Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Graham's Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River Beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis); Designation of Critical Habitat for Graham's Beardtongue and White River Beardtongue, 48090-48094 [2019-19768]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48090
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
and Snow Hill, MD, 211° radials; Snow
Hill; Hampton, NY; INT Hampton 069° and
Marconi, MA 228° radials; Marconi, to the
INT of Marconi 090° and Nantucket, MA,
066° radials. Airspace below FL 240 is
excluded between Snow Hill and lat.
38°45′00″ N, long. 74°43′59″ W. Airspace
above FL 410 is excluded between Snow
Hill and Hampton.
J–207 [Amended]
From Florence, SC; Raleigh-Durham, NC; to
Franklin, VA.
J–208 [Remove]
J–209 [Amended]
From Raleigh-Durham, NC; Tar River, NC;
Norfolk, VA; INT Norfolk 023° and
Salisbury, MD, 199° radials; Salisbury; INT
Salisbury 018° and Coyle, NJ, 226° radials;
Coyle; to INT Coyle 036° and Robbinsville,
NJ, 136° radials.
J–210 [Amended]
From Vance, SC; to Wilmington, NC.
J–614 [Remove]
J–616 [Remove]
Paragraph 2006 United States Area
Navigation Routes
Q–112 [Remove]
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4,
2019.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019–19544 Filed 9–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
33 CFR Part 334
[Docket Number: COE–2019–0010]
Washington Channel, Fort McNair,
Washington, DC; Restricted Area
AGENCY:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
DoD.
Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
ACTION:
On August 8, 2019, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)
published a proposed rule to establish a
permanent restricted area in the
Washington Channel adjacent to Fort
McNair in Washington, DC. The
comment period ended on September 9,
2019, and we received requests to
extend the comment period. As it closed
prior to the publication of this
document, we are reopening the
comment period. Comments previously
submitted do not need to be
resubmitted, as they have already been
incorporated into the administrative
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
record and will be fully considered in
the Corps’ decision making process for
this rulemaking action.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before November 5,
2019.
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number COE–
2019–0010, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: david.b.olson@usace.army.mil.
Include the docket number, COE–2019–
0010, in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Attn: CECW–CO–R (David B. Olson),
441 G Street NW, Washington, DC
20314–1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to
security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or
courier.
Instructions: Instructions for
submitting comments are provided in
the proposed rule published on August
8, 2019 (84 FR 38893). Consideration
will be given to all comments received
by November 5, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Olson, Headquarters, Operations
and Regulatory Division, Washington,
DC at 202–761–4922, or Mr. Steve
Elinsky, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore
District, Regulatory Branch, at 410–962–
4503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
August 8, 2019, issue of the Federal
Register (84 FR 38893), the Corps
published a proposed rule for
establishing a permanent restricted area
in the Washington Channel adjacent to
Fort McNair. Fort McNair is the
headquarters of the Army’s Military
District of Washington and home of the
National Defense University as well as
the official residence of the U.S. Army’s
Vice Chief of Staff. Fort McNair
requested the restricted area to fulfill
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall (JBM–
HH) security needs including HMX
missions and security needs at Fort
McNair including protection of VIP
quarters. The restricted area is also
needed to protect public health by
preventing vessels from disturbing a
planned environmental remediation
area located near Fort McNair.
We have received requests for an
extension of the comment period for the
proposed rule. The Corps finds a longer
comment period is warranted.
Therefore, the comment period for this
proposed rule is reopened until
November 5, 2019.
Dated: September 6, 2019.
Thomas P. Smith,
Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division,
Directorate of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2019–19735 Filed 9–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–BD71
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
for Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon
grahamii) and White River
Beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus
var. albifluvis); Designation of Critical
Habitat for Graham’s Beardtongue and
White River Beardtongue
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment periods.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening
the comment periods on our August 6,
2013, proposed rules to list Graham’s
beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and
White River beardtongue (Penstemon
scariosus var. albifluvis) as threatened
species throughout their ranges and to
designate critical habitat for these two
plant species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We are reopening the comment period
for 30 days to give all interested parties
further opportunity to comment on the
proposed rules. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted as
they are already incorporated into the
public record and will be fully
considered in the final rule.
DATES: The comment periods on the
August 6, 2013, proposed rules (78 FR
47590 and 78 FR 47832) are reopened.
We will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before October 15,
2019. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may view the August 6, 2013, proposed
rules and supporting materials
associated with this reopened public
comment period and described below
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0081 (for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the proposed listing rule) or FWS–R6–
ES–2013–0082 (for the proposed critical
habitat rule), or from the office listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
New information related to this
proposed rule and described below in
this document may be accessed at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029.
Comment submission: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029, which is
the docket number for this proposed
action. Then click on the Search button.
On the resulting page, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to
locate this document. You may submit
a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2019–
0029; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological
Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton
Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT
84119; telephone 801–975–3330.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf may call the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Species Information and Previous
Federal Actions
Please refer to the August 6, 2013,
proposed listing rule at 78 FR 47590 for
information about Graham’s
beardtongue and White River
beardtongue’s taxonomy, description,
distribution, habitat, and biology, as
well as a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue prior to 2013.
On August 6, 2013, we published a
proposed rule to list Graham’s
beardtongue and White River
beardtongue as threatened species under
the Act (78 FR 47590). We also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
published an August 6, 2013, proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for both
species (78 FR 47832). Upon publication
of our proposed rules, we opened a 60day comment period that closed on
October 7, 2013. Following publication
of our proposed rules, the same parties
(Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Utah
Department of Natural Resources; State
of Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration (SITLA); Uintah
County, Utah) that had drafted a 2007
Conservation Agreement (CA) for
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue reconvened to evaluate
species’ surveys and distribution
information and reassess the
conservation needs of both Graham’s
and White River beardtongues. Based on
this evaluation, the parties completed a
new conservation agreement (2014 CA,
entire) that specifically addressed the
threats identified in our August 6, 2013,
proposed rule to list the two species (78
FR 47590). Additional signatories to the
2014 CA included the Utah Public
Lands Policy Coordination Office
(PLPCO) and Rio Blanco County,
Colorado.
In the 2014 CA, the parties committed
to conservation actions including
establishing 17,957 hectares (ha) (44,373
acres (ac)) of occupied and unoccupied
suitable habitat as protected
conservation areas with limited surface
disturbance and avoidance of Graham’s
and White River beardtongue plants by
91.4 meters (m) (300 feet (ft)).
Additionally, BLM agreed to avoid
surface disturbances within 91.4 m (300
ft) of Graham’s and White River
beardtongue plants within and outside
of conservation areas on BLM land. The
parties also developed conservation
measures to address the cumulative
impacts from livestock grazing, invasive
weeds, small population sizes, and
climate change by continuing species
monitoring, monitoring climate,
reducing impacts from grazing when
and where detected, and controlling
invasive weeds.
On May 6, 2014, we announced the
reopening of the public comment period
on our August 6, 2013, proposed listing
and proposed designation of critical
habitat rules until July 7, 2014 (79 FR
25806). In that document, we also
announced the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA), draft
environmental assessment (EA), draft
2014 CA, and amended required
determinations section of the proposal.
We also announced the availability of
2013 survey results for Graham’s and
White River beardtongue plants and our
intent to hold a public information
meeting and public hearing.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48091
On August 6, 2014, we withdrew the
proposed rule to list Graham’s
beardtongue and White River
beardtongue as threatened species under
the Act (79 FR 46042). This withdrawal
was based on our conclusion that the
threats to the species as identified in the
proposed rule were no longer as
significant as we previously determined.
We based this conclusion on our
analysis of new information concerning
current and future threats and
conservation efforts. As a result, we also
withdrew our associated proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for these
species.
Litigation
On March 26, 2015, a complaint was
filed in the District Court for the District
of Colorado by Rocky Mountain Wild,
Center for Biological Diversity, Utah
Native Plant Society, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Grand Canyon
Trust, Western Resource Advocates, and
Western Watersheds Project challenging
the withdrawal of the proposal to list
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue. The State of Utah, SITLA
and PLPCO, and Uintah County, Utah,
intervened in the litigation. On October
25, 2016, the court found that the
withdrawal was contrary to the Act
because (1) we concluded that yet-to-beenacted regulatory and non-regulatory
measures mandated by the 2014 CA
were ‘‘existing regulatory mechanisms’’;
(2) we failed to account for the 2014
CA’s expiration when determining
whether the beardtongues face material
threats in the ‘‘foreseeable future’’; and
(3) we took into account economic
considerations when imposing a 91.4-m
(300-foot) buffer zone around each
beardtongue. However, before entering
final judgment, the court ordered that
the parties meet to discuss whether the
2014 CA could be modified in a manner
satisfactory to Plaintiffs. Those meetings
occurred, but in a December 15, 2017,
Joint Status Report to the court, the
parties reported that we were
unsuccessful at reaching agreement.
Therefore, on December 18, 2017, the
court entered final judgment, vacating
our August 6, 2014, withdrawal, and
reinstating the proposed listing and
critical habitat rules.
As a result, the August 6, 2013,
proposed listing and critical habitat
rules (collectively referred to as the
2013 proposed rules) for Graham’s
beardtongue and White River
beardtongue are now reinstated, and
both species are proposed species for
the purposes of consultation under
section 7 of the Act. This document
notifies the public that we are reopening
the comment periods on the 2013
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
48092
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
proposed rules (78 FR 47590 and 78 FR
47832). We also announce that we will
be reevaluating the status of both
species to determine whether they meet
the definition of endangered or
threatened species under the Act, or
whether they are not warranted for
listing. Any listing determination we
make must be made based on the best
available information.
We invite the public to comment on
the 2013 proposed rules, and we request
new information regarding Graham’s
beardtongue and White River
beardtongue that has become available
since the publication of the proposed
rules to inform this evaluation. As
described in more detail below, new
survey and monitoring information have
become available to us since the
publication of our 2013 proposed rules.
In addition, we worked with partners to
complete a final 2014 CA and 2018
addendum and modified conservation
areas under the 2014 CA.
New Survey Information
In 2013, our range-wide population
estimates for Graham’s beardtongue and
White River beardtongue were 31,702
and 11,423, respectively, and all plants
known at the time for the two species
were included within our proposed
critical habitat units. Since publication
of our 2013 proposed rules, we have
received additional survey information
for Graham’s beardtongue and White
River beardtongue that resulted in a
larger total population size for the two
species and a larger range for White
River beardtongue. For Graham’s
beardtongue, we now know of an
additional 24,118 plants, which brings
our 2018 range-wide population
estimate to 55,820 plants. A total of
43,464 Graham’s beardtongue plants (78
percent of the total population) now
occur inside of the August 6, 2013,
proposed critical habitat units, an
increase of 11,762 plants since 2013
(Table 1). A total of 28,085 Graham’s
beardtongue plants (50 percent of the
total population) now occur within
designated conservation areas that were
identified in the 2014 CA, an increase
of 2,309 plants since 2014. Designated
conservation areas are subject to surface
disturbance caps for the duration of the
2014 CA. For more details on designated
conservation areas, see the 2014 CA.
TABLE 1—GRAHAM’S AND WHITE RIVER BEARDTONGUES 2013 AND 2018 PLANT ABUNDANCE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF
THE 2013 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT (PCH) BOUNDARIES
Graham’s
beardtongue
(percent of
total)
Year
Number of plants
2013 .......
Inside 2013 PCH .................................................................................................................................
31,702
(100%)
0
(0%)
11,423
(100%)
0
(0%)
Total ..............................................................................................................................................
31,702
11,423
Inside 2013 PCH .................................................................................................................................
43,464
(78%)
12,356
(22%)
19,194
(59%)
13,218
(41%)
55,820
32,412
Outside of 2013 PCH ..........................................................................................................................
2018 .......
Outside of 2013 PCH ..........................................................................................................................
Total ..............................................................................................................................................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
White river
beardtongue
(percent of
total)
For White River beardtongue, we now
know of an additional 20,989 plants,
which brings our 2018 range-wide
population estimate to 32,412 plants.
Based on our updated understanding of
the population and its distribution, a
total of 19,194 plants (59 percent of the
total population) occur inside of our
proposed critical habitat. In addition, a
total of 23,954 plants (74 percent of the
total population) occur within
designated conservation areas that were
identified in the 2014 CA, an increase
of 14,724 plants since 2014 (Table 1).
Maps of plant locations are available
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and
at https://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeard
Tongue.php by clicking Recent Actions
& Links at the bottom of the page. We
request public comments on these data
and how they should be considered for
the designation of critical habitat, and
how this information might impact our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
assessment of the species’ status under
the Act.
New Monitoring Information
Since the publication of our 2013
proposed rules, we have received
additional population monitoring
information for Graham’s beardtongue
and White River beardtongue in Utah
and Colorado, and genetic studies of
White River beardtongue. In addition,
we convened an expert panel to discuss
the amount of variation found in
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue genetics and morphology
across their ranges. Population trends
for Graham’s beardtongue and White
River beardtongue are relatively stable
to increasing at all monitoring locations
with episodic recruitment offsetting
declines due to herbivory (Reisor and
McDonough 2014, pp. 22, 33; Pavlik et
al. 2015, pp. 1–2; Conservation Team
2018, pp. 99–105; Dawson 2018, p. 3;
Krening 2018a, pp. 1, 5; and Krening
2018b, p. 2). Long-term monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
results provide additional confirmation
that Graham’s beardtongue plants
remain dormant and below ground in
years of adverse environmental
conditions (Krening 2018a, p. 5; Dawson
2019, p. 1).
We are also aware that preliminary
evaluations of the effect of disturbance
from development on seed set and
pollinator visitation are under way.
Preliminary results are not conclusive
(Barlow and Pavlik 2018, pp. 2–3;
Conservation Team 2018, Appendix E).
Genetic studies of White River
beardtongue have resolved our
understanding of the species’ range and
extent, thus eliminating the uncertainty
associated with the unverified element
occurrences we referenced in our 2013
proposed rules (Stevens and Johnson
2016, entire; Rodriguez et al. 2018,
entire). One remaining area of
uncertainty regarding taxonomy is
whether to elevate White River
beardtongue to a species-level rank of
Penstemon albifluvis. White River
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
beardtongue is currently considered a
subspecies (Penstemon scariosus var.
albifluvis). Regardless, we consider it to
be a listable entity. We held a meeting
on June 2, 2017, with an expert panel
to review and discuss the new genetic
results and other pertinent information
regarding the range of variation found in
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue. The additional population
monitoring, genetic studies, and expert
panel information are available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and at https://
www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/
grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeard
Tongue.php by clicking Recent Actions
& Links at the bottom of the page. We
request public comment on these data
and how they might impact our
assessment of the species’ status under
the Act.
2014 Conservation Agreement and 2018
Addendum
We and the other parties to the
conservation agreement finalized the
2014 CA on July 22, 2014. The 2014 CA
is similar to the draft conservation
agreement provided during the previous
reopened public comment period for
our 2013 proposed rules (79 FR 25806),
and is described in our 2014
withdrawal. We and the other parties to
the 2014 CA signed an addendum to the
agreement in November and December
2018.
In the 2018 addendum, the Federal,
State, and county parties agreed to a 5year extension of the 2014 CA until July
25, 2034. The private parties in Utah
will be released from the 2014 CA when
the original term ends and when the
Uinta County Ordinance (No. 7–16–
2018 01) expires on July 25, 2029.
Afterwards, private parties may
voluntarily submit land to be
incorporated as a conservation area
under the 2014 CA.
The 2018 addendum includes a new
commitment for our agency to complete
an assessment of the species’ status on
or around December 31, 2028, for
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue, prior to the release of
private parties in Utah from the 2014
CA. The purpose of this future
assessment will be to characterize
Graham’s and White River
beardtongues’ biological condition and
viability within their respective ranges
at that time. The assessment will likely
include a projection of the
beardtongues’ future condition based on
plausible scenario(s) and will
characterize the uncertainty related to
stressors and scenario(s).
The 2018 addendum also includes a
new commitment for the parties to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
complete a summary report every 5
years. Summary reports will provide a
comprehensive review of conservation
efforts and research performed under
the 2014 CA, as well as the status of the
beardtongues and habitat conditions
within conservation areas. The
summary reports are intended to inform
our 2028 species status assessment for
the beardtongues and will also inform
the parties of any conservation actions
that would be beneficial to the species
and could be implemented prior to the
ending of the 2014 CA. The 2014 CA
and the 2018 addendum are available at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and
at https://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeard
Tongue.php by clicking Recent Actions
& Links at the bottom of the page. We
request public comment on this
information and how it might impact
our assessment of the two species’ status
under the Act.
2014 Conservation Agreement
Conservation Area Modifications
Under section 6.2 of the 2014 CA,
parties are required to review existing
conservation area boundaries and
discuss proposed modifications to these
boundaries. The parties started their
review on November 2, 2017, and
finalized their modification of
conservation area boundaries on
November 20, 2018. The conservation
boundary modification process included
a review of new survey information,
prioritization of conservation areas
based on biological factors, and
boundary adjustments that reflected
priority areas. The parties approved the
inclusion of an additional 947 ha (2,339
ac) as new designated conservation
areas for White River beardtongue
habitat on BLM and SITLA lands. The
parties also approved the removal of 46
ha (115 ac) from existing conservation
areas. These areas were removed due to
errors in the original Geographic
Information System analysis, analyses
that showed they contained lower value
areas without plants, and existing
development. The conservation area
modification document is available at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and
at https://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiver
BeardTongue.php by clicking Recent
Actions & Links at the bottom of the
page. We request public comment on
this information and how it might
impact our assessment of the two
species’ status under the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48093
Information Requested
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period on our proposed rule to
list Graham’s beardtongue and White
River beardtongue as threatened species
that was published in the Federal
Register on August 6, 2013 (78 FR
47590), and on our proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for both
species (78 FR 47832, August 6, 2013).
We will also accept written comments
and information regarding the new
information described above, including
new survey and monitoring information
that have become available, the 2014 CA
and 2018 addendum, and modification
of conservation areas under the 2014
CA. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested
parties. We are particularly interested in
comments concerning:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of these species;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns; and
(d) Historical, current, and projected
population levels and trends.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species
and regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of
these species, including the locations of
any additional populations of these
species.
(5) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for these species, their
habitats, or both.
(6) Current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species and
possible impacts of these activities on
these species.
(7) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of these
species and ongoing conservation
measures for these species and their
habitats.
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
48094
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(8) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from
human activity, the degree of which can
be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase
in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent.
(9) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
Graham’s beardtongue and White River
beardtongue occupied and suitable
habitat;
(b) Areas that were occupied at the
time of listing (or are currently
occupied) and that contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species that should be included in the
designation and why;
(c) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species and why;
(d) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the species;
(e) Where the ‘‘physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species,’’ features are currently
found;
(f) Information indicating how these
species respond to natural and
anthropogenic disturbances; and
(g) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change.
(10) Land use designations and
current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts
on proposed critical habitat.
(11) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on Graham’s and White River
beardtongues and proposed critical
habitat.
(12) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation; in
particular, we seek information on any
impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(13) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
(14) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(15) The likelihood of adverse social
reactions to the designation of critical
habitat and how the consequences of
such reactions, if likely to occur, would
relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat
designation.
(16) Whether the 2014 CA, including
the 2018 addendum and conservation
area modifications, provides sufficient
conservation measures to reduce threats
to one or both species.
As indicated under SUMMARY, above, if
you submitted comments or information
on the proposed rules (78 FR 47590 and
78 FR 47832) during the initial
comment periods from August 6, 2013,
to October 7, 2013, or from May 6, 2014,
to July 7, 2014, please do not resubmit
them. Any such comments are
incorporated as part of the public record
of this rulemaking proceeding, and we
will fully consider them in the
preparation of our final determination.
Our final determination will take into
consideration all written comments and
any additional information we receive
during all comment periods. The final
decision may differ from the proposed
rule, based on our review of all
information received during this
rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rules
and other new information described
above by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing the proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this document is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0029 and
on our website at https://www.fws.gov/
mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhite
RiverBeardTongue.php by clicking
Recent Actions & Links at the bottom of
the page, and upon request from the
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Mountain
Prairie Regional Office and Utah
Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 22, 2019.
Margaret Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–19768 Filed 9–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 190906–0023]
RIN 0648–BI99
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Seabird Bycatch Avoidance Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
require commercial groundfish bottom
longline vessels 26 feet length overall
and longer managed under the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan to deploy streamer lines or to set
gear between civil dusk and civil dawn
when fishing in Federal waters north of
36° North latitude. The action is
necessary to fulfill terms and conditions
of a 2017 United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Opinion to
minimize incidental take of Endangered
Species Act-listed short-tailed albatross
(Phoebastria albatrus) by vessels in the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48090-48094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19768]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-BD71
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Graham's Beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River
Beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis); Designation of
Critical Habitat for Graham's Beardtongue and White River Beardtongue
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment periods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
reopening the comment periods on our August 6, 2013, proposed rules to
list Graham's beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and White River
beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) as threatened species
throughout their ranges and to designate critical habitat for these two
plant species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). We are reopening the comment period for 30 days to give all
interested parties further opportunity to comment on the proposed
rules. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they
are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully
considered in the final rule.
DATES: The comment periods on the August 6, 2013, proposed rules (78 FR
47590 and 78 FR 47832) are reopened. We will accept comments received
or postmarked on or before October 15, 2019. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view the August 6, 2013,
proposed rules and supporting materials associated with this reopened
public comment period and described below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2013-0081 (for
[[Page 48091]]
the proposed listing rule) or FWS-R6-ES-2013-0082 (for the proposed
critical habitat rule), or from the office listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
New information related to this proposed rule and described below
in this document may be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029.
Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029,
which is the docket number for this proposed action. Then click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119; telephone 801-
975-3330. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Species Information and Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the August 6, 2013, proposed listing rule at 78 FR
47590 for information about Graham's beardtongue and White River
beardtongue's taxonomy, description, distribution, habitat, and
biology, as well as a detailed description of previous Federal actions
concerning Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue prior to
2013.
On August 6, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue as threatened species under the
Act (78 FR 47590). We also published an August 6, 2013, proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for both species (78 FR 47832). Upon
publication of our proposed rules, we opened a 60-day comment period
that closed on October 7, 2013. Following publication of our proposed
rules, the same parties (Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Utah Department of Natural Resources; State of Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA); Uintah
County, Utah) that had drafted a 2007 Conservation Agreement (CA) for
Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue reconvened to evaluate
species' surveys and distribution information and reassess the
conservation needs of both Graham's and White River beardtongues. Based
on this evaluation, the parties completed a new conservation agreement
(2014 CA, entire) that specifically addressed the threats identified in
our August 6, 2013, proposed rule to list the two species (78 FR
47590). Additional signatories to the 2014 CA included the Utah Public
Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO) and Rio Blanco County,
Colorado.
In the 2014 CA, the parties committed to conservation actions
including establishing 17,957 hectares (ha) (44,373 acres (ac)) of
occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat as protected conservation
areas with limited surface disturbance and avoidance of Graham's and
White River beardtongue plants by 91.4 meters (m) (300 feet (ft)).
Additionally, BLM agreed to avoid surface disturbances within 91.4 m
(300 ft) of Graham's and White River beardtongue plants within and
outside of conservation areas on BLM land. The parties also developed
conservation measures to address the cumulative impacts from livestock
grazing, invasive weeds, small population sizes, and climate change by
continuing species monitoring, monitoring climate, reducing impacts
from grazing when and where detected, and controlling invasive weeds.
On May 6, 2014, we announced the reopening of the public comment
period on our August 6, 2013, proposed listing and proposed designation
of critical habitat rules until July 7, 2014 (79 FR 25806). In that
document, we also announced the availability of a draft economic
analysis (DEA), draft environmental assessment (EA), draft 2014 CA, and
amended required determinations section of the proposal. We also
announced the availability of 2013 survey results for Graham's and
White River beardtongue plants and our intent to hold a public
information meeting and public hearing.
On August 6, 2014, we withdrew the proposed rule to list Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue as threatened species under the
Act (79 FR 46042). This withdrawal was based on our conclusion that the
threats to the species as identified in the proposed rule were no
longer as significant as we previously determined. We based this
conclusion on our analysis of new information concerning current and
future threats and conservation efforts. As a result, we also withdrew
our associated proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these
species.
Litigation
On March 26, 2015, a complaint was filed in the District Court for
the District of Colorado by Rocky Mountain Wild, Center for Biological
Diversity, Utah Native Plant Society, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, Grand Canyon Trust, Western Resource Advocates, and Western
Watersheds Project challenging the withdrawal of the proposal to list
Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue. The State of Utah,
SITLA and PLPCO, and Uintah County, Utah, intervened in the litigation.
On October 25, 2016, the court found that the withdrawal was contrary
to the Act because (1) we concluded that yet-to-be-enacted regulatory
and non-regulatory measures mandated by the 2014 CA were ``existing
regulatory mechanisms''; (2) we failed to account for the 2014 CA's
expiration when determining whether the beardtongues face material
threats in the ``foreseeable future''; and (3) we took into account
economic considerations when imposing a 91.4-m (300-foot) buffer zone
around each beardtongue. However, before entering final judgment, the
court ordered that the parties meet to discuss whether the 2014 CA
could be modified in a manner satisfactory to Plaintiffs. Those
meetings occurred, but in a December 15, 2017, Joint Status Report to
the court, the parties reported that we were unsuccessful at reaching
agreement. Therefore, on December 18, 2017, the court entered final
judgment, vacating our August 6, 2014, withdrawal, and reinstating the
proposed listing and critical habitat rules.
As a result, the August 6, 2013, proposed listing and critical
habitat rules (collectively referred to as the 2013 proposed rules) for
Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue are now reinstated,
and both species are proposed species for the purposes of consultation
under section 7 of the Act. This document notifies the public that we
are reopening the comment periods on the 2013
[[Page 48092]]
proposed rules (78 FR 47590 and 78 FR 47832). We also announce that we
will be reevaluating the status of both species to determine whether
they meet the definition of endangered or threatened species under the
Act, or whether they are not warranted for listing. Any listing
determination we make must be made based on the best available
information.
We invite the public to comment on the 2013 proposed rules, and we
request new information regarding Graham's beardtongue and White River
beardtongue that has become available since the publication of the
proposed rules to inform this evaluation. As described in more detail
below, new survey and monitoring information have become available to
us since the publication of our 2013 proposed rules. In addition, we
worked with partners to complete a final 2014 CA and 2018 addendum and
modified conservation areas under the 2014 CA.
New Survey Information
In 2013, our range-wide population estimates for Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue were 31,702 and 11,423,
respectively, and all plants known at the time for the two species were
included within our proposed critical habitat units. Since publication
of our 2013 proposed rules, we have received additional survey
information for Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue that
resulted in a larger total population size for the two species and a
larger range for White River beardtongue. For Graham's beardtongue, we
now know of an additional 24,118 plants, which brings our 2018 range-
wide population estimate to 55,820 plants. A total of 43,464 Graham's
beardtongue plants (78 percent of the total population) now occur
inside of the August 6, 2013, proposed critical habitat units, an
increase of 11,762 plants since 2013 (Table 1). A total of 28,085
Graham's beardtongue plants (50 percent of the total population) now
occur within designated conservation areas that were identified in the
2014 CA, an increase of 2,309 plants since 2014. Designated
conservation areas are subject to surface disturbance caps for the
duration of the 2014 CA. For more details on designated conservation
areas, see the 2014 CA.
Table 1--Graham's and White River Beardtongues 2013 and 2018 Plant
Abundance Inside and Outside of the 2013 Proposed Critical Habitat (PCH)
Boundaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham's White river
beardtongue beardtongue
Year Number of plants (percent of (percent of
total) total)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013.............. Inside 2013 PCH..... 31,702 11,423
(100%) (100%)
Outside of 2013 PCH. 0 0
(0%) (0%)
-------------------------------
Total............ 31,702 11,423
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.............. Inside 2013 PCH..... 43,464 19,194
(78%) (59%)
Outside of 2013 PCH. 12,356 13,218
(22%) (41%)
-------------------------------
Total............ 55,820 32,412
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For White River beardtongue, we now know of an additional 20,989
plants, which brings our 2018 range-wide population estimate to 32,412
plants. Based on our updated understanding of the population and its
distribution, a total of 19,194 plants (59 percent of the total
population) occur inside of our proposed critical habitat. In addition,
a total of 23,954 plants (74 percent of the total population) occur
within designated conservation areas that were identified in the 2014
CA, an increase of 14,724 plants since 2014 (Table 1).
Maps of plant locations are available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029 and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeardTongue.php by clicking
Recent Actions & Links at the bottom of the page. We request public
comments on these data and how they should be considered for the
designation of critical habitat, and how this information might impact
our assessment of the species' status under the Act.
New Monitoring Information
Since the publication of our 2013 proposed rules, we have received
additional population monitoring information for Graham's beardtongue
and White River beardtongue in Utah and Colorado, and genetic studies
of White River beardtongue. In addition, we convened an expert panel to
discuss the amount of variation found in Graham's beardtongue and White
River beardtongue genetics and morphology across their ranges.
Population trends for Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue
are relatively stable to increasing at all monitoring locations with
episodic recruitment offsetting declines due to herbivory (Reisor and
McDonough 2014, pp. 22, 33; Pavlik et al. 2015, pp. 1-2; Conservation
Team 2018, pp. 99-105; Dawson 2018, p. 3; Krening 2018a, pp. 1, 5; and
Krening 2018b, p. 2). Long-term monitoring results provide additional
confirmation that Graham's beardtongue plants remain dormant and below
ground in years of adverse environmental conditions (Krening 2018a, p.
5; Dawson 2019, p. 1).
We are also aware that preliminary evaluations of the effect of
disturbance from development on seed set and pollinator visitation are
under way. Preliminary results are not conclusive (Barlow and Pavlik
2018, pp. 2-3; Conservation Team 2018, Appendix E).
Genetic studies of White River beardtongue have resolved our
understanding of the species' range and extent, thus eliminating the
uncertainty associated with the unverified element occurrences we
referenced in our 2013 proposed rules (Stevens and Johnson 2016,
entire; Rodriguez et al. 2018, entire). One remaining area of
uncertainty regarding taxonomy is whether to elevate White River
beardtongue to a species-level rank of Penstemon albifluvis. White
River
[[Page 48093]]
beardtongue is currently considered a subspecies (Penstemon scariosus
var. albifluvis). Regardless, we consider it to be a listable entity.
We held a meeting on June 2, 2017, with an expert panel to review and
discuss the new genetic results and other pertinent information
regarding the range of variation found in Graham's beardtongue and
White River beardtongue. The additional population monitoring, genetic
studies, and expert panel information are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029 and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeardTongue.php by
clicking Recent Actions & Links at the bottom of the page. We request
public comment on these data and how they might impact our assessment
of the species' status under the Act.
2014 Conservation Agreement and 2018 Addendum
We and the other parties to the conservation agreement finalized
the 2014 CA on July 22, 2014. The 2014 CA is similar to the draft
conservation agreement provided during the previous reopened public
comment period for our 2013 proposed rules (79 FR 25806), and is
described in our 2014 withdrawal. We and the other parties to the 2014
CA signed an addendum to the agreement in November and December 2018.
In the 2018 addendum, the Federal, State, and county parties agreed
to a 5-year extension of the 2014 CA until July 25, 2034. The private
parties in Utah will be released from the 2014 CA when the original
term ends and when the Uinta County Ordinance (No. 7-16-2018 01)
expires on July 25, 2029. Afterwards, private parties may voluntarily
submit land to be incorporated as a conservation area under the 2014
CA.
The 2018 addendum includes a new commitment for our agency to
complete an assessment of the species' status on or around December 31,
2028, for Graham's beardtongue and White River beardtongue, prior to
the release of private parties in Utah from the 2014 CA. The purpose of
this future assessment will be to characterize Graham's and White River
beardtongues' biological condition and viability within their
respective ranges at that time. The assessment will likely include a
projection of the beardtongues' future condition based on plausible
scenario(s) and will characterize the uncertainty related to stressors
and scenario(s).
The 2018 addendum also includes a new commitment for the parties to
complete a summary report every 5 years. Summary reports will provide a
comprehensive review of conservation efforts and research performed
under the 2014 CA, as well as the status of the beardtongues and
habitat conditions within conservation areas. The summary reports are
intended to inform our 2028 species status assessment for the
beardtongues and will also inform the parties of any conservation
actions that would be beneficial to the species and could be
implemented prior to the ending of the 2014 CA. The 2014 CA and the
2018 addendum are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029 and at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeardTongue.php by clicking Recent Actions & Links
at the bottom of the page. We request public comment on this
information and how it might impact our assessment of the two species'
status under the Act.
2014 Conservation Agreement Conservation Area Modifications
Under section 6.2 of the 2014 CA, parties are required to review
existing conservation area boundaries and discuss proposed
modifications to these boundaries. The parties started their review on
November 2, 2017, and finalized their modification of conservation area
boundaries on November 20, 2018. The conservation boundary modification
process included a review of new survey information, prioritization of
conservation areas based on biological factors, and boundary
adjustments that reflected priority areas. The parties approved the
inclusion of an additional 947 ha (2,339 ac) as new designated
conservation areas for White River beardtongue habitat on BLM and SITLA
lands. The parties also approved the removal of 46 ha (115 ac) from
existing conservation areas. These areas were removed due to errors in
the original Geographic Information System analysis, analyses that
showed they contained lower value areas without plants, and existing
development. The conservation area modification document is available
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0029 and
at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeardTongue.php by clicking Recent Actions & Links
at the bottom of the page. We request public comment on this
information and how it might impact our assessment of the two species'
status under the Act.
Information Requested
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed rule to list Graham's
beardtongue and White River beardtongue as threatened species that was
published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47590), and
on our proposed rule to designate critical habitat for both species (78
FR 47832, August 6, 2013). We will also accept written comments and
information regarding the new information described above, including
new survey and monitoring information that have become available, the
2014 CA and 2018 addendum, and modification of conservation areas under
the 2014 CA. We will consider information and recommendations from all
interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
and
(d) Historical, current, and projected population levels and
trends.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their
habitats, or both.
(6) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
(7) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species and ongoing conservation measures for these species and
their habitats.
[[Page 48094]]
(8) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(9) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Graham's beardtongue and White
River beardtongue occupied and suitable habitat;
(b) Areas that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species that should be included in the designation
and why;
(c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why;
(d) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(e) Where the ``physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,'' features are currently found;
(f) Information indicating how these species respond to natural and
anthropogenic disturbances; and
(g) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change.
(10) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(11) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Graham's and White River beardtongues and proposed
critical habitat.
(12) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small
entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(13) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(15) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(16) Whether the 2014 CA, including the 2018 addendum and
conservation area modifications, provides sufficient conservation
measures to reduce threats to one or both species.
As indicated under SUMMARY, above, if you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rules (78 FR 47590 and 78 FR 47832) during
the initial comment periods from August 6, 2013, to October 7, 2013, or
from May 6, 2014, to July 7, 2014, please do not resubmit them. Any
such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of this
rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the
preparation of our final determination. Our final determination will
take into consideration all written comments and any additional
information we receive during all comment periods. The final decision
may differ from the proposed rule, based on our review of all
information received during this rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rules and other new information described above by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the
methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available
for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2019-0029 and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grahamsAndWhiteRiverBeardTongue.php by clicking Recent Actions &
Links at the bottom of the page, and upon request from the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Mountain Prairie Regional Office and Utah Ecological Services Field
Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 22, 2019.
Margaret Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-19768 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
