being conserved and the land ownership of
much of E. c. var. nilesii's habitat.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on our analyses conducted in the
Species Reports and summarized in this finding, and using the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
magnitude and imminence of threats do not indicate that Eriogonum
diatomaceum or Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii are in danger of
extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout their ranges. In the
Species Report, we describe how our ability to project future trends in
the various factors identified as relevant to E. diatomaceum and E. c.
var. nilesii differs for each factor, with some factors better assessed
in terms of relatively short time periods, whereas others are more
appropriately assessed in terms of longer time horizons. Our ability to
project future trends in the various factors identified as relevant to
each of the plants differs for each factor, with some factors (such as
development and grazing) more easily predicted in terms of relatively
short time periods (such as the 1-10 years for which future development
is anticipated based on plans and the 10-15 year time period for
grazing allotment permits). Others (such as climate change) can often
be predicted over longer time horizons (such as 50 years for most
climate models). We do not have a single foreseeable future timeframe
because each of the potential stressors can be predicted into the
future over different time horizons, and we do not have data to support
a single foreseeable future timeframe.
In general, we assessed the potential stressors as a continuation
of current circumstances as discussed in the Species Reports (Service
2014, p. 17; Service 2014b, p. 24). In the case of Eriogonum
diatomaceum, as discussed above, the best available information
indicates that there is no evidence of population declines within the
species at current threat levels. In a continuation of current
conditions, it is therefore likely that the populations will remain
stable in the future. For Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii, our
information shows that development is likely to reduce the overall
population and habitat by a small percentage within a reasonably short
timeframe, however, aside from this stressor, the best available
information indicates that populations are not currently being affected
by other potential stressors. Additionally, much of the remaining
populations and habitat are in conserved areas, or areas with limited
activity, whereby the species would not likely be impacted by these
potential stressors or the species exposure to these potential
stressors would be reduced. Therefore, a continuation of current
conditions would indicate that the remaining populations will likely be
stable in the future. With regard to both species, although models can
predict climate changes over longer timeframes, the best available
scientific information does not indicate how climate change effects
will impact either of these plants into the future. Therefore, our
ability to predict future climate change effects is limited.
Therefore, based on our assessment of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that listing Eriogonum diatomaceum
or Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii throughout all or a significant
portion of their ranges as endangered or threatened species is not
warranted at this time.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an
endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of
its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a
threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to
all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently
an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but
the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in that portion, the species would
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is
considered to be the general geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if
a vertebrate species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a
valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and
no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither an
endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its range, we
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the
species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it
is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either
an endangered or a threatened species. 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 in those
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We
emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a
[[Page 57041]]
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice,
a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting
it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats
applies only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of
that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will
not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate
analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a
threatened species in the SPR. To determine whether a species is an
endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, we will use the
same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
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 an endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a
threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to
determine if that portion is ``significant.''
We evaluated the current ranges of Eriogonum diatomaceum and
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii to determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of potential threats for either of the plants.
We examined potential threats to E. diatomaceum from mineral
exploration and development; livestock grazing; herbivory; OHV activity
and road development; nonnative, invasive plant species; disease; and
climate change. We examined potential threats to E. c. var. nilesii
from development for residential, commercial, or other purposes; OHV
use and road development; mineral exploration and development;
nonnative, invasive plant species; modified wildfire regime; and
climate change. Even though we found that some of the potential threats
have caused the loss of E. c. var. nilesii populations in the past, we
do not anticipate that the potential threats are likely to impact the
remaining populations in the future such that listing the plant would
be warranted, because of the large amount of occupied habitat being
conserved and the land ownership of much of E. c. var. nilesii's
habitat. Overall, we found no current concentration of threats now or
into the future that suggests that either of these plants may be in
danger of extinction in a portion of its range. We found no portions of
their ranges where current or future potential threats are
significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other
portions of their ranges. Therefore, we find that potential threats
affecting each plant are essentially uniform throughout its range,
indicating no portion of the range of either plant warrants further
consideration of possible endangered or threatened species status under
the Act.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that neither Eriogonum diatomaceum nor Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii are in danger of extinction (an endangered
species) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
(a threatened species), throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing either of these two
plants as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, Eriogonum diatomaceum and Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii to our Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information will help us
monitor these plants and encourage their conservation. If an emergency
situation develops for either of these two plants, we will act to
provide immediate protection.
References Cited
Service 2014a. Species Report for Eriogonum diatomaceum (Churchill
Narrows buckwheat). Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. March 28, 2014.
Service 2014b. Species Report for Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
(Las Vegas buckwheat). Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. March 28,
2014.
A complete list of references cited in each of the Species Reports
(Service 2014a; Service 2014b) is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/highlights/
speciesactions/speciesactions.html and upon request
from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this finding are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and the Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 12, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22668 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P