[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61307-61321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Calopogon oklahomensis as Threatened or 
Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month 
finding on a petition to list Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass 
pink orchid) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 
After review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that listing Calopogon oklahomensis is not 
warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any 
new information that becomes available concerning the threats to 
Calopogon oklahomensis or its habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 4, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034. Supporting 
documentation used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1250 South Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010. Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Louise Clemency, Field Supervisor, 
Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by 
telephone at 847-381-2253; or by facsimile at 847-381-2285. Persons who

[[Page 61308]]

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) 
Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are 
threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add 
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires 
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 28, 2008, we received a petition dated May 22, 2008, from 
Dr. Douglas Goldman of the Harvard University Herbaria requesting that 
Calopogon oklahomensis be listed as threatened or endangered under the 
Act. Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the 
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, 
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. We 
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Dr. Douglas 
Goldman, dated September 15, 2008. In that letter we also stated that 
due to funding constraints in fiscal year 2008, we would not be able to 
begin processing the petition at that time.
    Funding became available in fiscal year 2010, wherein work began on 
the 90-day finding. The 90-day finding was published on August 24, 2010 
(75 FR 51969). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the May 
22, 2008, petition to list Calopogon oklahomensis as threatened or 
endangered.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description
    Calopogon oklahomensis, commonly known as the Oklahoma grass pink 
or prairie grass pink, is a terrestrial species of orchid (family 
Orchidaceae) native to the United States and primarily occurring in the 
south-central United States. It is a member of the genus Calopogon, a 
group of terrestrial orchids known as grass pinks.
    The number of species identified as belonging to the genus 
Calopogon has varied since the genus was identified by Linnaeus in 1753 
(Correll 1978, p. 167). The first species of the current genus 
Calopogon, was identified by Linnaeus as Limodorum tuberosum in 1753 
(Correll 1978, p. 167). In 1788, Walter originally identified Ophrys 
barbata, with Ames (1908) later changing the name to Calopogon 
barbatus, which was subsequently accepted and conserved (Correll, 1978, 
p. 167). Calopogon multiflorus was first described by Lindley in 1840 
(Correll 1978, p. 169). In 1860, Chapman identified and described 
Calopogon pallidus (Correll 1978, p. 171). By 1888, Limodorum tuberosum 
was accepted and given the conserved name of Calopogon tuberosus (L) by 
Britton, Sterns, and Poggenburg (Jarvis and Cribb 2009, p. 368). In 
1933, Small (pp. 363-399) recognized six species of Calopogon based on 
minor variations, which Correll (1978, p. 167) believed were difficult 
to interpret. By 1950, Correll, taking a more conservative approach, 
recognized four species of Calopogon: C. barbatus, C. multiflorus, C. 
pallidus, and C. pulchellus, with two variants of C. pulchellus, the 
more northern variant, latifolius, and the more southern variant, 
simpsonii Ames (1904) (Correll 1978, pp. 167-176). The former species, 
C. pulchellus, is now considered a variant of C. tuberosus, that being, 
C. tuberosus var. tuberosus. By 1989, it was recognized that Calopogon 
tuberosus encompassed two variants, variant simpsonii (southern 
variant) and variant tuberosus (northern variant). The four species, C. 
barbatus, C. multiflorus, C. pallidus, and C. tuberosus, were thought 
to compose the genus Calopogon until Goldman (1995, p. 37) proposed a 
fifth species, C. oklahomensis.
    Goldman (1995, p. 41) asserts that morphological and phenological 
variation of the genus Calopogon in the midwestern States was not 
previously recognized by Correll (1978) or Luer (1975) (Goldman 1995, 
p. 41) and that while examining herbarium specimens from eastern Texas, 
western Louisiana, and northward to central Missouri, he (Dr. Douglas 
Goldman) observed several morphological and ecological characteristics, 
which he believed were inconsistent with true C. tuberosus or C. 
barbatus. These characteristics included corm (a modified underground 
stem) shape and formation, average leaf width, leaf length verses 
inflorescence (a branching stem with flowers) length, bud 
characterization, anthesis (the period from flowering to fruiting), 
floral fragrance, dorsal sepal description, lateral sepal description, 
distal portion of labellum disc (portion of the lower petal that is 
attached to the center of the flower), and stigma (where deposited 
pollen germinates) characteristics (Table 1) (Goldman 1995, pp. 37-39). 
In addition, although C. oklahomensis may occur in close geographic 
proximity to C. tuberosus, they are temporally isolated, as C. 
oklahomensis flowers at different times of the year than C. tuberosus 
(Goldman 1995, p. 40). In Missouri, C. oklahomensis blooms from early 
May to June, whereas C. tuberosus blooms from mid-June to early July 
(Summers 1987 in Goldman 1995, p. 40). Goldman (1995, p. 40) 
ascertained from herbarium label data that in eastern Texas and western 
Louisiana, C. oklahomensis blooms from March to early May, whereas C. 
tuberosus blooms from May to June. Calopogon oklahomensis was 
subsequently described, by Goldman, as unique and distinct from all 
other species of Calopogon, with a large geographic range, many 
consistent morphological features, and temporal isolation from its 
occasional associate, Calopogon tuberosus (Goldman 1995, p. 41).
    In addition to timing of flower emergence and a suite of 
morphological features differing from Calopogon tuberosus and C. 
barbatus, C. oklahomensis has been shown to have unique genetic 
characteristics. Genetic analysis has shown C. oklahomensis to be 
hexaploid (having six sets of chromosomes), where all other taxa within 
Calopogon are diploid (consisting of two sets of chromosomes), 
suggesting that this species may be an alloploid (number of chromosomes 
is doubled in the hybrid), possibly derived from ancient hybridization 
between C. barbatus and C. tuberosus (Goldman 2000, p. 79). Recent 
genetic analyses by Goldman et al. (2004a, p. 719), however, concluded 
that if hybrid in origin, the cross is ancient, and it may be prudent 
to conclude that the origin and affinities of C. oklahomensis remain 
uncertain (Goldman et al. 2004a, p. 719). Trapnell et al. (2004, p. 
314) conducted additional genetic testing for genetic variation among 
the five species of the

[[Page 61309]]

terrestrial orchid genus Calopogon, with results indicating that C. 
oklahomensis is the most genetically diverse species of the five 
species tested.
    The review of Calopogon oklahomensis is complete, and the name is 
accepted by Govaerts (1999) and Govaerts (2003). Recognition of C. 
oklahomensis as the fifth Calopogon species was affirmed in Flora of 
North America (Goldman 2002, pp. 601-602), and reaffirmed by Brown 
(2006, p. 21; 2008, p. 177), who describes the genus Calopogon as being 
composed of five species: C. barbatus, C. multiflorus, C. pallidus, C. 
tuberosus, and C. oklahomensis (Brown 2006, p. 21). Currently, Govaerts 
et al. (2011, entire) and Kartesz (2011, in press) also recognize C. 
oklahomensis as a distinct species.
    For these reasons, we accept the characterization of Calopogon 
oklahomensis as a distinct species of Calopogon, with a large 
geographic range, many consistent morphological features, temporal 
isolation in flower timing from other species in the genus Calopogon, 
and genetic differentiation from all other Calopogon (Brown 2006, p. 
22; Goldman 1995, p. 41; Goldman 2002, pp. 601-602), and, therefore, a 
listable entity under the Act.
    Calopogon oklahomensis is a terrestrial plant growing (6 to 14 
inches (in) (15 to 36 centimeters (cm)) tall (Brown 2006, p. 22). It 
has a forked corm, with the new corm at the base of the leaf and the 
inflorescence rapidly growing distally at the time of anthesis (Goldman 
1995, p. 39). It has one or two leaves, which are lanceolate, slender, 
and 0.2 to 0.6 in (0.5 to 1.5 cm) wide by 3 to 14 in (7 to 35 cm) long 
(Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 1995, p. 37). The leaf is almost always as 
long as or longer than the inflorescence (Goldman 1995, p. 39). The 
flower buds are deeply grooved longitudinally, waxy, and shiny with 
elongated acuminate apices (narrowing to a point at the tip). The 
flower has three to seven non-resupinate flowers (labellum is 
uppermost) that are fragrant (smelling of citronella) and open 
simultaneously, with the color being highly variable, from lilac blue 
to bright magenta pink or, in the form albiflorus, white. All have a 
golden crest on the lip (Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 1995, p. 39). The 
labellum disk is pinkish with a basal region of short to long yellow 
hairs, above which there is a triangular region of short, stout, 
pinkish hairs, which extend to the labellum apex (terminal end of the 
lower petal) (Goldman 1995, p. 39).
    Calopogon oklahomensis has a winged column with two soft pollinia 
(a mass of pollen grains) (Goldman 2000, p. 3). The stigma is flat 
against the column surface (Goldman 1995, p. 40), and the species 
blooms April throughout May or June (Brown 2006, p. 22). Calopogon 
oklahomensis flowers produce little or no nectar and offer no pollen 
reward; they attract pollinators using showy yellow and pink lip hairs 
that resemble a mass of pollen. When an insect lands on the labellum, 
if it is heavy enough, the labellum swings down and the insect's 
posterior comes into contact with the sticky pollinia located on the 
end of the column (Trapnell et al. 2004, p. 308). The tiny, dustlike 
seeds are wind dispersed (Trapnell et al. 2004, p. 308).

    Table 1--Comparison of 11 Characters Used To Distinguish Calopogon oklahomensis From C. tuberosus and C.
barbatus, Obtained From Goldman's Personal Observations, Correll (1978), and Luer (1972, 1975) (Goldman 1995, p.
                                                       39)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Character                 Calopogon oklahomensis    Calopogon tuberosus       Calopogon barbatus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corm.................................  Forked.................  Spherical..............  Spherical.
New corm forming distally at anthesis  Yes....................  No.....................  No.
Average leaf width (range) *.........  7 mm (0.28 inches) (5-   (10 mm (0.39 inches) (4- 2 mm (0.08 inches) (1-4
                                        15 mm (0.20-0.59         37 mm 0.16-1.46          mm (0.04-0.16
                                        inches)).                inches)).                inches)).
Leaf length vs. inflorescence length.  About equal............  Usually shorter........  Shorter.
Buds.................................  Grooved longitudinally,  Generally smooth, acute  Smooth, acute or
                                        acuminate, very waxy.    or apiculate, waxy.      apiculate, waxy.
Anthesis.............................  Flowers open in rapid    Flowers open in slow     Flowers open in rapid
                                        succession.              succession.              succession.
Floral fragrance.....................  Yes....................  No.....................  No.
Dorsal sepal *.......................  Lanceolate, average 19   Oblong-elliptical,       Oblong-elliptical,
                                        mm x 6 mm (0.75 inches   average 22 mm x 8 mm     average 16 mm x 5 mm
                                        x 0.24 inches),          (0.87 inches x 0.31      (0.63 inches x 0.20
                                        straight to reflexed     inches), straight.       inches), straight to
                                        backwards.                                        reflexed backwards.
Lateral sepals *.....................  Acuminate, grooved       Apiculate, smooth,       Apiculate,
                                        longitudinally,          straight.                longitudinally
                                        recurved backwards.                               grooved, recurved
                                                                                          backwards.
Distal portion of labellum disc......  Same color as most of    White, generally         Same color as most of
                                        flower, triangular       circular region of       flower, triangular,
                                        region of short, pink    short, white, yellow,    region of short, pink
                                        hairs.                   or orange hairs.         hairs.
Stigma...............................  Flat against column      Most often               Flat against column
                                        surface.                 perpendicular to         surface.
                                                                 column surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on 60 herbarium specimens of Calopogon oklahomensis, 60 specimens of C. tuberosus, and 30 specimens of
  C. barbatus, collected throughout the geographic range of each species.

Distribution and Population Status
    Calopogon oklahomensis was originally thought to be restricted to 
the prairies of the south-central States; however, herbarium specimens 
(Goldman 1995, pp. 37, 40-41) indicate that it was previously much more 
widespread (Brown 2006, p. 22). Goldman (1995, p. 41) based his 
description of the species' range on collected specimens in six States 
(Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas), and 
hypothesized that overall, the historical range covered 17 States 
(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) (Goldman 2008a, pp. 2-3). Brown (2006, 
p. 22) identifies the historical range of C. oklahomensis as occurring 
in only 10 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) and does not list 
this

[[Page 61310]]

species as occurring in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 
Indiana, Tennessee, or Mississippi. NatureServe (2011) identifies the 
historical range of the species in 14 States (Alabama, Arkansas, 
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin); however, the 
source of this information is also Goldman (2008a).
    Goldman (2008a, pp. 2-3) states that there are 233 historical 
occurrences from 17 States (Table 2). A thorough review of the 
available information on the distribution of Calopogon oklahomensis, 
however, indicates that there are 86 to 90 historical occurrences of C. 
oklahomensis from 11 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and 
Wisconsin (Table 2). This 11-State historical range, which is based on 
a review of actual occurrences rather than the generalized range 
discussion presented above, is what we used in conducting our 
assessment of the species' status.

     Table 2--A Comparison of Information on Historical and Extant Occurrences of Calopogon oklahomensis, Based on Goldman's (2008b, p. 3) Review of
                Herbarium Specimens as Provided in the Petition and Information Available to the Service, Primarily From State Databases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Number of                           Estimated extant
                                                         Last observed         Number of      historical records   Estimated extant       populations
                        State                              (Goldman)      historical records    (based on State       populations       (based on State
                                                                               (Goldman)          databases)           (Goldman)          databases)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL *................................................                1887                   5                   0                   0                   0
AR..................................................                1995                  22                  25              3 to 5                  17
FL *................................................                1882                   1                   0                   0                   0
GA *................................................                1943                   1                   0                   0                   0
IA..................................................                1941                   8              3 to 6                   0                   0
IL..................................................               2006?                  42                   7                   1                   2
IN *................................................                1933                  15                   0                   0                   0
KS..................................................                1980                   1                   1                   0                   0
LA..................................................                1996                  22                   3              3 to 6                   0
MN *................................................                1884                   5                   0                   0                   0
MO..................................................                1994                  16                   2              4 to 6                  11
MS..................................................                2006                   4                   1              2 to 3                   3
OK..................................................                2004                  53                  24                 10?                   6
SC *................................................                   ?                   1                   0                   0                   0
TN..................................................                1939                   2                   1                   0                   0
TX..................................................                2004                  27            12 to 13              1 to 3                   1
WI..................................................                1987                   8                  7?                   1                   1
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................  ..................                 233            86 to 90            25 to 35                  41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Service does not consider these States to be within the historical range for the species.

    The historical range suggested by Goldman (2008a, p. 6) includes 
the States of Florida and Georgia. Goldman (2008a, p. 6) describes one 
historical herbarium specimen of Calopogon oklahomensis from Florida, 
dated 1882 and labeled only as ``Florida'' for the locality. He 
hypothesizes that it may have been collected from the western Florida 
panhandle (Goldman 2008a, p. 6). This record is questionable because 
Florida has no other information or records regarding historical or 
extant occurrences of C. oklahomensis in the State (Brown 2011, pers. 
comm.; Johnson 2011, pers. comm.; Knight 2009, pers. comm.; Halupa 
2009, pers. comm.). Based on the lack of records, we believe this 
species is not a component of the Florida flora and, therefore, do not 
include Florida in the range for this species.
    Goldman (2008a, p. 6) states that one specimen of Calopogon 
oklahomensis was collected in southwestern Georgia by Robert Thorne in 
1947. As in the case of Florida, because we have no other historical or 
extant records of C. oklahomensis as occurring in Georgia (Pattavina 
2009, pers. comm.), we do not include Georgia in the range of C. 
oklahomensis.
    There are no confirmed specimens from South Carolina for this 
species (Holling 2011, pers. comm.; Pittman 2011, pers. comm.); 
however, there is one specimen (probably over 200 years old) housed at 
the herbarium at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is marked simply 
as ``S.C.,'' but without information on collector, locality, or date 
(Goldman 2010, pers. comm.). We do not include South Carolina in the 
current or historical range of Calopogon oklahomensis because we have 
no other information of C. oklahomensis as occurring in South Carolina 
(Holling 2011, pers. comm.).
    We do not have comprehensive survey information for Calopogon 
oklahomensis. Therefore, we do not know the full extent of the species' 
distribution or if the distribution has changed over time. The 
following paragraphs outline the distribution and status information 
that is available.
    Goldman (2008a, p. 3) estimates 25 to 35 extant Calopogon 
oklahomensis populations from 8 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, 
Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) (Table 2). The 
Service cannot confirm Goldman's information regarding extant 
populations of C. oklahomensis in Louisiana. The Service has 
information from Goldman's personal collection data (provided as 
supplemental information to the petition (Goldman 2008b)) of three 
specimens from Louisiana dated 1995 to 1996. More recent information, 
however, is not available regarding the sites from where these 
specimens originated.
    Alabama has no extant occurrences of Calopogon oklahomensis 
(Everson 2009, pers. comm.; Schotz 2011, pers. comm.). Goldman (2008a, 
p. 5) asserts that this species was collected in Alabama a handful of 
times in the late 1800s, near the town of Mount Vernon, but over a few 
visits to this area in the last 10 years, the species has not been 
found, even under favorable conditions.

[[Page 61311]]

    Arkansas has 25 documented historical occurrences of Calopogon 
oklahomensis, of these, 17 are extant populations (Witsell 2009, pers. 
comm.).
    Illinois has seven historical specimens, which perhaps were 
originally misidentified as Calopogon pulchellus and C. tuberosus, 
then, in 1999, determined to be C. oklahomensis by Goldman (Phillippe 
2010, pers. comm.). Currently, Illinois has two extant populations of 
C. oklahomensis (Phillippe et al. 2008, p. 11; Armstrong 2010, pers. 
comm.; Kieninger 2010, pers. comm.; Catchpole 2010, pers. comm.).
    There is one record of Calopogon oklahomensis collected in Lake 
County, Indiana. It was originally (in 1912) identified in the Indiana 
Natural Heritage Database as C. pulchellus, however, it was later (in 
1999) determined to be C. oklahomensis by Goldman (Phillippe 2010, 
pers. comm.). Indiana has records of the closely related congener, C. 
puchellus, that were collected prior to C. oklahomensis being described 
as a unique species (Deam 1940, p. 347; King 2009, pers. comm.). We 
have no information of extant C. oklahomensis populations in Indiana.
    There are no known extant populations of Calopogon oklahomensis in 
Iowa. Our information indicates that only historical records exist, but 
we do not know how many historical records exist. The species is 
believed to be extirpated in the State (Pearson 2009, pers. comm.).
    Kansas has one historical record of Calopogon oklahomensis from 
Cherokee County, dated May 1980 (Freeman 2011, pers. comm.). This 
specimen was annotated as C. oklahomensis by Goldman in 1999 (Freeman 
2008, pers. comm.). This site and other prairie hay meadows in the 
county have been searched for C. oklahomensis over the past 30 years, 
with no populations of this species located (Freeman 2011, pers. 
comm.).
    Mississippi has three known extant populations of Calopogon 
oklahomensis located at the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center 
(Camp Shelby), a National Guard installation operating under a special 
use permit on U.S. Forest Service land. These three populations are 
separated by more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometers (km)) each and occur in 
three separate watersheds; therefore, they are considered separate 
populations (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). The Poplar Creek population 
includes four separate colonies. One colony was last surveyed in 2004, 
with an estimated population of 1 to 10 individuals (Wiggers 2011b, 
pers. comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The second and third colonies were 
last surveyed in 2006, with one population estimated at 11 to 50 
individuals and the other population estimated at 101 to 1,000 
individuals (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The 
fourth Poplar Creek colony size is unknown (Wiggers 2011c, pers. 
comm.). The minimum population size of all the Poplar Creek colonies is 
estimated at 113 individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.).
    In Mississippi, the Clear Creek population includes two colonies, 
one of which was last surveyed in 1999, with a population estimate of 
11 to 50 individual plants, and the other colony last surveyed in 2004, 
with a population estimate of 1 to 10 individuals (Wiggers 2011b, pers. 
comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The minimum population size of all Clear 
Creek colonies is 12 individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.).
    The Pearces Creek population in Mississippi consists of two 
colonies of Calopogon oklahomensis, both with a population estimate of 
1 to 10 individuals, with one colony last surveyed in 1999 and the 
other last surveyed in 2004 (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.; 2011c, pers. 
comm.). The minimum population size of both Pearces Creek colonies is 
two individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.). The total Camp Shelby 
population estimate of C. oklahomensis is 127 individuals; however, 
this is only a rough estimate, as current population counts are 
unavailable (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). Within Camp Shelby, there may 
be other areas of C. oklahomensis located within an ``impact area'' (an 
area containing unexploded ordnance), which has been protected from 
active training, draining, and clearing since World War I (Wiggers 
2011a, pers. comm.; Lyman 2011a, pers. comm.). Surveys have not been 
conducted in this ``impact area'' due to its restricted access (Wiggers 
2011b, pers. comm.).
    In Missouri, prior to describing Calopogon oklahomensis as distinct 
from C. tuberosus, C. oklahomensis was not tracked in the Missouri 
Natural Heritage Database. Once C. tuberosus was split into the two 
species, Missouri began tracking only the rarer and range-limited C. 
tuberosus (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.; Kruse 2010, pers. comm.); 
however, the Missouri Botanical Garden indicates that Missouri has at 
least 11 sites with extant populations of C. oklahomensis (Yatskievych 
2009, pers. comm.). At least 10 of the 11 extant sites occur on public 
lands that are managed as native prairie, however, there are no current 
studies in Missouri on population size, success of reproduction, or 
other indicators of status (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.).
    Oklahoma has 24 historical populations of Calopogon oklahomensis 
from 15 counties, with 6 sites having extant populations, 5 of which 
occur on private land (Hoagland et al. 2004, entire; Buthod 2010, pers. 
comm.). The site of the sixth C. oklahomensis population in Oklahoma is 
owned by the State of Oklahoma and used by the Department of 
Corrections as the Jess Dunn Prison.
    Tennessee acknowledges a single occurrence of Calopogon 
oklahomensis in the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Geographic 
Information System (GIS) database. It was last observed in 1937, with 
no details available in the record regarding location or abundance 
(Call 2009, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, the species has not been 
recorded in Tennessee for more than 20 years, and is possibly 
extirpated from the State (Call 2009, pers. comm.).
    Texas has historical records of 12 to 13 specimens of C. 
oklahomensis from 12 counties, including information from the 
University of Texas herbarium database, which lists only 5 specimens 
collected from 1927 to 1965 (Poole 2008, pers. comm.). It is believed 
that some of the sites from where the specimens were collected may no 
longer be extant (Poole 2008, pers. comm.; Best 2009, pers. comm.). The 
most recent specimen from Brazos County, Texas, was last observed by 
Goldman in 2004 (Goldman 2008a, p. 9). Although this species is not 
tracked in Texas, we assume presence of C. oklahomensis at the Brazos 
County site because it was last observed in 2004, although no further 
surveys have taken place since then. We acknowledge that there may be 
other extant sites of C. oklahomensis in Texas, but because this 
species is not tracked in Texas, we have no information other than what 
is stated above.
    In Wisconsin, records indicate that Calopogon oklahomensis was 
historically known from seven sites in five counties between 1872 and 
2005 (Anderson 2010a, pers. comm.; Anderson 2010b, pers. comm.). 
Currently, Greene Prairie at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Arboretum supports perhaps the only extant population of C. 
oklahomensis in Wisconsin (Anderson 2010a, pers. comm.). The plants at 
Greene Prairie originated from a site in Sauk County near Sauk City, 
but the exact location is unknown. Wisconsin's historical collections 
do not contain specific site information other than they originated

[[Page 61312]]

from Dane, Grant, Monroe, Sauk, and Waukesha Counties (Anderson 2010a, 
pers. comm.; Anderson 2010b, pers. comm.). Although the Arboretum 
population is not naturally occurring, it is considered a self-
sustaining introduction and relocation, which is valuable for 
biodiversity conservation (O'Connor 2011, pers. comm.).
    The Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Rare Features 
Database contains no records for this species (Delphey 2009, pers. 
comm.).
    Based on the information described above regarding locations of 
extant populations, we believe the current range of Calopogon 
oklahomensis includes the seven States of Arkansas, Illinois, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin.
    The State Natural Heritage programs and NatureServe (NatureServe 
2010c, p. 3) rank Calopogon oklahomensis as S1 in Illinois, 
Mississippi, and Texas. The S1 designation indicates the species is 
considered critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer 
occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals) or because of extreme 
vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or human-made factor. 
The Arkansas and Oklahoma State Natural Heritage Programs rank C. 
oklahomensis populations in Arkansas and Oklahoma as S2, meaning the 
species is considered imperiled because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences 
of less than 3,000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to 
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor (NatureServe 2010c, 
p. 3). In Wisconsin, the State Natural Heritage program ranks C. 
oklahomensis as SH, meaning the species is possibly extirpated in that 
State (NatureServe 2010c. p. 3). These State heritage program rankings 
are not legal designations and do not confer State regulatory 
protection to this species.
    This species is either not State ranked or is under review in the 
States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri (NatureServe 2010c). In 
Missouri, the species is not tracked by the State; however, status 
surveys for Calopogon oklahomensis are being conducted in 2011 
(Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.; 2011, pers. comm.).
    Based on the available information, as summarized above, we believe 
the historical range of Calopogon oklahomensis includes 11 States 
(Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin), and the current range 
includes 7 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Mississippi, 
Texas, and Wisconsin).
Habitat
    Calopogon oklahomensis inhabits a variety of habitats, including 
moist to seasonally dry-mesic prairies; tallgrass and coastal prairies; 
prairie-haymeadows; upland prairies; savannas; open woodlands (e.g., 
post oak-blackjack oak woodlands); hillside seepage bogs; edges of 
bogs; and occasionally pine plantations, acidic wet barrens, or claypan 
savannas (Goldman 1995, p. 40; Brown 2006, p. 22). The species is not 
found in the wetter habitats preferred by most of the other species in 
the genus (Goldman 1995, p. 40; Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 2008, p. 2). 
It is also found in prairie remnants such as those beside railroads, as 
well as other mowed meadows, savannas (e.g., longleaf pine (Pinus 
palustris) savannas), and wetland savanna borders (NatureServe 2010b, 
p. 10). The upland prairies often contain ``pimple mounds'' (naturally 
occurring low, flattened, circular to oval, domelike, mounds composed 
of loose, sandy loam or loamy sand lying either on a more or less flat 
or slightly, but noticeably depressed, clayey B horizon (subsoil 
layer)). In Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, the species occupies 
moist to seasonally dry-mesic prairies and high-quality hay meadow 
associated with pimple mounds (Goldman 2008a, p. 8).
Biology
    Calopogon oklahomensis occurs sporadically at known locations, with 
the number of flowering plants varying dramatically from year to year. 
The number of flowering plants may depend on management practices; for 
example, abundance of C. oklahomensis increases significantly after a 
fire has occurred (Goldman 2008a, p. 10). Calopogon oklahomensis 
appears to thrive under relatively frequent fires (every 1 to 3 years), 
particularly dormant-season burns; late-season haymeadow mowing, where 
most or all of the above-ground vegetation is removed once every 1 to 2 
years, with no thatch left behind; and light grazing (Osborne 2010, 
pers. comm.). The species also appears to respond favorably to summer 
haying (late June or July) on prairie remnants managed as hayfields 
(Osborne 2010, pers. comm.).
    Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5) describes the genus Calopogon as having 
two growing points, which means that the plant has two chances for 
reproductive success in a given year. He has observed that if both 
growing points initiate, they do so at different times, one earlier in 
the season and one slightly later. When dormant, Calopogon corms can 
survive some drying, but if drought or other disturbance strikes while 
they are forming new leaves or flowering, they can be severely damaged 
or killed. The second growing point, by initiating up to a few months 
later when environmental conditions may have improved, seems to be an 
adaptation to survive springtime drought or other disturbance such as 
fires or grazing (Goldman 2008a, p. 5). Most other vascular plants 
survive such disturbance by resprouting from multiple tiny, dormant 
buds, or forming new buds. Therefore, Calopogon may be more vulnerable 
to local extirpation because of the limitation of having only two 
growing points (Goldman 2008a, p. 5).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to Calopogon 
oklahomensis in relation to the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors 
might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the 
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the 
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, 
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to 
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, 
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as 
those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require 
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some

[[Page 61313]]

corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could 
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is 
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative 
threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the 
definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
    In making our 12-month finding on the petition to list Calopogon 
oklahomensis, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific 
and commercial information.

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

    Some habitats of Calopogon oklahomensis, such as tallgrass prairie, 
remnant prairie, prairie-haymeadow, and mowed meadow, have historically 
suffered destruction across their entire range through development, 
plowing, lowering of the water table, fire suppression, construction, 
and conversion to nonnative grasses. Appropriate management for these 
habitats (typically burning or haying) to prevent the encroachment of 
woody vegetation and nonnative species is crucial for the continued 
existence of prairie-dependent species within these habitats, including 
C. oklahomensis. Because these habitats are the preferred habitat of C. 
oklahomensis, and because proper management of prairie habitat on 
public land cannot be ensured, and is even less ensured on private 
land, it is reasonable to conclude that overall habitat of C. 
oklahomensis has been modified and destroyed in the past, and could 
foreseeably continue into the future. However, this threat does not 
rise to the level where listing C. oklahomensis as threatened or 
endangered is warranted, as discussed below.
    There are 41 extant sites supporting populations of Calopogon 
oklahomensis within the 7-State range (Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) of the species (Table 3). 
Many of the remaining populations of C. oklahomensis occur within high-
quality habitat, which is protected from further modification and 
destruction by various measures, as further described below. In 
Arkansas, 9 of the 17 extant occurrences of C. oklahomensis occur in 
high-quality, unplowed tallgrass prairie remnants (Leone 2011, pers. 
comm.; Witsell 2010, pers. comm.; Osborne 2010, pers. comm.), which are 
currently protected and managed on 9 State Natural Areas in five 
counties. The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) is charged 
with the responsibility of protecting the best of the last remaining 
vestiges of the State's natural communities through its System of 
Natural Areas. Natural Areas are lands specifically managed to 
preserve, and sometimes restore, rare natural communities. These nine 
State Natural Areas have specific ``conservation visions'' that guide 
site management in maintaining native prairie communities (ANHC 2010, 
pp. 10-88). In addition, ANHC rules and regulations prohibit the 
collection or removal of plants (including fruits, nuts, or edible 
plant parts), animals, fungi, rocks, minerals, fossils, archaeological 
artifacts, soil, downed wood, or any other natural material, alive or 
dead (ANHC 2010, p. 1). Although these ``conservation visions'' do not 
specifically address management for C. oklahomensis, they include 
appropriate management for the continued existence of C. oklahomensis 
at these sites, through burning or haying to prevent the encroachment 
of woody vegetation and nonnative species.
    Of the 9 extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations within Arkansas 
State Natural Areas, C. oklahomensis was last observed in 2002 at Baker 
Prairie with 75 to 100 plants in bloom, in Searles Prairie in 2003 with 
at least 35 plants in bloom, Chesney Prairie in 2003 had several 
hundred C. oklahomensis plants in bloom, and Cherokee Prairie had 
several hundred to at least 1,000 plants in 2003 (Arkansas Natural 
Heritage Commission (ANHC) 2011). In 2008, three other C. oklahomensis 
populations surveyed at three different Natural Areas (Downs Prairie, 
Konecny Prairie, and Roth Prairie) had 5, 12, and more than 50 blooming 
plants, respectively (ANHC 2011). The H.E. Flanagan Prairie, surveyed 
in 2007, had hundreds of C. oklahomensis blooms, and the Railroad 
Prairie was surveyed in 2009, with 3 C. oklahomensis plants found (ANHC 
2011).
    One Calopogon oklahomensis population in Arkansas occurs on the 
Fort Chaffee Maneuver Training Center (Fort Chaffee). Management 
specifically for C. oklahomensis does not occur at Fort Chaffee; 
however, Fort Chaffee has the largest known population of the federally 
endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) and is 
implementing a ``Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle'' 
(CPABB 2010) (Leone 2011, pers. comm.). The goal of the Conservation 
Plan is to maintain existing populations of the American burying 
beetle, with sustainable habitat. American burying beetles require 
large tracts of open oak woodland and prairie, some of which are also 
occupied by C. oklahomensis at Fort Chaffee. The Conservation Plan 
outlines a strategy that limits long-term and short-term habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation to the greatest extent possible (CPABB 
2010, p. 31). Another strategy in the Conservation Plan uses fire as a 
management tool and evaluates the effects that fire has on the habitat 
(CPABB 2010, p. 36). Such fire management is also beneficial to C. 
oklahomensis habitat (Goldman 2008a, p. 10).
    Because the Conservation Plan manages for American burying beetle 
habitat, including prairie, its implementation also will benefit 
Calopogon oklahomensis, which occurs in that prairie habitat. Although 
the Conservation Plan does not specifically address C. oklahomensis, 
this plan includes appropriate management tools to manage for the 
continued existence of C. oklahomensis at this site.
    Arkansas has seven additional Calopogon oklahomensis populations 
that occur on private land (Table 3), of which four are managed as 
hayfield, two are managed for prairie, and one is mowed (Leone 2011, 
pers. comm.). These seven populations are not currently protected from 
conversion to other uses, and habitat destruction or modification may 
be a threat to these C. oklahomensis populations.

[[Page 61314]]



                                         Table 3--Extant Calopogon oklahomensis Population Information by State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Current habitat
        State            Est. extant    Site/location NA =      Land ownership        management plan and       Protection status          Threats
                            pops.          Natural Area                                   future plans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR...................               1  Cherokee Prairie NA.  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to restore and
                                                                                    protect biological
                                                                                    diversity representative
                                                                                    of tallgrass prairies of
                                                                                    the western Arkansas
                                                                                    Valley by maintaining
                                                                                    natural ecosystem
                                                                                    processes.
AR...................               1  Chesney Prairie NA..  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to restore and
                                                                                    protect biological
                                                                                    diversity representative
                                                                                    of Northwest Arkansas
                                                                                    prairies by maintaining
                                                                                    natural ecosystem
                                                                                    processes.
AR...................               1  Downs Prairie NA....  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes..................  Factor B (poaching
                                                              Commission.           is to maintain                                    at one State
                                                                                    representative                                    Natural Area).
                                                                                    communities and species
                                                                                    related to the landform,
                                                                                    hydrology, fire, and
                                                                                    other ecosystem
                                                                                    processes of the Grand
                                                                                    Prairie.
AR...................               1  H. E. Flanagan        AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                        Prairie NA.           Commission.           is to restore and
                                                                                    protect the biological
                                                                                    diversity representative
                                                                                    of tallgrass prairies of
                                                                                    the western Arkansas
                                                                                    Valley by maintaining
                                                                                    natural ecosystem
                                                                                    processes.
AR...................               1  Konecny Prairie NA..  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to maintain the
                                                                                    integrity of this
                                                                                    remnant of tallgrass
                                                                                    prairie community
                                                                                    representative of the
                                                                                    vegetation and biota of
                                                                                    the Grand Prairie.
AR...................               1  Railroad Prairie NA.  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to maintain a
                                                                                    representative transect
                                                                                    of communities and
                                                                                    species related to the
                                                                                    landform, hydrology,
                                                                                    fire and other ecosystem
                                                                                    processes of the Grand
                                                                                    Prairie of eastern
                                                                                    Arkansas.
AR...................               1  Roth Prairie NA.....  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to work in
                                                                                    conjunction with
                                                                                    Arkansas State
                                                                                    University to maintain
                                                                                    the viability and
                                                                                    associated biological
                                                                                    diversity of a remnant
                                                                                    tallgrass prairie in the
                                                                                    Grand Prairie of eastern
                                                                                    Arkansas.
AR...................               1  Searles Prairie NA..  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission.           is to protect the
                                                                                    biological diversity
                                                                                    characteristic of a
                                                                                    tallgrass prairie
                                                                                    remnant on the
                                                                                    Springfield Plateau of
                                                                                    the Ozark Mountains.
AR...................               1  Baker Prairie NA....  AR Natural Heritage   The conservation vision    Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Commission and The    is to maintain a mosaic
                                                              Nature Conservancy    of prairie communities
                                                              (TNC).                and associated
                                                                                    ecological diversity
                                                                                    buffered from the
                                                                                    stresses of nearby
                                                                                    development. C.
                                                                                    oklahomensis falls on a
                                                                                    tract owned by TNC.
AR...................               1  Ft. Chaffee Military  Department of         This site has an           Yes.                   ...................
                                        Base.                 Defense.              Integrated Natural
                                                                                    Resource Management Plan
                                                                                    and an American burying
                                                                                    beetle (ABB)
                                                                                    Conservation Plan. The
                                                                                    goal of the ABB plan is
                                                                                    to maintain existing
                                                                                    populations with
                                                                                    sustainable habitat.
                                                                                    ABBs require large
                                                                                    tracts of open oak
                                                                                    woodland and prairie.
AR...................               1  Gray................  Private.............  Managed as prairie.......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
AR...................               1  Crossett Airport....  Private.............  Mowed....................  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).

[[Page 61315]]

 
AR...................               1  Burt Prairie........  Private.............  Managed as hayfield......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
AR...................               1  McFarren............  Private.............  Managed as hayfield......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
AR...................               1  Stump...............  Private.............  Managed as hayfield......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
AR...................               1  Halijan.............  Private.............  Managed as hayfield......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
AR...................               1  Weber Prairie.......  Private.............  Managed as hayfield......  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                                                                      protection
                                                                                                                                      status).
IL...................               1  Hitt's Siding         ....................  Managed by the Nature      Yes..................  Factor C
                                        Prairie Nature                              Preserves with regular                            (predation).
                                        Preserve.                                   burns, and control of
                                                                                    exotic species (woody
                                                                                    and herbaceous).
IL...................               1  Braidwood Nature      ....................  Managed by the Forest      Yes.                   ...................
                                        Preserve.                                   Preserve District of
                                                                                    Will County with regular
                                                                                    burns, and control of
                                                                                    exotic species (woody
                                                                                    and herbaceous).
MO...................               8  ....................  2 to 3 sites owned    Managed by MO Department   Yes.                   ...................
                                                              by TNC.               of Conservation for
                                                                                    prairie habitat.
MO...................               2  Coyne Prairie.......  MO Prairie            Managed for prairie        Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Foundation.           habitat.
MO...................               1  ....................  Private.............  No management plan in      No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                    effect.                                           protection status;
                                                                                                                                      lack of
                                                                                                                                      management).
MS...................               3  Camp Shelby Joint     U.S. Forest Service/  No known management plan   Yes.                   ...................
                                        Forces Training       Dept. of Defense      in effect, however
                                        Center.               with special use      portions of these
                                                              permit.               populations receive
                                                                                    incidental protection
                                                                                    because they are located
                                                                                    within a 165 foot buffer
                                                                                    for the federally
                                                                                    endangered Isoetes
                                                                                    louisianensis (Louisiana
                                                                                    quillwort).
OK...................               5  ....................  Private.............  No known management plans  No...................  Factor A (No land
                                                                                    in effect.                                        protection status;
                                                                                                                                      development and/or
                                                                                                                                      conversion to
                                                                                                                                      fescue for grazing
                                                                                                                                      use).
OK...................               1  ....................  State of Oklahoma/    No known management plans  ?                      ...................
                                                              Dept. of              in effect.
                                                              Corrections.
TX...................               1  College Station,      City owned park.....  No known management plan   No...................  Factor A (No land
                                        Brazos County.                              in effect.                                        protection status;
                                                                                                                                      development; lack
                                                                                                                                      of appropriate
                                                                                                                                      management).
WI...................               1  Greene Prairie......  University of         Managed for prairie        Yes.                   ...................
                                                              Wisconsin Arboretum.  habitat.
                      ----------------
    Total............              41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois has two extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations, which 
occur within designated Illinois Nature Preserves (Table 3). This 
designation affords land protection only to high-quality natural areas. 
Dedication as a Nature Preserve is the strongest protection given to 
land in Illinois, and provides permanent protection. The landowner 
retains custody of the property, but voluntarily restricts future uses 
of the land in perpetuity to preserve its natural state and to 
perpetuate natural conditions. Illinois Nature Preserves are managed 
for native plant communities. This type of management is appropriate 
for the continued existence of C. oklahomensis

[[Page 61316]]

at these sites, as the species occurs within native prairie 
communities.
    In Mississippi, all three extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations 
occur on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land (Table 3), with a special use 
permit issued to the Camp Shelby. Under the Act, the USFS must ensure 
that activities they implement, fund, or permit are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Federal 
agencies are also instructed to implement programs for the conservation 
of listed species. Portions of two of the C. oklahomensis populations 
(Poplar Creek and Clear Creek) in Mississippi and on USFS land receive 
incidental protection from future forest clearing and development 
because they are located within the 165-foot (ft) (50-meter (m)) buffer 
of the federally endangered Isoetes louisianensis (Louisiana quillwort) 
(Lyman 2011, pers. comm.; Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). This buffer was 
established in the Federal recovery plan for I. louisianensis and 
includes restricted timber harvest and riparian zone protection to 
ensure that habitat conditions are not altered, such as changes in 
ambient light, increase in sediment load from runoff, or alteration of 
stream flow from debris deposition (USFWS 1996, p. 18). Because these 
populations of C. oklahomensis occur within the 165-ft (50-m) buffer 
for I. louisianensis, the protections in place for the quillwort also 
protect those portions of the Poplar Creek and Clear Creek populations 
of C. oklahomensis (FEIS 2008).
    Missouri has experienced declines in prairie habitat (less than 0.5 
percent of original prairie acreage remains), possibly resulting in 
Calopogon oklahomensis being uncommon in this State. At least 10 of the 
11 extant sites in Missouri occur on public lands managed as native 
prairie (Table 3) (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.). Although C. 
oklahomensis is considered uncommon in Missouri, it is not considered 
so rare as to be tracked. Therefore, population status studies in 
Missouri have not been conducted. Even so, Yatskievych (2009, pers. 
comm.) believes the existing sites are reasonably secure. Kruse (2010, 
pers. comm.) believes that management of public prairies will ensure 
the stable and continued existence of Missouri's populations of C. 
oklahomensis (Kruse 2010, pers. comm.). This species is reported from a 
number of prairie preserves in southwestern Missouri, and likely is 
more secure in Missouri than any other State (Goldman 2008a, p. 3).
    Goldman (2008a, p. 8) believes Oklahoma had the greatest number of 
records of the species from the last 30 years; however, there are 
currently six extant sites of Calopogon oklahomensis in Oklahoma (Table 
3) (Buthod 2010, pers. comm.) Buthod (2010, pers. comm.) indicates that 
portions of C. oklahomensis habitat in Oklahoma are being converted to 
fescue and being used for grazing, as five of the six extant 
populations are on private land. The site of the sixth C. oklahomensis 
population in Oklahoma is owned by the State of Oklahoma and used by 
the Department of Corrections (Table 3) as the Jess Dunn Prison. 
Current information indicates that the prison grounds have no native 
grass pasture and are actively hayed and growing fescue (Frye 2011, 
pers. comm.). In 2009 and 2010, personnel from the Oklahoma Biological 
Survey and the Oklahoma Natural Heritage collected information on the 
status of extant C. oklahomensis populations on private land in 
Oklahoma (Buthod 2010, pers. comm.). Two populations of C. oklahomensis 
exist in Bryan County, Oklahoma. One of those population's sites is 
described as having native prairie hay meadow elements, but C. 
oklahomensis could not be located at this site (Buthod 2011, pers. 
comm.). This site is on the outskirts of Durant, Oklahoma, where the 
land is currently not in use, but exhibits evidence of disturbance from 
pipeline construction, and is expected to be developed for commercial 
or private use (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.). The second C. oklahomensis 
population in Bryan County, Oklahoma, was surveyed in May 2010. It has 
some native prairie hay meadow elements, but is used for hay. Calopogon 
oklahomensis could not be located at that site in 2010 (Buthod 2011, 
pers. comm.).
    Two other Calopogon oklahomensis populations occur in LeFlore 
County, Oklahoma. Surveys conducted in May 2009 indicated 20 plants of 
C. oklahomensis at one LeFlore County site, which is mowed for hay 
(Buthod 2011, pers. comm.). The other site in LeFlore County had one C. 
oklahomensis plant observed in native prairie hay meadow with mima 
mounds (natural domelike soil mounds) (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.).
    The fifth Calopogon oklahomensis population in Oklahoma that is on 
private land is in Muskogee County. Over 50 stems of C. oklahomensis 
(80 percent in bloom) were seen in May 2009 (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.). 
The site is mowed for hay and also has mima mounds.
    The destruction, modification, or curtailment of Calopogon 
oklahomensis habitat may be a threat for at least five of Oklahoma's 
six extant populations because they occur on private land. The private 
land, as currently managed, does not afford the species any land 
protection status or certainty on future land use, nor does it provide 
an obligation for management, such as burning or mowing, conducive to 
the continued existence of C. oklahomensis.
    In Texas, there is one extant population of C. oklahomensis located 
in Brazos County, which exists in a city-owned park near College 
Station, Texas (Goldman 2008a, p. 9). We have no information on the 
management of the site other than Goldman (2008a, p. 9) believes the 
site is not burned, even occasionally, and, therefore, is experiencing 
tree and shrub encroachment.
    In Wisconsin, Calopogon oklahomensis occurs within the University 
of Wisconsin Arboretum's Greene Prairie. Greene Prairie is not 
specifically managed for C. oklahomensis, but it is managed to maintain 
native prairie communities, which is the preferred habitat of C. 
oklahomensis.
Summary of Factor A
    The destruction and modification of Calopogon oklahomensis habitat, 
specifically tallgrass prairie, remnant prairie, prairie-haymeadow, and 
mowed meadow, has historically occurred rangewide. Furthermore, the 
destruction and modification of some types of C. oklahomensis habitat 
(tallgrass prairie, remnant prairie, prairie haymeadow, and mowed 
meadow) currently continues rangewide. However, of the 41 extant C. 
oklahomensis populations, 26 are on land that is protected, and 
although those sites may not be managed specifically for C. 
oklahomensis, the management focuses on the continued existence of 
native prairie communities, which benefits C. oklahomensis as its 
preferred habitat is native prairie communities. Therefore, we believe 
this threat may only be applicable to 15 of the 41 extant populations 
in 4 (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas) of the 7 States where 
the species currently occurs (Table 3).
    Of the 15 extant populations that may be threatened by destruction 
or modification of habitat, 14 populations occur on private land with 
no land protection status, and we have no information on the land 
protection status for one other population that occurs on land owned by 
the State of Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The 14 populations 
that occur on private land, and that are documented as having no land 
protection status, may be threatened by destruction or

[[Page 61317]]

modification of habitat from drainage, clearing, plowing, development, 
and lack of management, including the conversion to fescue for grazing 
(Table 3). In Arkansas, where 7 of those 14 populations occur, 4 sites 
are managed as hayfield, 2 as prairie, and 1 is mowed. The management 
of these seven extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations on private 
land may be adequate to maintain their continued existence.
    Fourteen populations of Calopogon oklahomensis occur on private 
land, which are not protected from destruction or modification of 
habitat. Habitat destruction and modification, however, have not been 
linked to widespread declines throughout the range of the species. The 
majority of C. oklahomensis populations (26 populations) occur on 
protected, public land that is managed for native plant communities. 
These 26 protected populations occur in 5 (Arkansas, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin) of the 7 States within the species' 
current range. Furthermore, although the 14 populations that occur on 
private land are not specifically protected from habitat destruction, 
we have no information indicating that these 14 populations are 
expected to be destroyed in the future. Therefore, a review of the best 
available information indicates that although some populations of C. 
oklahomensis may be threatened by habitat destruction or modification, 
the continued existence of the species is not threatened throughout all 
of its range by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range, or likely to become so.

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

    In Arkansas, poaching of Calopogon oklahomensis was observed at one 
State Natural Area (Down's Prairie) in recent years (Osborne 2010, 
pers. comm.). In this case, a number of obvious and fresh shovel holes 
were observed in the center of a patch of C. oklahomensis during the 
blooming period (Osborne 2010, pers. comm.). The poaching was noted as 
a one-time event, and C. oklahomensis persisted at this location after 
the incident (Osborne 2011, pers. comm.). This State Natural Area is 
regularly monitored with no additional poaching observed, but it is 
difficult to determine the true impact of this one-time poaching event 
as population numbers of C. oklahomensis fluctuate greatly from one 
year to the next (Osborne 2011, pers. comm.).
    We have no other information regarding overutilization of this 
species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 
purposes. Because poaching of plants is known to have occurred at only 
1 extant Calopogon oklahomensis population and does not appear to have 
adversely impacted that population, poaching does not constitute a 
threat to the species throughout its range. In summary, a review of the 
best available information indicates that C. oklahomensis is not 
threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes throughout its range.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Disease and herbivory by insects, wildlife, or livestock was 
documented for Calopogon oklahomensis at only one location. At Hitt's 
Siding Prairie Nature Preserve, the State of Illinois has documented 
deer browse on the species and seed capsule destruction by weevils 
(Masi 2010, pers. comm.). We do not know how widespread this herbivory 
may be or if it resulted in detrimental effects on C. oklahomensis as 
deer and weevils naturally feed on many plant species. We have no other 
evidence of unnatural levels of predation for this species, and we do 
not have any information indicating that disease impacts C. 
oklahomensis. In summary, a review of the best available information 
indicates that C. oklahomensis is not threatened by disease or 
predation throughout its range.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    There are no Federal laws that specifically protect Calopogon 
oklahomensis. At the State level, of the seven States within the 
current range of the species, C. oklahomensis is currently protected by 
State regulations only in Illinois, where it is State listed as 
endangered. The species is also State listed as endangered in 
Tennessee, but the species is believed to be extirpated there.
    The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act requires State and 
municipal agencies taking actions that might affect State or federally 
listed species (including plants) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 
impacts to the listed species (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/lcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1730&ChapterID=43&Print=True accessed on 09/06/2011). 
Furthermore, it is unlawful in the State of Illinois for any person to 
take plants on the List of Endangered and Threatened Species in 
Illinois without the express written permission of the landowner, or to 
sell or offer for sale plants or plant products of endangered species. 
In addition, Illinois's two extant Calopogon oklahomensis sites occur 
on dedicated Nature Preserve land, which affords the species additional 
protections. Only high-quality natural areas qualify for this land 
protection status. Dedication as a Nature Preserve is the strongest 
protection that can be given to land in Illinois, and provides 
permanent protection. The landowner retains custody of the property, 
but voluntarily restricts future uses of the land in perpetuity to 
preserve its natural state and to perpetuate natural conditions.
    In the State of Tennessee, Calopogon oklahomensis is considered 
endangered and possibly extirpated, as it has not been seen in the 
State for the past 20 years. It is possible that C. oklahomensis may no 
longer occur in Tennessee, however, if it is determined that the 
species still persists in Tennessee, under Tennessee Code Annotated 70-
8-309, it is a violation for any person, other than the landowner, 
lessee, or other person entitled to possession, or the manager, in the 
case of publicly owned land, or a person with the written permission of 
the landowner or manager, to knowingly uproot, dig, take, remove, 
damage, destroy, possess, or otherwise disturb for any purpose any 
endangered species (Tenn. Code Ann. 2011).
    Despite the lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect Calopogon 
oklahomensis in most States, we found that there are no threats that 
are placing the species at risk (Factors A, B, C, and E) that require 
regulatory mechanisms to protect the species. Therefore, we do not 
consider the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms a threat to this 
species. We conclude that the best scientific and commercial 
information available indicates that Calopogon oklahomensis is not 
threatened throughout its range due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Small, Isolated Populations
    Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5) describes Calopogon species as having a 
unique biology that makes small or widely scattered populations more 
vulnerable to extirpation. A Calopogon corm contains only two growing 
points compared to other vascular plants, which have multiple tiny, 
dormant buds (Goldman 2008a, pp. 4-5). Because Calopogon does not form 
new buds, this species has only two chances for success at perpetuating 
the plant

[[Page 61318]]

through the next winter (Goldman 2008a, pp. 4-5). Therefore, the 
species may be particularly vulnerable to stochastic events, which, if 
they occur at a certain time (when the buds have formed or are 
forming), may destroy the chance for the plant to reproduce that year. 
Historically, the species most likely relied on a widespread mosaic of 
large populations, and thus some populations were able to escape local 
or regional droughts, allowing the species to persist and recolonize 
the drought-affected areas. This species now consists of smaller 
populations that may be geographically disconnected from each other. 
Existence in small, isolated populations can render species vulnerable 
to local, regional, or widespread extirpation due to uncontrollable 
natural forces, including local or regional climate perturbation such 
as drought. Such an event could eliminate most or all of a small 
population.
    Species that are known from few, widely dispersed locations are 
inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species 
because of the higher risks from genetic bottlenecks, random 
demographic fluctuations, and localized catastrophes such as long-term 
drought (Lande 1988, p. 1455; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 
1994, p. 607). These problems are further magnified when populations 
are few and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of 
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face 
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in 
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process 
described as an ``extinction vortex'' by Gilpin and Soul[eacute] (1986, 
pp. 24-25). Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level 
of genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which 
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental 
changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence 
(Soul[eacute] 1987, pp. 4-7). Inbreeding depression as the result of 
isolated, small populations can result in death, decreased fertility, 
smaller body size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and various 
chromosome abnormalities (Smith 1974, p. 350).
    Although changes in the environment may cause populations to 
fluctuate naturally, small and low-density populations are more likely 
to fluctuate below a minimum viable population (the minimum or 
threshold number of individuals needed in a population to persist in a 
viable state for a given interval) (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Shaffer and 
Samson 1985, pp. 148-150; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-33). The 
problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to 
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further 
magnified by synergistic interactions with other potential threats, 
such as those discussed above under Factor A. Despite evolutionary 
adaptations for rarity, habitat loss and degradation increase a 
species' vulnerability to extinction (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 
58-62). Historically, Calopogon oklahomensis was more widespread. An 
important benefit of this greater historical range resulted in an 
advantage of redundancy: Additional populations separated by some 
distance likely allowed some populations to be spared the impacts of 
localized or more discrete catastrophic events, such as drought. 
However, this advantage of redundancy may be lost with the reduction in 
C. oklahomensis range. Additionally, the unique biological features of 
C. oklahomensis described by Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5), which limit 
reproduction and the ability to recolonize, may make this species more 
vulnerable to the effects of small population sizes and fragmented 
habitats.
    Our assessment of this species' status is complicated by the fact 
that we have limited information regarding population sizes of 
Calopogon oklahomensis. Although C. oklahomensis may be considered 
uncommon, it is not considered so rare as to be tracked by most States. 
(This may also be due to the recent recognition of C. oklahomensis as a 
distinct species). Therefore, population status studies have not been 
regularly conducted across its range for the 41 extant populations. 
Throughout the range of C. oklahomensis (the States of Arkansas, 
Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin), we 
have limited population status information for three States (Arkansas, 
Mississippi and Oklahoma). Further complicating the availability of 
population data, the number of flowering plants annually can vary 
dramatically at any C. oklahomensis site, with this species not 
appearing some years (Witsell 2009, pers. comm.). In addition, because 
this species was relatively recently identified (1995), C. oklahomensis 
specimens have been confused for other Calopogon species, especially C. 
tuberosus, due to the difficulty in distinguishing the two species 
(Goldman 1995, pp. 37-41; Goldman et al. 2004b pp. 37-38; Anderson 
2010a, pers. comm.). For these reasons, meaningful long-term monitoring 
of the species is difficult, and long-term population abundance 
datasets are absent.
    Unique features of the species' biology increase its vulnerability 
to extirpation because it now exists in small, isolated populations. 
However, we have population density information only for some 
populations, and for some years, in three (Arkansas, Mississippi, and 
Oklahoma) of the seven States (Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) where Calopogon oklahomensis 
is believed to be extant. Populations may be large enough to withstand 
stochastic events. In addition, because C. oklahomensis is not tracked 
in four of the seven States where it exists, and there is, thus, likely 
unsurveyed potential habitat, there may be other, as yet unknown 
populations of C. oklahomensis. Although C. oklahomensis may be exposed 
to a potential threat from small population size and fragmented 
habitats, we have no evidence of a response to this factor. Rangewide, 
C. oklahomensis habitat is fragmented compared to historical 
occurrences of the species, and it's unique biology may make it more 
vulnerable to extirpation than other vascular plants; however, we have 
no information that this threat may act on this species to the point 
that the species itself may be at risk or likely to become so.
Climate Change
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was 
established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the 
United Nations Environment Program in response to growing concerns 
about climate change and, in particular, the effects of global warming. 
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007, entire) synthesized the 
projections of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 
3, a coordinated large set of climate model runs performed at modeling 
centers worldwide using 22 global climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 
11). Based on these projections, the IPCC has concluded that the 
warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced from 
observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, 
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level 
(IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 30; Karl et al. 2009, p. 17). Changes in the global 
climate system during the 21st century are likely to be larger than 
those observed during the 20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). Several 
scenarios are virtually certain or very likely to occur in the 21st 
century including: (1) Over

[[Page 61319]]

most land, weather will be warmer, with fewer cold days and nights, and 
more frequent hot days and nights; (2) areas affected by drought will 
increase; and (3) the frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most 
land areas will likely increase (IPCC 2007, pp. 13, 53).
    In instances for which a direct cause and effect relationship 
between global climate change and regional effects to a specific 
species has not been documented, we rely primarily on synthesis 
documents (e.g., IPCC 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, entire) to inform 
our evaluation of the extent that regional impacts due to climate 
change may affect our species. These synthesis documents present the 
consensus view of climate change experts from around the world. 
Typically, the projections of downscaled models agree with the 
projections of the global climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 25). 
Climate change projections are based on models with assumptions and are 
not absolute. Portions of the global climate change models can be used 
to predict changes at the regional-landscape scale; however, this 
approach contains higher levels of uncertainty than using global models 
to examine changes on a larger scale. The uncertainty arises due to 
various factors related to difficulty in applying data to a smaller 
scale, and to the paucity of information in these models such as 
regional weather patterns, local physiographic conditions, life stages 
of individual species, generation time of species, and species 
reactions to changing carbon dioxide levels. Additionally, global 
climate models do not incorporate a variety of plant-related factors 
that could be informative in determining how climate change could 
affect plant species (e.g., effect of elevated carbon dioxide on plant 
water-use efficiency, the life stage at which the limit affects the 
species (seedling versus adult), the lifespan of the species, and the 
movement of other organisms into the species' range) (Shafer et al. 
2001, p. 207).
    Regional landscapes also can be examined by downscaling global 
climate models. Global climate models can play an important role in 
characterizing the types of changes that may occur, so that the 
potential impacts on natural systems can be assessed (Shafer et al. 
2001, p. 213).
    Climate change is likely to affect the habitat of Calopogon 
oklahomensis, but we lack scientific information on what those changes 
may ultimately mean for the status of the species. Climate change 
effects are not limited to the timing and amount of precipitation; 
other factors potentially influenced by climate change may in turn 
affect the habitat conditions for C. oklahomensis. For example, fire 
frequency may be influenced by climate change (Logan and Powell 2001, 
p. 170; Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 942-943) and may in turn increase 
suitable habitat of C. oklahomensis, as it is believed that frequent 
burns tend to increase population numbers of C. oklahomensis (Goldman 
2008, p. 10). Impacts of specific events on C. oklahomensis and its 
habitat have not been analyzed. Climate change is likely to affect 
multiple variables that may influence the suitability of habitat for C. 
oklahomensis. As habitat conditions have fluctuated in the past, and C. 
oklahomensis has persisted throughout these fluctuations, this species 
should be able to persist so long as climate change does not result in 
extreme changes to important characteristics of the species habitat or 
life cycle, such as the complete loss of prairie habitat or the 
complete loss of available moisture at a crucial life stage. At this 
time, the best available scientific information does not indicate that 
impacts from climate change are likely to be a threat to the species to 
the point that the species may be at risk or likely to become so.
Summary of Factor E
    Based on our evaluation, we find that Calopogon oklahomensis is not 
threatened by other natural or manmade factors. Calopogon oklahomensis 
may be more vulnerable to other natural or manmade factors such as 
genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change, 
and localized catastrophes such as long-term drought because of its 
unique biology and because populations may be small and fragmented from 
each other. At this time, the best available information on long-term 
population abundance does not enable us to make a connection between 
the species unique biology and small population size and the potential 
impacts outlined above. For this reason, a review of the best available 
information indicates that threats considered under Factor E may act on 
C. oklahomensis, but not to the point that the species is at risk now 
or now or likely to become so.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether Calopogon oklahomensis is threatened or endangered throughout 
all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by Calopogon oklahomensis. We reviewed the petition, information 
available in our files, other available published and unpublished 
information, and we consulted with species and habitat experts, and 
other Federal, State, and tribal agencies.
    The available information indicates that C. oklahomensis is a 
fairly wide-ranging species with relatively stable, protected 
populations in much of its current range. Based on our review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the 
five factors, we find that despite range reductions that have resulted 
in smaller, disconnected populations, and the species' reproductive 
biology, which may make it more vulnerable to extirpation through 
stochastic events, the threats, either individually or in combination, 
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate 
that Calopogon oklahomensis is in danger of extinction (endangered), or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), 
throughout all of its range.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that Calopogon oklahomensis is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are 
any significant portions of the range where C. oklahomensis is in 
danger of extinction or is likely to become in danger of extinction in 
the foreseeable future. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any 
species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any 
species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this 
discussion. The Act defines the term ``species'' as follows: ``The term 
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish 
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The phrase ``significant 
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and we have 
never addressed in our regulations: (1) The consequences of a 
determination that a species is either endangered or likely to become 
so throughout a significant portion of its range, but not throughout 
all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a range as 
``significant.''
    Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the 
significant portion of its range language allows the

[[Page 61320]]

Service to list or protect less than all members of a defined 
``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. 
Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the Northern Rocky 
Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr. 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians 
v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), 
concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to list the 
Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had 
asserted in both of these determinations that it had authority, in 
effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as defined by 
the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts 
ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the 
grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language 
of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the significant portion 
of its range language to allow protecting only a portion of a species' 
range is inconsistent with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The 
courts concluded that once a determination is made that a species 
(i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS) meets the definition of 
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' it must be placed on 
the list in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently 
to all members of that species (subject to modification of protections 
through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
    Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this 
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are 
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify 
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all 
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a 
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of 
extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, it, the 
species, is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis applies to 
``threatened species.'' Therefore, the consequence of finding that a 
species is endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of 
its range is that the entire species shall be listed as endangered or 
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections shall be applied 
across the species' entire range.
    We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting 
the significant portion of its range phrase as providing an independent 
basis for listing is the best interpretation of the Act because it is 
consistent with the purposes and the plain meaning of the key 
definitions of the Act; it does not conflict with established past 
agency practice (i.e., prior to the March 16, 2007, Memorandum Opinion 
issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, ``The 
Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant 
Portion of Its Range' '') as no consistent, long-term agency practice 
has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial opinions 
that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded that the 
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an independent 
basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we next turn to 
the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold for when such 
an independent basis for listing exists.
    Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a 
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the 
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the 
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the 
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold 
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction 
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of 
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. 
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, a portion of the range of a 
species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the 
species is so important that, without that portion, the species would 
be in danger of extinction.
    We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of 
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species 
that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy (having 
multiple populations distributed across the landscape) may be needed to 
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic 
events. Representation (the range of variation found in a species) 
ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. 
Redundancy, resiliency, and representation are not independent of each 
other, and some characteristic of a species or area may contribute to 
all three. For example, distribution across a wide variety of habitats 
is an indicator of representation, but it may also indicate a broad 
geographic distribution contributing to redundancy (decreasing the 
chance that any one event affects the entire species), and the 
likelihood that some habitat types are less susceptible to certain 
threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability of the species to 
recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is intended to be 
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range may be determined 
to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under any one of these 
concepts.
    For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's 
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as 
``significant'' by asking whether, without that portion, the 
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so 
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to 
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of 
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not 
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if 
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger 
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of 
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
    We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' establishes a 
threshold that is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the 
consequences of finding a species to be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range would be listing the species 
throughout its entire range, it is important to use a threshold for 
``significant'' that is robust. It would not be meaningful or 
appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a portion of the 
range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a negligible 
increase in extinction risk would result from its loss. Because nearly 
any portion of a species' range can be said to contribute some 
increment to a species' viability, use of such a low threshold would 
require us to impose restrictions and expend conservation resources 
disproportionately to conservation benefit: listing would be rangewide, 
even if only a portion of the range of minor conservation importance to 
the species is imperiled. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate 
to establish a threshold for ``significant'' that is too high. This 
would be the case if the standard were, for example, that a portion of 
the range can be considered ``significant'' only if threats in that 
portion result in the entire species' being currently endangered or 
threatened. Such a high bar would not give the significant portion of 
its range phrase independent meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in 
Defenders of

[[Page 61321]]

Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
    The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully 
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we 
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources 
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation. 
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a 
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning. 
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the 
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation. 
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so 
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species 
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of 
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not 
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance. 
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises 
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that 
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that 
we would not need to rely on the significant portion of its range 
language for such a listing.) Rather, under this interpretation we ask 
whether the species would be in danger of extinction everywhere without 
that portion, i.e., if the species was completely extirpated from that 
portion.
    The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions 
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be 
``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction 
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending 
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it 
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question 
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the portion status analysis 
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If 
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its 
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the 
species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based 
definition of ``significant,'' such portions will not warrant further 
consideration.
    In determining whether Calopogon oklahomensis is threatened or 
endangered in a significant portion of its range, we first addressed 
whether any portions of the range of C. oklahomensis warrant further 
consideration. We have no evidence that any particular population or 
portion of the range of C. oklahomensis is critical to the species' 
survival. Calopogon oklahomensis may actually occur continuously across 
its known range, but consistent, range-wide surveys have not been done. 
The population areas delineated in this document were derived from 
existing data and information; however, information on the species' 
distribution and numbers may change with more survey effort. Other than 
the potential threat of habitat destruction and modification, which is 
concentrated on private land, other potential threats to the species 
are essentially uniform throughout its range. The 14 C. oklahomensis 
populations that occur on private lands, which are not specifically 
protected from habitat destruction or modification, are not contiguous, 
but scattered throughout the range of the species. Other than the land 
ownership, there is nothing unique about these 14 populations that 
would contribute to the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of 
the species--they have the same biological characteristics that 
contribute to the species resiliency to periodic disturbance; even in 
their absence, there are multiple, stable and protected populations 
distributed throughout the species' range; and they do not contain 
unique genetic, morphological, physiological, behavioral, or ecological 
diversity of the species that is not represented in the protected 
populations. Therefore, we find that C. oklahomensis is not in danger 
of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, listing C. oklahomensis as threatened or endangered 
under the Act is not warranted at this time.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, Calopogon oklahomensis to our Chicago, 
Illinois Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 
available. New information will help us monitor C. oklahomensis and 
encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for C. 
oklahomensis or any other species, we will act to provide immediate 
protection.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Chicago, Illinois 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Author

    The primary author of this notice is a staff member of the Chicago, 
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 23, 2011.
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25530 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P