Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52717-52732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054; FXES11130900000C2-145-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-BA46

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of
Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod) From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the plant Solidago albopilosa (white-haired goldenrod) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. This determination is
based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, which indicates that the threats to this
species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species
no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We
seek information, data, and comments from the public regarding this
proposal to delist S. albopilosa, and on the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on this
proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before November 2,
2015. We must receive requests for public hearings in writing, at the
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, by October 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule and draft
post-delisting monitoring plan by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the Docket
Number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment now!'' Please ensure that you
have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
By U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Headquarters, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
Document availability: A copy of the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054, or at the Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/frankfort/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological
Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort,
Kentucky 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468. Individuals who are hearing-
impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information Relay
Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Purpose of Regulatory Action

We propose to remove the white-haired goldenrod from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants based on its recovery. This
proposed action is based on a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information. This document: (1) Proposes to
delist this endangered plant species; and (2) announces the
availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan.

Basis for Action

We may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data
indicate the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered
species for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or
endangered; or (3) the original data used at the time the species was
classified were in error. Here, we have determined that the species may
be delisted based on recovery.

[[Page 52718]]

During the latest range-wide survey for this plant, our
State partner, the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC)
(2010, p. 6), documented a total of 116 extant occurrences with the
following ranks: A-rank (11 occurrences), B (26), C (25), and D (54)
(see Species Information for definitions of each specific rank; ranks
were based on population size and perceived viability, habitat
condition, and degree of threat). Of the 116 extant occurrences, only 6
were located on private land, with the remainder located on the Daniel
Boone National Forest (DBNF). For all extant occurrences, 79 (68
percent) were considered to be stable, including ranks of A (10
occurrences), B (21), C (18), and D (30). For these stable occurrences,
KSNPC reported an average monitoring period of 10.2 years and an
average of 3.6 monitoring events for each occurrence (see Table 1).
From June to October 2013, KSNPC and the Service completed
additional surveys at 30 widely separated occurrences. These surveys
increased the number of extant occurrences from 116 to 117 and
increased the number of stable occurrences from 79 to 81. One new
occurrence was discovered, and revised status information was generated
for two unknown occurrences. Occurrences were ranked as ``unknown'' if
data from only one prior survey was available or prior surveys could
not be compared to recent surveys due to discrepancies in survey
methodology. Combining these results with those of previous surveys
produces a total of 81 stable occurrences with the following
categorical results: A (11 occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30)
(see Table 2). The average monitoring period increased from 10.2 to
11.1 years, with an average of 3.7 monitoring events for each
occurrence.
Of the 81 stable occurrences, we consider the A-, B-, and
C-ranked occurrences (total of 51) to be self-sustaining as defined by
the recovery plan. We consider these occurrences to be self-sustaining
because there is evidence of successful reproduction and the number of
individuals is stable or increasing. Under the recovery plan's
delisting criteria, S. albopilosa will be considered for delisting when
40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately
protected and have been maintained for 10 years. Of the 51 self-
sustaining occurrences, 46 are adequately protected (occupy the DBNF)
and have been maintained for more than 10 years. Therefore, the
delisting recovery criteria have been met.
The total number of stems now stands at approximately
174,000, and the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain
approximately 131,000 stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total
number.

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request
data, comments, and new information from other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested
parties concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most
useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that are
supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include
citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please
make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for
them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data
you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning
the following:
(1) Biological data regarding S. albopilosa;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to S.
albopilosa particularly any data on the possible effects of climate
change to this plant as it relates to its unique habitat types
(including models and data presented in this rule), as well as the
extent of Federal and State protection and management that would be
provided to S. albopilosa as a delisted species;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution,
population size, and trends of S. albopilosa, including the locations
of any additional populations of this species;
(4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of S.
albopilosa colonies that may impact or benefit the species; and
(5) The draft post-delisting monitoring plan and the methods and
approach detailed in it.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a
determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
In issuing a final determination on this proposed action, we will
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made
publicly available at any time.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the Web site. While you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please note that
comments posted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you
submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the
comment will not be publically viewable until we post it, which might
not occur until several days after submission.
Similarly, if you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this information from public review,
but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that
the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments
we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be available
for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
Documents box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the
Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kentucky Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 52719]]

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in the DATES section of this
document. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings,
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal
Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

On April 24, 1987, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (52 FR 13798) to list S. albopilosa as endangered under
section 4 of the Act. On April 7, 1988, we published a final rule in
the Federal Register (53 FR 11612) listing S. albopilosa as a
threatened species. The final rule identified the following threats to
S. albopilosa: Loss of habitat due to recreational activities (rock
climbing, hiking, camping, rappelling, and artifact collection) and a
proposed reservoir project; overutilization for recreational purposes;
no State law protecting rare plants in Kentucky; and potential
vegetational shifts in forests surrounding S. albopilosa habitats. On
September 28, 1993, we published the White-haired Goldenrod Recovery
Plan (Service 1993, 40 pp.). On July 26, 2005, we initiated a 5-year
status review of this species (70 FR 43171). The 5-year status review
was completed on March 3, 2009 (Service 2009, 15 pp). Although the
review did not include a recommendation to reclassify or delist this
plant, it did indicate that the species was showing substantial
improvement. New occurrences have been located since completion of the
recovery plan and a significant number of occurrences (51) appear to be
stable. We shared in this analysis that we anticipated making
additional progress with partners and we believed that delisting should
be considered for this species in the near future.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion
under the Recovery section below. Also see http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html for the species profile for this
flowering plant.

Species Information

Solidago albopilosa (Braun 1942) is an upright to slightly arching,
herbaceous, perennial plant that attains a height of 30 to 100
centimeters (12 to 39 inches). The long, soft, white hairs that cover
the leaves and stems are the species' most distinguishing
characteristic (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123). The alternate
leaves of S. albopilosa are widest at their base and are prominently
veined with a dark green upper surface and a pale underside. They vary
in length from 6 to 10 centimeters (2.5 to 4.0 inches), with the larger
leaves closer to the base of the stem. Hairs cover both surfaces of the
leaves and are most dense along the veins. The stem is cylindrical and
densely covered with fine white hairs. Axillary (positioned along the
main axis of the plant) clusters of small, fragrant, yellow flowers
begin blooming in late August. The flower heads are composed of three
to five ray florets (small flowers in the marginal part of the flower
head) and more than 15 disk florets (small flowers in the central part
of the flower head). The ray florets are about 6 mm long (0.24 inch),
and the disk flowers are about 3 mm long (0.12 inch). The pale brown,
pubescent, oblong achenes (dry single-seed fruits) appear in October
(Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123; Service
1993, p. 1).
Solidago albopilosa flowers from September through November and
sets fruit in mid-October through December. The flowers are visited by
bees, moths, and syrphid flies, which are likely attracted by the
fragrant, yellow flowers (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Service 1993, p. 6).
Viability of the species' pollen is reported to be high (Andreason and
Eshbaugh 1973, pp. 129-130). Seeds are most likely dispersed by wind,
but germination rates and the extent of vegetative reproduction are
unknown (Service 1993, p. 6).
Braun (1942, pp. 1-4) described S. albopilosa based on specimens
discovered in the summer of 1940 in the Red River Gorge area of Menifee
County, Kentucky. Solidago albopilosa is in the family Asteraceae, and
there are no synonyms for the species. Andreasen and Eshbaugh (1973,
pp. 126-128) studied variation among four separate occurrences
(populations) of S. albopilosa in Menifee and Powell Counties. Their
population analysis of characteristics such as plant height, leaf
length and width, stem pubescence, and number of ray flowers per head
showed that some morphological characteristics (e.g., plant height,
leaf shape and size, stem pubescence) can vary widely between
populations.
Solidago albopilosa can be distinguished from its closest relative,
S. flexicaulis (broad-leaf goldenrod), by its shorter height, smaller
and thinner leaves, and generally downy (hairy) appearance (the leaves
of S. flexicaulis have a slick, smooth appearance) (Medley 1980, p. 6).
The two species also differ in habitat preference. Solidago albopilosa
is restricted to sandstone rock shelters or ledges, while S.
flexicaulis is a woodland species occurring on the forest floor.
Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) used molecular and
morphological analyses to examine the relationship between S.
albopilosa and S. flexicaulis. They concluded that S. albopilosa is
most closely related to S. flexicaulis; however, there was no evidence
that either S. flexicaulis or S. caesia (wreath or blue-stemmed
goldenrod) is a parent or has a recent close relationship with S.
albopilosa as was previously speculated by Braun (1942, pp. 1-4).
Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) also examined genetic
diversity within S. albopilosa (using Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA
(RAPD) and isozyme markers) and reported genetic variation both within
and between populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among
populations and populations are not very genetically homogenous). The
highest level of genetic diversity was observed among rather than
within populations. Consequently, Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-
256) recommended that conservation efforts include the maintenance of
as many populations as possible to capture the full genetic diversity
of the species.
Solidago albopilosa is restricted to outcroppings of Pottsville
sandstone in a rugged, highly dissected area known as the Red River
Gorge in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky (Service 1993,
p. 2; White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River Gorge is well known
for its scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities, and much
of the area is located within the DBNF, an approximate 2,860-km\2\
(706,000-acre) area in eastern Kentucky that is owned and managed by
the U.S. Forest Service (White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River
Gorge lies within the Northern Forested Plateau Escarpment of the
Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002, p. 1). The
hills and ridges of this region are characterized as rugged and highly
dissected, with erosion-resistant, Pennsylvanian quartzose sandstone
(contains 90 percent quartz) capping the ridges and exposed layers of
Mississippian limestone, shale, and siltstone on lower slopes and in
the valleys.
White-haired goldenrod typically occurs on the floors of sandstone
rock shelters (natural, shallow, cave-like formations) and on sheltered
cliffs (cliffs with overhanging ledges) at elevations

[[Page 52720]]

of between 243 and 396 m (800 and 1,300 ft) (Andreasen and Eshbaugh
1973; Service 1993, p. 5). The species may also be found on ledges or
cracks in the ceiling or vertical walls of these habitats, but,
regardless of the specific location, white-haired goldenrod is
restricted to areas of partial shade behind the dripline (53 FR 11612)
and typically does not grow in the deepest part of rock shelters
(Harker et al. 1981, p. 4). Campbell et al. (1989, p. 40) noted that
this plant species is known from all possible moisture regimes and
aspects in these habitats, but plants on northern exposures appeared to
be smaller than average. Seven of nine occurrences examined by Nieves
and Day (2014, pp. 8-9) were located in easterly or northerly facing
shelters, which receive minimal direct sunlight. Nieves and Day
examined only a small percentage of the species' 117 known occurrences
(8 percent), so further study is required to determine the importance
of solar aspect on the species' biology and distribution. Ten rock
shelter habitats examined by Nieves and Day (2014, p. 7) were
significantly cooler and more humid than the surrounding environment
(areas outside and above the rock shelter), but the species'
requirements with respect to air temperature and relative humidity are
unknown.
Typical herbaceous associates of white-haired goldenrod include
roundleaf catchfly (Silene rotundifolia) and alumroot (Heuchera
parviflora) and less commonly white baneberry (Actaea pacypoda),
maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), fourleaf yam (Dioscorea
quaternata), intermediate woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), Indian
cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), and little mountain meadow-rue (Thalicturm
mirabile) (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 128;
Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40; White and Drozda 2006,
p. 124). Associated woody species of the mixed mesophytic forest
adjacent to S. albopilosa occurrences include red maple (Acer rubrum),
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia
macrophylla), umbrella magnolia (M. tripetala), black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), oaks (Quercus spp.), basswood (Tilia americana), and
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p.
128; Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40).
When the species' recovery plan was completed in 1993, 90 extant
occurrences were known (Service 1993, p. 2), containing an estimated
45,000 stems (Service 1993, p. 2). All of these locations were situated
within the proclamation boundary of the DBNF, and 69 occurrences
(approximately 76 percent) were in Federal ownership. The remaining
occurrences (21) were located on private property. Rather than try to
determine what constituted a population, the recovery plan (Service
1993, p. 1) used ``occurrence'', defining it as a ``discrete group of
plants beneath a single rock shelter or on a single rock ledge.'' In
making this definition, the Service (1993, p. 6) explained that
pollinators (bees and syrphid flies) likely carried pollen between rock
shelters and may even move between adjacent ravines. If there were
sufficient gene flow between occurrences via pollinators, clusters of
nearby rock shelters or adjacent ravines could comprise a population.
However, without additional research, it was impossible to determine
the species' actual population boundaries.
The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) completed
surveys in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp.
124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 4), and these surveys raised the number of S.
albopilosa occurrences from 90 to 141. Despite the increased number of
occurrences, the total range of S. albopilosa did not increase
significantly as it was still restricted to the same general area
within the Red River Gorge. KSNPC (2010, pp. 4-8) completed the first
range-wide survey during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons. During this
2-year period, KSNPC ranked each occurrence based on population size
and viability, habitat condition, and degree of threat. KSNPC also
evaluated the stability of each occurrence by comparing their 2008-2009
survey data with data collected in previous years. The following
specifications were used to rank the occurrences (KSNPC 2010, p. 21):
A (excellent estimated viability): 2,500 or more stems in habitat
with low degree of recreational impact or a minimum of 4,000 stems
where the degree of recreational impact is medium or high.
B (good estimated viability): 1,000 to 2,499 stems and some areas
of habitat with a low degree of recreational impact or higher numbers
of stems (2,500 to 4,000) at sites where the degree of recreational
impact is medium or high.
C (fair estimated viability): 300 to 999 stems where recreational
impacts are low or higher numbers of stems (1,000 to 2,000) at sites
affected by a medium or high degree of recreational impact; may also
include sites with little opportunity for habitat recovery or
population expansion.
D (poor estimated viability): Fewer than 300 stems in any habitat.
H (historic): Taxon or natural community has not been reliably
reported in Kentucky since 1990 but is not considered extinct or
extirpated.
X (extirpated): A taxon for which habitat loss has been pervasive
and/or concerted efforts by knowledgeable biologists to collect or
observe specimens within appropriate habitats have failed.
F (failed to find): Occurrence not located in current survey;
original mapping may be in wrong location.
During their 2-year range wide survey, KSNPC (2010, p. 6)
documented a total of 116 extant occurrences, producing ranks with the
following categorical results: A-rank (11 occurrences), B (26), C (25),
and D (54) (Table 1). The remaining 25 occurrences were considered to
be historic, extirpated, or could not be relocated (failed to find). Of
the 116 extant occurrences, only 6 were located on private land, with
the remainder located on the DBNF. For all extant occurrences, 79 (68
percent) were considered to be stable, including ranks of A (10
occurrences), B (21), C (18), and D (30). Stability was estimated
through comparisons of historical and recent survey data. Occurrences
were considered ``stable'' if no change was detected in their general
rank/status over the course of monitoring, stem numbers increased over
the course of monitoring, and/or slight decreases in stem numbers could
be attributed to natural climatic variation. Ranks were based on
population size and perceived viability, habitat condition, and degree
of threat. For all stable occurrences, KSNPC reported an average
monitoring period of 10.2 years and an average of 3.6 monitoring events
for each occurrence.

[[Page 52721]]

Table 1--Summary of White-Haired Goldenrod Ranks and Status Based on Range-Wide Surveys Completed by the
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission in 2008 and 2009
[KSNPC 2010]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranks of extant occurrences
Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
A B C D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable.......................... 10 21 18 30 79
Declining....................... 0 5 4 22 31
Unknown......................... 1 0 3 2 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 11 26 25 54 116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the remaining extant occurrences, 31 were considered to be
declining and 6 were of unknown status (see Table 1). For the declining
occurrences, ranks included B (5 occurrences), C (4), and D (22). For
the unknown occurrences, ranks included A (1 occurrence), C (3), and D
(2). Occurrences were considered to be declining if a negative change
was detected in the general rank/status over the course of monitoring
and/or there was a greater than 30 percent decline in stem count.
Unknown status meant surveys of that occurrence were not performed more
than once or prior surveys could not be compared to recent surveys due
to discrepancies in survey methodology.
KSNPC and the Service completed additional surveys from June to
October 2013 at 30 widely separated occurrences, resulting in the
discovery of one new occurrence and revised status information for two
unknown occurrences (Service 2014a, entire). Combining these results
with occurrence totals reported by KSNPC (2010, 24 pp.), there are now
81 stable occurrences with the following categorical results: A (11
occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30) (Table 2). The average
monitoring period increased from 10.2 to 11.1 years, with an average of
3.7 monitoring events for each occurrence. The total number of stems
now stands at 174,357, compared to 45,000 when the recovery plan was
completed.

Table 2--Summary of Current White-Haired Goldenrod Ranks and Status (KSNPC 2010, 2014a) Showing an Increase in A
and B Ranked Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranks of extant occurrences
Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
A B C D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable.......................... 11 22 18 30 81
Declining....................... 0 5 4 23 32
Unknown......................... 0 0 2 2 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 11 27 24 55 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recovery

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are not
regulatory documents and are instead intended to establish goals for
long-term conservation of a listed species, define criteria that are
designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been
removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer
need the protections of the Act, and provide guidance to our Federal,
State, and other governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods
to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved
without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria
may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been
accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall, the threats have
been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to
reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist
the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species that was not known at the time
the recovery plan was finalized may become available. The new
information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for
recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The following discussion provides a brief review of recovery
planning and implementation for the white-haired goldenrod, as well as
an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to
evaluating the status of the taxon.
The White-haired Goldenrod Recovery Plan was approved by the
Service on September 28, 1993 (Service 1993, 40 pp.). The recovery plan
includes recovery criteria intended to indicate when threats to the
species have been adequately addressed, and prescribes actions
necessary to achieve those criteria. We first discuss progress on
completing the primary recovery actions, then discuss recovery
criteria.

Recovery Actions

The recovery plan identifies five primary actions necessary for
recovering S. albopilosa:
(1) Protect existing occurrences;
(2) Continue inventories;
(3) Conduct studies on life history and ecological requirements;
(4) Maintain plants and seeds ex situ; and
(5) Provide the public with information.

[[Page 52722]]

Three of five recovery actions (1, 2, and 5) have been accomplished
(completion of the remaining actions (3 and 4) are discussed in greater
detail below under each action). Action 4 is under way and will be
included in the post delisting monitoring activities. The Service
entered into a cooperative agreement with KSNPC in 1986, under section
6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and threatened plant
species. This agreement has provided a mechanism for KSNPC to acquire
Federal funds that have supported much of the work described here. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky and other partners have also provided matching
funds under this agreement.

Recovery Action (1): Protect existing occurrences.

The White-haired Goldenrod Recovery Plan states that an occurrence
will be ``adequately protected'' when it is legally protected, has
received adequate physical protection, and is assured of all required
management (Service 1993, 40 pp.). Based on these criteria, we consider
a total of 46 A-, B-, or C-ranked occurrences on the DBNF to be
adequately protected. We base our conclusions regarding their level of
protection on the location of these occurrences (all are in DNBF
ownership and many are in remote locations not visited by the public);
trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF and the Service;
observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18);
conservation actions described in DBNF's Land and Resource Management
Plan (LRMP); and information in our files concerning specific DBNF
conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and
fencing. We have chosen to exclude five, stable, self-sustaining
occurrences from the list of ``protected'' occurrences because they are
in private ownership, and no conservation agreement or plan is in place
to ensure their long-term protection.
The species' primary threat has been identified as ground
disturbance and trampling associated with recreational activities
(i.e., camping, hiking, and rock-climbing) within the Red River Gorge.
To address these threats, the DBNF began to redirect trails and install
fencing (chicken wire) around selected S. albopilosa rock shelters in
February 2000. The DBNF focused on these occurrences because they were
near DBNF user-defined trails and were suffering obvious recreational
impacts--trampling and ground disturbance associated with camping, rock
climbing, and hiking. The DBNF also placed informational signs at these
shelters and at trailheads, alerting visitors to the presence of the
species and warning them against potential damage to plants.
Signs and/or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a
total of 21 occurrences, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these
sites annually, checking the condition of signs and fencing and making
repairs as needed. To guard against future impacts, the DBNF and KSNPC
have proposed the addition of new or expanded fencing at five
occurrences. As stated below in this recovery section, this new and
expanded fencing is included as a conservation action in the Service's
proposed cooperative management agreement with DBNF and KSNPC.
Monitoring results show that implementation of the LRMP, including
specific conservation actions described above (fencing and sign
placement), have had a positive effect on the species (KSNPC 2010, 24
pp.). Specifically, it has been demonstrated that disturbance from
trampling, camping, and rock climbing is low at remote occurrences, and
impacts have been reduced at more visited sites. The number of stems
has remained stable or increased at 20 of 21 occurrences (95 percent)
where fencing or informational signs have been added. For all extant
occurrences on the DBNF, 75 (68 percent) of 111 extant occurrences are
considered stable to increasing, and we consider 46 occurrences to be
self-sustaining (A-, B-, or C-rank occurrences that are stable and
reproducing). Based on all these factors, we consider this recovery
action to be complete.

Recovery Action (2): Continue inventories.

There were 90 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa when the recovery
plan was completed (Service 1993, p. 2). In subsequent years, KSNPC
completed surveys within the Red River Gorge in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004,
and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 2),
raising the number of documented S. albopilosa occurrences from 90 to
141. Surveys in other areas of Kentucky and adjacent States with
suitable habitat (e.g., sandstone rock shelters) did not show evidence
of additional occurrences of the species (Campbell et al. 1989, pp. 29-
43; Palmer-Ball et al. 1988, pp. 19-25; Walck et al. 1996, pp. 339-341;
Norris and Harmon 2000, pp. 2-3). The first range-wide survey in the
Red River Gorge was completed during the field seasons of 2008 and 2009
(KSNPC 2010, pp. 4-8), and KSNPC and the Service completed follow up
surveys at 30 extant occurrences in 2013 (See the Species Information
section above for detail on surveys). During these efforts, KSNPC and
the Service documented a total of 117 extant occurrences and of these,
we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked occurrences (total of 46) to be
secure and self-sustaining. Because systematic searches for new
occurrences have been conducted since the completion of the recovery
plan and led to the discovery of previously unknown occurrences, we
consider this recovery action to be completed.

Recovery Action (3): Conduct studies on life history and ecological
requirements.

This recovery action is incomplete (not all subactivities have been
addressed completely) but significant progress has been made. Since
publication of the recovery plan (Service 1993, entire), studies of the
species' life history and ecological requirements have included
Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10), Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 246-251),
White and Drozda (2006, p. 125), KSNPC (2010, p. 5), and Nieves and Day
2014). Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp.
246-251) studied the ancestry of S. albopilosa, examined gene flow and
genetic diversity within and between populations, and investigated
life-history traits (i.e., seed set, importance of pollinators, self-
incompatibility (the inability of a plant to produce seeds when its
flowers are pollinated from its own flowers or from flowers of plants
that are genetically the same)). The ancestry of S. albopilosa was
unclear, but it had the most morphological and genetic similarity with
S. flexicaulis. Despite this, the two species were reported as
genetically different and there was no evidence of recent gene flow.
Esselman (1995, pp. 16-23) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 251-
253) observed the highest levels of genetic diversity between
populations rather than within populations. The levels of seed
production appeared to be about equal to that of other goldenrods, but
the amount of seed set varied between populations and appeared to
increase with increasing occurrence size. Pollination experiments
indicated that pollinators are necessary for seed set, and the species
is self-incompatible.
During field surveys between 1996 and 2009, KSNPC collected
occurrence information throughout the species' range, recording such
information as stem count, patch size, percent vegetative versus sexual
reproduction, recreational disturbance (ranked from low to high), other
perceived threats, and general habitat condition (White and Drozda
2006, p. 125; KSNPC 2010,

[[Page 52723]]

p. 5). In its 2-year range wide study, KSNPC (2010, p. 5) used a two-
page plant survey form to record more detailed biological information
at each occurrence: population structure (percent individuals
exhibiting vegetative versus reproductive growth), occurrence size
(square meters), plant height, number of stems, number of rosettes,
population density, plant vigor, and an evaluation of threats (e.g.,
trampling, camping, invasive plants, herbivory). KSNPC (2010, p. 5)
also photographed each occurrence and made sketches that showed
individual patch locations within each occurrence or rock shelter.
Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 1-12) conducted a preliminary assessment
of the microclimatic and pedological (soil) conditions of 10 rock
shelters inhabited by the species. They documented significant
differences between the inside of rock shelters and the surrounding
environment with respect to temperature and relative humidity (habitats
inside rock shelters were wetter and more humid) but no significant
differences with respect to soil characteristics (macronutrients and
acidity/alkalinity (pH)). Most of the rock shelters they investigated
were easterly or northerly facing, but their small sample size prevents
any significant conclusions with respect to the importance of sunlight
and solar radiation.
Under recovery action 3.0, two of seven subactivities remain to be
completed--the use of quantitative, permanent plots (3.1) and
determination of specific habitat requirements (3.3). Permanent plots
have not been established, but the species' known occurrences have been
visited and evaluated repeatedly (average of 3.6 times) since
completion of the recovery plan. These visits have allowed us to
evaluate the species' status and track the number of stems and flowers.
The purpose of subactivity 3.1 was to evaluate demography and we
believe the visits and work done in cooperation with KSNPC has provided
enough population data on this plant to propose delisting without
establishing permanent plots. The species' specific habitat
requirements (e.g., light, moisture, soils) are not well understood,
but preliminary investigations into the microclimate and soil
conditions of rock shelters were completed by Nieves and Day (2014, pp.
1-12), and additional research is planned (Nieves and Day 2014, pp. 11-
12). In partnership with DBNF and KSNPC, we have done extensive work
together to reduce threats such as disturbance. The intent behind
subactivity 3.3 was to learn about habitat requirements of this plant
for the purposes of determining if reintroduction or artificial
propagation that may be necessary to help recover this plant. White
haired goldenrod occurrences have grown in number and size as recovery
implementation actions have been implemented and threats have been
removed or reduced. These successful actions have removed the necessity
of having to reintroduce or augment plants. We will continue to learn
more about the species' habitat requirements as we work with DBNF and
KSNPC through post delisting monitoring. In the course of this work, if
a new threat of any kind presents itself, we have identified in the PDM
plan how we will evaluate it with respect to species status.
The majority of subactivities have been addressed (3.2, 3.4-3.7); a
considerable amount of information has been gained regarding the
species' life history and ecological requirements; and the species'
status has improved since publication of the recovery plan. We were
able to obtain the intended information identified in subactivity 3.3
through implementation of other actions. Although the need to conduct
subactivity 3.3 has been removed with positive progress in this plant's
recovery program, we intend throughout PDM to continue to work closely
with researchers as they learn more about this species and its habitat.

Recovery Action (4): Maintain plants and seeds ex situ.

Seeds and plants of S. albopilosa have not been maintained ex situ
in any museum, botanical garden, or other seed storage facility;
however, we are working with the Missouri Botanical Garden to develop a
seed banking effort for S. albopilosa. A proposal for this work has
been drafted and is being considered by the Garden and the Service.
This effort will likely begin in late 2015 and will also be included as
part of post-delisting monitoring activities. This will involve
collection of S. albopilosa seed from across the range of the species
with deposition of the material at the Missouri Botanical Garden.

Recovery Action (5): Provide the public with information.

The KSNPC and DBNF have prepared several species factsheets and
signs that have been posted at gas stations, restaurants, kiosks, and
trailheads throughout the Red River Gorge. These signs were intended to
educate Red River Gorge visitors about the species and its threats.
Signs have also been posted in five archaeologically sensitive rock
shelters to prevent disturbance of historical artifacts as part of the
strategy to continue to protect against looting and at the same time to
protect this plant species. DBNF also displays photographs and provides
information on S. albopilosa at its Gladie Cultural-Environmental
Learning Center. KSNPC makes available on its Web site (http://naturepreserves.ky.gov) an S. albopilosa factsheet and several
threatened and endangered species lists that include information on S.
albopilosa. In June 2009, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources published 2,000 copies of a revised threatened and endangered
species booklet (second edition), which contained a species account for
S. albopilosa. Because of the numerous public information and education
projects listed above, we consider this recovery action completed.

Recovery Criteria

Under the Recovery Plan, S. albopilosa will be considered for
delisting when 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences
are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10 years. An
occurrence will be considered as self-sustaining if there is evidence
of successful reproduction and the number of individuals is stable or
increasing. An occurrence will be adequately protected when it is
legally protected, has received adequate physical protection, and is
assured of all required management. The recovery plan also noted that
the requirements for delisting were preliminary and could change as
more information about the biology of the species was known. Based on
our current understanding of the species' range, biology, and threats,
we believe that the delisting criteria continue to be relevant. While
the number of occurrences has increased since completion of the
Recovery Plan, the species' overall range and the type of threats have
not changed dramatically. Furthermore, our current knowledge of the
species' biology indicates that multiple, distinct populations should
be maintained in order to provide redundancy (protect against
stochastic events) and preserve genetic diversity. We believe the
recovery goal of 40 stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences
is sufficient to address these needs. The species' current number of
stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences (46) has exceeded
this recovery goal (see discussion of Recovery Action 1 above). These
occurrences are distributed across the species' range and contain more
than 75 percent of the species' total number of stems.

[[Page 52724]]

The criteria for delisting S. albopilosa have been met, as
described below. Additionally, the level of protection currently
afforded to the species and its habitat, as well as the current status
of threats, are outlined below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section.
Currently, there are 117 extant occurrences. As described above, an
occurrence is defined as a ``discrete group of plants beneath a single
rock shelter or on a single rock ledge,'' and each occurrence is
considered ``geographically distinct'' as described in the recovery
criteria. We currently consider 81 (69 percent) of the 117 extant
white-haired goldenrod occurrences to be stable, meaning no change has
been detected (over average monitoring period of 11.1 years) in their
general rank or status. Of these, we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked
occurrences (total of 46) to be adequately protected and self-
sustaining as defined by the recovery plan. We consider these
occurrences to be self-sustaining because (1) the number of plants at
these occurrences has been stable or increasing over an average
monitoring period of 11.1 years, (2) these natural occurrences contain
a relatively high number of individual plants (range of 797-9,200), (3)
the estimated viability of these occurrences ranges from fair to
excellent; (4) the threat level at these occurrences is generally low
(average recreational impact of 2.5 on a scale of 1 (low impact) to 5
(high)), and (5) the observed reproduction (flowering plants) at these
occurrences has been relatively high, averaging 75-90 percent of plants
in nearly all cases (KSNPC 2010, p. 10). We consider these occurrences
to be adequately protected because of their location (all are located
on DBNF); trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF and the
Service; observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18);
conservation actions described in DBNF's Land and Resource Management
Plan (LRMP); and information in our files concerning specific DBNF
conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and
fencing. We do not consider the stable, D-ranked occurrences (total of
30) to be self-sustaining, primarily due to their poor estimated
viability and the low number of plants (fewer than 300 stems) observed
at these sites. We, therefore, conclude that we have met and exceeded
the criterion to have 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining
occurrences.
While we consider only 46 out of the 117 total extant occurrences
to currently be secure (adequately protected) and self-sustaining
(approximately 39 percent of the total occurrences), these occurrences
contain the majority of the total number of stems of the species. The
total number of stems now stands at approximately 174,000, and the 46
secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain approximately 131,000
stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total number. If we consider
the five additional self-sustaining occurrences located on private
property, the total number of stems increases to 140,500, or about 81
percent of the species' total number. While the remaining 65
occurrences on DBNF are not currently considered self-sustaining, all
of these occurrences will continue to receive protection and management
under DBNF's LRMP and we expect, based on the past ten years of
monitoring, their status will likely remain stable or continue to
improve.
With respect to protection, 111 of 117 extant occurrences (95
percent) occur on the DBNF and receive management and protection
through DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USFS 2004, pp.
1.1-1.10). As specified in the LRMP, S. albopilosa habitats receive
protection and management consideration as part of the Cliffline
Community Prescription (or management) Area (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8).
The Cliffline Community is defined as the area between 100-feet slope-
distance from the top of the cliff and 200-feet slope-distance from the
dripline of the cliffline. A cliffline is defined as a naturally
occurring, exposed, and nearly vertical rock structure at least 10 feet
(3.05 meters (m)) tall and 100 feet (30.05 m) long. All known S.
albopilosa occurrences occur within habitats fitting this description
and, therefore, are included in this Prescription Area. For the
Cliffline Community area, conservation goals in the LRMP include: (1)
Maintenance of the unique physical and microclimatic conditions in
these habitats, (2) the recovery of S. albopilosa, and (3) the
protection of these habitats against anthropogenic disturbance (USFS
2004, p. 3.6). To meet these goals, the following activities or
resource uses are prohibited within the cliffline zone: mineral, oil,
or gas exploration and development (Forest Service Standard 1.C-MIN-1);
road construction (1.C-ENG-1); recreational facilities (1.C-REC-1);
recreational activities such as rock climbing and rappelling (C-REC-2);
camping (1.C-REC-3); campfires (1.C-REC-4). Other activities such as
wildlife management (1.C-WLF) and vegetation management (1.C-VEG) are
limited and strictly controlled. This Prescription Area is classified
as ``Unsuitable for Timber Production'' but timber harvests may occur
on an unscheduled basis to attain a desired future condition. Harvest
of wood products may occur only as an output in pursuing other resource
objectives (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8). DBNF monitors cliffline habitats
and protects them as needed through law enforcement activities,
construction of fences, trail diversion, and placement of signs.
Since the species was listed, we have worked closely with KSNPC and
DBNF on the management and protection of S. albopilosa. Management
activities have included trail diversion (away from S. albopilosa
occurrences), installation of protective fencing, and placement of
informational signs in rock shelters, along trails, and at trailheads.
These activities and other management actions included in the DBNF's
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8) have assisted in recovery of the species,
as reflected in the large number of stable occurrences (81), self-
sustaining occurrences (51 occurrences with ranks of A, B, or C), and
the long period (greater than 11 years) during which this trend has
been maintained. We are currently in the process of finalizing a
cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC
that will provide for the long-term protection of the species. The
management agreement outlines a number of conservation actions that
will benefit the species: (1) Maintenance of current fencing; (2)
installation and maintenance of fencing at five new occurrences; (3)
evaluation of trail diversion, rerouting, or closure at 39 occurrences
identified by KSNPC (2010, entire); (4) placement of new informational
signs at occurrences with high visitation; (5) monitoring of extant
occurrences; (6) protection of extant occurrences through DBNF patrols;
and (7) continuation of education and outreach efforts. We expect to
have this agreement in place before this rule is finalized, and the
cooperative management agreement will remain in place even if the
species is delisted.
In summary, most major recovery actions are complete, and
significant progress has been made on the remaining actions (life
history/ecological studies and ex situ seed conservation). Completion
of these actions has contributed to achieving and exceeding the
recovery criteria: 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining
occurrences are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10
years. The 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain 75 percent of
the

[[Page 52725]]

species' total number of stems, and thus represent 75 percent of the
species' total population. These secure, self-sustaining occurrences,
as well as 93 percent of the species' remaining occurrences currently
receive protection and management through implementation of DBNF's
LRMP. We, therefore, conclude that the goals and criteria outlined in
the recovery plan have been achieved.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species.
``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate
population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we then evaluate
whether that species may be an endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in
reclassifying or delisting a species. We may delist a species according
to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial
data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for
the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has
recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified
was in error.
Under section 3 of the Act, a species is an ``endangered species''
if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant
portion of its range'' and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
``significant portion of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the phrase
``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) phrase refers to the range
in which the species currently exists, and the word ``significant''
refers to the value of that portion of the range being considered to
the conservation of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the
period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be
anticipated or trends extrapolated. A recovered species is one that no
longer meets the Act's definition of a threatened or endangered
species. Determining whether or not a species is recovered requires
consideration of the same five categories of threats specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. In other words, for species that are
already listed as endangered or threatened, the analysis for a
delisting due to recovery must include an evaluation of the threats
that existed at the time of listing, the threats currently facing the
species, and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the
species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal of the Act's protections.
The following analysis examines all five factors that are currently
affecting or are likely to affect S. albopilosa within the foreseeable
future.

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

The final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR 11612,
April 7, 1988) identified the following habitat threats: ground
disturbance and trampling associated with unlawful archaeological
activities and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and
rock climbing. The species occupies a scenic and unique geological area
that is heavily visited by hikers, campers, rock-climbers, and other
nature enthusiasts. The U.S. Forest Service estimates recreational use
of the Red River Gorge at approximately 500,000 visitor days per year
(Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Recreational activities such as camping,
hiking, and rock climbing pose a threat to the species through
inadvertent trampling and ground disturbance of S. albopilosa habitats.
Evidence of trampling and ground disturbance within rock shelters has
been observed repeatedly by KSNPC and DBNF personnel (KSNPC 2010, pp.
13-14).
Habitat disturbance and trampling associated with recreational
activities (camping, hiking, and rock climbing) and archaeological
looting have posed a significant threat to the species. The Red River
Gorge is a popular recreational area (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Use of
rock shelters and cliff lines by campers, hikers, and rock climbers has
contributed to physical habitat disturbance and has led to trampling of
plants in rock shelters (Service 1993, p. 7; White and Drozda 2006, pp.
124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). In addition to habitat disturbance
caused by recreationists, the presence of Native American artifacts
within the Red River Gorge has contributed to digging and
archaeological looting in S. albopilosa habitats (rock shelters).
Approximately 18 white-haired goldenrod occurrences have been
extirpated due to human activities, and many heavily visited rock
shelters have been modified to the point that these habitats are no
longer suitable for the species (KSNPC 2010, pp. 6-7).
According to the DBNF, impacts from archaeological looting are now
infrequent, and these activities no longer pose a significant threat to
S. albopilosa within the Red River Gorge (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). As
for recreational impacts, many white-haired goldenrod occurrences are
located in remote ravines of the Red River Gorge or grow along
inaccessible cliff lines that are seldom visited or disturbed by
campers, hikers, and rock climbers. Therefore, the threat magnitude at
these sites is low.
Occurrences located in areas with more frequent visitor use,
typically areas near DBNF and user-defined trails, generally have
suffered more severe habitat disturbance and trampling. Site protection
and habitat management efforts by DBNF, working cooperatively with
KSNPC and the Service, have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats
at these sites. These occurrences have benefited from their location on
the DBNF and management and protective actions provided under DBNF's
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10), which prevents general land disturbance
and prohibits or limits logging and other DBNF activities near
cliffline habitats. The LRMP also protects rock shelters from vandalism
and forbids removal of threatened and endangered species from these
areas.
The DBNF monitors these sites and protects them as needed through
law enforcement efforts, construction of fences, trail diversion, and
placement of signs. To protect occurrences from trampling, fire-
building, and digging, signs have been posted at all entry points to
the Red River Gorge asking visitors not to remove or disturb historical
resources and providing visitors with biological and status information
on S. albopilosa. Similar signs were also placed inside at least five
archaeologically significant rock shelters that contained S.
albopilosa. Beginning in February 2000, DBNF began to redirect trails
and install fencing (chicken wire) around selected rock shelters (those
with greatest visitation) containing S. albopilosa. Signs were also
placed at these shelters, alerting visitors to the presence of the
species and warning them against potential damage to plants. Signs and/
or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a total of 21
occurrences, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these sites annually,
checking the condition of signs and fencing and making repairs as
needed.
Monitoring results show that implementation of DBNF's LRMP and

[[Page 52726]]

the completion of additional conservation actions such as fencing and
sign placement have had a positive effect on the species, the number of
stems has increased, and the level of habitat disturbance and trampling
associated with recreational activities has been reduced (KSNPC 2010,
entire). Of the 21 occurrences on the DBNF where fencing and signs were
added, 20 are considered to be stable, and the 1 declining occurrence
will be protected through expanded fencing. Additional evidence that
these conservation efforts have improved the status of S. albopilosa
occurrences on the DBNF is the large number of stable occurrences (75)
and the relatively high number of secure, self-sustaining occurrences
(46) observed by DBNF, KSNPC, and the Service. The 46 secure, self-
sustaining occurrences exceed the number identified in the recovery
criteria to allow consideration of delisting.
Additional evidence that conservation actions have had a positive
effect on the species is the relatively low recreational impacts
observed by KSNPC (2010, pp. 13-14) at the majority of DBNF
occurrences. Recreational impacts have been assessed by KSNPC since the
mid-1990s (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14).
Their qualitative ranking scheme estimates the percent disturbance of
available habitat and uses a scale of 1 (little or no impact) to 5
(high impact, greater than 50 percent of available habitat disturbed)
to produce a disturbance rank. Based on recent evaluations by KSNPC
(KSNPC 2010, entire; Service 2014a, entire), 70 occurrences (60
percent) are classified as low impact (rank of 1-2), 8 occurrences (7
percent) are classified as medium impact (rank of 3), and 39
occurrences (33 percent) are classified as high impact (rank of 4-5).
Overall, 67 percent of DBNF's occurrences are considered to have low to
medium recreational impacts. KSNPC (2010, p. 14) also noted that they
did not observe many new recreational impacts during their surveys in
2008 and 2009. Most of the documented recreational impacts such as
established trails, permanent structures within rock shelters (couches,
chairs, fire pits), and camp sites had been in place since before S.
albopilosa monitoring began in 1996 (KSNPC 2010, p. 14).
The six occurrences on privately owned lands currently do not
benefit from any formal protection or management and, therefore, could
face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat disturbance) than those
located on the DBNF. However, based on the most recent range-wide
survey results by KSNPC, all six of these private occurrences have been
ranked as ``stable,'' and five of the six are considered to be self-
sustaining (A-, B-, or C-rank) (KSNPC 2010, p. 8). While these
occurrences potentially could face a greater level of threats, they
currently do not appear to be facing a greater level of impact, and
they represent a small proportion (five percent) of the overall
population of the species.
Summary of Factor A: Impacts associated with archaeological looting
and recreational activities have been well documented in the past, but
current monitoring data suggest that the magnitude of these threats has
sufficiently decreased. Implementation of the DBNF's LRMP and specific
conservation actions such as fencing and sign placement have had a
positive effect on the species and have reduced the threat associated
with recreational disturbance. The recovery goal of 40 stable, self-
sustaining, protected occurrences has been exceeded by 6, and these
trends have held for more than 10 years. Because we expect that the
lands containing the 46 secure and self-sustaining occurrences will
remain permanently protected in Federal ownership and will be managed
to maintain or improve current habitat conditions (see Service 2014b,
entire), we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is no longer a
threat to the continued existence of S. albopilosa.

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

Both the final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR
11612, April 7, 1988) and the recovery plan (Service 1993, p. 7)
identified overutilization for recreational purposes as a threat to the
species. However, while the use of habitat for recreational purposes,
as discussed under Factor A, has impacted the species in the past,
there is no evidence that the plant itself is or was utilized for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We,
therefore, discuss impacts from recreational use of habitat for S.
albopilosa under Factor A above.
Summary of Factor B: We conclude that overutilization is not a
threat to S. albopilosa.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

The listing rule for S. albopilosa (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) did
not identify disease or predation as a threat to the species. Plants
are occasionally browsed by herbivores, such as white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), wood rats (Neotoma spp.), and caterpillars
(Order Lepidoptera), but we have no information that grazing by these
species represents a threat to the species. In addition, we have no
current data indicating this plant is affected by diseases.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Populations of S. albopilosa on the DBNF are protected from damage
and unauthorized taking by U.S. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR
261.9). This regulation will apply regardless of whether the species is
listed because S. albopilosa would still be considered a sensitive,
rare, or unique species on the DBNF under this Federal regulation. The
final listing rule (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) identified inadequate
regulatory mechanisms as a threat to S. albopilosa because limited
manpower and the remoteness of many occurrences on the DBNF makes
enforcement difficult. The DBNF has taken several steps to remedy this.
As noted above, S. albopilosa receives management and protection
through DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and its
conservation goals for Cliffline Community Prescription Area. The
National Forest Management Act (NFMA), regulations, and policies
implementing the NFMA are the main regulatory mechanisms that guide
land management on the DBNF, which contains 111 of the 117 extant
occurrences of S. albopilosa. Since listing, the DBNF has included S.
albopilosa and its habitat in its resource management plans. These
plans are required by NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976. The NFMA requires revision of the Plans every 15 years;
however, plans may be amended or revised as needed. Management plans
are required to be in effect at all times (in other words, if the
revision does not occur, the previous plan remains in effect) and to be
in compliance with various Federal regulations. We expect continued
implementation of the LRMP and expect that any future revisions will
consider conservation of S. albopilosa and its Cliffline Community
habitats.
Specific actions that DBNF has taken under the LRMP include
measures to reduce impacts of recreational activities to S. albopilosa
and its habitat as discussed under Factor A. As discussed above, these
and other protection and management actions taken by DBNF under their
LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10) have been successful at improving the
status of the species. Monitoring results from these occurrences show
that these efforts have had a positive effect on the species.
Specifically,

[[Page 52727]]

disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing has been reduced
in these areas, and the number of stems has increased.
The species is listed as endangered by the State of Kentucky (KSNPC
2005, entire), but this designation conveys no legal protection to
occurrences located on private property. Consequently, occurrences on
privately owned land could face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat
disturbance) than those located on the DBNF. Based on recent survey
results by KSNPC, however, only 6 of 117 extant S. albopilosa
occurrences (5 percent) are located on private land, and 5 of these
occurrences have been ranked as ``stable'' (A-, B-, or C-rank) by KSNPC
(KSNPC 2010, p. 8). Therefore, based on this greater than 10-year data
set, the majority of private occurrences are also stable.
Summary of Factor D: Occurrences of S. albopilosa located on the
DBNF receive protection due to their location on Federal property, and
these occurrences are managed and protected under DBNF's LRMP (USFS
2004, pp. 1.1-1.10). This protected status and management actions
included in the LRMP will continue to provide adequate regulatory
protection for these occurrences. Monitoring results show that DBNF's
management actions have had a positive effect on the species.
Specifically, disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing
has been reduced and the number of stems has stabilized or increased.
Based on the best available information for both private and public
lands occurrences, and the fact that existing regulatory mechanisms and
associated management practices will continue on public lands, we
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate. Therefore,
we find that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is no
longer a threat to S. albopilosa.

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

Other natural or manmade factors were first identified as a threat
to white-haired goldenrod due to the species' specialized habitats
(sandstone rock shelters and cliff habitats of the Red River Gorge) and
the perceived vulnerability of these habitats to any physical or
climatic change (52 FR 13798, 53 FR 11612). In the species' final
listing rule (53 FR 11612), published in 1988, the Service concluded
that even minor changes in the surrounding forest (e.g., loss of canopy
trees) could impact the species through drying, erosion, and
competition with sun-tolerant species. At the time, these potential
changes were not considered to be an imminent threat to white-haired
goldenrod, but the final listing rule identified the need for
management planning that would take into account the requirements of
the species to ensure its continued existence.
Recent surveys and status assessments of white-haired goldenrod
have identified several threats under Factor E. These included
competition from invasive plants, the loss of eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), low genetic diversity and small population size, and the
effects of climate change (Service 2009a, p. 9; Service 2009b, p. 2;
KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). KSNPC (2010, p. 14) reported several invasive
plant species in habitats occupied by white-haired goldenrod, but the
most common species included Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), Japanese spiraea
(Spiraea japonica), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and common
mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Of the invasive plant species, Japanese
stilt grass was the most common species. It was observed growing in
direct competition with 23 S. albopilosa occurrences. However, invasive
species were absent from the majority of extant occurrences (about 80
percent) of white-haired goldenrod and most stable occurrences (65
percent) (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014a, pp. 1-6). For the 23
occurrences in direct competition with invasive plants, most (16 of 23
(70 percent)) were stable or increased over the 10-year monitoring
period (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014a, pp. 1-6). While we do not
have data that specifically addresses the effects of climate change
with regard to invasive species attributes like distribution or range
and the relation to white haired goldenrod. There is some data showing
that more common aggressive invasive species like kudzu (Pueraria
lobata) may expand into greater ranges due to possible effects of
climate change (Bradley et al. 2009). However, species like Japanese
stilt grass are more recent invaders to this area of the Southeast and
other than the data presented above, we do not have further information
or data that indicates competition from invasive plants will change in
significance as a threat to the species. Therefore, we do not believe
that competition from invasive plants is a significant threat to the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adeleges tsugae), an aphid-like insect
that is native to Asia, represents a potential threat to white-haired
goldenrod because it has the potential to severely damage stands of
eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) that occur near rock shelters and
cliffs occupied by the species (Service 2009b, p. 2; KSNPC 2010, p.
15). The hemlock woolly adelgid was introduced in the Pacific Northwest
during the 1920s and has since spread throughout the eastern United
States, reaching Kentucky by 2006. The species creates an extreme
amount of damage to natural stands of hemlock, specifically eastern
hemlock and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana). The species' recovery
action plan (Service 2009b, p. 2) concluded that the loss of eastern
hemlock within the Red River Gorge could result in microclimatic
changes (increased light, decreased moisture, increased leaf litter) in
and near rock shelters that may negatively affect white-haired
goldenrod. Despite this potential threat, KSNPC (2010, p. 15)
demonstrated in their evaluation that eastern hemlock was actually a
minor component of the canopy surrounding rock shelters inhabited by
the species. Consequently, the eventual loss of eastern hemlocks would
not represent a significant change to the canopy surrounding these rock
shelters and would, therefore, not represent a significant threat to
the species.
Potential impacts that may be associated with low genetic
variability, such as inbreeding depression, reduced fitness, or reduced
adaptive capacity (ability to respond to and adapt to changing
conditions) have been identified as a potential threat to other listed
plant species, but we have no information suggesting that low genetic
variability affects S. albopilosa (53 FR 11614; Service 2009a, entire;
KSNPC 2010, 24 pp.). Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-257) reported
that S. albopilosa exhibits genetic diversity both within and between
populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among populations, and
populations are not genetically homogenous). The highest level of
genetic diversity was observed among (as opposed to between)
populations. Consequently, we do not believe that the potential effects
associated with low genetic variability threaten the continued
existence of S. albopilosa now or in the foreseeable future.
Some white-haired goldenrod occurrences may be more vulnerable to
extirpation due to their small population size and poor estimated
viability. The low number of stems (typically less than 300), poor
estimated viability, and high recreational impacts associated with D-
ranked occurrences make these occurrences more vulnerable

[[Page 52728]]

to stochastic events. Currently, 62 of the species' 117 extant
occurrences (53 percent) are D-ranked. Even though these occurrences
may be more vulnerable to extirpation, the overall threat to the
species is minimal because these occurrences contain less than 20
percent of the species' total number of stems. Additionally, a small
population size in and of itself is not indicative of being in danger
of extinction. Some white-haired goldenrod occurrences may have always
had fewer plants in rock shelters with less favorable conditions (e.g.,
small size, drier conditions).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Effects
associated with changes in climate have been observed including changes
in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather
including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity
of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4). Species that are dependent on
specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme
periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of
climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 17; Anacker and Leidholm
2012, p. 2). However, while continued change is certain, the magnitude
and rate of change is unknown in many cases. The magnitude and rate of
change could be affected by many factors (e.g., circulation patterns),
but we have no additional information or data regarding these factors.
There is evidence that some terrestrial plant populations have been
able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks et
al. 2013, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or
phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to
changes in climate have been detected and both can occur rapidly and
often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, p. 135). Relatively few
studies are available, however, that (1) directly examine plant
responses over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal
climatic driver of the responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to
distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2013,
p. 135).
To generate future climate projections across the range of white-
haired goldenrod, one tool we used was the National Climate Change
Viewer (NCCV), a climate-visualization Web site tool developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that allows the user to visualize climate
projections at the state, county, and watershed level (Adler and
Hostetler 2013, entire; http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp). Initially, the viewer was designed to provide information
for states and counties on projected temperature and precipitation
through the 21st century. The viewer was expanded in 2014 to provide
information on associated projected changes in snowpack, soil moisture,
runoff, and evaporative deficit for U.S. states and counties and for
USGS Hydrologic Units or watersheds as simulated by a simple water-
balance model. The model provides a way to simulate the response of the
water balance to changes in temperature and precipitation in the
climate models (30 separate models developed by the National Aeronautic
and Space Administration). Combining the climate data with the water
balance data provides further insights into the potential for climate-
driven change in water resources. The viewer uses tools such as
climographs (plots of monthly averages); histograms showing the
distribution or spread of model simulations; monthly time series
spanning 1950-2099; and tables that summarize changes (and extremes) in
temperature and precipitation during these periods. The application
also provides access to comprehensive, three-page summary reports for
states, counties, and watersheds.
Using the NCCV and assuming the more extreme Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCP) greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP8.5),
in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked through
the end of the century leading to an equivalent radiative forcing of
8.5 Watts per square meter, we calculated projected annual mean changes
for maximum temperature (+3.6 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (+6.5 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), precipitation (+0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012
in/day)), runoff (-0.25 cm/month (-0.1 in/month), snowfall (-0.5 cm (-
0.2 in)), soil storage (-2.5 cm (-1.0 in)), and evaporative deficit
(+0.75 cm/month (+0.3 in/month)) for the period 2050-2074 in Menifee,
Powell, and Wolfe counties (Adler and Hostetler 2013, entire). Based on
these results, all three counties within the range of white-haired
goldenrod will be subjected to higher maximum temperatures (annual mean
increase of 3.6 [deg]C (6.5 [deg]F)) and slightly higher precipitation
(annual mean increase of 0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012 in/day))
relative to 1950-2005. Because the average annual increase in
precipitation is predicted to be only slightly higher, the increased
evaporative deficit and the loss in runoff, snowfall, and soil storage
is primarily a result of higher maximum and minimum temperatures. The
most dramatic shift is predicted for soil storage, which will decrease
significantly between mid-May and late November relative to 1950-2005.
Despite the slight increase in predicted precipitation, the coincident
warming means that habitats are unlikely to maintain their current
moisture status.
To evaluate the vulnerability of white-haired goldenrod to the
effects of climate change, we also utilized NatureServe's Climate
Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. 2015, entire), a
climate change model that uses downscaled climate predictions from
tools such as Climate Wizard (Givertz et al. 2009, entire) and combines
these with readily available information about a species' natural
history, distribution, and landscape circumstances to predict whether
it will likely suffer a range contraction and/or population reductions
due to the effects of climate change. The CCVI uses an Excel platform
that allows users to enter numerical or categorical, weighted responses
to a series of questions about risk factors related to species exposure
and sensitivity to climate change. The CCVI separates vulnerability
into its two primary components: a species' exposure to changes in
climate within a particular assessment area and its inherent
sensitivity to the effects of climate change. The tool gauges 20
scientifically documented factors and indicators of these components,
as well as documented responses to climate change where they exist.
While the Index calculates anticipated increases or declines in
populations of individual species, it also accommodates inherent
uncertainties about how species respond within their ecological
contexts. The CCVI generated a vulnerability rating of ``extremely
vulnerable'' to ``highly vulnerable'' for white-haired goldenrod,
suggesting that the species' abundance and/or range extent could change
substantially or possibly disappear by 2050 (Young et al. 2015, p. 44).
Factors influencing the species' high vulnerability were its poor
movement/dispersal ability, its connection with uncommon geologic
features, and its unique hydrological niche (humid, shaded rock
shelters). In West Virginia, top risk factors for plants included poor
dispersal ability, natural and anthropogenic barriers to dispersal,
dependence on wetland habitats, restriction to areas with unique
geology, and genetic bottlenecks (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 16).
Although the model suggested that white-haired goldenrod is

[[Page 52729]]

greatly exposed and sensitive to climate change and could be adversely
affected in future years, Anacker and Leidholm 2012 (pp. 16-17) note
that there are also a number of weaknesses associated with the CCVI.
The CCVI was used to assess the vulnerability of over 150 rare
plant species in California (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, entire).
However, several specific weaknesses were identified: (1) It is
weighted too heavily towards direct exposure to climate change
(projected changes to future temperature and precipitation conditions
which have high levels of uncertainties), (2) some important plant
attributes are missing (mating system and pollinator specificity), (3)
it is very difficult to complete scoring for a given species because
some information is simply lacking, and (4) some scoring guidelines are
too simplistic (Anacker and Leidholm (2012, pp. 16-17). They considered
topographic complexity to be a potential complementary factor in
assessing vulnerability to climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012,
pp. 12-16). Topographically complex areas, such as the Red River Gorge
region, have been predicted to be less vulnerable to the effects of
climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, p. 15-16), so species such
as white-haired goldenrod may also be less vulnerable to such effects
as compared to plants that occur in areas with low topographic
complexity.
Additionally, Phillips (2010, entire) found that efforts to predict
responses to climate change and to interpret both modern and
paleoclimate indicators are influenced by several levels of potential
amplifiers, which can either increase or exaggerate climate impacts,
and/or filters, which reduce or mute impacts. He notes that climate
forcings (factors that drive or ``force'' the climate system to change
such as the energy output of the sun, volcanic eruptions, or changes in
greenhouse gases) are partly mediated by ecological, hydrological, and
other processes which may amplify or filter impacts on surface
processes and landforms. For example, resistance or resilience of
geomorphic systems may minimize the effects of changes. Thus a given
geomorphic response to climate could represent amplification and/or
filtering (Phillips 2010, p. 571). Due to white-haired goldenrod's
habitat specificity in rock shelters and cliff overhangs, it is our
judgment that the effects of climate change are likely muted or
diminished due to this species' specific habitat conditions.
Based on observations of climatic conditions over a period of 25
years (KSNPC (2010, p. 13), there is some biological and historical
evidence to suggest that S. albopilosa is adapted to endure some of the
potential effects of climate change, including more frequent droughts
and an estimated 2.6-3.6 [deg]C (4.7-6.5 [deg]F) increase in average
annual maximum temperature. Habitats within the Red River Gorge often
experience multiyear droughts, and S. albopilosa occurrences can become
stressed during these periods. For example, the Cumberland Plateau
region of Kentucky experienced a several-year drought prior to KSNPC's
2008-2009 survey. These dry conditions continued during 2008, and KSNPC
observed many drought-stressed occurrences. The following year (2009)
was relatively wet, and several of these drought stressed occurrences
quickly improved (KSNPC 2010, p. 13). Despite this most recent dry
period and others in the past, the species has demonstrated a
resiliency to prolonged periods of drought. Although downscaling models
exist at the county level (Alder and Hostetler 2013), we do not have
data at the proper scale (inside rock shelters or in cliff overhangs)
to determine, for example, how the species is affected by decreased
relative humidity during a drought year, but periodic drought may be a
normal cyclical event needed to increase production. The shaded,
cooler, and more humid environment of rock shelters (Nieves and Day
2014, p. 7) and the topographic complexity of the Red River Gorge
region (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, p. 15-16) may offer some relief from
drying and may contribute to the species' ability to survive these
conditions.
Although climate change is almost certain to affect terrestrial
habitats in the Red River Gorge region of Kentucky (Adler and Hostetler
2013, entire), there is uncertainty about the specific effects of
climate change on white-haired goldenrod. Currently, we have no
evidence that climate change effects observed to date have had any
adverse impact on S. albopilosa or its habitats, and we are uncertain
about how predicted future changes in temperature, precipitation, and
other factors will influence the species. However, we do not believe
that climate change represents an imminent threat now or in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E: Other potential threats such as minor
vegetational changes in the surrounding forest, competition with
invasive species, low genetic variability, small population size, and
the effects of climate change have been identified as potential threats
to S. albopilosa. Invasive species have invaded only 23 of 117 extant
occurrences, and most of these occurrences (16) have remained stable.
We do not expect the loss of eastern hemlock to have a significant
impact on the species because eastern hemlock is a minor component of
the forest canopy surrounding S. albopilosa occurrences. The potential
effects of low genetic diversity do not represent a threat as the
species has relatively high genetic diversity. Small populations may be
vulnerable to stochastic events, but these occurrences contain only a
small proportion of the species' total number of stems. We do not
consider climate change to be an imminent threat based on the species'
current status, its demonstrated resiliency to periods of drought, and
our uncertainty regarding the species' vulnerability to the effects of
climate change. Based on all these factors, we find that other natural
or manmade factors considered here are no longer a significant threat
to S. albopilosa.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

Under section 3 of the Act, a species is endangered if it is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and threatened if it is ``likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by S. albopilosa in
developing this proposed rule. Based on the analysis above and given
the reduction in threats and evidence that certain factors are not
threats, we conclude that S. albopilosa does not currently meet the
Act's definition of a threatened species (it is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that S. albopilosa is not in danger of extinction
or likely to become so throughout all of its range, we next consider
whether there are any significant portions of its range in which S.
albopilosa is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Under the
Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if
it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species''
as any species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any

[[Page 52730]]

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.''
We published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``Significant
Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final
policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire
species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the
Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever
found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if
the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a
species is considered to be the general geographical area within which
that species can be found at the time FWS makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant
portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered species (or threatened
species) and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is
neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all
of its range, we next determine whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered species or
threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that
listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be both significant and
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2)
the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering
these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the
species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of
its range--rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed
analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire
species), those portions will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) in danger of extinction or likely to become so, we engage in a more
detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met.
As discussed above, to determine whether a portion of the range of a
species is significant, we consider whether, under a hypothetical
scenario, the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is
so important that, without the members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This analysis will
consider the contribution of that portion to the viability of the
species based on principles of conservation biology. The contribution
is evaluated using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. (These concepts can similarly be expressed in terms of
abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity.) The
identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and
methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or
threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is 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.''
Applying the process described above, in considering delisting S.
albopilosa, we evaluated the range of this plant to determine if any
areas could be considered a significant portion of its range. As
mentioned above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is
to identify any natural divisions within the range that might be of
biological or conservation importance. While there is some variability
in the habitats occupied by S. albopilosa across its range, the basic
ecological components required for the species to complete its life
cycle (e.g., adequate sunlight, shade, moisture, soils) are present
throughout the habitats occupied by the species. No specific location
within the current range of the species provides a unique or
biologically significant function that is not found in other portions
of the range. The currently occupied range of S. albopilosa encompasses
approximately 114 square kilometer (km\2\) (44 square miles) in
Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky. Based on examination of
information on the biology and life history of the species, we
determined that there are no separate areas of the range that are
significantly different from others or that are likely to be of greater
biological or conservation importance than any other areas.
We next examined whether any threats are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in that area. Through our
review of potential threats, we identified some areas where white-
haired goldenrod may experience greater threats or a greater likelihood
of extirpation and, therefore, may be in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in those areas. These include occurrences on private lands
and

[[Page 52731]]

occurrences that are not currently considered self-sustaining. The
majority (94.8 percent) of white-haired goldenrod occurrences are now
located on DBNF and benefit from management and conservation actions
implemented under the LRMP.
Six of the 117 extant occurrences are located on private lands. As
explained above, these occurrences currently do not benefit from any
formal protection or management and, therefore, could face higher
magnitude threats. While these occurrences do not receive any formal
protection, five of the six occurrences are considered to be stable and
self-sustaining, indicating a low level of current impacts to those
occurrences. Although the occurrences on private lands could face
greater threats in the future due to lack of formal protections, these
occurrences represent only 5 percent of extant occurrences and a very
small proportion of the range of the species. Additionally, even if
future potential threats were to cause the loss of these occurrences,
that loss would not appreciably reduce the long-term viability of the
species, much less cause the species in the remainder of its range to
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.
We also evaluated whether the occurrences that are not considered
self-sustaining could be considered a significant portion of the
species' range. We have determined that 46 secure and self-sustaining
occurrences presently are distributed throughout the species' range,
which accounted for more than 75 percent of the total stems estimated
to exist in 2013. Of the remaining 71 extant occurrences, the 6
occurrences on private lands are not considered secure (but all 6 have
been shown to be stable and 5 have been shown to be self-sustaining).
These occurrences were discussed above.
The remaining 65 occurrences are on DBNF, and thus protected, but
currently are not considered self-sustaining. Some of these occurrences
have a status of declining or their status is unknown, while others are
considered not self-sustaining primarily due to poor estimated
viability and low number of plants observed. These occurrences could be
at greater risk of extinction due to vulnerability to demographic and
environmental stochasticity because of their smaller population sizes.
These 65 occurrences, along with the 6 occurrences on private lands,
account for the remaining 25 percent of the total stems estimated to
exist in 2013. The threats to these occurrences from recreational
activities are being managed and are not different from the threats
affecting the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences.
Because these 46 occurrences exhibit stable or increasing trends,
contain a relatively high number of individuals, have fair to excellent
viability, and exhibit relatively high reproductive rates, we expect
these populations to persist into the future. While most of the
remaining occurrences also receive protections and are not at immediate
risk of extirpation, their lower population sizes and poorer viability
put them at a greater risk of extirpation. However, while these
occurrences may have a greater potential to become extirpated due to
demographic or environmental stochasticity, the loss of some or all of
those occurrences would not cause the species in the remainder of its
range to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.
In conclusion, we have determined that none of the existing or
potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are
likely to cause S. albopilosa to be in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we
conclude S. albopilosa no longer requires the protection of the Act,
and propose to remove S. albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12 (h)).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
plants. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(2) of the Act make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce, remove and reduce S. albopilosa to possession from
areas under Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or
destroy S. albopilosa on any other area in knowing violation of any
State law or regulation such as a trespass law. Section 7 of the Act
requires that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to
jeopardize the species' continued existence. If this proposed rule is
finalized, it would revise 50 CFR 17.12 to remove (delist) S.
albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
and these prohibitions would no longer apply.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery.
Post-delisting monitoring refers to activities undertaken to verify
that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The
primary goal of post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the species to
ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is
detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as
threatened or endangered is not again needed. If at any time during the
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing. At the conclusion of the monitoring
period, we will review all available information to determine if
relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of
monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g)
and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-
delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species'
conservation after delisting. In August 2013, DBNF and KSNPC agreed to
be cooperators in the post-delisting monitoring of S. albopilosa.
We have prepared a Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for White-
haired Goldenrod (Solidago albopilosa) (Plan) (Service 2014b, entire).
The draft Plan:
(1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;
(2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring
outcomes and conclusions;
(3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;
(4) Articulates monitoring methods including sampling
considerations;
(5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and
responsibilities; and
(6) Proposes a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule
including timing and responsible parties.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
plan's availability for public review. The draft post-delisting
monitoring plan can be viewed in its entirety at http://

[[Page 52732]]

www.fws.gov/frankfort/ or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. Copies can also be obtained from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office,
Frankfort, Kentucky (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek
information, data, and comments from the public regarding S. albopilosa
and the post-delisting monitoring strategy. We are also seeking peer
review of this draft plan concurrently with this comment period. We
anticipate finalizing this plan, considering all public and peer review
comments, prior to making a final determination on the proposed
delisting rule.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the OMB's Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will solicit the
expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the science in this proposed rule and the draft
post-delisting monitoring plan. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that we base our decisions on scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. We will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule
and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan immediately following
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will
invite peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on
the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed
delisting and draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We will summarize
the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision documents, and we
will consider their input and any additional information we receive as
part of our process of making a final decision on this proposal and the
draft post-delisting monitoring plan. Such communication may lead to a
final decision that differs from this proposal.

Clarity of This Proposed Rule

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

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This proposed/final rule does not contain collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands affected by this proposal.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054.

Author

The primary author of this document is Michael A. Floyd, Kentucky
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec. 17.12 [Amended]

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

Dated: June 30, 2015.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21410 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P