[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3029-3044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0001; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AU67


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 
Erigeron maguirei (Maguire Daisy) From the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants; Availability of Final Post-Delisting Monitoring 
Plan

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service/USFWS), are 
removing the plant Erigeron maguirei (commonly referred to as Maguire 
daisy) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The best 
scientific and commercial data available indicate that this species has 
recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 
Our review of the status of this species shows that populations are 
stable, threats are addressed, and adequate regulatory mechanisms are 
in place so that the species is not currently, and is not likely to 
again become, an endangered species within the foreseeable future in 
all or a significant portion of its range. Finally, we announce the 
availability of the final post-delisting monitoring plan for Maguire 
daisy.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on February 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final post-delisting monitoring plan are 
available by request from the Utah Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/
species/plants/

[[Page 3030]]

maguiredaisy/or at: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, 
West Valley City, UT 84119 (telephone 801/975-3330; facsimile 801/975-
3331). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339, 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Action

    Section 12 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directed the 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those 
plants considered endangered, threatened, or extinct. On July 1, 1975, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27824) accepting 
the Smithsonian report as a petition to list taxa named therein under 
section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the ESA and announced our 
intention to review the status of those plants. Erigeron maguirei was 
included in that report (40 FR 27824, July 1, 1975). Maguire daisy is 
the common name for E. maguirei; however, we will primarily use the 
scientific name of this species throughout this rule.
    On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (41 FR 24524) to designate approximately 1,700 vascular plant 
species, including Erigeron maguirei, as endangered under section 4 of 
the ESA. The 1978 amendments to the ESA required that all proposals 
over 2 years old be withdrawn. On December 10, 1979, we published a 
notice of withdrawal (44 FR 70796) of that portion of the June 16, 
1976, proposal that had not been made final, which included the 
endangered status determination for E. maguirei.
    On December 15, 1980, we published in the Federal Register a 
revised notice of review for native plants that designated  Erigeron 
maguirei as a candidate species (45 FR 82480). Section 4(b)(3)(B) of 
the ESA requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial 
scientific or commercial information that listing the species may be 
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of 
the petition. In addition, section 2(b)(1) of the Public Law 97-304 
(the 1982 amendments to the ESA) required that all petitions pending as 
of October 13, 1982, be treated as if newly submitted on that date. 
Since the 1975 Smithsonian report was accepted as a petition, all the 
taxa contained in those notices, including E. maguirei, were treated as 
being newly petitioned as of October 13, 1982. On October 13, 1983, we 
made a 12-month finding that the petition to list E. maguirei var. 
maguirei was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions to 
amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 
Notification of this finding was published in the Federal Register on 
November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640).
    On July 27, 1984, we published a proposed rule to designate 
Erigeron maguirei var. maguirei as an endangered species (49 FR 30211). 
The final rule designating the variety of the species as endangered was 
published on September 5, 1985 (50 FR 36089).
    In 1983, Erigeron maguirei var. harrisonii was described as a 
separate variety of E. maguirei. On September 27, 1985, we published a 
notice of review for plants which added E. maguirei var. harrisonii as 
a candidate species (50 FR 39526). E. maguirei var. harrisonii remained 
as a candidate through the revised plant notice of review published on 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144).
    On September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46219), we proposed to accept a 
taxonomic revision that combined two varieties, Erigeron maguirei var. 
maguirei and E. maguirei var. harrisonii, into one species, E. 
maguirei. The taxonomic revision was based on new genetic information 
(Van Buren 1993, p. 1; Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 1). Due in part to 
the taxonomic revision, we also proposed reclassifying E. maguirei from 
endangered to threatened because the population numbers and 
distribution range of the newly described species, E. maguirei, were 
larger than either of the two varieties. The taxonomic revision and 
reclassification of E. maguirei was finalized on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 
31054).
    On May 16, 2008, we published a proposed rule to remove Erigeron 
maguirei from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, provided 
notice of the availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan, 
and opened a 60-day public comment period (73 FR 28410). On May 19, 
2008, we finalized a 5-year review, initiated on April 7, 2006 (71 FR 
17900), which confirmed that the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicated that this species has recovered and no longer meets 
the definition of endangered or threatened under the ESA.

Species Information

    A member of the sunflower family, Erigeron maguirei is a perennial 
herb with a branched woody base. Its stems are decumbent (lying on the 
ground with the tip ascending) to sprawling or erect. Its basal leaves 
are spatulate-shaped to oblanceolate (the shape of the leaf is longer 
than it is wide with the broadest portion of the leaf at the tip and 
narrower at the base). Its leaves and stems are covered with abundant 
stiff, coarse, white hairs. Bits of sand commonly cling to the hairs of 
the leaves and stems. Its flowers are dime-sized with white or pinkish-
white petals. The species is further described in our June 19, 1996, 
final rule reclassifying the species as threatened (61 FR 31054).
    The range of the species is estimated at 390 square miles (1,010 
square kilometers) and extends from the San Rafael Swell south through 
the Waterpocket Fold of Capitol Reef National Park (see Figure 1) (Heil 
1987, p. 5; 1989, p. 23; Kass 1990, p. 23; Harper and Van Buren 1998, 
pp. 1-2; Clark 2001, p. 2; 2002, p. 12; Clark et al. 2005, pp. 7-8; 
Clark et al. 2006, pp. 7-8).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 3031]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.046

    Erigeron maguirei occurs from 5,200 to 8,600 feet (1,585 to 2,621 
meters) in elevation (Clark et al. 2006, pp. 9-11). The highest plant 
densities occur on mesa tops between 6,000 and 7,000 feet (1,829 and 
2,134 meters) in elevation

[[Page 3032]]

(Kass 1990, p. 23; USFWS 1995, p. 2; Clark 2001, p. 3; Clark et al. 
2006, pp. 9-11).
    The distribution of Erigeron maguirei includes 10 populations 
(containing 128 sites) composing 5 meta-populations (Clark et al. 2006, 
p. 8; Ivory 2009a, p. 1; 2009b, p. 1; Clark 2010a, p. 1; Truman 2010, 
p. 1; Robinson 2010, entire), distributed across the species' range 
(see Figure 1 above). Populations are defined as groups of occurrence 
records (sites) located in the same geographic vicinity (Clark 2006b, 
p. 5; Figure 1). Sites are defined as occurrence locations recorded by 
one or more researchers over time within an individual population 
(Clark 2006b, p. 5). Every site is documented by at least one of the 
following: (1) A herbarium collection record; (2) field survey forms 
completed by researchers; or (3) a record from the Utah Natural 
Heritage Program. Meta-populations are comprised of a number of 
individual populations less than 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) apart, 
typically linked by continuous suitable habitat (Clark 2006b, p. 5; 
Clark 2006c). Populations within a meta-population interact at some 
level. For E. maguirei, the interaction may be from pollinators 
traveling between the populations or by wind carrying seeds to other 
populations. Table 1 provides population size estimates, number of 
sites, and land ownership of each population.

                                                    Table 1--Erigeron maguirei population information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Minimum population estimate (number of known sites) per land owner*
             Meta-population                      Population         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          BLM         SITLA         USFS           NPS            Total        Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern San Rafael Swell...............  Calf Canyon**.............      500(10)        87(2)  ...........  ..............         587(12)         0.36
Cottonwood Draw.........................  Sids Hole.................        60(1)  ...........  ...........  ..............           60(1)         0.04
Central San Rafael Swell................  Coal Wash.................       100(6)    ***unkown  ...........  ..............          100(6)         0.06
                                          Secret Mesa...............     9,000(9)     1,000(2)  ...........  ..............      10,000(11)         6.14
                                          Link Flats................       200(4)        50(1)  ...........  ..............          250(5)         0.15
Southern San Rafael Swell...............  John's Hole...............       300(3)    ***unkown  ...........  ..............          300(3)         0.18
                                          Segers Hole...............       100(2)    ***unkown  ...........  ..............          100(2)         0.06
Capitol Reef............................  Deep Creek................  ...........  ...........     1,500(2)     100,000(29)     101,500(31)        62.31
                                          Capitol Reef..............  ...........  ...........  ...........      30,000(15)      30,000(15)        18.42
                                          Waterpocket Fold..........  ...........  ...........  ...........      20,000(42)      20,000(42)        12.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Totals....................   10,260(35)     1,137(5)     1,500(2)     150,000(86)    162,897(128)       100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Percent...................         6.30         0.70         0.92           92.08          100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BLM = Bureau of Land Management; SITLA = State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; USFS = U.S. Department of Agriculture
  Forest Service; NPS = National Park Service.
** The Calf Canyon population is the type locality population.
*** Although suitable habitat exists, these SITLA lands have not been surveyed.

    The three largest Erigeron maguirei populations (Deep Creek, 
Capitol Reef, and Waterpocket Fold) comprise the Capitol Reef meta-
population. Collectively, these three populations contain 93 percent of 
the known plants including ninety-two percent within Capitol Reef 
National Park and 1 percent on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands 
(Fishlake National Forest).
    The other seven populations (Calf Canyon, Sids Hole, Coal Wash, 
Secret Mesa, Link Flats, John's Hole, and Segers Hole) are managed 
primarily by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Portions of three of 
these seven populations (Calf Canyon, Secret Mesa, and Link Flats) 
occur on State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration (SITLA) lands. The Calf Canyon population is the sole 
population in the Northern San Rafael Swell meta-population; the Sids 
Hole population is the sole population in the Cottonwood Draw meta-
population; Coal Wash, Secret Mesa, and Link Flats comprise the Central 
San Rafael Swell meta-population; and John's Hole and Seger's Hole 
populations comprise the Southern San Rafael Swell meta-population.
    Erigeron maguirei occurs primarily on sandstone domes on mesa tops 
and in cracks and crevices of domes and cliffs in the Navajo Sandstone 
formation (Clark et al. 2006, p. 12). It also occurs within steep, 
narrow, dry, rocky, and sandy canyon or wash bottoms (Cronquist 1947, 
p. 165; Anderson 1982, pp. 1-2; Heil 1989, pp. 25-26; Kass 1990, p. 22; 
Harper and Van Buren 1998, p. 1). Populations within canyon bottoms are 
established from seeds dispersed by wind or overland flow from source 
populations on the mesa tops (Heil 1989, p. 25; Kass 1990, p. 27; USFWS 
1995, p. 2). These canyon populations are generally small compared with 
those on the mesa tops (Heil 1989, p. 25; Kass 1990, p. 27; USFWS 1995, 
p. 2).
    Erigeron maguirei grows primarily in the Dwarf Mountain Mahogany 
Slickrock plant community, a community endemic to the Colorado Plateau 
Region (Heil 1989, p. 23; Clark 2001, pp. 15-16; Clark et al. 2006, p. 
15). E. maguirei also is associated with pinyon juniper-tall shrub, 
ponderosa pine-tall shrub slickrock pockets, mesic canyon bottoms, 
mountain shrub, and intermittent riparian communities (Kass 1990, p. 
22; Harper and Van Buren 1998, p. 1; Clark 2002, pp. 15-16; Clark et 
al. 2005, p. 7; Clark et al. 2006, p. 15).
    Flowering occurs from May to June and takes 4 to 6 weeks to go from 
the small green ``button'' bud stage to completion of anthesis, when 
the flower is no longer open and functional (Alston and Tepedino 2005, 
p. 54; Clark et al. 2006, p. 17). It appears that Erigeron maguirei 
lacks self-compatibility, and that pollinators are necessary for cross 
pollination to occur (Alston and Tepedino 2005, p. 61). Because of the 
open nature of the flower head, E. maguirei is visited by opportunistic 
insects searching for nectar (Alston and Tepedino 2005, p. 60). 
Pollinators include various flies, wasps, and bees (Alston and Tepedino 
2005, p. 60).
    The species is long-lived, has a low mortality rate, and has the 
ability to replace individuals at a rate that compensates for mortality 
(Van Buren and Harper 2002, pp. 2-5). Populations are stable (Van Buren 
and Harper 2002, p. 2).

[[Page 3033]]

Recovery

    Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead 
intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners 
on methods to minimize threats to listed species, establish goals for 
long-term conservation of listed species, and define criteria that may 
be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many paths to 
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved 
without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria 
may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In 
that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized 
sufficiently and the species is robust enough to reclassify from 
endangered to threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery 
opportunities may be discovered that were not known when the recovery 
plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species 
may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need 
to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a 
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or 
may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    We approved the Maguire Daisy (Erigeron maguirei) Recovery Plan 
(hereafter referred to as the Recovery Plan) on August 15, 1995 (USFWS 
1995, entire). The Recovery Plan outlined three delisting criteria. 
These criteria, and the status of the species relative to these 
criteria, are outlined below.
    Delisting Criterion One: Locate or establish additional 
populations. Maintain 20 populations that have been demonstrated to be 
above minimum viable population levels. Until minimum viable population 
levels are determined, it is assumed that the minimum viable population 
level will be about 500 individuals (USFWS 1995, p. ii). At the time 
the Recovery Plan was written, the species was known from 7 populations 
(32 sites) with a total population of 5,000 individuals (USFWS 1995, p. 
2). To achieve this criterion, the Recovery Plan recommended that land 
managers inventory suitable habitat to determine with a reasonable 
degree of accuracy the species' population and distribution (USFWS 
1995, pp. ii, 6, 7, 12).
    In 1999, the BLM, USFS, and the National Park Service (NPS) entered 
into an interagency agreement to direct conservation measures for 
listed and sensitive plant species endemic to central Utah, including 
Erigeron maguirei (BLM et al. 1999, entire; Clark 2002, p. 3). The 
agencies committed funding to survey and monitor E. maguirei throughout 
its range (Clark 2002, p. 3). From 1999 to 2002, approximately 3,521 
hectares (8,700 acres) were surveyed for E. maguirei on NPS, BLM, and 
USFS lands (Clark and Clark 1999, p. 45; Clark 2002, p. 13).
    The recovery criterion of maintaining 20 viable populations was 
based on our earlier assumption that the species was distributed in a 
scattered, disconnected pattern (Clark 2006c, entire). However, the 
survey efforts identified broader plant distributions and larger 
population sizes that are evenly distributed across the landscape 
(Harper and Van Buren 1998, p. 2; Clark and Clark 1999, p. 47; Clark 
2001, p. 3; 2002, pp. 13-14; Clark et al. 2005, p. 17; Clark et al. 
2006, p. 17).
    We currently know of 10 populations (128 sites) comprising 5 meta-
populations, with a total population of 162,897 Erigeron maguirei 
individuals (see Figure 1 and Table 1 above) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; 
Ivory 2009a, p. 1; 2009b, p. 1; Clark 2010a, p. 1; Robinson 2010, 
entire). As previously described, the range of the species covers 390 
square miles (1,010 square kilometers) and extends from the San Rafael 
Swell south through the Waterpocket Fold of Capitol Reef (see Figure 1 
above) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 17; Clark 2010a, p. 1; Truman 2010, p. 1; 
Robinson 2010, entire). All three E. maguirei populations within the 
Capitol Reef Meta-Population are linked by contiguous suitable habitat 
(Clark et al. 2006, p. 24). A similar situation exists between 
populations in each of the three meta-populations within the San Rafael 
Swell area; suitable habitats are separated by short distances, 
effectively linking populations (Clark et al. 2006, p. 24).
    In 2010, the fifth meta-population (Cottonwood Draw) was discovered 
east of the Central San Rafael Swell meta-population and south of the 
Northern San Rafael Swell population (see Figure 1 above) (Clark 2010a, 
p. 1; Truman 2010, p. 1). The Cottonwood Draw meta-population is 
currently comprised of a single population (Sids Hole). This area was 
discovered through recent implementation of the post-delisting 
monitoring protocol. The area has not been fully surveyed or evaluated 
and may include additional populations or sites, but is generally 
viewed as less ideal for the species with patchy areas of suitable 
habitat that currently appear isolated from other sites or populations. 
While not adding much to the species' overall viability, recent 
discoveries (since the 2008 proposed rule), such as this one, provide 
added support for our conclusion regarding the species' overall status.
    Overall, the available information demonstrates large, sufficiently 
connected, and evenly distributed populations and suitable habitats 
that provide and will continue to provide for the desired long-term 
species' viability intended by the Recovery Plan. In fact, the 10 
populations have more desirable biological attributes than the 
originally suggested 20 populations in the Recovery Plan. For example, 
the recovery goal of 20 populations was based on the assumption that 
the populations were small and widely scattered. The 10 current 
populations are well connected within 5 meta-populations, and these 
meta-populations are distributed throughout the range of the species 
(see Figure 1 and Table 1 above). The habitat is contiguous between 
populations, thereby increasing the species' robustness. Furthermore, 
the Recovery Plan called for 20 populations of 500 individuals. This 
suggests recovery at about 10,000 plants. Today, we know of 162,897 
Erigeron maguirei individuals, far surpassing the implied numeric 
target in the Recovery Plan. In addition, the species' population is 
stable (see Species Information). Therefore, the available data 
demonstrate that the intent of this recovery criterion has been met or 
exceeded.
    Delisting Criteria Two and Three: Establish formal land management 
designations for these populations that provide long-term, undisturbed 
habitat for Maguire daisy (USFWS 1995, p. ii). Ensure that Maguire 
daisy and its habitat are protected from loss of individuals and 
environmental degradation (USFWS 1995, p. ii). To achieve these 
criteria, the Recovery Plan recommended we work with our partners to 
document the presence of, or establish formal land management 
designations that provide for long-term protection for, Maguire daisy 
and its habitat (USFWS 1995, pp. ii, 6, 9, 12).
    Approximately 85 percent of the species' range occurs on Federal 
lands with substantial protective measures in place (see Table 2 and 
Factor D below). For example, the NPS General Management Plan 
designated Primitive and Threshold Management Zones (Capitol Reef 1998, 
pp. 27-31); these land designations afford protection to the three 
largest Erigeron maguirei populations by limiting surface disturbance 
and construction activities. The BLM designated Wilderness Study

[[Page 3034]]

Areas (WSAs), Instant Study Areas (ISA), and Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the approved 2008 Price Field Office 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008c, Maps R-5, R-28, and R-29). 
These land designations afford protection to six E. maguirei 
populations by minimizing habitat degradation and surface disturbances 
from grazing, mining, mineral lease uses, and right-of-way grants (see 
Factor D) (BLM 2008c, pp. 41, 129, 131, and 135-137; BLM 2009, entire; 
Stephens 2009, p. 1). Similarly, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use also is 
effectively managed to minimize disturbances to plants by eliminating 
cross-country travel on USFS and BLM lands (USFS 2006b, pp. 123, 260-
263; 2008, Tile K11; 2009, Map). OHVs are not allowed in Capitol Reef 
National Park, which represents the majority of the species' range (see 
Factor D). More information regarding the protection of E. maguirei 
through land management designations is contained in the Factor D 
discussion of the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.

 Table 2--Percent of Each Erigeron Maguirei Population With Protective Land Management Designations Based on GIS
                                                    Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 % of landowner
                                                     % of range per        Land management        range within
           Population              Land ownership      landowner*           designations           protective
                                                                                                  designations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calf Canyon.....................  BLM.............                70  San Rafael Canyon ACEC,                 97
                                                                       Mexican Mountain WSA,
                                                                       Sids Mountain WSA.
                                  SITLA...........                30  None....................                 0
Sids Hole.......................  BLM.............                **  None....................                 0
Coal Wash.......................  BLM.............                95  I-70 Scenic ACEC, Sids                  96
                                                                       Mountain WSA.
                                  SITLA...........                 5  None....................                 0
Secret Mesa.....................  BLM.............                95  I-70 Scenic ACEC, Devils                88
                                                                       Canyon WSA, Sids
                                                                       Mountain WSA.
                                  SITLA...........                 5  None....................                 0
Link Flats......................  BLM.............                80  Lucky Strike ACEC,                      36
                                                                       Devils Canyon WSA, Link
                                                                       Flats ISA.
                                  SITLA...........                20  None....................                 0
John's Hole.....................  BLM.............                95  Muddy Creek ACEC, Muddy                100
                                                                       Creek WSA.
                                  SITLA...........                 5  None....................                 0
Segers Hole.....................  BLM.............                95  Segers Hole ACEC, Muddy                 79
                                                                       Creek WSA.
                                  SITLA...........                 5  None....................                 0
Deep Creek......................  NPS.............                95  Primitive & Threshold                  100
                                                                       Management Zone.
                                  USFS............                 5  Proposed Botanical Area.               100
Capitol Reef....................  NPS.............               100  Primitive & Threshold                  100
                                                                       Management Zone.
Waterpocket Fold................  NPS.............               100  Primitive & Threshold                  100
                                                                       Management Zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Populations' ranges within BLM lands were provided by Ivory (2006 and 2007) with the exception of Calf Canyon
  and Sids Hole; the remaining populations' ranges were estimated based on GIS analysis.
** Unknown.

    Additionally, the Interagency Rare Plant Team developed the Central 
Utah Navajo Sandstone Endemics Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
(hereafter referred to as the Conservation Strategy) (USFS et al. 2006, 
entire). Although we do not base our delisting decision on the 
existence of the Conservation Strategy, we believe it will provide for 
the continued conservation of the species. The Conservation Strategy, 
signed by the USFS, BLM, NPS, and the Service in September 2006, 
outlines the procedural provisions under which the Federal agencies 
will manage Erigeron maguirei through 2016 (USFS et al. 2006, pp. 24-
25). In addition, the Conservation Strategy documents the conservation 
actions needed to mitigate any potential factors impacting the species 
and to promote the conservation and perpetuation of E. maguirei (USFS 
et al. 2006, pp. 38-47). The Conservation Strategy can be viewed in its 
entirety at: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/plants/maguiredaisy/. Copies also can be obtained from the Utah Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    In summary, Federal land management agencies have worked 
collaboratively to provide for the long-term protection of Erigeron 
maguirei and its habitat. Land management plans, policies, and 
regulations are in place that provide protection to E. maguirei. Based 
on the above, the intent of Criteria 2 and 3 have been met.
    Based on the best available data, we have determined that the 
intent of all three recovery criteria is met.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our proposed rule (73 FR 28410, May 16, 2008), we requested that 
all interested parties submit data, comments, new information, or 
suggestions concerning: (1) Biological information concerning this 
species; (2) Relevant data concerning any current or likely future 
threats (or lack thereof) to this species, including the extent and 
adequacy of Federal and State protection and management that would be 
provided to the Erigeron maguirei as a delisted species; (3) Additional 
information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and 
population trends of this species, including the locations of any 
additional populations of this species; (4) Current or planned 
activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on this 
species; and (5) Our draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We accepted 
comments for 60 days, ending July 15, 2008 (73 FR 28410, May 16, 2008). 
During the comment period, we received two comment letters representing 
three organizations.
    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270) and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) December 
16, 2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, we 
solicited independent opinions from 10 knowledgeable individuals who 
have expertise with the species, who are within the geographic region 
where the species occurs, or who are familiar with the principles of 
conservation biology. We received

[[Page 3035]]

comments from four of the peer reviewers, all of whom are or were 
employed by Federal agencies. Although we solicited non-Federal 
academic peer reviewers, these parties did not respond. Peer reviewers 
provided new information, management guidance recommendations, 
editorial changes, and clarifications to the species' description.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
proposed delisting of Erigeron maguirei. Substantive comments received 
during the comment period are addressed below and, where appropriate, 
incorporated directly into this final rule and the post-delisting 
monitoring plan.
    Issue 1: One commenter expressed concern that SITLA lands are 
managed for minerals, grazing and recreation, and not for conservation 
of Erigeron maguirei. Isolated SITLA parcels are generally managed in 
conjunction with the BLM lands for grazing. These SITLA lands also are 
open for cross-country travel and do not fall into any designated route 
plan.
    Response: Less than 1 percent of the species' plants occur on lands 
owned and managed by SITLA. Therefore, special management designations 
on SITLA lands, such as travel route designations, are not essential 
for the conservation of the species and are not necessary to support 
the delisting of the species.
    Issue 2: One commenter expressed concern with how the post-
delisting monitoring plan for the Maguire daisy characterized the 
status of several of the remote populations. The commenter believed 
that these small remote sites (less than or near 50 plants) would be 
seriously impacted by delisting. The commenter also stated that the 
Calf Canyon population of 50 plants was last visited in 1982, and it is 
unknown if it still exists.
    Response: The draft post-delisting monitoring plan contained 
information regarding a number of monitoring sites within populations. 
We believe that the draft post-delisting monitoring plan was confusing 
with regard to the definitions and use of the terms ``population,'' 
``site,'' and ``element occurrence.'' We have now clarified our 
terminology and have thoroughly reviewed the document to ensure we used 
the terms properly and consistently throughout the final post-delisting 
monitoring plan.
    Even though some sites contain fewer than 50 individuals, we have 
little reason to believe these sites are likely to be seriously 
impacted by delisting. Most of these sites have persisted for long 
periods of time without noteworthy negative changes in status. The 
species is long-lived, has a low mortality rate, and has the ability to 
replace individuals at a rate that compensates for mortality (Van Buren 
and Harper 2002, pp. 2-5). Populations are stable (Van Buren and Harper 
2002, p. 2). Additionally, the species' preferred habitat (cliffs, rock 
crevices, and sandstone domes on mesa tops) is subject to few threats 
(see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below). Collectively this 
suggests these sites are unlikely to be lost.
    Even if some sites do suffer negative effects, many of these sites 
are connected to neighboring sites as part of a larger population and 
meta-population. For example, the Link Flats population is comprised of 
a number of sites totaling approximately 250 individuals and is within 
the San Rafael Swell area, where most suitable habitat occurrences are 
separated by short distances (Clark et al. 2006, p. 24). Meta-
population dynamics indicate that although individual sites may be 
lost, they can be recolonized by seed dispersed from other neighboring 
sites.
    As an added safeguard, land managers plan to carefully monitor one 
site within each population including some small sites (Service 2010, 
pp. 7-10). If impacts are observed, population trend monitoring will be 
expanded to include human impact monitoring (Service 2010, pp. 14-15). 
If a 40 percent or more decline is observed in a 2-year period at any 
of the monitoring plots, cooperators will evaluate possible causes of 
the apparent decline and determine the most appropriate response 
(Service 2010, p. 16). We believe this is sufficient to ensure few, if 
any, sites are at serious risk of extirpation.
    Furthermore, even if we lost some or many of these small sites, we 
do not believe the species would qualify as an endangered species (in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range) or a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). Erigeron maguirei is estimated at 162,897 individuals over a 
range of about 390 square miles (1,010 square kilometers) with 10 
populations (containing 128 sites) composing 5 meta-populations (see 
Figure 1 and Table 1 above) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; Ivory 2009a, p. 
1; 2009b, p. 1). In our view, these large, connected, and evenly 
distributed populations and suitable habitats provide for the species' 
long-term viability. Thus, even in the unlikely event that some or many 
of these small sites were lost, it would not change our determination.
    Regarding the Calf Canyon population, the area was resurveyed in 
2009 and again in 2010. These surveys identified 10 sites with at least 
500 plants total (Ivory 2009a, p. 1; Ivory 2009b, p. 1; Robinson 2010, 
entire). The majority of the plants were located on a mesa top in the 
vicinity of the canyon bottom populations where the species was first 
described. As the final post-delisting monitoring plan was signed prior 
to the majority of these sites being known, we are making a minor 
amendment to the plan to reflect the latest information.
    Issue 3: One commenter recommended including a specific due date 
for the annual post-delisting monitoring report, such as December 1 of 
each year. The commenter further recommended that we provide a brief 
and concise summary to the agencies (NPS, BLM, and the USFS) regarding 
the status and adequacy of the monitoring efforts each year.
    Response: We have incorporated these recommendations into the final 
post-delisting monitoring plan.
    Issue 4: One commenter noted that many of the protections provided 
by ACECs and WSA designations on BLM lands are for the protection and 
management of lands in general and not specifically for Erigeron 
maguirei populations and habitat. These management restrictions would 
be in place whether E. maguirei is listed or not.
    Response: We acknowledge that many land management designations are 
in place for other resources; however, Erigeron maguirei will benefit 
from habitat being protected in these areas. We have incorporated 
language into this final rule to address this comment (see Factor D).
    Issue 5: One commenter believed that the proposed rule did not 
fully recognize tar sands development as a threat to this species and 
does not disclose the number of plants in the Calf Canyon, Secret Mesa, 
and Link Flats areas within designated tar sands areas. The commenter 
expressed concern that delisting the species would open up the area for 
development, and that it appears that we were writing off the 
populations in this area.
    Response: Since the proposed rule was published, the BLM has 
finalized the Record of Decision and Approved RMP, and the Record of 
Decision for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to Address Land Use 
Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2008a, entire; 2008c,

[[Page 3036]]

entire). The final rule fully discloses the percentages of each 
population that are susceptible to tar sands development (Calf Canyon 
(0 percent); Secret Mesa (about 1 percent of the population); and Link 
Flats (almost 37 percent of the population)). The Link Flats population 
contains less than 1 percent of all known individuals of the entire E. 
maguirei population. Although tar sands development will affect 
individuals, the effects are expected to be localized and not reach the 
level that would compromise the species' viability. Tar sands 
development is further addressed under Factor A below.
    Issue 6: One commenter expressed concern with potential loss of 
genetic variation through potential impacts from tar sands development 
in the eastern and northernmost portions of the range.
    Response: The potential for genetic isolation is analyzed in this 
final rule. Based on the close proximity of known populations, 
connecting habitat between most populations, and available genetic 
research, the species is not considered threatened by reduced genetic 
viability. Given the locations of potential development relative to the 
known distribution of Erigeron maguirei populations, we expect impacts 
to the species to be localized and minor (see Factor A discussion 
below).
    Issue 7: One commenter was concerned that the Conservation Strategy 
was relied upon as justification for delisting. The commenter opined 
that the Conservation Strategy is not legally binding and was prepared 
behind closed doors with no public input whatsoever.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the Conservation Strategy 
is not legally binding. Future implementation of conservation actions 
is contingent upon funding availability of each Federal entity. 
However, our decision to remove Erigeron maguirei from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants is not dependent on future actions 
associated with the Conservation Strategy. Our decision to remove E. 
maguirei from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants is based on 
conservation actions already completed, current population levels and 
their management, and our analysis of threats to the species. The 
commenter is correct that public input was not sought in the 
development of the Conservation Strategy; however, public input was not 
required. The Conservation Strategy is a management guidance document 
that was prepared and will be implemented by the involved land 
management agencies. Although public input was not required during 
developing the Conservation Strategy, implementing specific on-the-
ground actions must comply with National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) regulations, which include public 
comment and public disclosure.
    Issue 8: One commenter stated that seven of the nine populations of 
Erigeron maguirei are open to oil and gas development.
    Response: Seven of the 10 populations are open to oil and gas 
leasing (USFS et al. 2006, p. 56). The three largest populations (Deep 
Creek, Capitol Reef, and Waterpocket Fold) on Capitol Reef National 
Park contain 92 percent of the individuals and occur on lands withdrawn 
from all mineral exploration and development activities (see Table 1 
above and Factor D below; USFS et al. 2006, p. 56). Six of the 
remaining seven populations occur predominantly within the Navajo 
Sandstone formation, which has low potential for oil and gas 
development (USFS et al. 2006, pp. 37 and 56); the newest population 
occurs in an area that is atypical, where habitat is disjunct (Clark 
2010a, p. 1). We have concluded that oil and gas development within 
Erigeron maguirei habitat is unlikely due to the low potential 
throughout the majority of the occupied habitats. Factor A presents 
additional analysis of the potential for energy development to affect 
the species.
    Issue 9: One commenter stated that populations within Capitol Reef 
National Park are not necessarily protected because National Parks are 
not wildlife or plant sanctuaries, nor are they managed with objectives 
that are consistent with the protection of rare elements.
    Response: More than 92 percent of the individual plants occur 
within Capitol Reef National Park (see Table 1 above). All Erigeron 
maguirei plants within Capitol Reef National Park are within Capitol 
Reef Primitive and Threshold Management Zones. These land management 
designations will provide protection to the species for the foreseeable 
future. Factor D presents our analysis of how these land management 
designations will specifically afford protection to the species.
    Issue 10: One commenter was concerned that the delisting proposal 
downplays the significance of the effects of human and livestock 
trampling. The commenter believes that Erigeron maguirei should not be 
delisted unless cattle grazing is prohibited in the species' habitat.
    Response: Eight of the 10 Erigeron maguirei populations occur 
within cattle allotments. However, the plants inhabit areas that are 
inaccessible to cattle due to steep terrain. Cattle have trailed 
through one population approximately once every 5 years for the past 
100 years. Although cattle trailing can impact individual plants, the 
population where this activity occurs is stable (Clark et al. 2006, pp. 
21, 25), and its viability is not affected by this level of impact. The 
newest population is near a reservoir used by cattle as a watering 
hole. Although the area experiences impacts from cattle grazing, this 
population is persisting without special management considerations 
affording it protection from grazing activities.
    At the time of downlisting, we stated that livestock trampling was 
known to adversely impact individual plants (61 FR 31054; June 19, 
1996). Livestock trampling negatively impacts individuals of Erigeron 
maguirei growing in accessible wash bottoms. However, the threat to the 
species is low because E. maguirei prefers cliffs and rock crevices 
that are inaccessible to livestock (Clark et al. 2006, p. 21). Due to 
habitat preferences of the species, livestock use is no longer a threat 
(Clark et al. 2006, p. 21).
    The impact of grazing is analyzed in this final rule. The best 
available scientific data indicate that grazing does not pose a threat 
to the species and is unlikely to become a threat in the foreseeable 
future (Clark et al. 2006, p. 21).
    Issue 11: One commenter claimed it is disingenuous to conclude that 
the species is recovered. If the species were to be delisted, it would 
be because of additional information and investigation, not because it 
was recovered.
    Response: We recognize that this delisting is supported by new 
information. However, none of this information would be available had 
it not been due to the recovery efforts of the Interagency Rare Plant 
Team. The Federal partners that make up the Interagency Rare Plant Team 
deserve credit for implementing extensive recovery actions that allow 
us to remove the species from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants. Without these actions, this species would still be listed.
    Also of note, but not critical to our ``delisting due to recovery'' 
determination, only species delisted due to recovery are subject to the 
post-delisting monitoring requirement. We believe such a monitoring 
period is desirable in that it allows us to track any changes in status 
post-delisting and respond accordingly.

[[Page 3037]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    In making this final determination, we have considered all 
scientific and commercial information available, which includes 
information received during our 5-year review (71 FR 17900, April 7, 
2006) and the public comment period on our proposed delisting rule (73 
FR 28410, May 16, 2008); additional survey data collected in 2008, 
2009, and 2010 (Ivory 2008, pp. 1-2; Ivory 2009a, entire; Ivory 2009b, 
entire; Clark 2010a, p. 1; Truman 2010, p. 1; Robinson 2010, entire); 
the final BLM RMP; the Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands RMP Amendments to 
Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; and additional scientific 
information from ongoing species' surveys and studies.
    Section 4 of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or 
removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined by the ESA 
as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 
and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that 
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We may delist a species 
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and 
commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 
the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened (as 
is the case with Erigeron maguirei); or (3) the original scientific 
data used at the time the species was classified were in error.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the ESA's 
definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether a species 
is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of 
threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. For species that are 
already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is 
an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the 
removal or reduction of the ESA's protections.
    A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the ESA if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over which 
events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends 
reasonably extrapolated.
    The following analysis examines the five factors affecting, or 
likely to affect, Erigeron maguirei within the foreseeable future.

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

    When the species was originally listed, the main threat was loss of 
habitat due to mining claims for uranium, energy exploration, and off-
road vehicle (ORV) recreation (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985). We 
address these threats to Erigeron maguirei below.
Mineral Exploration and Development Overview
    Mineral exploration and development were listed as threats in the 
Erigeron maguirei listing rule, the Recovery Plan, and the downlisting 
rule (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 FR 31054, 
June 19, 1996). The original listing (when the population was estimated 
at 7 individuals) and subsequent downlisting (when the population was 
estimated at 3,000 individuals) noted as threats existing uranium 
mining claims, the potential for extraction to begin when market forces 
change, and mining activities and associated surface disturbances that 
could directly or indirectly destroy plants or render the habitat 
unsuitable for the species (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985; 61 FR 
31054, June 19, 1996).
Uranium
    Uranium mining began in the western United States in 1871 (Ringholz 
1994, p. 2). In 1952, the first noteworthy deposits of uranium ore in 
Utah were located (Ringholz 1994, p. 2). By the end of 1962, Utah had 
produced approximately nine million tons of ore (Ringholz 1994, p. 2). 
The Atomic Energy Commission held ample uranium ore reserves by 1970 
and stopped buying uranium (Ringholz 1994, p. 3). When nuclear power 
plants came on-line in the mid-1970s, a brief second uranium boom was 
experienced (Ringholz 1994, p. 3). However, foreign competition, 
Federal regulations, and nuclear fears virtually put an end to domestic 
uranium mining (Ringholz 1994, p. 3). Substantial ore remains deep 
underground in Utah, and should prices rise, mining could be 
resurrected (Ringholz 1994, p. 3). In 2007, uranium prices increased as 
did mining activity (Hargreaves 2007, pp. 1-2).
    Five uranium districts, areas depicting uranium resource 
development potential, overlap Erigeron maguirei populations; three of 
these districts have low potential, and two have moderate potential 
(Gloyn et al. 2005, Map 216; Clark et al. 2006, p. 9). We assume the 
highest potential districts will be developed first, allowing us to 
work proactively with other Federal agencies to minimize threats to the 
species and prevent relisting. A small portion of the Link Flats 
population (9 percent), a small portion of the Coal Wash population (16 
percent), and a large portion (85 percent) of the Segers Hole 
population overlap uranium districts with moderate potential (Gloyn et 
al. 2005, Map 216; Clark et al. 2006, p. 9). Thirteen known uranium 
mineral locations, specific locations where mining claims exist, 
overlap the mapped E. maguirei populations (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; 
Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). Only the Lucky Strike Mine is active 
(Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). This mine occurs along the southern 
edge of the mapped Link Flats population (Central San Rafael Swell 
Meta-Population) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 9; Utah Geological Survey 2007, 
Map). Operation of the mine will not adversely impact this population 
because it is located on the periphery of the population and is 
accessed via an existing road. Of the remaining 12 locations, 7 
locations never produced uranium, and 5 locations only reached small 
production levels (Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). Eleven of these 
locations occur on the periphery of the mapped E. maguirei populations 
(Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). The only 
location that occurs within a mapped population is within the Calf 
Canyon population (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; Utah Geological Survey 
2007, Map). Recent surveys extended the population to encapsulate the 
area around the mining location (Robinson 2010, p. 7); we were 
previously unaware of plants occurring in this area.
    Uranium is restricted to geologic formations such as the Moss Back 
Member, Monitor Butte Member, and the Mottled Siltstone Unit of the 
Chinle Formation. Erigeron maguirei does not occur in these formations 
(Clark et al. 2006, p. 20). In addition, most of the E. maguirei 
individuals occur on lands managed by Capitol Reef National Park (92 
percent) which are withdrawn from mining exploration and development 
activities (see Factor D) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 21; USFS et al. 2006, 
p. 56). In addition, historic mining activities proved there was not 
enough ore within Capitol Reef National Park to be worth

[[Page 3038]]

mining (NPS 2009, p. 2). If uranium mining were to have any impact on 
E. maguirei, impacts would likely be limited to those associated with 
the access routes to the desired geologic formation (Clark et al. 2006, 
p. 20; Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). Existing roads would likely 
be utilized. The most substantial affects of such use would be impacts 
to pollinators and impacts from road dust. We believe such impacts, if 
they occurred at all, would likely occur along the periphery of 
existing populations, would impact only small portions of known 
populations and, overall, would not likely impacts on the viability of 
individual populations or the species. Based on the locations of past 
exploration, the geologic distribution of uranium, and the limited 
overlap with the habitat requirements of E. maguirei, we do not foresee 
substantial future impacts from uranium mining to E. maguirei.
Gypsum
    We did not previously identify gypsum mining as a threat to the 
species. Only the Deep Creek population in Capitol Reef National Park 
has a known gypsum occurrence (Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). 
However, lands within Capitol Reef National Park are permanently 
withdrawn from mining exploration and development activities (see 
Factor D) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 21; USFS et al. 2006, p. 56). In 
addition, this gypsum occurrence is located on the periphery of the 
mapped Erigeron maguirei population and within the Primitive Management 
Zone (Capitol Reef 1998, p. 27; Utah Geological Survey 2007, Map). 
Travel through this Management Zone is limited to cross-country hiking 
or horseback riding on unimproved trails and routes (Capitol Reef 1998, 
pp. 27-29). Based on the lack of gypsum mining occurring in the range 
of the species, coupled with the land management designations in place 
affording protection to the species, we do not foresee gypsum mining 
adversely affecting the species in the foreseeable future.
Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development
    Oil shale and tar sands development is not a threat to the species 
(USFS et al. 2006, p. 37). The most geologically prospective oil shale 
resources do not occur within the range of Erigeron maguirei (Clark et 
al. 2006, p. 9; BLM 2008a, p. 11). The most geologically prospective 
oil shale resources occur in the Uinta Basin of Utah, a distance of 
approximately 60 air miles (97 kilometers) from the closest population, 
Calf Canyon (Clark et al. 2006, p. 9; BLM 2008a, p. 11). Thus, we do 
not consider oil shale development a threat to the species. The rest of 
this section will focus on tar sands resources within the range of the 
species.
    There are 11 Special Tar Sand Areas in Utah (45 FR 76800, November 
20, 1980; 46 FR 6077, January 21, 1981; BLM 2008a, p. 23). Of these, 
only the San Rafael Swell Special Tar Sands Area occurs within the 
range of Erigeron maguirei (Clark et al. 2006, p. 9; BLM 2008b, p. 2-
49).
    Typically, strip mining is the most efficient method of tar sands 
extraction, but other approaches include the injection of steam or 
solvents to reduce the oil's viscosity and allow the oil to be pumped 
out of the well. Erigeron maguirei could be impacted as a result of 
vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, alteration of topography, 
changes in drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation from runoff, oil 
and contaminant spills, fugitive dust, injury or mortality of 
individual plants, human collection, increased human access, spread of 
invasive plant species, and air pollution (BLM 2008b, pp. 5-62, 5-84, 
5-85, 5-98). In addition, we believe the loss and fragmentation of 
habitat due to the development of tar sands may negatively impact 
pollinator species.
    Portions of the Erigeron maguirei mapped populations of Calf 
Canyon, Sids Hole, Secret Mesa, and Link Flats occur within the San 
Rafael Swell Special Tar Sand Area (Clark et al. 2006, p. 9; BLM 2008b, 
p. 2-49; BLM 2008d, Map R-23). However, less than 2 percent of the 
entire species' mapped population areas overlaps lands available for 
leasing for commercial tar sands development (Clark et al. 2006, p. 9; 
BLM 2008a, entire; 2008b, p. 2-49). In addition, a substantial amount 
of suitable habitat for the species occurs throughout the three San 
Rafael Swell meta-populations that has not been surveyed and may be 
occupied by E. maguirei, or may provide additional linkage habitats 
within these meta-populations (Clark et al. 2006, p. 24). Overall, we 
do not believe that the possible loss or degradation of the small 
amount of occupied (less than 2 percent) or other suitable habitat 
would negatively impact the viability of the species.
    In summary, we do not anticipate tar sands development to be a 
threat to Erigeron maguirei in the foreseeable future. There is little 
overlap between leasable lands and the species' distribution. Based on 
the small amount of area within the species' range (less than 2 
percent) that are available for leasing for commercial tar sands 
development, we do not anticipate that tar sands development will 
impact the species as a whole in the foreseeable future.
Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
    Oil and gas exploration and development were identified as threats 
in the Erigeron maguirei listing rule, the Recovery Plan, and the 
downlisting rule (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 
FR 31054, June 19, 1996). Oil and gas development includes exploration, 
drilling, production, and reclamation phases (Tribal Energy and 
Environmental Information Clearinghouse 2010, entire). Surface 
disturbance may occur throughout all phases of oil and gas development 
(Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse 2010, 
entire). Impacts to plant species from surface disturbance may include 
the direct effects of crushing and reduction in seed bank. Indirect 
effects to plant species include increased dust and airborne 
particulates (well pad and road construction), increased habitat 
fragmentation, changes in pollinator-plant interactions, and increased 
invasive species composition within and adjacent to suitable habitats.
    Lands within Capitol Reef National Park are withdrawn from oil and 
gas exploration and development (see Factor D) (USFS et al. 2006, p. 
56). The surrounding BLM and USFS lands are open to oil and gas 
leasing, but the potential for oil and gas is low in the Navajo 
Sandstone formation where Erigeron maguirei occurs (USFS et al. 2006, 
p. 34).
    Oil and gas leases that were issued prior to the 2008 BLM Price 
Field Office RMP are managed under stipulations that were in effect 
when the leases were issued (BLM 2008c, pp. 24, 170). Leases issued 
after the RMP was signed will have the appropriate oil and gas lease 
stipulations and best management practices applied to prevent, 
minimize, or mitigate resource impacts (BLM 2008c, pp. 31, 40-42, 128, 
Appendix R-3, Appendix R-14, Map R-8).
    On BLM-administered lands, portions of Erigeron maguirei 
populations occur within the San Rafael Canyon, Interstate 70, Muddy 
Creek, and Segers Hole ACECs (see Table 2 above) (Clark et al. 2006, 
pp. 9-11; BLM 2008d, Map R-29). All of these ACECs are open to leasing 
subject to ``no surface occupancy'' constraints (BLM 2008c, pp. 135-
137). Leasing with ``no surface occupancy'' means that there will be no 
development or disturbance whatsoever of the land surface, including 
establishment of wells or well pads, and

[[Page 3039]]

construction of roads, pipelines, or powerlines. There are no 
exceptions to the ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation within these 
ACECs (BLM 2008c, Appendix R-3, pp. 1-4). The WSAs with E. maguirei 
populations, including the Sids Mountain, Devils Canyon, and Muddy 
Creek WSAs, are unavailable to leasing with the exception of mineral 
lease uses that existed before or on October 21, 1976; however, there 
are no active leases within these populations in these WSAs (BLM 2008c, 
pp. 41, 129, and 131; 2009, entire; Stephens 2009, entire).
    While limited exploration has occurred, no known oil or gas fields 
exist within the known Erigeron maguirei populations, and the potential 
for development is low (Automated Geographic Reference Center 2001, 
database; Clark et al. 2006, p. 21; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and 
Mining 2006b, Map; USFS et al. 2006, p. 34). The only gas field in the 
vicinity of E. maguirei is the Last Chance Gas Field located 
approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) west of the Segers Hole 
population and 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the Deep Creek 
population (Automated Geographic Reference Center 2001, database; 
Chidsey et al. 2005, Map 203DM; Clark et al. 2006, p. 16; Utah Division 
of Oil, Gas, and Mining 2006b, Map). Seven exploratory wells were sited 
within the mapped E. maguirei Secret Mesa and Coal Wash populations, 
but all of the wells have been plugged and abandoned (Clark et al. 
2006, p. 9; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 2006a, database).
    Based on the lack of supporting evidence of viable oil and gas 
fields within the vicinity of Erigeron maguirei and the land management 
designations that afford protections to the species, oil and gas 
exploration and development is no longer a threat within the 
foreseeable future.
Recreational Use
    Recreational use, including ORVs and human foot traffic, was 
previously identified as a threat to the species (50 FR 36089, 
September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 FR 31054, June 19, 1996). At 
the time of listing, the species was thought to occur primarily in 
canyon bottoms and was estimated to have a population of seven 
individuals (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985). At the time of 
downlisting, recreation was still a concern due to overall limited 
abundance (an estimated 3,000 individual plants) (61 FR 31054, June 19, 
1996).
    Potential impacts from recreational use include trampling and 
crushing of plants, soil compaction, introduction of exotic species, 
increased erosion, and increased dust deposition on plants. However, 
Erigeron maguirei is not prone to human recreational disturbance 
because it grows primarily in cliff crevices and on the sandstone domes 
on mesa tops (Clark 2002, p. 16). Of 60 E. maguirei sites in Capitol 
Reef evaluated for signs of human impacts (Clark 2002, pp. 12-16), only 
2 showed signs of human impacts (in both cases foot traffic was 
observed at the site) (Clark 2002, pp. 12-16).
    More than 92 percent of known Erigeron maguirei individuals occur 
in Capitol Reef National Park, which is closed to ORV use (Clark et al. 
2006, p. 16). The Fishlake National Forest prohibits cross-country 
vehicle travel forest-wide (USFS 2006b, p. 263; 2009, p. 2). E. 
maguirei habitat does not occur within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) of 
classified or potentially designated motorized routes on Fishlake 
National Forest lands (USFS 2006b, pp. 123, 260-263).
    Only 6 percent of all known Erigeron maguirei plants occur on lands 
administered by the BLM. Of these, approximately 89 percent of the 
mapped population occurs within an ACEC, WSA, or ISA (Kass 1990, p. 23; 
Clark et al. 2006, p. 18; Ivory 2006; BLM 2008d, Map R-29; Robinson 
2010, entire) (see Table 2 above). The ISAs are managed the same as 
WSAs (see discussion under Factor D below) (BLM 1995, p. 1). The ACECs, 
ISAs, and WSAs that contain E. maguirei are either closed to motorized 
vehicles or use is limited to designated roads and trails (Clark et al. 
2006, p. 20; BLM 2008c, pp. 132, 135-139, Map R-17).
    In summary, we do not believe that recreational use is a threat to 
the species. The plant's preferred habitat of cliff crevices and domes 
naturally separates it from most human use areas. In addition, ORV 
restrictions across much of the species' range reduce the potential for 
recreational vehicles to impact plants.
    Summary of Factor A: Mineral exploration and development and 
recreational use were listed as threats to Erigeron maguirei in the 
species' listing rule, the Recovery Plan, and the downlisting rule (50 
FR 36089, September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 FR 31054, June 19, 
1996). The species occurs predominantly within the Navajo Sandstone 
formation, which has low potential for oil and gas development and 
uranium mining (USFS et al. 2006, p. 37). Most mineral resources (like 
gypsum, tar sands, and oil shale) occur on the periphery of mapped E. 
maguirei populations and, therefore, are not likely to meaningfully 
impact any of the populations.
    Recreational use, particularly hiking and motorized vehicle use, 
occurs throughout the species' range. However, land management 
protections are in place throughout most of the species' range, with 
the primary result of restricting vehicle use to designated roads and 
trails, thus minimizing impacts to the plants and their habitat. In 
addition, we now know (see Species Information) that Erigeron maguirei 
grows primarily in crevices and on domes, away from the majority of 
recreational traffic.
    While potential impacts to individuals could occur when either 
accessing the mineral resources or during recreational use, these 
activities are considered unlikely to materialize in a meaningful way 
in the foreseeable future, would be limited to small periphery portions 
of populations, and therefore would not reduce the long-term viability 
of any of the populations. In addition, land management designations, 
which have been discussed briefly in this section and will be discussed 
later under Factor D, will continue to provide protections for Erigeron 
maguirei and its habitat in the foreseeable future.

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

    Erigeron maguirei is not a highly collected or sought after 
species. We know of only one group that propagated E. maguirei for 
private use by rock garden enthusiasts (USFS et al. 2006, p. 35; Clark 
2007, p. 1), but this group is no longer offering plants for sale 
(Megown 2007, p. 1). Unauthorized plant and seed collection has not 
been documented for this species (USFS et al. 2006, p. 35). We do not 
believe overutilization is a current or foreseeable threat to the 
species.

C. Disease or Predation

    No diseases are known to impact Erigeron maguirei. Therefore, 
disease is not a current or foreseeable threat to the species.
    At the time of listing, we believed that predation due to cattle 
grazing (or herbivory) had reduced the species' distribution (50 FR 
36089, September 5, 1985; 61 FR 31054, June 19, 1996; Harper and Van 
Buren 1998, p. 2). At that time, only a few Erigeron maguirei were 
known to occur at the upper ends of canyons on sandstone ledges or 
among boulders. Because the species had historically been documented in 
canyon bottoms, the plants found on ledges and boulders were thought to 
be

[[Page 3040]]

remnants within marginal habitats. It was thought that grazing in the 
canyon bottoms had reduced the distribution of the plant to these 
marginal habitats (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985).
    However, we now know that Erigeron maguirei plants are much more 
widely distributed (see Species Information). Preferred habitat 
includes cliffs, rock crevices, and sandstone domes on mesa tops that 
are inaccessible to livestock (Kass 1990, p. 27; USFWS 1995, p. 2; 
Clark 2001, p. 15; Clark et al. 2005, pp. 12, 22, 24; Clark et al. 
2006, pp. 21-22; USFS et al. 2006, p. 56).
    The majority of Erigeron maguirei populations are thus relatively 
secure from predation by livestock grazing due to their known habitat 
preferences (Kass 1990, p. 28; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 FR 31054, June 19, 
1996). Although 8 of the 10 E. maguirei populations occur within cattle 
allotments, 7 of these populations are inaccessible to cattle grazing 
due to terrain conditions (USFS et al. 2006, p. 56). The eighth 
population is the newly discovered population at Sids Hole. Cattle use 
a nearby reservoir as a watering hole. Although the area experiences 
impacts from cattle grazing, this population is persisting without 
special management considerations that afford it protection from 
grazing activities. Of the two populations that are not within an 
allotment, the Waterpocket Fold population in Capitol Reef, estimated 
at approximately 20,000 individuals on 42 sites, has a history of 
cattle trailing (USFS et al. 2006, p. 56). Cattle trailing, or moving 
cattle through the area, occurred at this site about once every 5 years 
for the past 100 years (Clark et al. 2006, pp. 21, 25). Cattle trailing 
has impacted, and is expected to continue to impact, only a few 
individual plants (Clark et al. 2006, pp. 21, 25); however, those 
impacts are not at a level that effects the species' viability.
    In summary, grazing is no longer a threat to the species, nor is it 
likely to become one within the foreseeable future. The species has a 
much broader distribution than originally thought, and the plant 
prefers cliffs, crevices, and sandstone domes on mesa tops that are 
generally inaccessible to livestock.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Prior to the species' 1985 listing, no Federal or State laws 
protected Erigeron maguirei (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985), and its 
known distribution was limited to Calf Canyon, Utah, and its two side 
canyons. As previously described, implementation of specific recovery 
actions and surveys have resulted in and documented many more E. 
maguirei individuals, sites, and populations than were previously 
known. Substantial land management protections are in place across the 
vast majority of the species' range.
    Over 99 percent of known Erigeron maguirei plants occur on Federal 
lands managed by Capitol Reef National Park (more than 92 percent), BLM 
Price Field Office (6 percent), and Fishlake National Forest (1 
percent) (see Table 1 above) (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16). All three of 
these agencies have land management designations in place that afford 
the species protection. Less than 1 percent of the known population 
occurs on lands administered by SITLA, where no protections for E. 
maguirei exist (Clark et al. 2006, p. 16).
    National Parks are administered under the provisions of the Organic 
Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, and 4), as amended and supplemented. 
The Organic Act specifies that the NPS will ``promote and regulate the 
use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and 
reservations * * * which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the 
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide 
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
    As discussed above under Factor A, mineral exploration and 
development, recreational use, and grazing were listed as threats in 
the Erigeron maguirei listing rule, the Recovery Plan, and the 
downlisting rule (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 61 
FR 31054, June 19, 1996). Capitol Reef National Park, which contains 
more than 92 percent of the Erigeron maguirei individuals, has land 
management policies in place that afford protection to the species. The 
1976 Mining in the Parks Act (16 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and the 
Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) provided 
tools for parks to remove and prevent mining and drilling ventures (NPS 
2002, p. 14). All mining claims within Capitol Reef National Park were 
either declared invalid or were nullified by 1986 (NPS 2002, p. 2). By 
the end of the 1980s, oil and gas leases were also either eliminated or 
suspended (NPS 2002, p. 2). All national parks are now closed to new 
federal mineral leasing (NPS 2006, p. 118). Capitol Reef's 1998 Final 
General Management Plan Development Concept Plan designates Primitive 
and Threshold Management Zones within the Park (Capitol Reef 1998, pp. 
27-31). All Capitol Reef E. maguirei sites are located within these 
Management Zones (Clark 2006a, entire). No off-road or off-trail 
recreational use is allowed within the Park within these zones. In 
addition, grazing is not allowed within either of these zones (Capitol 
Reef 1998, pp. 28-31). In order for Capitol Reef National Park lands to 
be made available for activities that were removed (i.e., mining and 
grazing), Congress would have to change the laws which currently govern 
Capitol Reef National Park.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 
et seq.) is the primary Federal law governing most land uses on BLM 
lands. Section 102(a)(8) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
states public lands will be managed, in part, to provide protection to 
ecological and environmental resources. The BLM Manual 6840 directs BLM 
to manage habitat for sensitive species in a manner that will ensure 
that all actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not 
contribute to the need for the species to become listed (BLM 2008c, p. 
80). Typically, this means the impacts to these species are considered 
during project planning stages and conservation measures may be 
included at the discretion of agency biologists.
    The BLM's RMPs are the basis for all of its actions and 
authorizations involving BLM-administered lands and resources. The RMPs 
establish allowable resource uses, general management practices, 
program constraints, and other parameters of project design (43 CFR 
1601.0-5(n)). These plans provide a framework and programmatic guidance 
for site-specific activity plans. The approved RMP also incorporates 
resource protection measures and recommended ``Best Management 
Practices'' to maintain, protect, and enhance habitats that will 
support a diversity of non-listed sensitive fish, wildlife, and plant 
species (BLM 2008c, p. 34). These measures vary between State and field 
offices.
    The BLM Price Field Office RMP was approved in October 2008 (BLM 
2008c). Erigeron maguirei is provided protection from mineral 
exploration and development, and recreational use, through land use 
planning decisions in this RMP (BLM 2008c). A total of 6 percent of all 
E. maguirei populations occur on BLM lands. Of these, approximately 89 
percent are within WSAs, ISAs, and/or ACECs (see Table 2 above) (Kass 
1990, p. 23; Clark et al. 2005, pp. 16 and 19; Ivory 2006, entire; 
2007, entire; BLM 2008d, Map R-28).
    On BLM lands, WSAs are managed according to the Interim Management 
Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995, entire; BLM 1976,

[[Page 3041]]

entire) until Congress either designates them into the National 
Wilderness Preservation System or releases them from wilderness study 
for other purposes (BLM 1976, p. 1; 2008c, p. 131). The WSAs must be 
managed so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as 
wilderness (BLM 1976, p. 2). The WSAs are unavailable to leasing with 
the exception of mineral lease uses that existed before or on October 
21, 1976; however, as discussed under Factor A, there are no active 
leases within these populations in these WSAs (BLM 2008c, pp. 41, 129, 
and 131; 2009, entire; Stephens 2009, entire). With the exception of 
four routes within Sids Mountain WSA, all WSAs are closed to motorized 
travel (BLM 2008c, pp. 22, 132). All E. maguirei individuals and 
habitat within these areas will be afforded protection from 
recreational use.
    Although these ACECs were not identified specifically to protect 
Erigeron maguirei, their associated land use management provides 
indirect protection for the plant. For example, the San Rafael Canyon, 
Interstate 70, and Segers Hole ACECs were designated for their scenic 
values (BLM 2008c, pp. 135, 137, 139); Muddy Creek ACEC was designated 
for cultural, historic, and scenic values (BLM 2008c, p. 136); and the 
Lucky Strike ACEC was designated for its historic value (BLM 2008c, p. 
141). The management prescriptions for each of these ACECs are 
discussed below.
    The ACECs are open to leasing subject to ``no surface occupancy'' 
constraints (BLM 2008c, pp. 135-137). Leasing with ``no surface 
occupancy'' means that there will be no development or disturbance 
whatsoever of the land surface, including establishment of wells or 
well pads, and construction of roads, pipelines, or powerlines. There 
are no exceptions to the ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation within 
these ACECs (BLM 2008c, Appendix R-3, pp. 1-4). The ACECs also are 
either closed to OHV use or OHV use is limited to existing routes and 
trails. Although these ACECs were not specifically designated for 
protecting E. maguirei, the species will be benefited by the 
restrictions on surface disturbances (see discussion under Factor A 
above).
    The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) 
directs national forests to manage habitat to maintain viable 
populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species 
in habitat distributed throughout their geographic range on National 
Forest System lands (USFS 1976, entire). In 1983, the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture Departmental Regulation 9500-4 provided further 
direction to the USFS, expanding the protection requirements of the 
National Forest Management Act to include plant species (USDA 1983, p. 
2).
    Erigeron maguirei was not known to occur on USFS lands in 1986. 
Thus, the existing Fishlake Land Management Plan does not identify E. 
maguirei as occurring within the National Forest (USFS 1986). E. 
maguirei was discovered on USFS lands in 1999 (Clark 2010b, p. 1). Less 
than 1 percent of all known E. maguirei plants occur on USFS lands. 
Approximately 33 percent of the current mapped range of E. maguirei on 
USFS lands is designated as a Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. The Semi-
Primitive Non-Motorized designation means that recreational use is 
limited to non-motorized access, such as hiking or horseback riding. 
This designation, although not specifically designated for protecting 
E. maguirei, will benefit the species by limiting recreational use 
impacts (see discussion under Factor A above). In December 2006, the 
Fishlake National Forest finalized their Off-Highway Vehicle Route 
Designation Project, providing protections for the area in which 
Erigeron maguirei occurs (USFS 2006a). Under this plan, motorized 
routes on Fishlake National Forest lands cannot occur within 0.5 mile 
(0.8 kilometer) of the Deep Creek population (USFS 2006b, pp. 123, 260-
263). The Fishlake National Forest prohibits cross-country vehicle 
travel forest-wide. This prohibition provides protection to E. maguirei 
from recreational use as described above under Factor A (USFS 2006b, p. 
263; 2009, p. 2).
    The portion of the species' range owned by SITLA does not have any 
special management to benefit Erigeron maguirei. The SITLA's mission is 
to administer their land to provide funding for Utah's educational 
system and other State beneficiaries (SITLA 2009, p. 4). They do not 
manage their lands for the conservation benefit of rare species. 
However, less than 1 percent of known E. maguirei plants occur on SITLA 
lands (see Table 2). Known sites on SITLA lands are in suitable 
habitats adjacent to populations on Federal lands and make up a small 
portion of known populations (see Table 2). Therefore, we do not 
believe that the lack of management on SITLA lands is a threat to the 
species.
    Summary of Factor D: We find that regulatory mechanisms related 
specifically to land management are sufficient for avoiding or 
mitigating the few potential factors that could impact Erigeron 
maguirei individuals (population-level impacts are unlikely from any 
factor), as discussed above under Factors A and C. Federal land 
management agencies have worked collaboratively since the species' 
listing to provide for the long-term protection of E. maguirei and its 
habitat. Land management plans, policies, and regulations providing 
protection to E. maguirei include: (1) Capitol Reef Primitive and 
Threshold Management Zones; (2) BLM WSAs, ISAs, and ACECs; and (3) USFS 
Semi-Primitive Non-motorized designation. These land management 
designations have adequately protected E. maguirei individuals and 
habitat in the past, and are expected to continue to do so in the 
foreseeable future, by limiting and eliminating surface disturbing 
activities. While less than 1 percent of the species occurs on private 
land where there are no protections, the species continues to persist 
in those areas. The threat due to inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms is no longer applicable.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

    The 1985 final listing rule postulated that the genetic viability 
of Erigeron maguirei was greatly reduced due to the species' small 
population size, geographic separation, and reproductive isolation (50 
FR 36089, September 5, 1985). The June 19, 1996, final rule 
reclassifying E. maguirei to threatened identified inbreeding and loss 
of genetic variability as potential threats because of the species' 
small, reproductively isolated populations (61 FR 31054, June 19, 
1996).
    As discussed previously, implementation of recovery actions, 
specifically survey efforts, have increased our knowledge of the 
species' population status and distribution. We now know that Erigeron 
maguirei is widely distributed and occurs in much greater numbers than 
previously thought (see Species Information). Newly discovered sites 
indicate that there is substantial habitat and population connectivity 
across the species' range, thus reducing reproductive isolation and 
inbreeding threats (50 FR 36089, September 5, 1985; USFWS 1995, p. 5; 
61 FR 31054, June 19, 1996; Clark et al. 2006, p. 24; Ivory 2009a, p. 
1; 2009b, p. 1; Clark 2010a, p.1; Truman 2010, p. 1; Robinson 2010, 
entire). For example, populations in the Capitol Reef and San Rafael 
areas are separated by short distances and connected by contiguous 
habitat, allowing genetic interchange across the species' range (Van 
Buren 1993, p. 1; Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 1; Clark et al. 2006, 
p. 24). Due to the number

[[Page 3042]]

of populations and individuals of E. maguirei found and the inter-
connectivity of the habitat, the species is no longer considered 
threatened by a loss of genetic variability.
    Pesticide use occurs within Capitol Reef National Park's Fruita 
Rural Historic District, a cultural area on the National Register of 
Historic Places (Alston and Tepedino 2005, p. 10). Management includes 
spraying apple and pear trees with the pesticide Phosmet to control the 
codling moth (Cydia pomonella) (Alston and Tepedino 2005, p. 10). This 
pesticide does not appear to affect productivity of Erigeron maguirei 
plants (Alston and Tepedino 2005, pp. 11, 61). No other routine 
pesticide use is known to occur within the range of E. maguirei. Thus, 
the best scientific data available indicate the current use of the 
pesticides is not a threat to E. maguirei.
    When the Recovery Plan was written, the demographic stability of 
the various populations was not known (USFWS 1995, p. 5). Studies have 
since concluded that Erigeron maguirei is relatively long-lived with 
low mortality (Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 2). Furthermore, the 
available science indicates that the species has the ability to replace 
individuals at a rate that compensates for mortality (Van Buren and 
Harper 2002, p. 5). Thus, the available data alleviate the concern for 
demographic stability.
    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
(IPCC 2007, p. 2), ``[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as 
is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and 
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising 
global average sea level.'' Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures 
during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than 
during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the 
highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 2).
    The IPCC (2007, p. 7) predicts that changes in the global climate 
system during the 21st century will be larger than those observed 
during the 20th century. For the next 2 decades a warming of about 0.2 
[deg]C (0.4 [deg]F) per decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 7). 
Afterward, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific 
emission scenarios (IPCC 2007, p. 7). Various emissions scenarios 
suggest that by the end of the 21st century, average global 
temperatures are expected to increase 0.6 to 4.0 [deg]C (1.1 to 7.2 
[deg]F), with the greatest warming expected over land (IPCC 2007, p. 
8). The IPCC says it is very likely hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy 
precipitation will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007, p. 8). However, 
the confidence in predicting changes in precipitation is less than that 
for predicting changes in temperature (IPCC 2007, p. 600). The 
confidence in predicting accurate changes in precipitation levels is 
further reduced when applying the model to small, localized areas (IPCC 
2007, pp. 601, 697). Therefore, although many semi-arid areas like the 
western United States will suffer a decrease in water resources due to 
climate change, we cannot be certain at this time how the change will 
occur over the range of Erigeron maguirei (IPCC 2007, pp. 8, 601, 697). 
Below we analyze possible impacts, given these uncertainties, to the 
extent we understand them and are able to reasonably project.
    Climate change could potentially impact Erigeron maguirei or its 
pollinators, although the specific impacts of altered temperature and 
precipitation regimes are unknown. Rare plants in the Southwest tend to 
have fewer individuals during drought-related circumstances (Hughes 
2009, entire). Long-term demographic monitoring produced conflicting 
results; some monitoring plots experienced higher mortality rates 
during drought years while others did not (Van Buren and Harper 2002, 
pp. 2-6). While we do not know the long-term response of the species to 
changes in climatic conditions, we believe impacts will be minimal as 
E. maguirei is a desert plant adapted to hot temperatures and little 
rainfall based on the life history and habitat requirements of the 
species. The Interagency Plant Team will continue to monitor the 
species and be able to identify climate change concerns in the future, 
if they occur. If additional trend monitoring is warranted past the 
initial 10-year period to address potential impacts from climate 
change, monitoring frequency and intensity may be reduced (USFWS 2010, 
pp. 13-14)).
    Two of four Capitol Reef sites monitored between 1992 and 2001 
experienced flash flood events (Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 1). At 
one site, a flash flood event likely resulted in 48 plants being lost 
(Van Buren and Harper 2002, p. 2). However, the species is long-lived 
and shows an ability to replace individuals lost to periodic flooding 
(Van Buren and Harper 2002, pp. 4-5). The species occurs primarily on 
sandstone domes on mesa tops and in cracks and crevices of domes and 
cliffs (Clark et al. 2006, p. 12). The primary habitat of the species 
is not prone to flooding. Individuals that are susceptible to flooding 
occur in canyon bottoms, like the two sites mentioned above, which were 
established from seeds dispersed by wind or overland flow from source 
populations on the mesa tops (Heil 1989, p. 25; Kass 1990, p. 27; USFWS 
1995, p. 2). Flooding may affect these individuals; however, canyon 
populations are small compared to those on the mesa tops (Heil 1989, p. 
25; Kass 1990, p. 27; USFWS 1995, p. 2). Therefore, flood events 
possessing the potential to meaningfully impact Erigeron maguirei 
populations are unlikely in the foreseeable future.
    Summary of Factor E: Based on the available information, reduced 
genetic variability, inbreeding posed by geographic separation and 
reproductive isolation, the use of Phosmet as an insecticide in the 
Capitol Reef's Fruita Rural Historic District, climate change, and 
flooding events do not threaten Erigeron maguirei in all or a 
significant portion of the range currently or within the foreseeable 
future.

Conclusion of Five-Factor Analysis

    As required by the ESA, we considered the five potential threat 
factors to assess whether Erigeron maguirei is endangered or threatened 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When considering 
the listing status of the species, the first step in the analysis is to 
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. If this is the case, then the species is listed or 
remains listed in its entirety. For instance, if the threats to a 
species are acting only on a portion of its range, but they are at such 
a large scale that they place the entire species in danger of 
extinction, we would list or continue to list the entire species.
    We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and determined there is no information to suggest the species 
is either in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all its 
range. Recovery efforts have identified approximately 162,897 Erigeron 
maguirei individuals over an estimated range of 390 square miles (1,010 
square kilometers) with 10 populations (containing 128 sites) composing 
5 meta-populations (see Figure 1 and Table 1 above) (Clark et al. 2006, 
p. 16; Ivory 2009a, p. 1; 2009b, p. 1; Clark 2010a, p. 1; Truman 2010, 
p. 1; Robinson 2010, entire). This represents a substantial increase 
from the time of listing in 1985, when the species was known from 7 
individuals in the Calf Canyon population (50 FR 36089, September 5, 
1985), and from 1996 when the species was downlisted to threatened and 
had a population

[[Page 3043]]

estimate of approximately 3,000 plants (61 FR 31054, June 19, 1996). 
Today, the species occurs in large, connected, and well-distributed 
populations within substantial suitable habitat. Current populations 
appear stable, threats to the species are not likely to impact the 
species in a meaningful way, and land management protections are in 
place. We believe the species' long-term viability is assured. Thus, 
the species is not currently and is not likely to again become 
endangered or threatened in all of its range.
    Having determined that Erigeron maguirei does not meet the 
definition of endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, we 
must next consider whether there are any significant portions of its 
range that are in danger of extinction or are likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. A portion of a species' range is 
significant if it is important to the conservation of the species 
because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, 
or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such 
that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the 
species.
    Applying the definition described above, we first address whether 
any portions of the range of Erigeron maguirei warranted further 
consideration. We evaluated E. maguirei's range in the context of 
whether any potential threats are concentrated in one or more areas of 
the range, such that if there were concentrated impacts, those 
populations might be threatened, and further, whether any such 
population might constitute a significant portion of the range. The 
potential threat factors we evaluated for possible geographic 
concentration were the most substantial factor(s) affecting the 
species. In this case, we evaluated mineral exploration and development 
and recreational use.
    We noted that, as discussed above under Factor A, there are several 
small geographic areas where localized mineral extraction activities 
remain as a potential threat in the foreseeable future. However, we 
concluded that these areas do not warrant further consideration because 
such activities are unlikely to materialize in a meaningful way and if 
they do, would be limited to small areas on the periphery of 
populations. Therefore, there is no substantial information that 
Erigeron maguirei in these areas are likely to become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future. These areas are too small to 
impact the viability of the individual populations, meta-populations, 
or the species.
    As discussed above under Factor A, recreational use, particularly 
hiking and motorized vehicle use, occurs throughout the species' range. 
However, land management protections are in place throughout most of 
the species' range, with the primary result of restricting vehicle use 
to designated roads and trails, thus minimizing impacts to the plants 
and their habitat. We concluded that impacts from recreational use are 
not likely to materialize in a meaningful way in the foreseeable 
future, would be limited to small periphery portions of populations 
(e.g., SITLA lands), and would not reduce the long-term viability of 
any of the populations. Therefore, there is no substantial information 
that Erigeron maguirei is being impacted in any area to the extent that 
population is in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    In summary, we have determined that none of the existing or 
potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are 
likely to cause Erigeron maguirei to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or any significant portion 
of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we are removing E. 
maguirei from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 
17.12).

Effect of This Rule

    This rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove Erigeron maguirei 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Because no critical 
habitat was ever designated for this species, this rule will not affect 
50 CFR 17.96. Once this species is removed from the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants, ESA protection will no longer apply. Removal of 
E. maguirei from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants will 
relieve Federal agencies from the need to consult with us to insure 
that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Delisting E. 
maguirei is expected to have positive effects in terms of management 
flexibility for the State and Federal governments. Federal agencies 
will continue to implement management plans to conserve E. maguirei and 
its habitat.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires us to monitor for at least 5 
years species that are delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting 
monitoring refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species 
delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction 
after the protections of the ESA no longer apply. The primary goal of 
post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the species so that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is 
not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data 
indicate that protective status under the ESA should be reinstated, we 
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency 
listing.
    Section 4(g) of the ESA explicitly requires cooperation with the 
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring 
programs. In early 2007, we asked the State of Utah to be a cooperator 
in post-delisting monitoring. In a letter dated March 6, 2007, the 
State suggested their participation in post-delisting monitoring was 
unnecessary (Harja 2007). We agree with the State's conclusion as the 
vast majority of the known individual plants (over 99 percent) occur on 
Federal land.
    We have finalized a Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan (Plan) for 
Erigeron maguirei (USFWS 2010, entire). The Plan: (1) Summarizes the 
species' status at the time of delisting; (2) defines thresholds or 
triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and conclusions; (3) lays 
out frequency and duration of monitoring; (4) articulates monitoring 
methods including sampling considerations; (5) outlines data 
compilation and reporting procedures and responsibilities; and (6) 
depicts a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule, including 
timing and responsible parties. The Plan was modeled after the 
Conservation Strategy and incorporated the Maguire Daisy Survey 
Protocol developed and tested by the Interagency Rare Plant Team (Clark 
2006b, entire).
    Although section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires us to monitor the 
species for a period of only 5 years, signatories to the Plan have 
committed to monitor the species for a period of at least 10 years. 
After 10 years of monitoring following protocols stated in the Plan, 
all available data on this species will be reviewed to determine 
whether there are any data gaps that need to be addressed. If 
significant data gaps are found, the Interagency Rare Plant Team will 
recommend to USFWS management whether demographic monitoring or 
additional population trend monitoring would be valuable.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement, as

[[Page 3044]]

defined under the authority of the NEPA of 1969, need not be prepared 
in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
ESA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    The OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 implement provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501  et seq.). The OMB regulations 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as the obtaining 
of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions 
posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure 
requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 
1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the 
persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency 
within any 12-month period. For purposes of this definition, employees 
of the Federal government are not included. We may not conduct or 
sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    This rule does not contain any collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As proposed 
under the Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, Erigeron maguirei 
populations will be monitored by Capitol Reef, Fishlake National 
Forest, and the BLM Price field office in accordance with the 
Conservation Strategy. We do not anticipate a need to request data or 
other information from 10 or more persons during any 12-month period to 
satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to 
collect information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or 
organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection 
approval from the OMB.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, 
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Utah Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are staff members located at 
the Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Valley 
City, Utah (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Erigeron maguirei'' 
under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants.

    Dated: January 3, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-1044 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P