[Federal Register: December 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78513-78556]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de10-21]
[[Page 78513]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as
Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule
[[Page 78514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2010-0080; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service/USFWS),
announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list Astragalus
microcymbus (skiff milkvetch) and Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll's
milkvetch) as endangered or threatened, and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After a review of all the available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae is
warranted. However, currently listing of A. microcymbus and A.
schmolliae is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of
this 12-month petition finding, we will add A. microcymbus and A.
schmolliae to our list of candidate species. We will make any
determinations on critical habitat during development of the proposed
listing rule. In any interim period, the status of the candidate taxon
will be addressed through our annual Candidate Notice of Review.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 15,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2010-0080. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
764 Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Pfister, Field Supervisor, Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone, 970-
243-2778; or by facsimile, 970-245-6933. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (a)
Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
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, titled Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), and the
Department of the Interior's manual on Departmental Responsibilities
for Indian Trust Resources, at 512 DM 2, we acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with the
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. In fulfilling our trust
responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Tribes,
we met with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe regarding the process we would
take to conduct a 12-month status review of Astragalus schmolliae. As
an outcome of our government-to-government consultation, we recognize
the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to manage the habitat
for A. schmolliae on its tribal lands, and acknowledge that right in
this 12-month finding.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
(then A. schmollae) began as a result of section 12 of the Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on plants considered to
be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This
report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to
Congress on January 9, 1975. In that document, both species were
designated as endangered (House Document 94-51, pp. 57-58). On July 1,
1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR
27823, p. 27847) of its acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a
petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of
the Act, and giving notice of its intention to review the status of the
plant taxa therein.
As a result of that review, the Service published a proposed rule
on June 16, 1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523, pp. 24543-
24544) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act
for approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was
assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Service in response to House Document No. 94- 51
and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. General comments
received in response to the 1976 proposal are summarized in an April
26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978,
amendments to the Act required that all proposals more than 2 years old
be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals already more
than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the Service published a notice
in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the
June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final which removed both
A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae from proposed status but retained both
species as candidate plant
[[Page 78515]]
taxa that ``may qualify for listing under the Act.''
On December 15, 1980, the Service published a current list of those
plant taxa native to the United States being considered for listing
under the Act where Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
were identified as a category 2 taxon ``currently under review'' (45 FR
82479, pp. 82490-82491). On November 28, 1983, A. schmolliae was moved
to the ``taxa no longer under review'' list, and given a 3C rank
indicating the species was proven to be more abundant or widespread
than previously believed or not subjected to an identifiable threat (48
FR 53640, pp. 53641, 53662). The two species also were included as a
category 2 species (A. schmolliae was not included as a 3C species
despite the conclusions of the 1983 review) on September 27, 1985 (50
FR 39525, p. 39533-39534), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184, p. 6190), and
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144, pp. 51151-51152). The category 2
species designation was defined as having enough information to
indicate that listing the species as an endangered or threatened
species was possibly appropriate.
On October 22, 1993, we received a petition dated October 19, 1993,
from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Lee Dyer requesting that
Astragalus microcymbus be listed as endangered under the Act, and that
critical habitat be designated (Carlton et al. 1993, pp. 1-11). The
petition included biological information regarding the species and
several scientific articles in support of the petition. After careful
consideration, we did not issue a 90-day finding on the petition
because the species was already included as a category 2 species
(Spinks 1994, pp. 1-8).
On February 28, 1996, we proposed removing all category 2 species,
including Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae, from our
candidate species notice of review (61 FR 7596). This policy change was
finalized on December 5, 1996, stating that the list was not needed
because of other lists already maintained by other entities such as
Federal and State agencies (61 FR 64481).
On July 30, 2007, we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service:
(1) Consider all full species in our Mountain Prairie Region ranked as
G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, except those that are
currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and
(2) list each species as either endangered or threatened (Forest
Guardians 2007, pp. 1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses,
references, and documentation provided by NatureServe in its online
database at http://www.natureserve.org/into the petition. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to the Forest
Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In that letter we
stated that, based on preliminary review, we found no evidence to
support an emergency listing for any of the species covered by the
petition, and that we planned work on the petition in Fiscal Year (FY)
2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its
mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on their two
multiple species petitions--one for the Mountain-Prairie Region, and
one for the Southwest Region (WildEarth Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008,
case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently published two 90-day findings on
January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122),
identifying species for which we were then making negative 90-day
findings, and species for which we were still working on a
determination. On March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians
filed a stipulated settlement in the District of Columbia Court,
agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a
finding as to whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presents
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for 38 Mountain-Prairie Region species by August 9, 2009
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a partial 90-day finding for the
38 Mountain-Prairie Region species, and found that the petition
presented substantial information to indicate that listing of
Astragalus microcymbus may be warranted based on threats from off-road
vehicle use and drought; and that listing Astragalus schmolliae may be
warranted based on threats from fire, nonnative species invasions, road
construction, grazing, and drought; and went on to request further
information from the public pertaining to both species (74 FR 41649,
pp. 41655-41656).
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007,
petition to list Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as
threatened or endangered. Given that we are doing 12-month findings for
38 species from this petition, and 67 species from the Southwest Region
multiple species petition (74 FR 419, January 6, 2009; 74 FR 66866,
December 16, 2009), and given the amount of resources that it takes to
complete a 12-month finding, we are unable to complete 12-month
findings for all these species at this time.
Species Information--Astragalus Microcymbus
Species Description and Taxonomy
Astragalus microcymbus is a perennial forb (a plant that can live
to more than 3 years of age and without grass-like, shrub-like, or
tree-like vegetation) that dies back to the ground every year. The
plant has slender stems that are sparsely branched with dark green
pinnate leaves, with 9-15 leaflets arranged in an evenly spaced fashion
along either side of a central axis. It is in the pea (Fabaceae)
family. The spindly red to purple branches grow from 30-60 centimeters
(cm) (12-24 inches (in.)) long to 30 cm (12 in.) high, and may trail
along the ground, arch upwards, or stand upright, often being supported
by neighboring shrubs. Flowers are small (0.5 cm (0.2 in.)), pea-like,
are found at the end of branches in clusters of 7-14 flowers, and have
white petals that are tinged with purple. Fruits are boat-shaped (hence
the common name ``skiff'' and the Latin name microcymbus meaning
``small boat''), grow to less than 1 cm (0.4 in.), are triangular in
cross-section, and hang abruptly downward from the branches. These
characteristics, particularly the plant's diffuse branching, small
white-purple pea-like flowers, and boat-like fruit pods distinguish
this species from other Astragalus species in the area (description
adapted from Peterson et al. 1981, pp. 5-7; Heil and Porter 1990, pp.
5-6; Isley 1998, p. 349).
Astragalus microcymbus was discovered in 1945 by Rupert Barneby
roughly 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) west of Gunnison, Colorado
(Barneby 1949, pp. 499-500). The species was not located again until
1955 by the Colorado botanical expert William Weber, who originally
considered it to be nonnative because of its dissimilarity to the other
numerous Astragalus species in the region (Barneby 1964, p. 193). Both
of these early collections were from alongside Highway 50 near
Gunnison, Colorado, at a location that has likely been destroyed. The
plant was not located in its more intact and native habitat along South
Beaver Creek until Joseph Barrell rediscovered the species in 1966
(Barrell 1969, p. 284; Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2010a,
p. 14).
The Astragalus genus is large, with over 1,500 species that are
found on all continents except Antarctica and Australia, and with
almost 600 species
[[Page 78516]]
in the United States, primarily in the West (Isley 1998, p. 149). The
genus is divided into many sections. A. microcymbus is not similar in
appearance to other Astragalus species in the region. Its presumed
closest relative (from the Strigulosi section of Astragalus) is found
in New Mexico, with other relatives extending southward, and being
found mostly in Mexico (Barneby 1964, p. 193; Isley 1998, pp. 349-350).
The taxonomic status of A. microcymbus has not been disputed, although
the monophyly (all members descended from a single common ancestor) of
the Strigulosi section, and the placement of A. microcymbus within the
section has been debated (Spellenberg 1974, pp. 394-395; Heil and
Porter 1990, pp. 12-13). For the purposes of this finding, we consider
A. microcymbus to represent a valid species and, therefore, a listable
entity.
Biology and Life History
Astragalus microcymbus individuals live on average 2.2-3 years
(with a range of 1-14 years). Most frequently, plants are alive for
only 1 year (DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.). The plant flowers
from mid to late May into July (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18; Japuntich
2010a, pers. comm.). There are more flowering plants in early June than
at any other time, and flowering then drops off or stops, with a second
bloom occurring in July (Japuntich 2010a, pers. comm.). The earlier
flowering plants are reportedly larger and more vine-like, and later
flowering plants are much smaller sized and less vine-like (Japuntich
2010a, pers. comm.).
Little is known of how Astragalus microcymbus reproduces. For
example, we do not know if the plant requires pollinators, or what
pollinators are important for reproduction. A single plant that was
caged in 1980 did not produce fruit (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18).
Although this was suggested as evidence that the plant may require
pollinators, we believe that this speculation is premature, because the
study was completed for only one individual. Studies of other
Astragalus species have found some species to be totally reliant on
pollinators, and others to be somewhat self-compatible (able to produce
seed without pollen from a different plant) but still relying on
pollinators to some degree (Karron 1989, p. 337; Kaye 1999, p. 1254).
Astragalus species with limited ranges are somewhat more self-
compatible than wider ranging relatives (Karron 1989, p. 337).
Several pollinators have been observed visiting Astragalus
microcymbus, suggesting that pollinators may be important for
reproduction, but little is known about what pollinators these are
(with the exception of the two listed below) and which are most
important. Two insects that regularly visit the flowers of A.
microcymbus were collected in 1989 (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19).
One visitor was a small, black carpenter bee, Ceratina nanula that was
collected from 3 sites (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19), and is known
from at least 11 western States (Discover Life 2009, p. 1). The other
visitor was a small, yellow and brown satyr butterfly, Coenonympha
ochracea ssp. ochracea, a species of the Rocky Mountains (Heil and
Porter 1990, p. 19). We expect there are more pollinators than these
two species, based on the limited number of observations and
collections to date (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 6, 18-19; Sherwood 1994,
p. 12), and because other Astragalus species are visited by many
different pollinator species (Karron 1989, p. 322; Kaye 1999, pp. 1251-
1252; Sugden 1985, p. 303).
Fruits of Astragalus microcymbus have been observed as early as
late-May, are always present by mid-June, with peak fruiting occurring
in mid-July, and all fruits falling off the plants by late-August (Heil
and Porter 1990, p. 18). Fruit production varies greatly. For example,
during a life-history study (discussed in further detail in
Distribution and Abundance below), no fruits were counted in 2002, and
33,819 fruits were counted in 2008 (Denver Botanic Gardens [DBG] 2010a,
p. 5). In the same 14-year life history study (1995-2009), fruit
production was high in only 3 years: 1995, 1997, and 2008 (DBG 2010a,
p. 5). This type of synchronous seeding is sometimes referred to as
mast seeding or mast years. Mast seedings may be a strategy to release
enough seeds to feed seed predators, that are kept at lower numbers in
years with little or no seed production, and still allow other seeds to
germinate. Alternatively, it may be a product of increased pollination
success (Crone and Lesica 2004, p. 1945). We are unsure of the
conditions that lead to good seed and fruit set; overall annual
precipitation does not explain the variability (DBG 2010a, p. 12).
Seed dispersal mechanisms have not been researched, but wind and
rain are considered candidates (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 19). Seed
dormancy, seed survival, and seed longevity in the soil are unknown. We
do not know if specific cues (e.g., temperature, precipitation, or seed
coat alterations) are needed to break seed dormancy. Seed bank studies
for other Astragalus species indicate that the group generally
possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a strong physical
germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are generally long-lived in
the soil, and only a small percentage of seeds germinate each year
(summarized in Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). Conversely, the DBG looked
at soil cores taken from A. microcymbus monitoring sites and found only
one seed. The authors concluded that A. microcymbus does not have an
active seed bank (DBG 2010a, p. 6). More research is needed to better
understand the seed bank's role in the life history of the species.
Astragalus microcymbus individuals may exhibit prolonged dormancy
(remaining underground throughout a growing season). This trait may
help a species better cope with drought or resource-limiting conditions
(Lesica and Steele 1994, pp. 209-210). Between 6 and 90 percent of A.
microcymbus individuals are dormant in a given year (DBG 2008, pp. 6,
13, 18). Dormancy varies significantly from year to year and between
plots (DBG 2010a, p. 15). Of the individuals that exhibited prolonged
dormancy, 54 percent remained dormant for 1 year, 10 percent were
dormant for 2 years, with a decreasing percentage of individuals
remaining dormant for each successively longer time period to 11 years
(DBG 2008, p. 6). These numbers for prolonged dormancy are not
definitive because researchers are unable to say with certainty if a
plant returning to a spot where an individual was previously found is a
new individual or an individual returning from prolonged dormancy
(DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.).
Distribution and Abundance
We use several terms to discuss various sizes or groupings of
Astragalus microcymbus individuals: Element Occurrence, site, polygon,
point, and units. We consider the term Element Occurrence synonymous
with population and it is further defined below. Within a population,
various smaller ``sites'' have been hand drawn on maps between 1955 and
1994, and counted or tracked by site. To distinguish these older sites
from more recent Global Positioning System (GPS) mapping efforts, we
have used the term ``polygon'' (circles around clusters of individuals)
or ``point'' (points representing one or a few plants within the
immediate area) to describe data that was collected after 2003 with a
GPS unit. Finally, we have taken the polygons and points and created
``units'' on which to conduct our spatial analyses for this 12-month
finding. The
[[Page 78517]]
reasons for creating these units are described in further detail below.
The CNHP, the agency that tracks rare plant species in the State of
Colorado, operates within the national NatureServe network and follows
NatureServe protocols. NatureServe guidelines on designating Element
Occurrences state they are to be designated to best represent
individual populations, and are typically separated from each other by
barriers to movement or dispersal (NatureServe 2002, p. 11). The CNHP
assigns overall species ranks for rare plants within the State of
Colorado. Astragalus microcymbus has a Global rank of G1 indicating the
species is critically imperiled across its range, and a State rank of
S1 indicating the species is critically imperiled within the State of
Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1, 5). Since the species is known only from
the State of Colorado, the State (S) and Global (G) ranks are the same.
Astragalus microcymbus has a very limited range. It is found in an
area roughly 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from east to west and 10 km (6 mi) from
north to south with a small, disjunct (widely separated) population
found 17 km (10.5 mi) to the southwest on Cebolla Creek (Figure 1). The
species is known primarily from Gunnison County with one site located
in Saguache County. The majority of sites and individuals are along
South Beaver Creek just southwest of Gunnison, Colorado. The species
occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison
Resource Area and adjacent private lands. Within known areas, A.
microcymbus has a spotty distribution, most likely linked to the
habitat being spotty on the landscape (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16).
Using the highest counts across years and across all sites, we estimate
the total maximum historic population to be around 20,500 individuals
in 5 populations (Table 1; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). However, more recent
counts indicate there are substantially fewer individuals than this
today (DBG 2010a, p. 7; BLM 2010, p. 3). We estimate A. microcymbus
occupied roughly 34 hectares (ha) (83 acres (ac)) in 2008 (BLM 2010,
pp. 8-10). In previous hand-drawn estimates, A. microcymbus occupied
roughly 131 ha (324 ac) (CNHP 2010a).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 78518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 78519]]
Table 1--Summary of Astragalus Microcymbus Populations (Element Occurrences) (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of sites Estimated number
Population name Population No. (pre[dash]2004) of individuals Ownership Population rank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE........................ 9 unknown 25 private................... Historic
Henry.................................. 10 1 513 BLM....................... B
Gold Basin Creek....................... 1 4 5,618 BLM....................... A
South Beaver Creek..................... 2 39 14,317 BLM/private............... A
Cebolla Creek.......................... none 1 unknown private................... C or D
Total.............................. ................. 45 20,473
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A historic
rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.
The CNHP defines an Element Occurrence of Astragalus microcymbus as
any naturally occurring population that is separated by a sufficient
distance or barrier from a neighboring population. More specifically,
for A. microcymbus, a population is separated by 1.6 km (1 mi) or more
across unsuitable habitat, or 3.2 km (2 mi) across apparently suitable
habitat (CNHP 2010b, p. 1). Given this definition, the CNHP has four
populations of A. microcymbus in its database (CNHP 2010b, p. 2). Of
these four populations, one (likely the type locality) has not been
relocated since 1985 and is considered historic. This site was
partially searched (because of private land access) in 1994 and not
relocated, although there have not been subsequent visits. It is
considered historic because it has not been seen in 20 years. The site
along Cebolla Creek has not yet been incorporated into the CNHP's
database, but when incorporated will comprise a separate population
based on the separation distances described above.
While individuals of the species have been lost, we are unaware of
the loss of any Astragalus microcymbus populations, although we are
unsure of the status of Beaver Creek Southeast population. Two A.
microcymbus populations comprise multiple sites (Gold Basin Creek and
South Beaver Creek), and a few of these sites may have been extirpated
(locally extinct). Site revisits using more accurate GPS mapping
equipment from 2004-2008 generally re-located historical sites but
decreased the overall footprint of most sites into smaller polygons and
points. We roughly estimate the new mapping of polygons and points
generally represents a reduction of about 75 percent in aerial extent
from the original sites. We are unsure if the reduction of the site
footprints is because of an actual contraction in the size of the
sites, if the sites moved over time, or if it is an artifact of mapping
efforts using improved technology. We expect it may be a combination of
all three. At three sites in the South Beaver Creek area, no plants
were re-located despite several survey efforts; these sites may have
been extirpated (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10; DePrenger-
Levin 2010b, pers. comm.). In an extreme example, one site along South
Beaver Creek (023-033-31975), was reduced from a larger 4-ha (10-ac)
site to two small polygons that are 97 percent smaller than previously
mapped (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10).
The lumping of multiple sites into populations makes sense
biologically because it generally represents areas where genetic
exchange is possible (e.g., populations). However, past mapping
efforts, site assessments, and count data have often been collected for
smaller sites within a population (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). The
information gathered for these smaller sites is essential for tracking
the status of the species but is somewhat problematic for an over-
arching analysis for several reasons. First, the confusion between
numbering protocols makes it difficult to ensure that particular
counts, habitat specifics, or threats discussed by different sources
are from the same sites. Second, mapping methodologies have resulted in
varying delineations, especially with the advent of GPS technology.
For our analyses in this 12-month finding, we evaluated the sites,
polygons, and points within Astragalus microcymbus populations, and
created what we call units from which to conduct our analysis. We did
this for several reasons: (1) To simplify the problems associated with
tracking sites (i.e., different sources used different descriptors,
making it difficult to ensure that they were talking about the same
site); (2) to more broadly characterize and analyze the threats to the
species' habitat (we believe that sites, polygons, and points are too
fine scale); (3) because the polygons mapped in 2008 were on average
much smaller than the original hand-drawn sites, we wanted to include
more of the potential or previously occupied habitat rather than
restricting our analysis to the 2008 mapped polygons; and (4) to
provide for a more detailed analysis than would occur if we were to
look at populations. To designate the units, we drew a perimeter around
all GPS-derived polygons and points that were within 200 m (656 ft) of
one another, and then buffered each perimeter by an additional 100 m
(328 ft) (Figure 1; Table 2). This 100-m (328-ft) buffer was included
so that previously occupied habitat, as drawn on maps, fell within the
boundaries of these units. As a result of this exercise, all of the
sites within the Gold Basin Creek population were lumped. As shown in
Figure 1 above, this methodology divided the South Beaver Creek
population into six separate units. The Beaver Creek Southeast
population, located entirely on private land, is not included in our
units because we are unsure of its exact location and current
existence.
Table 2--Astragalus microcymbus Units for Our Spatial Analysis in This 12-Month Finding (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4; 2010b, pp. 1-3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. number of
Unit name Population No. individuals Acres Hectares Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE.................... 9..................... 25.................... Unknown.............. Unknown.............. private
Henry.............................. 10.................... 513................... 10.8................. 4.4.................. BLM
Gold Basin Creek................... 1..................... 5,618................. 315.1................ 127.5................ BLM
[[Page 78520]]
South Beaver Creek 1............... 2..................... 6,136................. 918.5................ 371.7................ 70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 2............... 2..................... 3,667................. 684.5................ 277.0................ 68% BLM, 32% private
South Beaver Creek 3............... 2..................... 2,464................. 163.6................ 66.2................. 96% BLM, 4% private
South Beaver Creek 4............... 2..................... 778................... 24.1................. 9.75................. 70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 5............... 2..................... 1,232................. 38.3................. 15.5................. BLM
South Beaver Creek 6............... 2..................... unknown............... 11.5................. 4.6.................. BLM
Cebolla Creek...................... none.................. unknown............... 24.6................. 9.9.................. 6% BLM, 94% private
TOTAL.......................... ...................... 20,433*............... 2,190.8.............. 886.6................ 75% BLM, 25% private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Number is different from Table 1 above because the counts from two historical sites were excluded from the units.
Comprehensive surveys for Astragalus microcymbus were conducted in
1989 (BLM 1989a, pp. 1-31) and 1994 (Sherwood 1994, pp. 1-24). In 2008,
the BLM conducted a comprehensive mapping effort without counts or
population assessments (BLM 2010, p. 3). Several other efforts have
counted individuals within certain sites (Japuntich 2010b, pers. comm.;
DePrenger-Levin 2010b, pers. comm.; 2010c, pers. comm.; 2010d, pers.
comm.; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Count data from various sites are
difficult to compare because there is no way of knowing if two
observers, during different years, travelled across similar areas, and
if the effort between the two counts were similar. In general, counts
in 1994 were higher than 1989 (Sherwood 1994, p. 13; USFWS 2010a, pp.
1-4). Several other observers have subsequently returned to these sites
and found that A. microcymbus numbers in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008
were much lower than those of 1994 and the 1980s, with many sites
shrinking from thousands to hundreds of individuals (DBG 2010a, p. 7;
BLM 2010, p. 3; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Site counts and estimates from
the 1980s and 1990s often reported the number of A. microcymbus
individuals as more than 500, and sometimes as more than 2,000
individuals. Most counts in the last 5 years have been far less,
generally under 150 individuals with only 1 count over 400 individuals
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
In 1989, the BLM developed a protocol to provide long-term trend
data for selected populations of Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1989b, pp.
1-4). They applied the protocol in select locations in 1990, 1994, and
2008. The number of individuals between 1990 and 2008 was not
statistically different, and both years had similar low annual
precipitation (20 cm (8 in.)) compared to the average of 25 cm (10 in.)
(USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8; DBG 2010a, p. 12; Western Regional Climate
Center [WRCC] 2010a, pp. 1-8). However, there were significantly more
plants in 1994 (three to four times) than either 1990 or 2008.
Precipitation was higher in 1994, roughly 10 cm (4 in.) more than in
1990 or 2008 (USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8). We conclude that there are more
above-ground plants in years with more precipitation.
The DBG has been monitoring Astragalus microcymbus annually since
1995 (Carpenter 1995, pp. 1-7; DBG 2003, pp. 1-23; 2007, pp. 1-16;
2008, pp. 1-20; 2010a, pp. 1-17). The DBG found a decline in the number
of A. microcymbus individuals from 1995-2009 (Figure 2), especially
from 1995-2002 (DBG 2010a, p. 5). When comparing the first year of
monitoring to the last, this decline is not statistically significant
because of a partial rebound in the last few years (DBG 2010a, pp. 5,
10-11). This decline is apparent, although not significant, when
considering only above-ground individuals (p = 0.11) as well as when
combining above-ground individuals with dormant individuals (p = 0.19)
(Figure 2). Dormant individuals are unknown for the first and last
years of the study (1995 and 2008) because of problems associated with
finding dormant individuals in the first year, and because dormant
individuals cannot be distinguished from dead individuals in the last
year.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 78521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
In conjunction with the life-history monitoring, the DBG conducted
a population viability analysis using data from 1995-2006. They found
that all monitored populations of Astragalus microcymbus were in rapid
decline, and predicted that all populations will comprise 20
individuals or less--their definition of extinct--by 2030 (DBG 2010a,
p. 10). This analysis has not been updated incorporating more recent
monitoring data. However, a preliminary review for a subsequent
population viability analysis has found still declining trends but with
a more gradual decline that would likely delay the predicted extinction
date (DePrenger-Levin 2010e, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the
population viability analysis including the 2007 and 2008 data has not
been completed. The 2009 data cannot be used because of the problems
associated with identifying dead or dormant individuals.
Astragalus microcymbus numbers are positively correlated with
precipitation. In a statistical comparison, annual rainfall from August
of the previous growing season to July of the current growing season
positively influenced the number of A. microcymbus individuals, average
maximum temperature in May and July negatively influenced the number of
individuals, and rainfall in May and July positively influenced the
number of individuals significantly (DBG 2010a, p. 6). In addition,
rainfall in springtime months during the growing season was
statistically correlated with more above-ground growth (DBG 2010a, p.
6).
Survey efforts, trend monitoring, life-history monitoring, and the
corresponding population viability analysis all suggest that Astragalus
microcymbus numbers are declining. In both of the more rigorous
monitoring efforts, the decline seems to be correlated with
precipitation. The drought in the early 2000s caused a huge decline in
numbers, with a rebound in the later 2000s (DBG 2010a, p. 5). However,
the very low survey numbers from this decade as compared to the 1980s
and 1990s seem less correlated with precipitation (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-
4; WRCC 2010a, pp. 1-8). The reasons for these declines are not fully
understood.
Habitat
Astragalus microcymbus is found in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem
at elevations of 2,377-2,597 meters (m) (7,800-8,520 feet (ft)). The
plant is most commonly found on rocky or cobbly, moderate to steep (9-
38 degrees) slopes of hills and draws (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16),
although there are some sites that are flat. Plants are generally found
on southeast to southwest aspects, but are occasionally found on
northern exposures (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The average annual
precipitation is around 25 cm (10 in.) a year, and is fairly
consistently spread across the year, except for July and August when
roughly twice the precipitation falls compared to the other months
(WRCC 2010b, pp. 3, 8). Snow falls in the winter and remains on the
ground from November/December through March/April (WRCC 2010a, pp. 3,
8). Winters are cold with an average daily high in January of -3 [deg]C
(26.5 [deg]F) and an average daily low of -20 [deg]C (-4.0 [deg]F).
Summers are warmer. July is the hottest month with an average daily
high of 27 [deg]C (81 [deg]F) and an average daily low of 6 [deg]C (44
[deg]F) (WRCC 2010b, pp. 3-8).
Astragalus microcymbus is found in open park-like landscapes
dominated by several sagebrush species, cacti, sparse grasses, and
other scattered shrubs. Shrubs are primarily represented by Artemisia
tridentata ssp. vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush), Artemisia tridentata
ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming sagebrush), Artemisia frigida (fringed
sagebrush or prairie sagewort), and Artemisia nova (black sagebrush);
cacti include Yucca harrimaniae (Spanish bayonet), and Opuntia
polyacantha (plains pricklypear); grasses most commonly include
Achnatherum hymenoides (formerly Oryzopsis hymenoides--Indian
ricegrass), Elymus elymoides (formerly Sitanion hystrix--squirreltail),
Hesperostipa comata (formerly Stipa comata--needle and thread grass),
and Poa sp. (fescue); and the most common forbs include Cryptantha
cinerea (James' Cryptantha)
[[Page 78522]]
and Penstemon teucrioides (germander beardtongue). Other shrubs and
small trees found within A. microcymbus' habitat include Ribes cereum
(wax currant), Symphoricarpos oreophilus (mountain snowberry), and
Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper).
Soils are well drained and vary from sandy to rocky, but are
primarily a thin cobble-clay loam (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The
primary soils within Astragalus microcymbus units are stony rock land
(46 percent), Lucky-Cheadle gravelly sandy loams with 5-45 percent
slopes (39 percent), alluvial land (8 percent), and Kezar-Cathedral
gravelly sandy loams with 5-35 percent slopes (4 percent) (Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2008; USFWS 2010b, pp. 12-13).
Geologically, A. microcymbus is associated with: (1) Felsic and
hornblendic gneiss (metamorphic from igneous) substrates; (2) granitic
(igneous) rocks of 1,700 million-year age group; and (3) biotitic
gneiss, schist, and migmatite (sedimentary) substrates with 52, 37, and
11 percent, respectively, in each geology (Knepper et al. 1999, pp. 21-
22; USFWS 2010b, pp. 10-11).
The areas where Astragalus microcymbus is found are generally
distinct from surrounding habitats. They are more sparsely vegetated,
drier than surrounding areas, more heavily occupied by cacti, and
appear to have some specific soil properties as described above. This
habitat is limited and patchily distributed on the landscape.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 12-month finding, we evaluated the best scientific
and commercial information available. Our evaluation of this
information is presented below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or
range of Astragalus microcymbus are discussed in this section,
including: (1) Residential and urban development; (2) recreation,
roads, and trails; (3) utility corridors; (4) nonnative invasive
plants; (5) wildfire; (6) contour plowing and nonnative seedings; (7)
livestock, deer and elk use of habitat; (8) mining, oil and gas
leasing; (9) climate change; and (10) habitat fragmentation and
degradation.
Residential and Urban Development
The majority of Astragalus microcymbus is located between 3.2 and
11 km (2 and 7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, Colorado, the largest town
in Gunnison County (Figure 1). Rapid population growth in the rural
Rocky Mountains, including the Gunnison area, is being driven by the
availability of natural amenities, recreational opportunities,
aesthetically desirable settings, grandiose viewscapes, and perceived
remoteness (Riebsame 1996, pp. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, p. 408;
Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 192-197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6;
Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899-1901). Gunnison County grew from 5,477
people in 1960 to 15,048 people in 2007, constituting a 300 percent
increase in population in less than 50 years (CensusScope 2010, pp. 1-
3; Colorado State Demography Office 2008, p. 1). The population of
Gunnison County is predicted to more than double by 2050 to
approximately 31,100 residents (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009,
p. 53).
Human population growth results in increased fragmentation of
habitat (see Factor E below) (Theobald et al. 1996, pp. 410-412),
increased recreation and more roads (see Recreation, Roads, and Trails
below) (Mitchell et al. 2002, pp. 5-6; Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1899),
more utility corridors (see Utility Corridors below), more nonnative
invasive plants (see Nonnative Invasive Plants below) (Hansen et al.
2005, p. 1896), and changes to ecological processes (Hansen et al.
2005, p. 1901). A recent but common pattern of population growth in the
Gunnison area is ``exurban'' or ``ranchette'' development. These
ranchettes consist of larger lots (generally more than 14 ha (35 ac))
each with an isolated large house. This type of development, because of
its location outside of urban footprints, may have more impacts to
ecosystems and biodiversity than urban or urban fringe development
(Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1903). Much of this development occurs on
steeper slopes, like those where Astragalus microcymbus is found, where
views are better.
To the best of our knowledge, residential and urban development
(aside from roads) has impacted only one Astragalus microcymbus unit:
the Beaver Creek Southeast Unit. The original type locality along
Highway 50 may have been lost to highway activities, and the nearby
private lands where the plant was located in the late 1970s and early
1980s may have been lost to a gravel pit (Sherwood 1994, pp. 18-19). No
more than 30 plants were reported from this unit in any given year from
1955-1994 (USFWS 2010a, p. 1). Only two A. microcymbus sites are near
buildings: There is a cabin near one of the larger A. microcymbus sites
within the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit (BLM 1989a, p. 31), and there is a
house within the Cebolla Creek Unit. We do not know if construction of
either of these structures impacted A. microcymbus.
Twenty-five percent of the Astragalus microcymbus units are on
private land, mostly along South Beaver Creek (Table 2). Five parcels
of private land (with an additional parcel nearby) are currently within
A. microcymbus units along South Beaver Creek ranging in size from 17
to 263 ha (43 to 650 ac), only one of which has any housing or
agricultural developments. All of these parcels are used primarily for
livestock ranching operations that have a much lower impact than urban
or residential development.
These private land parcels bisect the South Beaver Creek 1 and
South Beaver Creek 2 Units, and clip portions of the South Beaver Creek
3 and South Beaver Creek 4 Units (USFWS 2010b, pp. 2-3). Roughly half
of the known Astragalus microcymbus individuals are within the South
Beaver Creek 1, 2, and 4 Units (Table 2), making them especially
important to the conservation of the species. These three units all
have at least 30 percent of their area on private
[[Page 78523]]
lands (Table 2), more than the average across the units of 25 percent.
Given their proximity to town, the rapid growth predicted for Gunnison
County (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009, p. 53), the lack of
undeveloped parcels in desirable locations (Gunnison County 2005, p.
1), and their appealing views, these parcels are in a likely location
for development and could be subdivided in the future. In addition, the
Cebolla Creek Unit is located almost entirely on private land and is
already partially developed.
Residential or urban development of these parcels would likely lead
to the destruction of Astragalus microcymbus individuals, as well as
fragment and alter the plants' habitat. In 2005, it was estimated that
only 30 percent of the private lands in Gunnison County remained
undeveloped (Gunnison County 2005, p. 1). Because only 30 percent of
the private lands in Gunnison County remain undeveloped, and because
the population of Gunnison County is expected to double by 2050, we
conclude that the currently undeveloped private lands where A.
microcymbus occurs are likely to be developed by 2050. The potential
loss of up to 25 percent of the area (habitat) and even more of the
individuals of A. microcymbus is a significant threat for a species
with such limited numbers and a limited range (Table 2). This
development also would fragment the habitat, potentially isolating
small populations from one another leading to the further loss of
individuals.
Currently, the impact of development on the species is relatively
minor, consisting of the few examples provided above. Although 25
percent of Astragalus microcymbus individuals are on private lands with
no protective mechanisms in place for the species, little development
is currently occurring on these private lands. However, we believe that
the threat of development to the species may increase in the
foreseeable future based on future human population growth. Future
development on these lands is likely, because of the rate of growth in
the Gunnison area. Given that Gunnison County has seen a 300 percent
increase in population in less than 50 years, that only 30 percent of
the private lands remain undeveloped, and A. microcymbus' close
proximity to the town of Gunnison, we expect that some of these private
land parcels will be developed in the next several decades. Based on
the population projections presented above, the foreseeable future for
development is 40 years, as the population of Gunnison County is
predicted to more than double by 2050. Based on the above information,
we consider residential and urban development to be a threat to the
species in the foreseeable future.
Recreation, Roads, and Trails
It is difficult to separate the effects of roads and trails from
the effects of recreation where Astragalus microcymbus resides. Most
forms of recreation within A. microcymbus' range include the use of
roads and trails either as a form of recreation (e.g., vehicle use,
mountain biking, or hiking) or as a way to access recreation areas
(e.g., target shooting and rock climbing areas). For these reasons, we
have chosen to address recreation, roads, and trails together in this
section.
Roads cause habitat fragmentation because they create abrupt
transitions in vegetation; add edge to adjacent patches; are sources of
pollutants; and act as filters (allowing some species to cross but not
others) and barriers (prohibiting movement) (Spellerberg 1998, pp. 317-
333). Road networks contribute to exotic plant invasions via introduced
road fill, vehicle transport of plant parts, and road maintenance
activities (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 32;
Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 426). Many of these invasive species are
not limited to roadsides, but also encroach into surrounding habitats
(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and
Belnap 2003, p. 427).
Aside from the indirect effects discussed above, a road typically
removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi),
while a single track trail removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha
(0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) (BLM 2005a, p. 13). Roads also act as
corridors that facilitate human interaction with species and increase
the opportunities and the likelihood of travel across undisturbed (non-
road) areas. The recreational use of roads is on the rise. From 1991 to
2006, off-highway vehicle registrations increased 937 percent (from
11,744 to 109,994 within the state), with an average annual increase of
16 percent (Summit County Off Road Riders 2009, p. 1). Recreational
activities within the Gunnison Basin are widespread, occur during all
seasons of the year (especially summer and hunting season), and have
expanded as more people move to the area or come to recreate (BLM
2009a, pp. 7-8). Motorized and mechanized use has been increasing
within the Gunnison Basin and is expected to increase in the future
based on increased population (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 5, 9, 85, 124-
125, 136, 158, 177, 204, 244, 254, 269, 278).
Because Astragalus microcymbus generally occurs on slopes, it is
somewhat protected from the further development of large roads. And
many of the existing roads, although not all, run immediately along the
bottom or top of sites instead of through the middle of sites. However,
these slopes appear to be the preferred location for dirt bike and
mountain bike trails, especially those that were user-created instead
of formally designed. Many of the trails within the range of A.
microcymbus are user-created and run across or up through the slopes
where the plant is found (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). These user-created
trails, when redesigned, often require a series of switchbacks, which
could increase the opportunity for impacts to the plant. Travel
management (the allocation and utilization of motorized and
nonmotorized use), and route designation and design, both within the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area and outside that area, are described in
further detail below.
Except for the one disjunct population, all of the Astragalus
microcymbus units are within 11 km (7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, the
closest of which is 3.2 km (2 mi) away. This close proximity to an
urban area makes the species more susceptible to recreational impacts
than if it were located more remotely. The Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area is a popular urban interface recreation area and contains roughly
40 percent of the A. microcymbus units (BLM 2005a, p. 3; USFWS 2010b,
pp. 4-5). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area is located between 3 and 10
km (2 and 6 mi) from the town of Gunnison on BLM lands (BLM 2005a, p.
3). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area covers 3,380 ha (8,350 ac), but
trails expand out onto adjacent lands. These lands also have A.
microcymbus plants and habitat that are being impacted by these trails
(BLM 2005a, p. 3).
We have no detailed information on how much use occurs, how this
use is increasing, or when the use is occurring in the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area. In 2005, it was estimated that the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area received 15,000-20,000 user days each year (BLM 2005a,
p. 3). Recreation activities within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area
include mountain biking, motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, 4-
wheeling, rock climbing, camping, trail running, horseback riding,
cross country skiing, snowmobiling, dog sledding, hill parties, target
shooting, hunting, paintball, and more (BLM 2005a, p. 3). We have seen
most of these activities
[[Page 78524]]
occurring adjacent to or within Astragalus microcymbus sites (USFWS
2010, pers. comm.).
The BLM's Hartman Rocks Recreation Management Plan closed two
trails and rerouted one trail to protect Astragalus microcymbus (BLM
2005a, p. 18; Japuntich 2010c, pers. comm.). These closures were for
trails that were directly impacting A. microcymbus individuals. The
Aberdeen Loop trail goes very close to several A. microcymbus sites
within the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver
Creek 6 Units. To protect Gunnison sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat, a
reroute of this trail is planned in the next few years that will put
the trail further from these A. microcymbus sites (Japuntich 2010d,
pers. comm.). Many trails are open year-round in the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, but with less use in the winter and early spring when
trails are snow covered or muddy. Closures during A. microcymbus'
growing season (likely late April through August) would benefit the
species by reducing impacts to seedlings and plants, and by lessening
disruptions to pollinators. The Aberdeen Loop trail that runs through
the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver Creek
6 occupied A. microcymbus habitat is subject to seasonal closures for
the Gunnison sage grouse from June 15 until August 31. This closure
provides partial protection for A. microcymbus in the growing season.
The South Beaver Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) (also a Colorado Natural Area) was designated in 1993 by the BLM
with the intent of protecting and enhancing existing populations of
Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1993, pp. 2.18, 2.29; Colorado Natural
Areas Program [CNAP] 1997, pp. 1-7). The South Beaver Creek ACEC is
1,847 ha (4,565 ac), and includes 60 percent of the A. microcymbus
units rangewide (BLM 1993, p. 2.18; USFWS 2010b, pp. 8-9). Seventy
percent of the South Beaver Creek ACEC is within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, although the South Beaver Creek ACEC was developed at
least 8 years prior to the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p.
44). Because of its designation as a recreation area, the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area draws users to the area, which is in conflict with the
ACEC's intent to protect and enhance A. microcymbus.
When the South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated, motorized vehicle
traffic was limited to designated routes, whereas it had previously
been open on all lands (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). Outside the South Beaver
Creek ACEC, all lands within the range of Astragalus microcymbus
remained open to motorized vehicle traffic. In 2001, mechanized travel,
including mountain bikes, on all lands within the Gunnison Resource
Area including the South Beaver Creek ACEC and the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area was limited to designated routes (U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) and BLM 2001a, p. 3; 2001b, pp. 1-2; BLM 2005a, p. 14). This
closure resulted in new protections for A. microcymbus from mountain
bikes and vehicular use on BLM lands outside the South Beaver Creek
ACEC, and from mountain bikes within the ACEC.
Enforcement of travel designations and trail closures is difficult
given the large area of the BLM's Gunnison Resource Area and limited
law enforcement personnel (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259). Illegal trails
are always an issue in well-used recreation areas (BLM 2010, p. 4).
Furthermore, the open park-like habitat of Astragalus microcymbus makes
it difficult to disguise trails that have been closed. Numerous
undesignated trails running through A. microcymbus habitat are visible
on satellite images (see below). Law enforcement with the Gunnison
Resource Area is provided by the BLM's Montrose Area Office, which is
located over 105 km (65 mi) away. Law enforcement within this area is
intermittent, and tickets are rarely, if ever, issued for trespass use
(USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259).
As an example, the Quarry Drop trail that runs through the South
Beaver Creek 1 Unit was closed in 2005 with the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Plan, because it ran directly through two Astragalus
microcymbus sites (BLM 2010, p. 4). Although this trail is posted as
closed, it was still in use during the summer of 2009, when rocks were
placed to close the trail entrance (BLM 2010, p. 4). The Gunnison
Trails group (a local non-profit trail-building group) and the BLM have
increased their efforts on finding illegal trails and closing them
before they become more established. Continued pressure from the
recreation community for new trail construction is likely, as well as
trespass use (BLM 2010, p. 4). In an effort to control illegal use, the
BLM has put up educational signs where roads enter the South Beaver
Creek ACEC explaining what A. microcymbus is and why the species and
its habitat are important to preserve (BLM 2010, p. 6). Trails that
have been closed are planned to be rehabilitated where they meet open
trails during the summer of 2011 in an attempt to ensure they will no
longer be used (Japuntich 2010d, pers. comm.).
The BLM and the USFS finalized a joint Environmental Impact
Statement for a Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Plan
that includes areas on BLM lands outside the Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 1-288). This plan builds upon the Gunnison
Travel Interim Restrictions of 2001 by closing additional routes,
mostly for resource-related reasons (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 1).
Astragalus microcymbus is not considered in detail in this plan, nor
does the plan designate roads be closed specifically to protect A.
microcymbus (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 47, 78-79). None of the closures
proposed in the plan will benefit A. microcymbus nor do they address
routes within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area.
We have found roads, trails, and gravel parking areas atop
Astragalus microcymbus individuals and polygons (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). These roads, trails, and parking areas have no vegetation. A.
microcymbus individuals can be found along the margins of these roads,
trails, and parking areas, sometimes with tire tracks atop (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). Cheatgrass is spreading from the old road bed upslope and
into the one site where invasion is occurring (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Trails sometimes are deeply incised and eroded (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.).
We conducted a spatial analysis overlaying the distribution of
Astragalus microcymbus units with designated routes within and near the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area. We found 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of roads (3.5
km (2.3 mi)) and trails (5.3 km (3.2 mi)) overlap with A. microcymbus
units (Table 3) (BLM 2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 14-15). Through this
mapping effort, we found four of the polygons within the Gold Basin
Creek Unit are being directly impacted by these roads and trails (USFWS
2010b, p. 16). We also are aware of at least three other polygons that
are being directly impacted by roads and trails (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Estimating that a road typically removes all vegetation from
about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) while a single track trail
removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi)
(BLM 2005a, p. 13), designated roads directly impact 1.6 ha (3.9 ac)
and designated trails directly impact 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) of habitat within
A. microcymbus units.
[[Page 78525]]
Table 3--Roads, Trails, and Paths Within Astragalus microcymbus Units
[Designated routes are those included in the BLM's geospatial layers, undesignated are those located using satellite imagery]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Undesignated
Unit name -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total km (mi)
Roads km (mi) Trails km (mi) Roads km (mi) Trails km (mi) Paths km (mi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry................................................... 0.1 (0.06) .............. 0.1 (0.06) 0.1 (0.06) .............. 0.3 (0.2)
Gold Basin Creek........................................ 2.2 (1.4) 1.4 (0.9) 0.1 (0.06) 0.4 (0.2) 1.3 (0.8) 5.4 (3.4)
South Beaver Creek 1.................................... 1.2 (0.7) 3.5 (2.2) 6.3 (3.9) 3.4 (2.1) 1.6 (1.0) 16.0 (9.9)
South Beaver Creek 2.................................... .............. .............. 2.4 (1.5) 0.3 (0.2) 3.6 (2.2) 6.3 (3.9)
South Beaver Creek 3.................................... .............. .............. 0.7 (0.4) .............. .............. 0.7 (0.4)
South Beaver Creek 4.................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
South Beaver Creek 5.................................... .............. 0.2 (0.1) .............. .............. .............. 0.2 (0.1)
South Beaver Creek 6.................................... .............. 0.2 (0.1) .............. .............. .............. 0.2 (0.1)
Cebolla Creek........................................... .............. .............. 0.6 (0.4) .............. .............. 0.6 (0.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (km).......................................... 3.5 (2.2) 5.3 (3.3) 10.2 (6.4) 4.2 (2.6) 6.5 (4.0) 29.7 (18.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While travel is officially limited to designated routes only on BLM
lands, there are numerous roads, trails, and paths that are not
designated, with some receiving regular use. Some of these roads have
been closed, but their footprint remains. Some of these roads are on
private lands along South Beaver Creek, but many are trails or old
roads on BLM lands that are undesignated, that either show evidence of
use or could be receiving use. We used the NRCS' 2005 National
Agriculture Imagery Program satellite imagery to look for roads,
trails, and paths in occupied Astragalus microcymbus units additional
to those BLM roads and trails included in the analysis above. We
designated roads, trails, and paths based on the width of the
disturbance. Roads were the widest, trails were narrower, and paths
were the narrowest. We found almost 21 km (13 mi) of additional roads,
trails, and paths, including: 10.2 km (6.3 mi) of roads, 4.2 km (2.6
mi) of trails, 6.5 km (4.0 mi) of paths (Table 3) (USFWS 2010b, pp. 21-
22). Using the BLM's estimates of direct impacts (BLM 2005a, p. 13),
undesignated roads directly impact 4.4 ha (10.9 ac), undesignated
trails directly impact 0.3 ha (0.8 ac), and undesignated paths directly
impact less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of A. microcymbus habitat. Because we
were using satellite imagery, we cannot say for certain what the level
of use is on the trails, or even say if they are still in use. Some of
the paths may have been livestock trails. Livestock trails may receive
more or less use than other trails, but the effects are likely similar.
All units except the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit have roads and
trails. Designated and undesignated roads denude about 5.7 ha (14.1
ac), designated and undesignated trails denude about 0.6 ha (1.6 ac),
and undesignated paths denude less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) within Astragalus
microcymbus units, or less than 0.8 percent (Table 4). To estimate the
indirect effects of roads and trails, we used a 20-m (66-ft) buffer on
either side of roads and trails. This distance represents the area
where invasive nonnative species are most likely to invade, pollinators
may be impacted or disturbed by passing vehicles, off-trail use is most
likely, and impacts from dust may occur. This distance results in a
conservative estimate of impacts, as it is probably more accurate for
trails than roads (summarized in DBG 2010b, p. 1). Using this buffer
distance, we estimate that roughly 14.5 percent of A. microcymbus'
total habitat may currently be impacted by roads and trails (Table 4)
(USFWS 2010b, pp. 23-25). We expect our 15-percent estimate is low. For
example, plumes of dust are known to travel hundreds of meters,
especially in arid climates (Gilles et al. 2005, p. 2346). Also, we
expect that the two known pollinators of A. microcymbus travel at least
100 m (328 ft) from their nests, and impacts within this area could
impact the nests of these pollinators (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp. 589-
596). In the case of the A. microcymbus site with cheatgrass, we
estimate that the cheatgrass invasion was facilitated by the road and
has since moved roughly 20 m (66 ft) upslope into the site (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). A 100-m (328-ft) buffer (that would better account for
indirect dust and invasive nonnative species effects) on either side of
these roads and trails would cover roughly 46 percent of the A.
microcymbus units.
Table 4--Direct and Indirect (20 Meter (66 Foot)) Effects to Astragalus microcymbus Units From Roads, Trails, and Paths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct 20-m (66-ft) buffer
Unit name Road km (mi) Trail and path ---------------------------------------------------------------
km (mi) Area ha (ac) % of unit Area ha (ac) % of unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry................................................... 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.06) 0.1 (0.2) 1.9 1.8 (4.6) 42.0
Gold Basin Creek........................................ 2.3 (1.4) 3.1 (1.9) 1.2 (3.0) 1.0 22.7 (56.0) 17.8
South Beaver Creek 1.................................... 7.5 (4.7) 8.5 (5.3) 3.8 (9.4) 1.0 69.7 (172.1) 18.7
South Beaver Creek 2.................................... 2.4 (1.5) 3.9 (2.4) 1.3 (3.2) 0.5 26.9 (66.3) 9.7
South Beaver Creek 3.................................... 0.7 (0.4) .............. 0.3 (0.7) 0.4 3.2 (7.9) 4.8
South Beaver Creek 4.................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
South Beaver Creek 5.................................... .............. 0.2 (0.1) 0.01 (0.02) 0.05 0.9 (2.2) 5.8
South Beaver Creek 6.................................... .............. 0.2 (0.1) 0.01 (0.02) 0.2 0.9 (2.2) 19.4
Cebolla Creek........................................... 0.6 (0.4) .............. 0.3 (0.7) 2.8 2.7 (6.8) 27.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (km).......................................... 13.7 (8.5) 16.0 (9.9) 6.9 (17.1) 0.8 128.7 (318.1) 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78526]]
Given the numerous roads and trails within Astragalus microcymbus'
habitat (impacting between 15 and 46 percent of the units), the
dispersed and bisecting nature of these roads and trails, the numerous
trespass trails, the likely increase in nonnative invasive plants from
road and trail use, and the fact that a recreation area was designated
on 40 percent of the species habitat, we find the magnitude of the
threat from recreation, roads, and trails to be high. The threat is
ongoing with a high likelihood that it will continue to increase over
time. Given that off-road vehicle use in Colorado is increasing 16
percent annually, that the population of Gunnison County is estimated
to double by 2050, and that other recreational impacts also are
increasing at a rapid pace, we expect a significant increase in the
threat from recreation, roads, and trails in the next 40 years. The
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area's Management Plan is applicable for 10-15
years from 1995, although there is no definitive expiration date (BLM
2005a, p. 7). We are unsure if and when an update is planned. The most
recent Travel Management Plan (USFS and BLM 2010, entire) for the
Gunnison Basin will have a similar lifespan. During this time period
travel management is not likely to change while we anticipate use will
increase. Based on the above information, we consider recreation,
roads, and trails to be a significant threat to the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
Utility Corridors
Utility corridors have similar effects to habitats as roads because
both are linear disturbances (see Recreation, Roads, and Trails above
for a review of effects). The impact from a utility corridor is greater
than its actual footprint, because utility corridors fragment habitat
and facilitate the invasion of nonnative invasive plants. We are aware
of one large electrical transmission line in Astragalus microcymbus
habitat. The Curecanti to Poncha 230-kilovolt electrical transmission
line bisects the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit and was built in 1962
(Japuntich 2010e, pers. comm.). A 500-foot right-of-way (ROW) (largely
not disturbed) is on both sides of the power line (Japuntich 2010e,
pers. comm.), which overlays with about 38 ha (94 ac) or 10 percent of
the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit and 4 percent of the total area of all A.
microcymbus units. Only a small proportion of the 500-foot ROW is
disturbed. We estimate 1.2 km (0.75 mi) of transmission line with at
least six large structures (power poles) within the unit. Given the
close proximity of A. microcymbus individuals to the transmission line,
we assume some individuals were impacted during construction. At least
one access road to a power pole also provides vehicular access to an A.
microcymbus site where plants are being impacted by vehicles driving on
them. This transmission line is used recreationally by snowmobile
riders in the winter (BLM 2005a, p. 53). We do not know if there are
any impacts to A. microcymbus from these snowmobiling activities.
Direct impacts seem unlikely from the snowmobiling because the plants
are dormant and under snow when the use is occurring. Compaction to the
habitat is a possibility.
Future ROW developments are allowed in the South Beaver Creek ACEC
provided that the surface disturbance does not impair or degrade
Astragalus microcymbus sites (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). The one known utility
corridor impacts only one A. microcymbus unit, representing 4 percent
of the total rangewide area within units. Given the population growth
in the area, we believe there is a moderate likelihood of additional
utility corridors in the future. We are unaware of any plan to develop
other utility corridors through A. microcymbus habitat. Although an
existing utility corridor in A. microcymbus habitat may impact a small
percentage of the overall range of the species, we have no information
to indicate that utility corridors occur at a level that threatens the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
Nonnative Invasive Plants
Nonnative invasive plants (weeds) invade and alter all types of
plant communities, sometimes resulting in nonnative plant monocultures
that support little wildlife or native plants. Many experts believe
that, following habitat destruction, nonnative invasive plants are the
next greatest threat to biodiversity (Randall 1996, pp. 370-383).
Nonnative invasive plants alter different ecosystem attributes
including geomorphology, fire regime, hydrology, microclimate, nutrient
cycling, and productivity (Dukes and Mooney 2004, pp. 411-437).
Nonnative invasive plants can detrimentally affect native plants
through competitive exclusion, altered pollinator behaviors, niche
displacement, hybridization, and changes in insect predation. Invasive
grasses can replace native plants such as Astragalus microcymbus by
outcompeting them for resources, such as soil nutrients or moisture
(Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 6). Examples are widespread among taxa and
locations or ecosystems (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87; Olson
1999, pp. 6-18; Mooney and Cleland 2001, pp. 5446-5451).
The only nonnative invasive plant species that has been documented
impacting Astragalus microcymbus is cheatgrass or downy brome (Bromus
tectorum). Cheatgrass has become dominant in many sagebrush areas
during the last century, primarily from livestock use, agriculture, and
wildfire impacts (Pickford 1932, p. 165; Piemeisel 1951, p. 71; Peters
and Bunting 1994, p. 34; Vail 1994, pp. 3-4; Brooks and Pyke 2001, pp.
4-6; Menakis et al. 2003, p. 284). Cheatgrass displaces native plants
by prolific seed production, early germination, and superior
competitive abilities for the extraction of water and nutrients
(Pellant 1996, pp. 3-4; Pyke 2007, pp. 1-2). Cheatgrass is capable of
modifying ecosystems by altering the soil temperatures and soil water
distribution (Pellant 1996, p. 4). In addition, the invasion of
cheatgrass increases fire frequency within the sagebrush ecosystem (see
Wildfire below) (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p.
39).
In the mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen in very small patches
in the Gunnison Basin but can now be found in some abundance throughout
the Basin (BLM 2009a, pp. 7-8). Cheatgrass is increasing in the South
Beaver Creek drainage and has been identified as a major threat to
Astragalus microcymbus. This threat assessment was made because of how
cheatgrass is rapidly expanding elsewhere in the Gunnison Basin (BLM
2010, p. 5). Cheatgrass is moving upslope into A. microcymbus areas
(BLM 2010, p. 5). In 2009, nine polygons within the South Beaver Creek
1 Unit were discovered with cheatgrass totaling 0.2 ha (0.6 ac) (USFWS
2010b, pp. 16-17). These polygons did not exist 4 years prior to their
discovery (Japuntich 2010f, pers. comm.). In 2010, another small site
of cheatgrass was mapped immediately adjacent to the South Beaver Creek
5 Unit, and a 9-ha (22-ac) site with cheatgrass was located 250 m (820
ft) away from the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit (Japuntich 2010f, pers.
comm.).
Herbicide use to control cheatgrass in the South Beaver Creek is
limited by the close proximity of South Beaver Creek, because chemical
spraying within the South Beaver Creek ACEC is not allowed, and
vegetative treatments in the South Beaver Creek ACEC must not adversely
affect Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1993, p. 2.29; BLM 2010, p. 6). In
the spring of 2010, the BLM conducted a mechanical removal
[[Page 78527]]
effort for cheatgrass to protect A. microcymbus at the South Beaver
Creek 1 Unit at the nine polygons mentioned above (BLM 2010, pers.
comm.). A manual hand-pulling effort in 2010 that treated several acres
of cheatgrass was partially successful (Japuntich 2010g, pers. comm.).
Cheatgrass spread also may be affected by climate change (see Climate
Change below).
Other nonnative invasive species known from the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area include: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scentless
chamomile (Matriacaria perforata), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris),
and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) (BLM 2005a, p. 47). These
species have not been reported from or near Astragalus microcymbus
areas and are said to have been controlled (BLM 2005a, p. 47). We
expect other nonnative invasive species are likely in the area. Other
nonnative invasive species known from the Gunnison Resource Area that
are reported to take over large areas include: spotted knapweed
(Centaurea maculosa), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), and field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (BLM 2009a, p. 7). The following weeds
also are known from the Gunnison Basin, where they are currently
limited in extent; however, they are known to cover large expanses in
other parts of western North America: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea
diffusa), and whitetop (Cardaria draba). Other invasive plant species
present within the Gunnison Basin that are problematic yet less likely
to overtake large areas include: musk thistle (Carduus nutans), bull
thistle (Cirsium vulgare), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), kochia
(Kochia sp.), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and absinth wormwood
(Artemisia biennis) (BLM 2009a, p. 7; Gunnison Watershed Weed
Commission (GWWC) 2009, pp. 4-6).
We believe the invasion of nonnative invasive plants, particularly
cheatgrass, is likely to be a threat to A. microcymbus in the near
future because: (1) Cheatgrass appears to be quickly expanding into the
habitat (it was unknown just 2 years ago and there are several
cheatgrass sites nearby now); (2) the dry, sparsely-vegetated, south-
facing slopes where A. microcymbus is found are the warmest sites with
little competition from other native vegetation (Japuntich 2010h, pers.
comm.) and, therefore, are inherently vulnerable to cheatgrass
invasion; (3) cheatgrass likely competes with seedlings and resprouting
adult plants for water and nutrients; (4) no landscape-scale successful
control methods are available for cheatgrass; and (5) the proven
ability of cheatgrass to increase fire frequency, thereby facilitating
further rapid spread. We conclude that cheatgrass invasion is currently
not a threat but we expect that the existing invasion will increase
quickly in the near future, and will likely cause fire frequency to
increase.
Wildfire
To date, we are aware of only one recent wildfire near Astragalus
microcymbus habitat (BLM2009a, p. 6). The wildfire burned in 2007 and
was 8.1 ha (20 ac) (BLM 2009a, p. 6) in size. The fire burned at a
distance of 2-2.5 km (1.25-1.5 mi) away from two A. microcymbus units-
Henry and Gold Basin Creek. This wildfire was just outside the
northwest edge of the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, adjacent to
private land. Three wildfires have burned within the sagebrush of the
Gunnison Basin in the last 15 years, the biggest was 200 ha (500 ac)
(Japuntich 2010h, pers. comm.). To date there has not been a
demonstrated change in the fire cycle where A. microcymbus is found,
and fire frequency is low.
A common result of the invasion of cheatgrass is an increase in
fire frequency within the sagebrush ecosystem (Whisenant 1990, pp. 4-
10; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87; Hilty et al. 2004, pp. 89-
96; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p. 39).
Cheatgrass changes historical fire patterns by providing an abundant
and easily ignitable fuel source that facilitates fire spread. While
sagebrush is killed by fire and is slow to reestablish, cheatgrass
recovers within 1-2 years of a fire event (Young and Evans 1978, p.
285). This annual recovery ultimately leads to a reoccurring fire cycle
that prevents sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et al. 2009, p.
1324). The highly invasive nature of cheatgrass poses increased risk of
fire and permanent loss of sagebrush habitat, as areas disturbed by
fire are highly susceptible to further invasion and ultimately habitat
conversion to an altered community state. For example, Link et al.
(2006, p. 116) show that risk of fire increases from approximately 46-
100 percent when ground cover of cheatgrass increases from 12-45
percent or more. While cheatgrass cover is still very low within
Astragalus microcymbus habitat, within the Intermountain West, invasion
has occurred rapidly, especially after wildfire.
Organisms adapt to disturbances such as historical wildfire regimes
(fire frequency, intensity, and seasonality) with which they have
evolved (Landres et al. 1999, p. 1180), and different species respond
differently to wildfire (Hessl and Spackman 1995, pp. 1-90). We do not
know what Astragalus microcymbus' response to wildfire is at this time
because none of the species' habitat has burned. Other Astragalus
species have demonstrated varying responses to wildfire (see A.
schmolliae below; and A. anserinus in 74 FR 46526-46529, September 10,
2009). If fire frequency increases in the area, we expect it would have
deleterious effects to the habitat, given that big sagebrush recovers
slowly, which would presumably affect the ecosystem, and cheatgrass
tends to thrive after a wildfire.
We have no information to indicate that wildfires currently occur
at levels that impact the species. No fires have burned Astragalus
microcymbus habitat. However, wildfires have occurred in the area.
Furthermore, we realize there is a strong relationship between
cheatgrass invasions and fire frequency. If cheatgrass invasion
continues to expand as discussed above, the threat of wildfire is
likely to increase in the future. Given the small population size of A.
microcymbus and the potential damage a wildfire could cause, we
consider future wildfires to be a threat to the species.
Contour Plowing and Nonnative Seedings
Areas within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Areas (but largely
outside of the Astragalus microcymbus units) have been subject to
contour plowing and the subsequent seeding of nonnative species, as
well as the development of silt and water impoundment structures (BLM
2005a, p. 57), which can destroy A. microcymbus habitat. Contour
plowing is the past practice of plowing across a slope following
elevation lines and is commonly done to prevent soil erosion. We are
unsure why contour plowing and seeding efforts were undertaken near A.
microcymbus habitat but expect that erosion control and improving
livestock forage may have been the primary reasons for these efforts.
We have no site-specific data regarding these activities, nor do we
know when they occurred. We expect the contour plowing was done to
improve range conditions by eliminating sagebrush and increasing
grazing and drought-tolerant grasses for forage by livestock. The
contour lines from these efforts can be seen through satellite imagery
and occur largely on BLM-managed lands. Within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, we estimate that roughly 18 percent (617 ha (1,524
ac)) have been contour plowed. Only 1.2 percent (11 ha (27 ac)) of the
A. microcymbus units have been
[[Page 78528]]
contour plowed and seeded, all within the Gold Basin Creek (USFWS
2010b, pp. 18-19). These contoured areas surround the Gold Basin Creek
Unit, but there is very little overlap. We are unsure the impact that
these contour efforts may have had on A. microcymbus in the past. We
speculate there may have been an impact to the species from these
seeding efforts in the past given that there is very little overlap
between the Gold Basin Creek Unit and the contoured areas, despite the
contoured areas surrounding the unit on the east, north and west sides
(USFWS 2010b, p. 19).
These contoured areas were seeded with crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron cristatum). Most areas where Astragalus microcymbus is found
do not overlap with sites where crested wheatgrass is found in
abundance (USFWS 2010b, pp. 18-19). Crested wheatgrass is commonly
found outside the contoured areas at the Gold Basin Creek and Henry
Units (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.), and we assume it has spread into these
adjacent native habitats from the contoured areas. Crested wheatgrass
is often used for rangeland seedings because seed is widely available,
it establishes easily, provides suitable forage for livestock, provides
some erosion control, and controls competition from other nonnative
invasive plants (Walker and Shaw 2005, p. 56). Crested wheatgrass is
extremely competitive and can out-compete other vegetation in several
ways (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 82-83). Grasses, such as crested
wheatgrass, are wind pollinated and, therefore, do not provide
resources such as nectar or edible pollen for pollinators.
The contour plowings and seedings of crested wheatgrass affect only
a small proportion (1.2 percent) of the Astragalus microcymbus units.
The likelihood of future seedings is low because vegetative treatments
that would adversely affect A. microcymbus are no longer allowed (BLM
1993, p. 2.29). Because crested wheatgrass continues to invade native
habitats from these seedings, and because the plowed areas may not
provide good floral resources for pollinators, we find these continuing
effects of past contour plowing and nonnative seeding to impact the
species but not to the point where it poses a threat to the continued
existence of the species. We expect crested wheatgrass and pollinator
impacts to continue into the foreseeable future since it does not
appear that the crested wheatgrass is disappearing.
Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat
Livestock Use--Potential threats related to livestock, deer, and
elk use include the eating of individual plants (included in Factor C
below), physical effects from the trampling, and the indirect effects
of habitat degradation. We are unaware of any research or monitoring
that has evaluated the effects of livestock, deer, or elk use on
Astragalus microcymbus. However, the deleterious effects of livestock
on western arid ecosystems are well documented (Milchunas et al. 1992,
pp. 520-531; Jones 2000, pp. 155-164). Some of the adverse effects from
livestock include changes in the timing and availability of pollinator
food plants (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp. 298-299); changes to insect
communities (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp. 298-299; Debano 2006, pp.
2547-2564); damage to ground-nesting pollinators and their nests
(Sugden 1985, p. 309); changes in water infiltration due to soil
compaction (Jones 2000, Table 1); disturbance to soil microbiotic
crusts (Belnap et al. 1999, p. 167; Jones 2000, Table 1); subsequent
nonnative invasive plant invasions (Parker et al. 2006, pp. 1459-1461);
and soil erosion from hoof action (Jones 2000, Table 1).
Without any species-specific research or monitoring of livestock
use, our understanding of impacts to Astragalus microcymbus is limited
and observational in nature. Little livestock grazing has been recorded
within A. microcymbus areas; most plants are located on steep slopes
with little vegetation that do not draw cows to them (BLM 2010, p. 4).
We expect that the plant was always found primarily on slopes, but do
not know if the current distribution has been influenced by increased
livestock use in flatter areas. In 2008, after visiting all A.
microcymbus sites, only one appeared to have been directly grazed by
livestock (BLM 2010, p. 5). Several observers have attributed increased
erosion within A. microcymbus sites to cattle use, but this impact also
could be from deer or elk use (CNHP 2010a, pp. 12, 27, 32). Grazing
utilization levels were reportedly low in 1994 but physical damage to
A. microcymbus individuals from trampling at two sites was noted
(Sherwood 1994, pp. 11, 17, 20). In another review, the authors
speculated the periodicity and intensity of grazing may influence the
success of A. microcymbus by the removal of individuals and ground
cover, thereby influencing seedling success (Peterson et al. 1981, p.
16). Numerous livestock trails, feces, and tracks were found within
most A. microcymbus sites visited in 2010 (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.).
Within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, overall plant cover has been
reduced by historic excessive livestock grazing, drought, grazing
during the extreme drought years of 1990 through 1992, 2000, and 2001,
and the physical impacts from roads and trails (BLM 2005a, p. 56).
Although grazing damage is minimal, all Astragalus microcymbus
areas receive at least some livestock use. Aside from the Cebolla Creek
Unit, all units on BLM lands are either in the Gold Basin or Iola
grazing allotments and are actively grazed by cattle. Those units with
private lands also are grazed on their private portions. In total, 56.1
percent of the A. microcymbus units fall within the Gold Basin
allotment and 43.9 percent fall within the Iola allotment, with no
ungrazed areas (BLM 2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 6-7). Within the South
Beaver Creek ACEC, no additional forage allocations, beyond those
already authorized for the allotments will be made and domestic sheep
grazing will not be authorized (BLM 2005a, pp. 2-29 to 2-30).
Fences and water developments have been constructed within the
range of Astragalus microcymbus to help manage livestock grazing
activities, increase the number of livestock that the landscape can
support, keep animals in specific areas, and distribute grazing more
evenly on the landscape (BLM 2005a, p. 12). All of the pastures are
fenced, so the four A. microcymbus units with multiple pastures or
allotments also have fences (Gold Basin Creek, South Beaver Creek 1,
South Beaver Creek 2, and South Beaver Creek 3).
Water developments occur across the range of Astragalus microcymbus
(Japuntich 2010i, pers. comm.). One water development is within 300 m
(985 ft) of the Henry Unit: one is within and three are just outside
the Gold Basin Creek Unit; and an additional three developments are
just outside the unit: one within the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit; and
one within 400 m (1,312 ft) of the South Beaver Creek 6 Unit (Japuntich
2010i, pers. comm.). Within the Henry Unit, several livestock trails
run through the A. microcymbus site. We assume these trails are from
livestock travelling to and from the water development 300 m (985 ft)
away and expect that similar effects are occurring from the other water
developments listed above. Water developments concentrate livestock use
in areas near these developments, and fence lines often funnel
livestock, and even deer and elk, into certain areas that will receive
a disproportionate amount of use. We do not have further information
regarding whether the close proximity of water developments or fence
lines is causing increased impacts
[[Page 78529]]
to A. microcymbus habitat, but we expect this is the case because there
are several fences running through sites and because livestock grazing
is found atop all sites.
In addition, salt blocks draw livestock (and deer and elk) to the
areas where they are placed. We know of one instance where a salt block
has been placed within an Astragalus microcymbus site. This area was
extensively trampled, there were fewer A. microcymbus individuals in
trampled areas than surrounding polygons, and those plants that
remained were located almost exclusively under shrubs (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). Trails to and from the salt block were impacting adjacent
A. microcymbus polygons (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). We do not know of
any protective mechanisms to prevent salt block placement within A.
microcymbus sites and expect this may be occurring elsewhere.
The Gold Basin allotment is authorized for use between May 16 and
September 30 each year, but is used from May 25-July 31, the time when
Astragalus microcymbus is growing and reproducing, in most years (BLM
2010, p. 5). Pastures used by cow/calf pairs are generally used for 5-
15 days a year and those used by yearlings are generally used for 15-30
days each year. Pastures are rested occasionally some years, although
when and how often this occurs is unknown. The Gold Basin allotment is
permitted for 4,253 animal unit months (AUMs) a year but has averaged
1,405 AUMs over the last 6 years. Approximately 30 percent of the AUMs
are within the pastures where A. microcymbus units are located (BLM
2010, p. 5). In 2007, this allotment was found to have heavy use in
some riparian areas and poor herbaceous cover in the lowest elevation
uplands, where A. microcymbus would be found. These results were
attributed to historic vegetation manipulation and livestock grazing
practices (BLM 2009b, pp. 1-2). Given that damage is occurring at lower
than permitted stocking rates and shorter than permitted periods of
time, the potential for further damage exists.
The Iola allotment is authorized for use between May 15 and
November 14 each year, but is used from late May/early June (sometimes
late June/early July) generally 15-20 days in most years (BLM 2009b,
pp. 1-2; BLM 2010, p. 5). These times again coincide with the time when
Astragalus microcymbus is growing and reproducing. The permittee is
authorized up to 1,258 AUMs in the pasture, but has used an average of
250 AUMs for the last 6 years (BLM 2010, p. 5). A new allotment
management plan and grazing system was developed for this allotment in
2002. During this analysis, grass cover was below potential, and
riparian vegetation was being consistently grazed to less than 10 cm (4
in.) (BLM 2009b, pp. 1-2). Again, given that damage is occurring at
lower than permitted stocking rates and shorter than permitted periods
of time, the potential for further damage exists.
Deer and Elk Use--Livestock impacts to the habitat are similar to
those impacts to the habitat caused by excessive deer and elk use
(Japuntich et al. in press, pp. 1-15). For example, Hobbs et al. (1996,
pp. 200-217) documented a decline in available perennial grasses as elk
densities increased. All Astragalus microcymbus areas are within areas
that receive deer and elk use. Grazing and browsing by deer and elk
occurs primarily during the winter months when there is less snow in
the valley than the surrounding hills. Deer numbers have seen a strong
increase in the Gunnison Basin since 1999 (Gunnison-Crested Butte 2010,
p. 2). A. microcymbus is found within the Powderhorn Creek Game
Management Unit (deer). In 2005, this unit had between 600 and 1,600
more deer than its objective of 4,500-5,500 individuals (Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2006, p. 3). Since 1980, deer numbers
within this unit have been as high as 8,000 individuals in 1993 and as
low as 4,500 individuals in 1984; and averaging near 7,000 individuals
from 2000 to 2005 (CDOW 2006, p. 3). From 1980 to 2000, elk numbers in
the Lake Fork Managment Unit (where A. microcymbus is found) rose from
5,600 individuals to 9,256 individuals; both numbers are substantially
greater than the 3,000-3,500 population objective (CDOW 2001, pp. 3,
appendix A). Currently in the Gunnison Basin, deer and elk populations
have 8,000 more individuals than the desired population objectives
(Japuntich et al. in press, p. 4).
Excessive but localized deer and elk grazing has been documented in
the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2005b, pp. 17-18). For example, drought and big
game were having large impacts on the survivability and size of high-
protein shrubs including mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus utahensis),
bitterbrush (Pushia tridentata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) in the Gunnison Basin (Japuntich et al. in press, pp. 7-9).
These shrub species are not the most common within A. microcymbus
habitat but are generally found nearby. These authors raised concerns
that observed reductions in shrub size and vigor will reduce drifting
snow accumulation resulting in decreased moisture availability to
grasses and forbs during the spring melt, affecting the overall
composition of the plant community.
Impacts to Astragalus microcymbus habitat from deer and elk are
occurring. For example, extensive moderate to severe hedging of shrubs,
attributed to fairly heavy concentrations of wintering big game
animals, has been documented at one A. microcymbus site in the South
Beaver Creek 5 Unit (Sherwood 1994, p. 16). Deer and elk feces can be
found at most A. microcymbus sites (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). Deer and
elk use occurs primarily in the winter when A. microcymbus is dormant,
which minimizes some of the direct effects to the plants. However, deer
and elk are more likely to spend time on steeper slopes than livestock
and so may cause more direct trampling impacts to A. microcymbus
habitat including soils, seed banks, and plant communities.
Summary of Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use--Describing livestock,
deer, and elk use is complicated because the management of these
animals is complicated. Although we lack good monitoring data, we find
livestock, deer, and elk use of Astragalus microcymbus habitat to be a
threat to the species. We have made this determination based upon
observations that suggest moderate use levels from livestock and heavy
deer and elk use in the winter. Use from livestock, deer, and elk is
virtually ubiquitous across the range of the species, and habitat
degradation is occurring, although we recognize that these indirect
effects to A. microcymbus habitat are difficult to quantify. Authorized
AUMs are significantly greater than those currently utilized. If
livestock use were to increase, this threat would increase in the
foreseeable future. The current number of deer and elk is above
population objectives, and past fluctuations suggest that more animals
are a possibility, which would also increase this threat in the
foreseeable future. In addition, the accompanying habitat degradation
with livestock, deer, and elk use makes this an increasing threat
especially in light of the cheatgrass invasion.
Mining; Oil and Gas Leasing
The South Beaver Creek ACEC has one active lode claim and one
active placer claim for mining. Lode claims are those which generally
follow some deposited vein while placer mining is everything else and
can include sand and gravel deposits. One of these active claims is
within the Gold Basin Creek Unit, and the other is nearby. Neither of
these claims have Notices of Intent or Plans of Operation that are
required for most disturbances (BLM 2010, pp. 5-6).
[[Page 78530]]
On active claims, Notices of Intent are required for disturbances less
than 2 ha (5 ac) at least 15 days prior to commencement of operation. A
Plan of Operation, required for disturbances greater than 2 ha (5 ac),
requires NEPA compliance and can take between 30 and 90 days to
process. The transfer of these mineral claims to private entities is
prohibited within the South Beaver Creek ACEC (BLM 1993, p. 2-29). A
large gravel pit is at the northwest corner of the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area on BLM lands and is within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Henry
and Gold Basin Creek Units. Because of this distance, we expect there
are probably no effects to A. microcymbus from this gravel operation. A
gravel pit was said to be on private lands at the Beaver Creek
Southeast Unit, but we have no further information and, based on our
maps, do not make a similar conclusion (Sherwood 1994, p. 15).
No lands for oil and gas development have been leased by the BLM
within the Gunnison Basin area (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 272-273). All
habitats where Astragalus microcymbus is currently found are mapped as
having no potential for oil and gas development (Gunnison Sage-Grouse
Resource Steering Committee 2005, p. 130). Despite this lack of
potential, the entire Federal oil, gas, and geothermal estates in the
South Beaver Creek ACEC are open to leasing but with a controlled
surface use stipulation (BLM 1993, pp. 2.29, K.5). This stipulation
requires that inventories be conducted prior to the approval of
operations and relocations of operations. These inventories will be
used to prepare mitigative measures to reduce the impacts of surface
disturbance to the species (BLM 1993, p. K.5).
Given that there are only two existing active mining claims (but
without current activity) within Astragalus microcymbus units and that
there is no potential for oil and gas development in the area, we do
not consider mining or oil and gas leases to threaten the species at
this time nor do we expect these factors to pose a threat to the
species in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
``Warming of the climate system in recent decades is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global average air and
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising
global sea level'' (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Average Northern Hemisphere
temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very
likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC
2007, p. 30). Over the past 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and
frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. Heat waves have become more
frequent over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation
events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 30). For the
southwestern region of the United States, including western Colorado,
warming is occurring more rapidly than elsewhere in the country (Karl
et al. 2009, p. 129). Annual average temperature in west-central
Colorado increased 3.6 [deg]C (2 [deg]F) over the past 30 years, but
high variability in annual precipitation precludes the detection of
long-term trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 5). At one weather station in
Gunnison, Colorado, temperature has increased roughly 1.8 [deg]C (1
[deg]F) since 1900 (WRCC 2010c, pp. 1-9).
Future projections for the southwestern United States, including
the Gunnison Basin, show increased probability of drought (Karl et al.
2009, pp. 129-134). Additionally, the number of days over 32 [deg]C (90
[deg]F) could double by the end of the century (Karl et al. 2009, p.
34). Annual temperature is predicted to increase approximately 2.2
[deg]C (4 [deg]F) in the southwest by 2050, with summers warming more
than winters (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Projections also show declines
in snowpack across the West with the most dramatic declines at lower
elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29).
Overall, future projections for the Southwest predict increased
temperatures, more intense and longer-lasting heat waves, an increased
probability of drought that are worsened by higher temperatures,
heavier downpours, increased flooding, and increased erosion (Karl et
al. 2009, pp. 129-134).
Colorado's complex, mountainous topography results in a high degree
of spatial variability across the State. As a result, localized climate
projections are problematic for mountainous areas because current
global climate models are unable to capture this variability at local
or regional scales (Ray et al. 2008, pp. 7, 20). To obtain climate
projections specific to the range of Astragalus microcymbus, we used a
statistically downscaled model from the National Center for Atmospheric
Research for a region covering western Colorado. The resulting
projections indicate that temperature could increase an average of 2.5
[deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) by 2050 with the following seasonal increases:
summer (July through September) 2.8 [deg]C (5.0 [deg]F), fall (October
through December) 2.2 [deg]C (4.0 [deg]F), winter (January through
March) 2.3 [deg]C (4.1 [deg]F), and spring (April through June) 2.5
[deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) (University Corporation of Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) 2009, pp. 1-14). This increase in temperature could be
problematic for A. microcymbus because the species is negatively
affected by warm temperatures during May and July (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
Annual mean precipitation projections for Colorado are unclear;
however, multi-model averages show a shift toward increased winter
precipitation and decreased spring and summer precipitation by the end
of the century (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl et al. 2009, p. 30).
Similarly, the National Center for Atmospheric Research results show
the highest probability of a 7.5 percent increase in average winter
(January through March) precipitation, an 11.4 percent decrease in
average spring (April through June) precipitation, a 2.1 percent
decrease in average summer (July through September) precipitation, and
a 1.3 percent increase in average fall precipitation with an overall
very slight decrease in 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1-14). Seasonal trends
from the past 100 years at a local weather station do not yet match
this scenario, and overall precipitation has declined by roughly 2 cm
(0.75 in.) or 10 percent (WRCC 2010a, pp. 1-8). This actual data is in
contrast to regional maps that show precipitation has increased roughly
5 percent from 1958 to 2008 within the general area where Astragalus
microcymbus resides (Karl et al. 2009, p. 30). A. microcymbus responds
negatively to declines in overall precipitation and periods of drought,
as well as declines in spring precipitation (May and July) (DBG 2010a,
p. 6). Given the observed decline in precipitation at a local weather
station, predictions of increased drought, and a predicted significant
decline in spring precipitation, we expect A. microcymbus will be
affected negatively by climate change effects to precipitation.
Climate change is likely to alter fire frequency, community
assemblages, and the ability of nonnative species to proliferate.
Increasing temperature as well as changes in the timing and amount of
precipitation will alter the competitive advantage among plant species
(Miller et al. in press, p. 44), and may shift individual species and
ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. 2001, p. 174). Dominant plant
species such as big sagebrush have a disproportionate control over
resources
[[Page 78531]]
in ecosystems (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 1). For sagebrush communities,
spring and summer precipitation comprises the majority of the moisture
available to species; thus, the interaction between reduced
precipitation in the spring-summer growing season and increased summer
temperatures will likely decrease growth of big sagebrush and could
result in a significant long-term reduction in the distribution and
composition of sagebrush communities (Miller et al. in press, pp. 41-
45). In the Gunnison Basin, increased summer temperature was strongly
correlated with reduced growth of big sagebrush (Poore et al. 2009, p.
558). Although we do not fully understand how changes in plant
communities will affect Astragalus microcymbus, we expect that a
decrease in the dominant plant species will not be a benefit because it
could drastically alter the way the ecosystem functions where A.
microcymbus resides. In addition, changes in the plant community could
likely influence wildfire frequency and erosion rates.
Temperature increases may increase the competitive advantage of
cheatgrass in higher elevation areas where it is currently limited
(Miller et al. in press, p. 47), like the Gunnison Basin. Decreased
summer precipitation, as predicted in the model, reduces the
competitive advantage of summer perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush
cover, and subsequently increases the likelihood of cheatgrass invasion
(Prevey et al. 2009, pp. 1-13). This impact could increase the
susceptibility of areas within Astragalus microcymbus' range to
cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204). In addition, cheatgrass and
other C3 grasses (C3 refers to one of three alternative photosynthetic
pathways) are likely to thrive as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases
(Mayeux et al. 1994, p. 98). An increase in cheatgrass would likely
increase wildfire frequency. See Nonnative Invasive Plants above for a
discussion of cheatgrass and effects to A. microcymbus.
Climate change predictions are based on models with assumptions,
and are not absolute. In addition, we do not fully understand how
climate change will affect the species or the habitat in which it
resides. These factors make it difficult to predict the effects of
climate change to Astragalus microcymbus. However, endemic species with
limited ranges that are adapted to localized conditions, like A.
microcymbus, are expected to be more severely impacted by climate
change (Midgley et al. 2002, p. 448) than those considered habitat
generalists. Furthermore, we expect the predicted increases in spring
temperature, increased drought, and decreased spring precipitation will
affect A. microcymbus negatively. Climate change has the potential to
change the plant community, allow cheatgrass to increase, and
potentially increase the risk of wildfire, which would likely have a
negative effect to A. microcymbus. It is difficult to assess the threat
of climate change to A. microcymbus given the uncertainties associated
with future projections. However, based on the best available
information on climate change projections into the next 40 years, we
find climate change to be a threat to A. microcymbus based on how
predicted changes could negatively influence the species. We recognize
there are many uncertainties, and projections further into the future
become even more uncertain, making it even more difficult to predict
how climate change might affect the species.
Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation
Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on biological
populations. Often fragments are not of sufficient size to support the
natural diversity prevalent in an area and so exhibit a decline in
biodiversity (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 50-54). Habitat fragments
are often functionally smaller than they appear because edge effects
(such as increased nonnative species or wind speeds) impact the
available habitat within the fragment (Lienert and Fischer 2003, p.
597). Habitat fragmentation has been shown to disrupt plant-pollinator
interactions and predator-prey interactions (Steffan-Dewenter and
Tscharntke 1999, pp. 432-440), alter seed germination percentages
(Menges 1991, pp. 158-164), and result in low fruit set (Cunningham
2000, pp. 1149-1152). Extensive habitat fragmentation can result in
dramatic fluxes in available solar radiation, water, and nutrients
(Saunders et al. 1991, pp. 18-32).
Fragmentation within Astragalus microcymbus habitat is largely from
linear features such as roads and utility corridors (see Recreation,
Roads, and Trails and Utility Corridors above) that are pervasive at
every A. microcymbus unit except the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit. In
addition, past contour plowings and subsequent seeding efforts have
created blocks of altered and degraded habitat around A. microcymbus
units that may affect the overall plant community, nonnative invasive
plants, and pollinator habitat and resources. This type of
fragmentation does not carry the same negative consequences as that of
more highly fragmented habitats impacted by agricultural or urban
development because of its more limited extent.
However, the aforementioned type of fragmentation leads to habitat
degradation. Habitat degradation, the gradual deterioration of habitat
quality, can lead to a species decline, decrease, or loss of
reproductive ability. Habitat degradation may be difficult to detect
because it takes place over a long time period, and species with long
life-cycles may continue to be present in an area even if they are
unable to breed (Fisher and Lindenmayer 2007, pp. 268-269).
In the case of Astragalus microcymbus, habitat degradation is
coming from multiple sources: Development; recreation, roads, and
trails; utility corridors; nonnative invasive plants; contour plowing
and nonnative seedings; and accentuated by periodic drought. In
addition, wildfire and climate change will likely contribute to further
habitat degradation. Detailed monitoring is needed to detect population
changes and signal the need to implement conservation measures that
could counteract habitat degradation, but this monitoring has not been
done for A. microcymbus.
Habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation is occurring as a
result of multiple sources including virtually all the threats and
factors previously described in this document. As a result, we find
habitat degradation to be a threat to Astragalus microcymbus. Habitat
fragmentation is currently a lesser threat, but because it is so
tightly linked with habitat degradation, we have treated them jointly.
Summary of Factor A
The biggest habitat-related threats to Astragalus microcymbus are
recreation (including roads and trails); the potential for increases in
nonnative invasive plants (especially cheatgrass); potential
residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; and
potential effects from climate change. In addition, the habitat
degradation and fragmentation occurring from these stressors threatens
A. microcymbus.
Recreational impacts are not likely to lessen given the close
proximity of Astragalus microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain
vehicles. The fact that the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area was
designated on 40 percent of the A. microcymbus units will only serve to
draw more users, and there is little enforcement to control trespass
use.
[[Page 78532]]
Accordingly, we find the threat from recreation, roads, and trails to
be high.
Although the impacts from nonnative invasive plants, and
particularly cheatgrass, are low right now, we expect this factor to
increase to the level of a serious threat in the near future.
Cheatgrass is increasing in the South Beaver Creek drainage and has
been identified as a major threat to Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 2010,
p. 5). In the mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen in very small
patches in the Gunnison Basin but can now be found in some abundance
throughout the Basin (BLM 2009a, pp. 7-8). A. microcymbus is found on
warm, sparsely vegetated, and dry, south-facing slopes, which in the
Gunnison Basin, are probably more vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion. We
know that cheatgrass is already invading A. microcymbus sites.
Cheatgrass has transformed millions of acres into monocultures in the
Great Basin and has dramatically shortened the wildfire return
interval. We believe the potential exists for a similar conversion in
A. microcymbus habitat. Although we find the current invasion of
cheatgrass into A. microcymbus habitat to be small and possess little
threat, because of the high potential for further invasion, we find the
overall threat is increasing.
It is difficult to assess the impact of climate change to
Astragalus microcymbus, but we believe climate change may be a future
threat given the predictions of increased springtime temperatures,
decreased springtime precipitation, and increased drought.
Because a quarter of the Astragalus microcymbus units occur on
private land, and given the rapid pace of development in the Gunnison
Basin, we believe residential and urban development represent a
moderate threat to A. microcymbus. Given that livestock, deer, and elk
use occurs across the range of A. microcymbus, that A. microcymbus
individuals are being lost from this use, and that this use is causing
habitat degradation that could facilitate the spread of cheatgrass, we
find this threat to be moderate.
We find the potential impact of future wildfire to be a threat to
the species and recognize that wildfire risk may increase with further
cheatgrass invasion. We do not find utility corridors to be a threat
because they currently impact only 4 percent of the A. microcymbus
units and we do not know of any further utility corridor plans. We do
not find the continuing effects from past contour plowings and
nonnative seedings to be a threat because the existing plowings only
impact 1.2 percent of the A. microcymbus units and we do not expect
these treatments to occur in the future. Because of the low potential
for oil and gas development and because there are only two other active
mining claims within the species' range, we do not find that these
factors are threats to the species.
Based on threats from recreation; the potential for increases in
nonnative invasive plants; potential residential and urban development;
livestock, deer, and elk use; and potential effects from climate
change, we find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range now and these threats are expected to continue or
increase in the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of Astragalus microcymbus for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes at this time. A. microcymbus is not
particularly showy or of horticultural significance; therefore, we do
not expect any overutilization in the foreseeable future. We find that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not a threat to A. microcymbus now or expected
to become so in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Astragalus microcymbus is subject to extensive herbivory, primarily
from small mammals (Lyon 1990, pp. 2, 5; Dyer 1993, p. 2; Sherwood
1994, pp. 10-11; Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.; DBG 2010a, pp. 6-7). On
average, 26 percent of the plants have evidence of herbivory (ranging
from 13 to 74 percent at a given plot) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Browsing on
the plants is very evident and in some areas, it is hard to find an A.
microcymbus individual that has not had at least some portion eaten
(Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.). Some species of Astragalus are
notoriously toxic to livestock, and presumably deer and elk. Often
these toxic species are avoided by grazers and browsers. However, the
high level of small mammal herbivory to A. microcymbus plants suggests
the species is not overly toxic. We do not know if this toxicity would
vary between livestock and rabbits.
Small Mammal Herbivory
Most herbivory of Astragalus microcymbus individuals is attributed
to small mammals. Cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audobonii), small
chipmunks (Tamias sp.), and ground squirrels (Citellus lateralis and
others) graze on A. microcymbus (Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.). Mice
and voles also have been implicated as herbivores (Sherwood 1994, p.
11). Rabbits are generally considered the primary herbivores of A.
microcymbus, and numerous observers have suggested they are in
abundance within A. microcymbus habitat (Lyon 1990, p. 2; Dyer 1993, p.
2; Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.).
The information we have regarding rabbit herbivory is mostly
anecdotal in nature; however, taken in sum, we believe this information
leads to a conclusion that rabbit herbivory impacts Astragalus
microcymbus in years with high rabbit populations. During one survey
effort, observers found six rabbits in one of the draws they visited
(Lyon 1990, p. 5), and another observer visited 10 A. microcymbus sites
in a day and said that rabbit damage was heavy at nine of those sites
(Dyer 1993, p. 2).
Several observers have suggested that rabbit herbivory can result
in the death of Astragalus microcymbus. One observer suggested that 2
years of heavy rabbit use was more than A. microcymbus could tolerate
because of all the dead plants they encountered in a heavy rabbit year
(Lyon 1990, p. 5). Those plants that were not dead had only a few green
leaves, again attributed to rabbit herbivory (Lyon 1990, p. 2). After 2
years of consecutive transect counts at a site another observer stated
that many plants had died and attributed that death to overuse by
rabbits (Sherwood 1994, p. 10). Observations of small mammal herbivory
being a significant impact to the species occurs across the years
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
Rabbit and small mammal populations fluctuate widely
(Korpim[auml]ki and Krebs 1996, pp. 754-764; Hanski et al. 2001, pp.
1501-1520). We have little information on how small mammal populations
have changed within the range of Astragalus microcymbus over time, but
the variability in observations from year to year and between sites
suggest there are significant fluctuations and spatial variations. For
example in 1990, local authorities and those surveying for A.
microcymbus stated the rabbit population was very large compared with
other years; this year, herbivory of A. microcymbus was repeatedly
observed (Lyon 1990, p. 2). Observations suggest that small mammal
herbivory is impacting A. microcymbus, especially during years when
small mammal populations are high.
Fencing to exclude small mammals was installed at monitoring plots
in
[[Page 78533]]
2006 and 2007 (DBG 2010a, p. 6). After 2 years, the plants protected by
fences were statistically longer at 31.4 cm (12.4 in.) than those
outside the fence, which were 19.5 cm (7.7 in.) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). This
difference could be related to a decrease in herbivory or increased
moisture (from additional snow accumulations within the fence from wind
loading) within the exclosures, or a combination of the two. In
addition, mammal herbivory was less within the fenced areas, more
individuals flowered within fenced areas, and more total fruit was
produced per plant within fenced areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). A weak
statistical correlation was found between nonreproductive plants and
evidence of mammalian browsing across all plots (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
Although we do not understand how small mammal populations have changed
over time, these impacts to fruit set are significant. Furthermore,
these impacts are consistent with other observations of small mammal
herbivory (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
Rabbit herbivory has been documented at several Astragalus
microcymbus units, including Gold Basin Creek, South Beaver Creek 1,
South Beaver Creek 2, and South Beaver Creek 3 (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
Conversely, at several of the more isolated A. microcymbus units, Henry
and South Beaver Creek 4, observers specifically mention the lack of
rabbit herbivory relative to other areas (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
We are unsure of the long-term impact to Astragalus microcymbus
over time from small mammal herbivory. Small mammal herbivory is
significantly impacting seed set of A. microcymbus. Fewer seeds mean
fewer opportunities for seedling and adult recruitment. In addition,
small mammal herbivory occurs at most sites across the range of the
species, and recent observations indicate that damage to plants is
heavy. We have no information to either support or refute that rabbit
herbivory levels are higher than historic levels; however, in light of
other factors affecting the species and the limited range and small
population level, impacts to A. microcymbus from herbivory can be large
in years of high rabbit populations. Given this, we find small mammal
herbivory to be a threat to the species.
Deer and Elk Herbivory
Like livestock use, overgrazing by deer and elk may cause local
degradation of habitats (see ``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of
Habitat'' above for a more thorough discussion). Here we address the
actual eating of Astragalus microcymbus individuals as opposed to
habitat degradation. We have little information on the impacts of deer
and elk herbivory to A. microcymbus. Much of the deer and elk use of A.
microcymbus habitat occurs during winter after the plants are no longer
growing, thereby not affecting the plants, unless they are pulled up by
the roots, which we assume would happen infrequently. One observer
stated that the previous year's dried stalks of larger A. microcymbus
plants showed almost universal use, and attributed this to wintering
big game (Sherwood 1994, p. 17).
Although deer and elk use is high within Astragalus microcymbus
habitat (see Deer and Elk Use above), most of the use occurs in the
winter when A. microcymbus is dormant. We expect the effects of winter
use to be minimal since, once dried, the previous year's growth is not
important to an individual plant's success. We expect that some
herbivory does occur since deer and elk will sometimes visit during the
growing season. Because most use occurs in the winter when herbivory
would not impact A. microcymbus, we do not consider deer and elk
herbivory to be a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Livestock Herbivory
Livestock use may cause local degradation of habitats (see
``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat'' above for a more thorough
discussion). Here we address the actual eating of Astragalus
microcymbus individuals as opposed to habitat degradation. Observations
on direct grazing impacts to Astragalus microcymbus vary. Heil and
Porter (1990, p. 21) state that grazing animals are known to
occasionally use this species as a forage plant. One observer reported
the plant shows some resistance to grazing (CNHP 2010a, pp. 5-6).
Livestock presence is reportedly rare on the steeper slopes where A.
microcymbus resides (BLM 2010, p. 4). We believe we have seen herbivory
of individuals in areas near salt licks, although we cannot be sure
this was not small mammal herbivory (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.).
Therefore, we do not consider the livestock herbivory to be a threat to
the species now or in the foreseeable future.
Insect Herbivory
Grasshoppers (Orthopterans in the Acrididae and Tettigoniidae
families) have been implicated as herbivores of Astragalus microcymbus
(Dyer 1993, p. 2). Aphids have been documented on the plants at one A.
microcymbus site (CNHP 2010a, p. 22). A small number of A. microcymbus
individuals have been documented with insect webs within Gold Basin
Creek Unit (Sherwood 1994, p. 7). Insect herbivory was measured as part
of the life-history monitoring study. This study found no significant
effects from insect herbivory on flowering individuals (DBG 2010a, p.
6). Therefore, we find that insect herbivory does not constitute a
threat to A. microcymbus now or in the foreseeable future.
Disease
A fungus has been documented on less than 10 percent of the
Astragalus microcymbus individuals at one monitoring transect (Sherwood
1994, p. 11). No other instances of disease are known. Therefore, we
find that disease does not constitute a threat to A. microcymbus now or
in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor C
Various herbivores have been documented at Astragalus microcymbus
sites. Small mammal herbivory, especially from rabbits, has been
documented at fairly high levels, and appears to be the only type of
herbivory that is impacting the species at a low to moderate level.
Exclusion research has found that small mammal herbivory was less, more
individuals flowered, and there were more total fruits within fenced
areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). We expect small mammal herbivory to continue
into the foreseeable future and fluctuate with small mammal
populations. We do not believe that deer and elk herbivory, livestock
herbivory, and insect herbivory constitute threats because they are
only occasionally or minorly affecting A. microcymbus and are not
expected to increase into the foreseeable future. Finally, we do not
consider disease to be a threat because it is so rare. However, we do
find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by predation now and
these threats are expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable
future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether threats to Astragalus
microcymbus are adequately addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms.
Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for
A. microcymbus include: (1) Local land use laws, processes, and
ordinances; (2) State laws and regulations; and (3) Federal laws and
regulations. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude listing
if such mechanisms are judged to adequately
[[Page 78534]]
address the threat to the species such that listing is not warranted.
An example of a regulatory mechanism is the terms and conditions
attached to a grazing permit that describe how a permittee will manage
livestock on a BLM allotment. They are nondiscretionary and
enforceable, and would be considered a regulatory mechanism under this
analysis. Other examples include city or county ordinances, State
governmental actions enforced under State statute regulations, or
Federal action under statute or regulation. Actions adopted by local
groups, States, or Federal entities that are discretionary or are not
enforceable, including conservation strategies and guidance, are
typically not regulatory mechanisms. In this section we review actions
undertaken by local, State, and Federal entities designed to reduce or
remove threats to Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat.
Local Land Use Laws and Ordinances
We are aware of no local land use laws or ordinances that offer
protection to Astragalus microcymbus. Neither the city of Gunnison nor
the counties of Gunnison or Saguache have guidelines, zoning, or other
mechanisms to protect the species.
State Laws and Regulations
No State regulations in Colorado protect Astragalus microcymbus.
The State of Colorado has no laws protecting any rare plant species.
Plants also are not included in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan and
do not qualify for funding under State Wildlife Grants.
The State of Colorado's Natural Areas Program works to protect
special resources in the State, although there are no regulatory
enforcement mechanisms associated with the program. In 1997, the
Colorado Natural Areas Program designated the South Beaver Creek
Natural Area (CNAP 1997, pp. 1-7). The South Beaver Creek Natural Area
was designated for all areas within the South Beaver Creek ACEC (CNAP
1997, p. 7). The Colorado Natural Areas Program provides a means by
which Colorado's natural features and ecological phenomena can be
identified, evaluated, and protected through a statewide system of
natural areas (CNAP 1997, p. 1). The purpose of the South Beaver Creek
Natural Area is to protect Astragalus microcymbus (CNAP 1997, p. 2).
Through this designation, the Colorado Natural Areas Program staff
is entitled to visit the area at anytime and convey the results of
these visits to the BLM, cooperate with the BLM on updating the
Resource Management Activity Plan for the property, and provide a
periodic report on the condition of the property (CNAP 1997, p. 3). In
essence, this designation allows the Colorado Natural Areas Program to
assist the BLM with its management. The Colorado Natural Areas Program
has not been actively monitoring Astragalus microcymbus at the South
Beaver Creek Natural Area. Therefore, this designation has, to-date,
afforded little protection to the species. Given that the Colorado
Natural Areas Program is increasing its conservation efforts, we expect
the Natural Areas Program to become more active in the conservation of
A. microcymbus in the future but have no way of predicting what this
will mean to the species.
The State of Colorado requires private landowners to control
noxious (nonnative invasive) weeds. Plants considered noxious by the
State of Colorado that are within or near Astragalus microcymbus'
habitat include: Cheatgrass (List C), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense--
List B), scentless chamomile (Matriacaria perforata--List B), yellow
toadflax (Linaria vulgaris--List B), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon
repens--List B) (Colorado Department of Agriculture [CDA] 2010, pp. 2-
3). List B species are noxious weeds for which management plans are or
will be developed and implemented to stop their spread (CDA 2010, p.
2). List C species are noxious weeds for which management plans are or
will be developed and implemented to provide additional education,
research, and biological control resources but for which the continued
spread will not be halted (CDA 2010, p. 2). We have no information on
how the noxious weed law is being implemented within the range of A.
microcymbus. We do know that the Gunnison Watershed Weed Commission has
been actively working to control and eradicate noxious weeds in
Gunnison County but we have few specifics from this work (GWWC 2010,
pp. 1-8). Therefore, we cannot assess the benefits to A. microcymbus.
Deer and elk populations are managed by the CDOW. We have no
information to suggest that deer and elk use is being regulated to
ensure Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat is not impacted by this
use.
Federal Laws and Regulations
The BLM has promulgated regulations, policies, and guidelines to
protect sensitive species on Federal lands, control wildfire and
rehabilitate burned areas, and implement rangeland assessments,
standards, and guidelines to assess rangeland health.
Astragalus microcymbus is included on the Colorado BLM's sensitive
species list (BLM 2009c, p. 3). The management guidance afforded
sensitive species under BLM Manual 6840--Special Status Species
Management (BLM 2008) states that ``Bureau sensitive species will be
managed consistent with species and habitat management objectives in
land use and implementation plans to promote their conservation and to
minimize the likelihood and need for listing under the ESA'' (BLM 2008,
p. .05V). The BLM Manual 6840 further requires that Resource Management
Plans (RMPs) should address sensitive species, and that implementation
``should consider all site-specific methods and procedures needed to
bring species and their habitats to the condition under which
management under the Bureau sensitive species policies would no longer
be necessary'' (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). A. microcymbus has received some
protections because of its sensitive status, including the
establishment of the South Beaver Creek ACEC and limited money for
survey and monitoring efforts. However, part of this ACEC is overlapped
by the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, which is resulting in some
habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 mandates Federal
land managers to develop and revise land use plans. The RMPs are the
basis for all actions and authorizations involving BLM-administered
lands and resources. They establish allowable resource uses, resource
condition goals and objectives to be attained, program constraints and
general management practices needed to attain the goals and objectives,
general implementation sequences, and intervals and standards for
monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine its effectiveness and
the need for amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)).
The RMPs provide a framework and programmatic guidance for activity
plans, which are site-specific plans written to implement the RMP.
Examples of activity plans include Allotment Management Plans that
address livestock grazing, or other activity plans for oil and gas
field development, travel management, and wildlife habitat management.
Activity plan decisions normally require additional planning and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. The Gunnison
Resource Area's RMP represents an enforceable regulatory mechanism. A.
microcymbus is not specifically protected in areas outside the South
Beaver Creek ACEC within the RMP but is protected by the
[[Page 78535]]
Special Status Species Management guidance and general RMP guidance for
the management of special status plants (BLM 1992, pp. 1-13; 1993, p.
2.4). Public scoping for the next RMP for the Gunnison Resource Area is
estimated to begin in 2010 (Japuntich 2010d, pers. comm.). We expect
that existing protections for the species will remain in place for the
next RMP, but cannot predict if additional protections for Astragalus
microcymbus will be developed.
As discussed above in Recreation, Roads, and Trails, Astragalus
microcymbus was included in the Gunnison Resource District's RMP when
the South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated. This area encompasses 60
percent of the A. microcymbus units (BLM 1993, pp. 2.29-2.30). The
South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated specifically to protect and
enhance existing A. microcymbus populations and habitat. Actions
outlined for the South Beaver Creek ACEC, and their implementation, are
included in Table 5 below.
Table 5--Actions Identified, With Notes on Implementation, for
Astragalus microcymbus in the South Beaver Creek ACEC in the 1993
Gunnison Resource Area's RMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring to determine population Being done regularly at 4 plots
trends. by DBG & intermittently at 4
plots by BLM
Actions to improve habitat conditions.. Few--2 trail closures, 1
reroute, cheatgrass control
efforts
Minimization of surface disturbing Some control of vehicles
conditions to protect species & its
habitat.
Development of management plan for Not implemented
Astragalus microcymbus.
No chemical spraying................... Likely implemented
No vegetative treatments............... Implemented
No additional forage allocations....... Unknown, especially as related
to deer & elk
Controlled surface use stipulation..... Implemented
No conflicting erosion control measures Implemented, unsure about water
bars
No domestic sheep grazing.............. Implemented
Limit motorized vehicular traffic to Implemented although
designated routes. enforcement is problematic
Public lands with A. microcymbus will Implemented
not be disposed.
Acquisition of non-Federal lands if Not implemented
available.
ROW permitted without direct impacts to Implemented
A. microcymbus.
Wildfire suppression................... No wildfires to-date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Beaver Creek ACEC has resulted in some protections for
Astragalus microcymbus, specifically: Monitoring, two surveys, two
trail closures, one trail reroute, and some restrictions to herbicide
use and livestock grazing. These protections are an improvement over
more generally managed BLM lands. However, 70 percent of the South
Beaver Creek ACEC is within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, even
though the South Beaver Creek ACEC was developed at least 8 years prior
to the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p. 44). Numerous
trails are also designated through A. microcymbus units (see
Recreation, Roads, and Trails above). The designation of this
Recreation Area overlaying A. microcymbus demonstrates that these ACEC
protections are not adequate to protect the species.
All Astragalus microcymbus units on public land are within active
livestock grazing allotments. The BLM regulatory authority for grazing
management is provided at 43 CFR Part 4100 (Regulations on Grazing
Administration Exclusive of Alaska). Livestock grazing permits and
leases contain terms and conditions, determined by BLM to be
appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives and
to ensure that habitats are, or are making, significant progress toward
being restored or maintained for BLM special status species (43 CFR
4180.1(d)). The State or regional standards for grazing administration
must address habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate,
or special status species, and habitat quality for native plant and
animal populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). The
guidelines must address restoring, maintaining, or enhancing habitats
of BLM special status species to promote their conservation, as well as
maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions to
sustain native populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and
(10). The BLM is required to take appropriate action not later than the
start of the next grazing year upon determining that existing grazing
practices or levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing
to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines (43 CFR
4180.2(c)).
Livestock use specific to Astragalus microcymbus is discussed in
further detail in Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat above. Within
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, no additional forage allocations will be
made and domestic sheep grazing will not be authorized (BLM 2005a, pp.
2-29 to 2-30).
Despite management actions undertaken by BLM, grazing is impacting
Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat. The BLM has no research or
monitoring that specifically addresses the impacts to A. microcymbus or
its habitat and the effects from ubiquitous livestock use. In addition,
there is no research or monitoring that addresses how deer and elk
utilization is being jointly considered (with livestock use) within the
range of A. microcymbus. Therefore, we find the management of
livestock, deer, and elk to be similar to our assessment of
``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat'' above and a threat to the
species.
As discussed in ``Recreation, Roads, and Trails'' in Factor A
above, based on the combination of the documented impacts resulting
from recreational activities atop Astragalus microcymbus and its
habitat and the designation of the Hartman Rock Recreation Area over
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, we believe that existing Federal
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for protecting A. microcymbus.
Management prescriptions or AUMs for livestock use are three to five
times higher than current use levels. Because livestock impacts are
occurring to A. microcymbus at current stocking rates, we expect if
livestock were managed at these higher AUM levels, much more intense
impacts would occur to the plant. In addition, the South Beaver
[[Page 78536]]
Creek ACEC designation, while providing limited protection for A.
microcymbus, was not adequate to preclude the designation of a
recreation area in the same location (70 percent of the ACEC). We
cannot say what will happen with A. microcymbus in the upcoming RMP
revision, but if we consider conservation efforts since the last RMP
revision, we expect A. microcymbus and its habitat will continue to
decline in the foreseeable future. We find that Federal laws and
regulations are currently inadequate to protect the species from being
threatened or endangered.
Summary of Factor D
Twenty-five percent of Astragalus microcymbus habitat occurs on
private lands with no regulatory protections. No State laws protect the
species. On Federal lands, the species is managed as a sensitive
species but this designation has not adequately protected the species.
Over 40 percent of the A. microcymbus habitat and 70 percent of the
South Beaver Creek ACEC lies within the federally managed Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, which serves to focus human use in this area, a
designation that runs counter to the protection of the species. For
these reasons, we find the existing regulatory mechanisms to be
inadequate because of increasing recreation and development potential
on private land. We find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms now and these threats
are expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Periodic Drought
Drought is a common occurrence within the range of Astragalus
microcymbus (Braun 1998, p. 148; WRCC 2010a, p. 8). Infrequent, severe
drought may cause local extinctions of annual forbs and grasses that
have invaded stands of perennial species, and recolonization of these
areas by native species may be slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 263).
Drought reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly
et al. 2004, pp. 7-18), potentially resulting in increased soil erosion
and subsequent reduced soil depths, decreased water infiltration, and
reduced water storage capacity. Drought also can exacerbate other
natural events such as defoliation of sagebrush by insects and the
invasion of nonnative invasive plants. A. microcymbus responds
negatively to declines in overall precipitation and periods of drought,
as well as declines in spring precipitation (May and July) (DBG 2010a,
p. 6). For example, during the drought of 2001 and 2002, A. microcymbus
populations declined precipitously (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Because periodic
drought will likely continue and could increase (see Climate Change in
Factor A above) and because of the decline in population numbers
associated with drought, we find drought to be a threat to the species
(recognizing the uncertainty with climate change models).
Small Populations
Small populations and species with limited distributions, like
those of Astragalus microcymbus, are vulnerable to relatively minor
environmental disturbances such as recreational impacts, nonnative
plant invasions, and wildfire (Given 1994, pp. 66-67), and are subject
to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random loss of
genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237).
Populations with lowered genetic diversity are more prone to local
extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28). Smaller populations
generally have lower genetic diversity, and lower genetic diversity may
in turn lead to even smaller populations by decreasing the species'
ability to adapt, thereby increasing the probability of population
extinction (Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360).
For plant populations that do not reproduce vegetatively, like
Astragalus microcymbus, pollen exchange and seed dispersal are the only
mechanisms for gene flow. Pollen dispersal is limited by the distance
the pollinator can travel. Both pollen and seed dispersal can vary
widely by species (Ellstrand 2003, p. 1164). We do not understand
either pollen or seed dispersal capabilities for A. microcymbus. As our
understanding of gene flow has improved, the distances scientists
believe genes can travel also has increased (Ellstrand 2003, p. 1164).
We believe that genetic exchange could be possible, although unlikely,
between the Henry, Gold Basin Creek, and South Beaver Creek Units, and
expect that genetic exchange does occur occasionally between the South
Beaver Creek Units.
Most Astragalus microcymbus units comprise multiple sites with many
individuals and genetic exchange should not be limited within units.
However, two A. microcymbus units--Henry and Cebolla Creek--are located
over 2.5 km (1.5 mi) away from any other units and have few
individuals. For these two units in particular, small population size
and a loss of genetic diversity may be a problem. Other Astragalus
species with small populations have demonstrated lowered genetic
diversity (Travis et al. 1996, pp. 735-745). The limited range of A.
microcymbus makes the species more susceptible to being significantly
impacted by stochastic (random) disturbances such as wildfire. Because
stochastic threats such as wildfire are currently low, and because two
A. microcymbus units are isolated and small, we find the overall effect
from small populations to be low to the point where it is not a threat.
Summary of Factor E
Periodic drought is a threat to Astragalus microcymbus. We know
that the species decreases during drought conditions, but we do not
know how this influences long-term survivorship of the species,
especially in light of climate change. We know the species has a
limited distribution and two out of nine A. microcymbus units are small
and isolated, but we do not understand how this is affecting the
genetic diversity of the species nor do we consider small population
size to be a threat. With such a limited range, the species is at risk
from stochastic events but there is no way of predicting these events.
Although there are many unknowns, we find the threat from periodic
drought to be moderate at this time. Based on this, the overall threat
from Factor E is low to moderate. We find that Astragalus microcymbus
is threatened by other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence now and these threats are expected to continue or
increase in the foreseeable future.
General Threats Summary
Table 6 below provides an overview of the threats to Astragalus
microcymbus. Of these threats, we consider recreation, roads, and
trails, the overall inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and
habitat fragmentation and degradation to be the most significant
threats (Table 6). Recreational impacts are likely to increase given
the close proximity of A. microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain
vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users
and contains over 40 percent of the A. microcymbus units. The overall
threat from a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms is high given that
25 percent of the habitat has no protections and that Federal
protections allowed a recreation area to be developed on the
[[Page 78537]]
species' habitat. Recreation, as well as most of the other threats to
A. microcymbus, leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation.
Table 6--Threat Summary for Factors Affecting Astragalus Microcymbus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing Scope of threat or Likelihood of Species' Foreseeable
factor Threat or impact impact Intensity Exposure (%) exposure response future Overall threat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............. Residential & Moderate.............. Moderate.............. 25............... Moderate.............. Loss of habitat, Development Moderate.
Urban loss of sites, within several
Development. pollinator decades.
impacts.
A............. Recreation, High.................. High.................. 15 (20-m buffer) High.................. Loss of sites & Significant High.
Roads, & Trails. to 46 (100-m habitat, habitat increase (+20%
buffer). degradation, annually) in
nonnatives, users.
pollinator
impacts.
A............. Utility Corridors Low................... Low................... 4................ Moderate.............. Loss of sites & No immediate None, impact only.
habitat, habitat plans, limited
degradation. in scope.
A............. Nonnative Low................... Low+.................. 0.1+............. High.................. Competition, Increasing with None, but increasing
Invasive Plants. wildfire, rapid increase quickly.
pollinator possible.
impacts.
A............. Wildfire......... Low................... None+................. None but nearby.. Low+.................. Nonnatives, Difficult to Low+.
species' estimate, will
response to relate to
wildfire unknown. cheatgrass
invasion.
A............. Contour Plowing & Low................... Low................... 1.2.............. Low................... Presumable loss, Future seedings None, impact only.
Nonnative habitat unlikely.
Seedings. degradation,
pollinator
impacts.
A............. Livestock, Deer, Moderate.............. Low to Moderate....... 95+.............. Moderate.............. Habitat Permitted AUMs Moderate.
& Elk Use of Degradation, would increase
Habitat. trampling, impacts, deer &
pollinator elk impacts
impacts. could increase.
A............. Mining; Oil & Gas Low................... Low................... none............. Low................... Loss if mining Little activity, None+.
Leasing. occurred. unlikely in the
foreseeable
future.
A............. Climate Change... Moderate?............. Moderate?............. 100.............. Moderate.............. Unknown but would Climate models Moderate?
likely cause a predict 40-year
decline. changes.
A............. Habitat High.................. Low................... 100.............. High.................. Habitat A byproduct of High.
Fragmentation & degradation, other threats.
Degradation. genetic
isolation.
B............. None............. ...................... ...................... ................. ...................... ................. not likely to None.
change.
C............. Small Mammal Moderate.............. Moderate+............. ~80, likely High.................. Affecting seed Likely to Low to Moderate.
Herbivory. varies by year. set. continue &
fluctuate with
herbivore
population.
C............. Deer & Elk Low................... Low................... winter........... Low................... Minimal, could Winter use makes None+.
Herbivory. affect seed set. herbivory less
likely.
C............. Livestock Low................... Low................... occasional....... Low................... Could affect seed Steep slopes None.
Herbivory. set. makes herbivory
less likely.
C............. Insect Herbivory. Low................... Low................... 3................ Moderate.............. Could affect seed No measureable None.
set. impact.
[[Page 78538]]
C............. Disease.......... Low................... Low................... trace............ Low................... Death?........... Rare............. None.
D............. Local Land Use Moderate.............. Moderate.............. 25............... Moderate+............. Loss of habitat, Development Moderate.
Laws, & loss of sites, within several
Ordinances. pollinator decades.
impacts.
D............. State Laws & Moderate.............. Moderate.............. 25+.............. Moderate+............. Loss of habitat, Development Moderate.
Regulations. loss of sites, within several
pollinator decades.
impacts.
D............. Federal Laws & Moderate.............. Moderate.............. 75............... Moderate+............. Influenced by Continued course Moderate.
Regulations. management will trend
actions. downward.
E............. Periodic Drought. Moderate.............. Moderate.............. 100.............. High.................. Decline.......... Climate change Moderate.
models predict
increasing
drought.
E............. Small Populations Low................... Low................... 7................ Low................... Loss of genetic Increase if None, impact only
diversity. wildfires &
cheatgrass
increase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
+ indicates a possible increase in the future.
? indicates significant uncertainty.
Moderate threats to Astragalus microcymbus include: Residential and
urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; and
increasing periodic drought. Of these, the threats from climate change
are the most likely to increase in the future. In addition, we are
particularly concerned about nonnative invasive plants, especially
cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is expanding in the Gunnison Basin. Furthermore,
the dry south-facing slopes where A. microcymbus is found are the
warmest and, therefore, the most vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion in
the Gunnison Basin.
Although wildfire is ranked as a low threat, this factor may
increase in the future. Wildfire is likely to increase because of its
link to nonnative invasive plants and habitat degradation. Small mammal
herbivory, because of the significant effect to seed set, is considered
a low to moderate threat. All other threats to Astragalus microcymbus
are currently regarded as impacts and not threats to the species'
continued existence.
While we have considered all the threats here separately, many are
interrelated. For example, many of these threats contribute to habitat
degradation. Cheatgrass seldom spreads without some sort of
disturbance. Wildfire frequency does not increase without more people
to start the fires, more lightning, or increases in nonnative invasive
plants (especially cheatgrass) and may be exacerbated by climate
change. We find the overall threat to Astragalus microcymbus from all
of these threats to be moderate; although we carefully considered a
high threat ranking when we considered the threats acting together.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether Astragalus microcymbus is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully examined the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, other available published
and unpublished information, and we consulted with A. microcymbus
experts and other Federal and State agencies.
Astragalus microcymbus numbers are declining. The most recent
population viability analysis predicts that all four life-history
monitoring plots will be lost by the year 2030, although more recent
data extends this date out into the future (DBG 2008, p. 9). Most
counts in the last 5 years have been far less than they were in the
1980s and 1990s, generally fewer than 150 individuals with only 1 count
over 400 individuals (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
We do not fully understand the reasons for the decline in
Astragalus microcymbus numbers. Some of the variability in population
counts can be explained by precipitation and temperature patterns (DBG
2010a, p. 6). However, these patterns do not explain all the variation.
For example, we did not see A. microcymbus numbers increase
substantially in 2005 when there was much more precipitation than
average (DBG 2010a, pp. 11-12). Nor do these patterns explain why site
counts continue to be much less than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
Sites do not appear to move significantly. Although the footprint of
many sites has shrunk, the plants are still located in approximately
the same areas as they were in the 1980s, suggesting that A.
microcymbus locations are fairly static. This is not surprising given
that A. microcymbus habitat seems to be somewhat limited on the
landscape.
This status review identified threats to the Astragalus microcymbus
rangewide attributable to Factors A, C, D, and E. The primary threats
to the species include recreation, roads, and trails; and habitat
fragmentation and degradation. Recreational use continues to increase.
Habitat degradation, caused by all of the threats interacting together,
poses a significant risk to the species. Moderate threats include
residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use;
climate change; inadequate
[[Page 78539]]
regulatory mechanisms; and periodic drought. The threat from nonnative
invasive plants is increasing quickly. Small mammal herbivory is
considered a low to moderate threat, and wildfire is considered a low
threat. All of these threats are impacting A. microcymbus, and could be
contributing to the species' decline. The species' close proximity to
the town of Gunnison and the fact that 25 percent of the species
rangewide distribution is on private lands subject to development makes
future development a very real threat. Cheatgrass will likely invade
the hot dry habitats of A. microcymbus before any other habitats in the
Gunnison Valley. Livestock, deer, and elk use are causing habitat
degradation. Because we know A. microcymbus responds unfavorably to
warmer spring temperatures and less spring precipitation--conditions
that climate change models predict--we expect negative impacts similar
to the declines we've seen with these climatic conditions in the long-
term life history study. Small mammal herbivory affects seed
production, and drought negatively affects population numbers. We
acknowledge there are uncertainties regarding: (1) The reasons for the
decline of A. microcymbus, (2) the rate of increase in future
recreation and the management direction for the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area; (3) the rate and extent of cheatgrass' spread; (4)
when and to what extent development will occur; (5) the return interval
of future wildfires; and (6) the effects of increasing temperatures and
changing precipitation patterns. Many of these uncertainties are
temporal in nature.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that listing of the Astragalus microcymbus as
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on
the status of the species as endangered or threatened when we do a
proposed listing determination. However, as explained in more detail
below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action
is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species is not warranted for this species at this time because the
threats acting on the species are not immediately impacting all the
species across its range to the point where the species will be
immediately lost. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily listing Astragalus microcymbus is
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of
vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we assigned Astragalus microcymbus a Listing
Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based on threats that are of moderate
magnitude and are imminent. These threats include the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat;
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other
natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. We
consider the threats that A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in
magnitude because the major threats (recreation, roads, and trails;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation
and degradation), while serious and occurring rangewide, do not
collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For example, the last
known populations are not about to be completely lost to development.
These threats are not likely to eliminate the species in the immediate
future. The threats the species faces are, however, significant.
Recreational impacts are likely to increase given the close proximity
of A. microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the increasing popularity
of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain vehicles.
Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users and was
designated atop 40 percent of the A. microcymbus ``units''. The overall
threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is high
given that 25 percent of the habitat has no protections and that
Federal regulations allowed a recreation area to be developed atop the
species. Recreation, as well as most of the other threats to A.
microcymbus, leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation. These
threats are ongoing and, in some cases (such as invasive nonnative
species), are considered irreversible because large-scale invasions
cannot be recovered to a native functioning ecosystem given current
management efforts. Our rationale for assigning A. microcymbus an LPN
of 8 is outlined below.
Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We
consider the threats that A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in
magnitude because the major threats (recreation, roads, and trails;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation
and degradation), while serious and occurring rangewide, do not
collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For example, the last
known populations are not about to be completely lost to development.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those species facing
potential threats or species that are intrinsically vulnerable but are
not known to be presently facing such threats. We consider the threats
imminent because we have factual information that the threats are
identifiable and that the species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are covered
in great detail in Factors A, C, D, and E of this finding. Almost all
of the threats are ongoing and, therefore, are imminent, although the
likelihood varies (Table 4). In addition to their current existence, we
expect these threats to continue and likely intensify in the
foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Astragalus microcymbus is a valid
taxon at the species level and, therefore, receives a higher priority
than subspecies, but a lower priority than species in a monotypic
genus. Therefore, we
[[Page 78540]]
assigned Astragalus microcymbus an LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the threats to Astragalus microcymbus,
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or
the imminence of the threats change, we will re-visit our assessment of
LPN.
Because we have assigned Astragalus microcymbus an LPN of 8, work
on a proposed listing determination for A. microcymbus is precluded by
work on higher priority listing actions with absolute statutory, court-
ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing determinations
for those species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY
2010. This work includes all the actions listed in the tables below
under expeditious progress (see Tables 9 and 10).
Species Information--Astragalus schmolliae
Taxonomy and Species Description
Astragalus schmolliae was first collected in Montezuma County,
southwestern Colorado, in 1890. It was formally described as a species
in 1945, when C.L. Porter named it after Dr. Hazel Marguerite Schmoll
(Porter 1945, pp. 100-102; Barneby 1964, pp. 277-278; Isely 1998, p.
417). Astragalus schmolliae is a member of the family Fabaceae (legume
family). The perennial plants are upright, 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 in.)
tall with one to several stems branching from an underground root
crown. Its leaves are typical of many of the legumes, with 11 to 20
small leaflets on a stem. Leaves and stems are ash-colored due to a
covering of short hairs. Flowers are creamy white and borne on upright
stalks that extend above the leafy stems. The fruit is a pod, 3 to 4 cm
(1 to 1.5 in.) long, covered with flat, stiff hairs, pendulous and
curving downward (Barneby 1964, pp. 277-278). The deep taproot grows to
40 cm (16 in.) or more (Friedlander 1980, pp. 59-62).
Biology, Distribution, and Abundance
Astragalus schmolliae plants emerge in early spring and usually
begin flowering in late April or early May. Flowering continues into
early or mid-June (Friedlander 1980, p. 63, Peterson 1981, p. 14).
Fruit set begins in late May and occurs through June, and by late June
most fruits have opened and released their seeds, while still attached
to the plant. The typical plant lifespan of A. schmolliae is unknown,
but individuals are thought to live up to 20 years (Colyer 2002 in
Anderson 2004, p. 11). During very dry years, as observed in 2002, the
plants can remain dormant with no above-ground growth (Colyer 2003 in
Anderson 2004, p. 11). Most of the plants produce above-ground shoots
and flower profusely during growing seasons following wet winters.
Astragalus schmolliae requires pollination by insects to set fruit.
Flowers require a strong insect for pollination, such as a bumblebee,
because the insect must force itself between the petals of the
butterfly-shaped flowers. Pollinators observed on A. schmolliae include
several species of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and beeflies (Bombylius
spp.) (Friedlander 1980, p. 63).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae is mature pinyon-juniper
woodland of mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National Park (MEVE) area at
elevations between 1,981 to 2,286 meters (6,500 to 7,500 feet)
(Anderson 2004, p. ii). The plants are found in both sunny and shaded
locations (Peterson 1981, p. 12), primarily on deep, reddish loess
soils, and are generally less common near cliff edges and in ravines
where the soil is shallower. No A. schmolliae plants are found in the
mountain shrublands at the upper elevations on MEVE.
The CNHP prepared a population status survey of Astragalus
schmolliae in 2004 for MEVE. The report is based on field surveys in
2001 and 2003 of the distribution, density, soil characteristics, seed
viability and germinability, and recruitment in burned and unburned
areas of MEVE. This study provides the primary source of information
for our evaluation of the status and threats to A. schmolliae, and is
cited throughout this finding as Anderson (2004).
Astragalus schmolliae habitat collectively occupies approximately
1,619 ha (4,000 ac) in MEVE and on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park
(Tribal Park). About 809 ha (2,000 ac) are in MEVE on Chapin Mesa
including Fewkes and Spruce Canyons, on the West Chapin Spur, and on
Park Mesa (CNHP 2010, pp. 12-19; Anderson 2004, p. 25, 30; MEVE 2010,
p.1). Occupied habitat on Chapin Mesa in the Tribal Park south of MEVE
probably covers another 809 ha (2,000 ac), where surveys have not been
done (Anderson 2004, p. 6; Friedlander 1980, p. 53; CNHP 2010, pp. 20-
21). Abundant plants were observed on the tribal land in 1987 (Colyer
2002, in Anderson 2004, p. 4; CNHP 2010, p. 21). The total number and
average density of plants on the Tribal Park are not known, because no
inventories have been completed (Clow 2010, pers. comm.).
Table 7--Astragalus schmolliae Occurrences
[CNHP 2010, pp. 1-21; Anderson 2004, p. 6, 30]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNHP
Occurrence Ha (Ac) Plants 2001 Plants 2003 Density 2001 Density 2003 Rank*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapin Mesa, Fewkes & Spruce 785 (1,939) 454,733 277,462 .06 per sq meter........... .037 per sq meter......... A
Canyons (MEVE).
Park Mesa (MEVE)............. 3.3 (8) 3,605 2,199 .110....................... .067...................... B
West Chapin Spur (MEVE)...... 21 (52) 24,448 14,913 .117....................... .071...................... B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEVE totals.............. 809 (2,000) 482,786 294,499 ........................... .......................... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ute Mtn. Ute Tribal Park..... 809 (2,000) est. NA NA NA......................... .......................... H
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total range.......... 1,619 (4,000) .............. .............. ........................... .......................... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Occurrence rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A
historical rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.
[[Page 78541]]
The distribution of Astragalus schmolliae is typical of narrow
endemics, which are often common within their narrow range on a
specific habitat type (Rabinowitz 1981 in Anderson 2004, p. 3).
However, A. schmolliae is unusual because similar habitat is widespread
on nearby mesas where the species has not been found. Thus, the causes
of its rarity are unknown. Its distribution may be limited by habitat
variables that are not yet understood (Anderson 2004, p. 8).
Astragalus schmolliae is considered critically imperiled globally
(G1) by the CNHP, a rank used for species with a restricted range, a
global distribution consisting of less than five occurrences, a limited
population size, or significant threats (CNHP 2006, p. 1).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 12-month finding, we evaluated the best scientific
and commercial information available, including information acquired
during the status review. Our evaluation of this information is
presented below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or
range of Astragalus schmolliae are discussed in this section,
including: (1) Wildfire; (2) invasive nonnative plants; (3) post-fire
mitigation; (4) wildfire and fuels management; (5) development of
infrastructure; (6) drought and climate change.
Wildfire
Six large wildfires burned within MEVE between 1989 and 2003, and
extensive portions of those burned areas have been invaded by nonnative
plant species (weeds) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 247). Small, lightning-
caused fires are frequent in MEVE. The annual average number of fire
starts between 1926 and 1969 was 5 per year, which increased to 18 per
year between 1970 and 1997. Most of the fires started in the pinyon-
juniper woodlands and burned less than 1 ha (2.5 ac). The southern half
of MEVE was covered with dense, old-growth pinyon-juniper woodlands
that had not burned for several centuries. However, the 20th century
has seen several spectacular wildfires that burned extensive portions
of these pinyon-juniper woodlands (Floyd et al. 1999, p. 149). Best
estimates for ``natural'' fire turnover times in MEVE are about 100
years for shrubland vegetation and about 400 years for pinyon-juniper
vegetation. Although the disturbance regime for this system apparently
remains within the historical range of variability, the recovery
processes following fire have been dramatically altered from historical
processes (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 248). Recurrent fires favor clonal,
resprouting shrub species such as Quercus gambelii (gambel oak),
Amelanchier utahensis (Utah serviceberry), Symphoricarpos oreophilus
(mountain snowberry), Fendlera rupicola (cliff fendlerbush), and Rhus
trilobata (three-leaf sumac), and gradually eliminate the fire-
sensitive pinyon and juniper (Floyd et al. 2000, p. 1667, 1677). A.
schmolliae does not grow in the shrub-dominated areas of MEVE now, and
we cannot predict the long- term success of the species following
removal of the pinyon-juniper overstory.
Landscape modeling of the effects of projected cheatgrass increase
on fire frequency in MEVE indicates the potential for frequent
reburning. Projections show a fire rotation of about 45 years for MEVE.
Such a frequent disturbance regime would be far outside the historical
range of variability for the pinyon-juniper, and would likely impact or
eliminate many native plant species (Turner et al., p. 40). We have no
data to indicate whether Astragalus schmolliae will successfully adapt
to a post-fire habitat of open clearings between shrubs, and
competition from cheatgrass, thistles, and native grasses versus a
pinyon-juniper dominated community.
From July 29 to August 4, 2002, the Long Mesa Fire burned 1,053 ha
(2,601 ac) on Chapin and Park Mesas, which included about 306 ha (756
ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat (Anderson 2004, p. 28). Between
1996 and 2008, 308 ha (762 ac) of habitat were burned by wildfires, and
6 ha (15 ac), by prescribed burns (MEVE 2010, pers. comm.). On Tribal
Park habitat, several small fires appear to have burned a total of
about 23 ha (57 ac) (Glenne 2010, map). Altogether these recent fires
have impacted about 21 percent of the total habitat for the species.
The average density per square meter of Astragalus schmolliae
plants on monitoring plots in MEVE decreased 39 percent from 2001 to
2003 (Anderson 2004, p. 30, 37). Density declined in both burned and
unburned transect segments between 2001 and 2003. The decline in
density was slightly lower in burned transect segments than in
unburned, but the difference in density in 2003 between burned and
unburned transect segments was not statistically significant,
suggesting that burning did not significantly impact plant mortality,
nor did it result in any benefit to the species. The 39 percent decline
in density in MEVE was attributed to the 2002 drought and prolonged
dormancy, because the plants do not send up new growth during very dry
years (Anderson 2004, p. 37).
No seedlings were observed in 2001 on burned or unburned habitat,
but they were observed in 2003 throughout the range of Astragalus
schmolliae in MEVE, except at the population on northern Park Mesa that
was severely burned in 1996 (Anderson 2004, p. 39). There were no clear
differences in seedling success between burned and unburned areas
during early summer surveys, but survivorship of seedlings through
their first summer could not be determined (Anderson 2004, p. 48).
Viability of seeds collected in 2003 was between 94 and 100 percent
(Anderson 2004, p. 49). The patterns of seed germination are suggestive
of a species that maintains a persistent seed bank (Anderson 2004, p.
47). The longevity of seeds of A. schmolliae is not known, but many
legumes, including members of Astragalus, have seeds as long-lived as
[[Page 78542]]
97 years (Anderson 2004, p. 48). Recruitment appears to be highly
episodic and is probably greatest in years that are moist in March
through May (Anderson 2004, p. iv). Plants in areas burned in 2002
displayed higher reproductive effort and vigor, and produced
approximately 241 times more seeds per plant than did plants in
unburned areas. It is likely that this resulted in part from depletion
of pollinator resources in unburned areas. Plants in areas burned in
1996 on Park Mesa had very high vigor in 2003 (possibly due to high
soil nitrate levels after fire) but did not set fruit although flowers
were produced and insect visitation was observed (Anderson 2004, p.
iv).
Seed bank studies for other Astragalus species indicate that the
group generally possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a strong
physical germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are generally
long-lived in the soil and only a small percentage of seeds germinate
each year (Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). However, we do not know if the
seed germination strategy for other Astragalus species is comparable to
that employed by A. schmolliae.
The growth habit of Astragalus schmolliae suggests that it is
tolerant of fire, with its deep taproot and shallowly buried root
crown, to which the plant dies back during winter months. Plants can
resprout following a low-intensity fire if the root crown is not
damaged (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1997, 1998). Reproductive effort and
fecundity were clearly higher in areas burned in 2002, and vigor also
appeared to be greater. However, net reproductive success in post-fire
environments has not been monitored, so it is unclear whether fire
effects have a negative or beneficial initial impact on A. schmolliae.
While fire may confer some short-term benefits to plants in burned
areas (possibly at the expense of reproductive success in unburned
areas if depletion of pollinator resources is responsible for poor
fecundity), it may have long-term detrimental impacts (Anderson 2004,
p. 64).
We conclude that the direct effects of fire on Astragalus
schmolliae are both positive and negative. Plants burn to the ground
and then resprout the following spring if the fire is not too intense,
but then have competition from weeds and grasses. We do not know
whether net reproduction after fire is positive. Given the high
frequency and volume of fires in the area it is highly likely that new
fires will burn more of the habitat for A. schmolliae. All of the
burned and remaining unburned habitat on MEVE and the Tribal Park is at
risk of burning within the foreseeable future. Although we remain
concerned about the potential impacts of recurring fires, the best
available information indicates that the direct effects of wildfires do
not pose a threat to A. schmolliae. The indirect effect of facilitating
invasion of the habitat by cheatgrass does pose a significant threat to
the species.
Invasive Nonnative Plants
As discussed above, the main threat to the species is the indirect
effect of invasion by nonnative plant species (weeds). This invasion is
facilitated by the increased frequency of burns as well as the clearing
of areas within occupied Astragalus schmolliae habitat (CNHP 2006, p.
4). In MEVE, large wildfires that occurred earlier in the twentieth
century (1934, 1959, 1972) were not associated with weed invasion
(Floyd et al. 1999, p. 148), but the pinyon-juniper forests that have
burned extensively in the past two decades are being replaced by
significant invasions of weedy species, especially Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass), Carduus nutans (musk thistle), and Cirsium arvense
(Canada thistle) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 1).
Since 1996, MEVE has seen more large fires and more cumulative area
burned than occurred during the previous 200 years (Romme et al. 2006,
p. 3). This recent increase in fire activity is a result of severe
drought conditions preceded by wet climatic conditions and increasing
fuel load due to fire suppression in the pinyon-juniper woodlands, all
coinciding with the natural end of a long fire cycle (Floyd et al.
2006, p. 247). A recent development in the post-fire habitat response
is the remarkably rapid spread of cheatgrass. This weedy winter annual
germinates in the fall, grows slowly during the winter, and then grows
rapidly in the early spring. By early summer it has set seed and died,
creating a continuous fuel bed of quick-drying, flashy fine fuel that
can readily carry fire, even without wind. Cheatgrass has been in MEVE
for many years. However, it was never widespread until 2000, when
unusually warm dry summers and winters, coupled with heavy fall rains,
have allowed cheatgrass to rapidly expand its range, especially in
places where fire or other disturbances have created bare ground (Romme
et al. 2006, p. 3). Mature pinyon-juniper woodlands are highly
vulnerable to post-fire weed invasion (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254).
Cheatgrass is now a dominant species in much of the area burned in MEVE
(Romme et al. 2006, pp. 2-3) and it has inundated the burned and
disturbed portions of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on Chapin Mesa
(Hanna et al. 2008, p. 18). The highest infestation occurred in an area
that had burned both in the 1996 and the 2002 fires on Park Mesa. This
had been an old-growth pinyon-juniper woodland before the 1996 fire and
was seeded with native grasses. After re-burning in 2002, this area has
been inundated by cheatgrass (Hanna et al. 2008, p. 9). Given the
seasonal overlap of A. schmolliae seedling growth with the peak growth
of cheatgrass, it is likely that the presence of cheatgrass in
populations of A. schmolliae compromises its viability (Anderson 2004,
pp. 60-61).
In 1980, cheatgrass was found in 8 percent of survey samples in
picnic grounds and 0 percent of undisturbed samples (Friedlander 1980,
pp. 75-76). Carduus nutans was not found in either disturbed or
undisturbed ground in 1980, but it was particularly invasive in burned
areas of MEVE by 1999 and was aggressively invading areas occupied by
Astragalus schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1999, Romme et al. 2003).
We consider the invasion of nonnative weedy plants, particularly
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high magnitude to Astragalus schmolliae
because: (1) Cheatgrass has invaded all of the burned and disturbed
habitat of A. schmolliae in MEVE, covering at least 40 percent of its
entire range; (2) it competes with seedlings and resprouting adult
plants for water and nutrients; (3) no landscape scale successful
control methods are available; and (4) the proven ability of cheatgrass
to increase fire frequency, thereby facilitating further rapid spread,
threatens both burned and previously unburned occupied habitat. We
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is likely to cause fire frequency to
increase, with the result that only small patches of undisturbed
habitat will remain for A. schmolliae within MEVE. The extent of
cheatgrass invasion on the Tribal Park is unknown, because no surveys
have been completed.
Post-Fire Mitigation
Various post-fire mitigation actions (aerial seeding of native
grasses, mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control) have been
effective in reducing the density of weeds after fire, but none of
these techniques has prevented the weeds from becoming major components
of the post-fire plant community. Post-fire mitigation activities were
conducted in MEVE under the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation
program in 1996 to 1997, to prevent weed invasion and severe erosion,
and to encourage native plant species. Aerial seeding of native grasses
[[Page 78543]]
was applied intensively in the old-growth pinyon-juniper community. The
density of Carduus nutans was significantly reduced by seeding in
burned areas. There has been no evidence that the diversity of native
forbs has declined by introducing native perennial grasses (Floyd et
al. 1999, p. 155), but Astragalus schmolliae was not specifically
monitored. Therefore, we are unsure if these efforts to prevent weed
invasion negatively affect A. schmolliae.
Seeding of native grasses has not prevented the spread of
cheatgrass into burned areas; instead, cheatgrass invasion has
increased (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254). If cheatgrass continues to
spread into recently burned areas in MEVE, it is likely to alter the
previous regime of infrequent fires occurring during extremely dry
periods to a new regime of frequent fires. Because the native flora is
adapted to the historical fire regime, a change of this kind could
produce rapid and irreversible degradation of native vegetation in the
park (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 257). We believe this could be the case in
Astragalus schmolliae habitat.
Releases of two biological control weevils on Carduus nutans have
been highly effective in reducing the density, vigor, and net fecundity
of the thistle plants in Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE. Aerial
seeding with native grass species has provided effective competition
for some of the weeds and improved the proportion of native to invasive
plants (Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
Post-fire weed control by aerial seeding of native grasses,
mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control has reduced competition
by invasive weeds other than cheatgrass, and there is little
documentation of negative effects on Astragalus schmolliae. We consider
the impacts of these activities to be low, not rising to the level of a
threat to the species.
Wildfire and Fuels Management
Wildfire management at MEVE includes the creation of fire breaks,
fire lines, and staging areas, all of which remove the mature pinyon-
juniper woodland habitat for Astragalus schmolliae. A cattle fence 4.2
km (2.6 mi) long separates the northern half of the species' habitat on
MEVE from the southern half on the Tribal Park. MEVE created a fire
break about 30 m (100 ft) wide along this fence by cutting all
vegetation to ground level. The break covers about 14 ha (34 ac), or
0.9 percent of the species total habitat, at the center of distribution
for A. schmolliae. On the Tribal Park side of the fence, the pinyon-
juniper woodland is cut in a mosaic pattern, leaving trees and clumps
of trees standing with cleared areas around them. This fire break
covers about 189 ha (467 ac), or 12 percent of the species' total
range. Response of A. schmolliae to the two different treatments has
not been compared. Fire breaks also are created by prescribed burns.
Mechanical removal and prescribed burning together have altered about
19 percent of the species total range, including the fenceline fire
breaks described above (MEVE 2010, pers. comm.).
The ecological conditions for Astragalus schmolliae within the
cleared areas are different from its typical pinyon-juniper woodland
habitat. Cleared areas are exposed to more sun and wind that dry the
soil and the A. schmolliae seedlings. In addition to invasion by
cheatgrass, removal of woody vegetation appears to result in
competitive release of native grasses. In sites where no seeding has
been done, removal of woody vegetation favors Poa fendleriana
(muttongrass), the most common grass species on Mesa Verde (Anderson
2004, p. 73). This response is seen in mechanical fuels reduction areas
on Chapin Mesa, where cover of P. fendleriana can approach 75 percent
(Anderson 2004, p. 60). Density, reproductive effort and vigor of A.
schmolliae appears low in these areas, although there are few
quantitative data with which to compare density. Plants were growing
among large, crowded bunches of P. fendleriana and appeared small and
unhealthy (Anderson 2004, p. 73). This effect is probably due to
competition with P. fendleriana for water and nutrients. On unburned
Chapin Mesa south of MEVE, density of A. schmolliae was second only to
P. fendleriana, as a dominant understory plant (Colyer 2002, in
Anderson 2004, p. 7). This may indicate that A. schmolliae can recover
from the initial impact of native grass competition following removal
of the overstory woodland.
Fuels management activities have had some direct and indirect
impacts to Astragalus schmolliae plants and habitat. Fuels management
activities occur in the summer and fall when impacts to mature A.
schmolliae plants are diminished or negligible because the seeds have
matured and plants are dying back for the season. Direct impacts to the
plants, such as trampling during the cutting and hauling out of wood
and slash and scorching during prescribed burns, are short-term because
the plants will be able to resprout the following spring. Impacts to
juvenile plants are not documented. Mechanical fuels reduction
activities result in a low to moderate level of surface disturbance,
which we believe results in little direct impact to A. schmolliae.
However, the effects of fuels management activities tend to facilitate
nonnative species invasion. In addition to cheatgrass, Carduus nutans
appears to thrive on the disturbance created by fuels management, and
to outcompete A. schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1999). Numerous C.
nutans plants were found in all areas visited where mechanical fuels
reduction activities took place (Anderson 2004, p. 73). The canopy of
A. schmolliae can act as a seed trap for C. nutans, which greatly
increases the likelihood of negative impacts to A. schmolliae from
competition (Anderson 2004, pp. 63, 70).
Clearing for fuel reduction impacts A. schmolliae in the following
ways: (1) Above-ground stems are directly removed; (2) plants that
resprout the following spring have less water available because the
soil dries due to exposure to sun and wind; and (3) invasive weeds, the
native grass P. fendleriana, and seeded native grasses provide
increased competition. However, we have no data that indicates the
degree to which these impacts are occurring or will occur in the
future. Because clearing and prescribed burns affect 19 percent of the
range of A. schmolliae, we believe that clearing or burning for fire
management may have a detrimental effect on the species. As with
wildfire, the indirect effect of facilitating invasion of the habitat
by cheatgrass poses a threat to the species because it increases the
likelihood of more frequent fires.
Development of Infrastructure
As of 1980, about 17.7 ha (44 ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat
was graded or paved for roads within MEVE, which was 1.7 percent of the
habitat known in the park at that time (Friedlander 1980, p. 78). As of
2010, about 36 ha (90 ac) or 4.5 percent of the known range of A.
schmolliae within MEVE is classified as hardened surfaces, i.e., roads,
buildings, parking lots, water tanks, trails, etc. (MEVE 2010, p. 1). A
recent impact was the installation of thousands of meters of
underground fiber optic cables throughout the developed areas of the
park (Anderson 2004, p. 70; Nelligan 2010, p. 2). Information on the
number of plants destroyed or new recruits that appeared following the
installation is not available (San Miguel 2010a, pers. comm.).
It is likely that a small percentage of the Astragalus schmolliae
population has been eliminated during the development of visitor
facilities in
[[Page 78544]]
MEVE. Regular maintenance and construction projects at MEVE will
continue to result in a small amount of plant mortality. Trampling of
plants by people using trails, roads, and picnic areas in the developed
portion of MEVE also eliminates a small number of plants (Nelligan
2010, p. 2). Likewise on the Tribal Park, most foot traffic is limited
to routes used by escorted tour groups and, therefore, likely to have a
very small impact on the species.
Trampling of plants by visitors and staff is an ongoing impact that
does not rise to the level of a threat because it affects plants in a
very limited portion of the species range in MEVE and in the Tribal
Park. Astragalus schmolliae may recover from this kind of disturbance
if the below-ground parts are not damaged, or if undamaged plants
remain nearby to provide a seed source and the disturbance is not
constantly repeated or followed up with additional disturbances. One
attempt to transplant mature plants that were growing in a planned
construction area was unsuccessful because the taproots were severed
(Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
Construction of new roads, a visitor center, and campground are
ongoing in MEVE. Most of the new construction is outside of Astragalus
schmolliae habitat. Most of the disturbance in occupied habitat is
related to a water pipeline, and because it is directionally drilled
from one pad of about 4 by 24 m (14 by 80 ft) alongside the park road,
the impact on the plants is negligible (San Miguel 2010b, pers. comm.).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae on tribal land is within the
Tribal Park, which is managed for protection of its cultural and
natural resources. It is an undeveloped area without surfaced roads or
permanent facilities. We are not aware of any development activities on
the Tribal Park that would impact A. schmolliae (Mayo 2010, pers.
comm.).
Overall, the impact of existing development appears low, impacting
about 2.3 percent of the species' entire range. MEVE will likely
continue to locate major facilities outside of Astragalus schmolliae
habitat, and minimize infrastructure within the habitat in the future.
Most of the habitat within MEVE is protected from development, being
within a National Park. Likewise, the Tribal Park is likely to remain
undeveloped (Mayo 2010, pers. comm.). Therefore, development does not
appear to constitute a threat to A. schmolliae, now nor is it likely to
in the foreseeable future.
Drought and Climate Change
Drought may affect Astragalus schmolliae. In 2002, severe drought
caused most A. schmolliae individuals to remain dormant (Anderson 2004,
p. 4). The total annual precipitation measured at MEVE in 2002 was 28
cm (11 in.), well below the average of 44 cm (17.5 in.) for 1948 to
2003. However, there were 5 years between 1948 and 1989 in which MEVE
received less than 28 cm (11 in.). Tree ring analysis indicates that
droughts were as common during the Ancestral Puebloan occupation of
MEVE, from approximately A.D. 600 to A.D. 1300, as they are today. It
is likely that drought is common enough that A. schmolliae can recover
from its effects (Anderson 2004, p. 35), provided that severity and
duration of drought does not exceed historical levels, or that threats
such as weed invasion do not increase significantly as a result.
Periodic drought causes A. schmolliae plants and seedlings to dry out
during a given year, and contributes to increased fire frequency and
weed invasion. We believe that drought has a low-level direct impact on
the species. It also facilitates cheatgrass invasion and increased fire
frequency and therefore is a threat to the species.
Projections for changes in climate within Astragalus schmolliae
habitat are similar to those discussed above for Astragalus
microcymbus. Overall, future projections for the Southwestern United
States include increased temperatures, more intense and longer-lasting
heat waves, and an increased probability of drought, that are worsened
by higher temperatures, heavier downpours, increased flooding, and
increased erosion (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129-134). Projections for
western Colorado indicate that temperature could increase an average of
2.5 [deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) by 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1-14).
The increasing frequency of large-scale fires is largely due to
periodic drought conditions preceded by years of wet climatic
conditions that allowed heavy fuel loads to accumulate (Floyd et al.
2006, p. 247). The specific combination of a wet season followed by
drought, which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change, is
unpredictable at this time. We expect that A. schmolliae will be
affected negatively by climate change effects on precipitation, but the
available information is too speculative to conclude that climate
change now threatens the species.
Summary of Factor A
The highest threat to Astragalus schmolliae habitat is the invasion
of nonnative cheatgrass following wildfires, prescribed fires, and fire
break clearings. Recent wildfires have burned 21 percent of the pinyon-
juniper woodland habitat for the species. Another 19 percent has been
burned and/or cleared to discourage further spread of wildfires within
MEVE. Dense stands of cheatgrass have invaded all of these areas, which
cover 53 percent of the habitat on MEVE, 40 percent of the entire range
of the species. Cheatgrass is highly flammable and greatly increases
fire frequency on both burned and nearby unburned but disturbed
habitat. Although mature A. schmolliae plants recover strongly after
fire, cheatgrass competes with seedlings for water and nutrients, and
we are unsure of their long-term reproductive success in open areas
exposed to drying sun and wind. Frequent fires are likely to prevent
recovery of the pinyon-juniper woodland. There are no landscape-scale
methods known to be effective in controlling cheatgrass. Therefore, we
consider the dominance of cheatgrass in occupied A. schmolliae habitat
to be a significant threat to the long-term survival of the species.
Wildfires, prescribed fires, and clearings for fire breaks are
considered a moderate threat to the species because they modify the
habitat and facilitate the invasion of cheatgrass.
Drought facilitates increased fire frequency and, therefore, is
found to be a threat to the species. Climate change may exacerbate the
threat of cheatgrass invasion and more frequent wildfires, but we
cannot foresee whether its effects are likely to threaten the continued
existence of Astragalus schmolliae.
The impact of infrastructure development and visitor use is low.
About 36 ha (90 ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE have been
used for roads, buildings, parking lots, etc., which is 2.3 percent of
the species' entire range. No permanent development has occurred on the
Tribal Park. Existing and foreseeable future development is considered
a minor impact that does not threaten the continued existence of the
species.
Post-fire weed control by aerial seeding of native grasses,
mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control has reduced competition
by invasive weeds other than cheatgrass, and there is little
documentation of negative effects on Astragalus schmolliae. We consider
the impacts of these activities to be low, not rising to the level of a
threat to the species.
We find that Astragalus schmolliae is threatened by the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species'
habitat or range, and these threats are expected to continue or
increase in the foreseeable future.
[[Page 78545]]
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of Astragalus schmolliae for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes. Therefore, we do not consider
overutilization to be a threat to the species now, nor is it expected
to become so in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
No diseases are known to affect Astragalus schmolliae. Therefore,
we do not consider disease to be a threat to the species now, nor is it
expected to become so in the foreseeable future.
Herbivory
Seed predation by snout beetles or weevils caused loss of seeds in
about 12.5 percent of Astragalus schmolliae plants in plots sampled in
1980 (Friedlander 1980, p. 64). Beetle predation has not been observed
again since 1980, and is not considered a threat to the species.
Anderson (2001, p. 11) reported severe defoliation of A. schmolliae by
larvae of the clouded sulfur butterfly (Colias philodice). Aphids also
appeared to have an impact on reproductive output for this species
(Anderson 2001, p. 11). These events were unusual, and insect predation
is considered a low-level impact that does not rise to the level of a
threat.
Herbivores such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and cottontail
rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii) browse on Astragalus schmolliae foliage,
flowers, seed pods, and seedlings. Seedling mortality due to herbivory
by rabbits or deer may be 1 to 10 percent (Anderson 2004, p. 40). Feral
horses and stray cattle graze within the species' range, including the
burned areas, but there is no evidence that they consume many A.
schmolliae. Mature plants usually resprout the following spring after
browsing by animals (Nelligan 2010, p. 1). Because the most abundant
grass (Poa fendleriana) associated with A. schmolliae on the Tribal
Park is highly palatable to cattle, grazing does not appear to be an
issue in the southern portion of its range. Grazing by livestock is not
permitted in MEVE. We consider herbivory an ongoing low-level impact to
the species that does not rise to the level of a threat.
Summary of Factor C
No diseases are known to affect Astragalus schmolliae. With very
little herbivory observed or documented, predation does not appear to
pose a threat to A. schmolliae. Herbicide use occurs in a small portion
of the species' habitat and is conducted so as to minimize impacts to
the species. Accordingly, we find no evidence that predation or disease
are a threat to A. schmolliae now, nor are they expected to become so
in the foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
No local, State, or Federal laws or regulations specifically
protect Astragalus schmolliae. The National Park Service Organic Act
(1916, p. 1) states that wildlife are to be conserved and left
unimpaired for future generations to enjoy. The MEVE mission is to
preserve and protect more than 4,000 archeological sites and also to
protect wildlife, birds, and other natural resources from willful
destruction, disturbance, and removal (National Park Service 2010, p.
1). The plants are protected from visitor impacts in undeveloped areas
of MEVE by regulations that restrict visitor access to designated
trails, roads, and campgrounds to protect cultural resources. Visitors
found hiking off developed areas or designated trails when not
accompanied by a uniformed National Park Service employee are subject
to penalties provided for in title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (maximum fine of $500 and 6 months imprisonment). The MEVE
does not have a management plan specific to A. schmolliae, nor do their
draft fire management plans or draft weed management plans specifically
mention management for this species (San Miguel 2010a, pers. comm.).
The draft fire management plan does not have any specific mention of
managing for this species because ``it would be expected to respond to
fuels treatments and fire much the same as most other native perennial
forbs'' (Nelligan 2010, p. 3). We believe that this approach is
inadequate because cheatgrass invasion will lead to more frequent and
recurrent fires. These draft plans include rare plant surveys and
avoidance (Nelligan 2010, p. 4.), but the plans are not finalized. The
MEVE gives A. schmolliae special consideration when planning park
projects in an effort to minimize impacts to the species (Nelligan
2010, p. 3). In 2010, MEVE will begin developing a specific management/
conservation plan for A. schmolliae (Nelligan 2010, p. 3).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae on the Tribal Park is
maintained as part of a 50,586-ha (125,000-ac) undeveloped area to
protect cultural and environmental resources. Visitors are allowed only
on guided tours. The management goal for A. schmolliae occupied habitat
is for no ground-disturbing activities. Grazing is allowed (Clow 2010,
pers. comm.), but we do not believe it substantially impacts the
species. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is drafting a management plan for
species at risk that will include monitoring of A. schmolliae plants
and habitat. The final draft plan may be completed in 2010 or 2011
(Clow 2010, pers. comm.). The management plan will assist us in better
understanding the extent to which the Tribe plans to conserve the
species and its habitat.
Despite the positive management for Astragalus schmolliae that
occurs within MEVE and the Tribal Park, no formal plans are in place
for mitigation of threats from cheatgrass and other fire effects.
Summary of Factor D
We expect that Astragalus schmolliae habitat on the Tribal Park is
generally protected from human disturbance by tribal regulations that
do not allow public access or unauthorized activities. Human impacts in
undeveloped areas of MEVE are minimized by regulations that restrict
visitor access to designated trails, roads, and campgrounds to protect
cultural resources. While currently needed management actions are
ongoing and management plans have been drafted, no plans, policies, or
regulations have been signed and implemented for the specific purpose
of monitoring and protecting A. schmolliae from cheatgrass invasion and
recurrent fires. We anticipate that MEVE and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
will formalize their management plans within the near future.
The existing suite of local, State, and Federal laws that we
evaluated do not address the primary threat to Astragalus schmolliae of
cheatgrass invasion following fire. Additionally, the existing plans
rely on the resilience of the plants and their ability to resprout
after impacts, which is insufficient to provide for their recovery
post-fire. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms
for the species are inadequate and do not address the threats to the
continued existence of the species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Restricted Range
The global range of Astragalus schmolliae is restricted to pinyon-
juniper woodlands on about 1,619 ha (4,000 ac) on 3 adjacent mesas. It
does not grow in grasslands below the mesas or in adjacent shrublands
at higher
[[Page 78546]]
elevation on the mesas, nor has it been found in pinyon-juniper
woodlands on nearby mesas. Such a restricted range makes the species
vulnerable to habitat modification caused by wildfire, cheatgrass
invasion, increased drought, and climate change, but is not considered
a threat in itself.
Herbicides
Less than 10 percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE has
been sprayed with herbicide to control identified high-density stands
of Cirsium canadense. These herbicide applications have been performed
carefully to minimize overspray that might land on native species
(Nelligan 2010, p. 2). We are not aware of any use of herbicides on the
tribal land habitat. Because we have no information indicating that
herbicide use has affected A. schmolliae, we do not consider herbicide
use to be a threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
The small range of Astragalus schmolliae makes it vulnerable to
existing and future threats, but does not constitute a threat in
itself. Herbicide is used within the habitat, but is not known to
affect the species. We are not aware of any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' continued existence that present a
current or potential threat to A. schmolliae. Therefore, we do not
consider other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued
existence of the species to be a threat now or within the foreseeable
future.
General Threats Summary
Table 8 below provides an overview of the threats to Astragalus
schmolliae. Of these threats, we consider degradation of habitat by
fire followed by cheatgrass invasion and subsequent increase in fire
frequency to be the most significant threats (Table 8). Cheatgrass is
likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat
disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management and development of
infrastructure, and the inability of land managers to control it on a
landscape scale. Threats to A. schmolliae and its habitat from
nonnative plant invasion following wildfires and fire and fuels
management currently affect about 53 percent (431 ha (1,066 ac)) of the
species' range on MEVE and 26 percent (212 ha (524 ac)) on the Tribal
Park for a total of 40 percent of the species entire known range (Table
8). Fires, fire break clearings, and drought are considered moderate
threats to A. schmolliae. Inadequate regulations are a low-level threat
to the species. Other impacts not considered threats include post-fire
native grass seeding, thistle invasion, infrastructure development,
trampling, herbivory, weed treatments, and pollinator availability.
Table 8--Threat Summary for Factors Affecting Astragalus schmolliae
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of threat or
Listing factor Threat or impact impact Intensity Exposure (%) Likelihood of exposure Species' response Foreseeable future Overall threat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............... Nonnative Invasive Moderate............... High................... 40................ High................... Increased fire Increasing with High.
Cheatgrass. frequency. rapid increase
possible.
A............... Wildfires......... Moderate............... Moderate............... 21................ High................... Strong regrowth, More frequent..... Moderate.
unknown net
reproduction,
Increased
cheatgrass & fire
frequency.
A............... Prescribed burns Low.................... Moderate............... 0.37 + 0.34....... High................... Strong regrowth, Continue.......... Moderate.
completed + unknown net
proposed. reproduction,
Increased
cheatgrass & fire
frequency.
A............... Fire break Low.................... Low.................... 18 + 0.25......... High................... Outcompeted by Continue.......... Moderate.
clearing grasses, decline
completed + of growth,
proposed. increased
cheatgrass.
A............... Nonnative Invasive Low.................... Moderate............... 5................. High................... Competition....... Decline........... None.
thistles.
A............... Periodic Drought.. Moderate............... Moderate............... 100............... Moderate............... Plants fail to Unpredictable but Moderate.
sprout, or likely to
seedlings dry up. increase.
Increased
cheatgrass & fire
frequency.
A............... Climate Change.... Moderate?.............. Moderate?.............. 100............... Moderate............... Increased fire Climate models Moderate?
frequency. predict 40-year
changes.
A............... Infrastructure Low.................... Low.................... 2.3............... Moderate............... Loss of habitat, Small increase.... None.
Development. loss of plants.
A............... Trampling......... Low.................... Low.................... 1................. Moderate............... Loss of plants.... Small increase.... None.
[[Page 78547]]
A............... Native Grass Moderate............... Low.................... 21................ High................... Competition....... Continue.......... None.
Seeding Post-fire.
B............... None.............. ....................... ....................... 0................. ....................... .................. Not likely to None.
change.
C............... Herbivory......... Low.................... Low.................... ?................. Low.................... Plants resprout, Likely to continue None.
seedlings & fluctuate with
destroyed. herbivore
population.
C............... Chemical & Low.................... Low.................... 7................. Moderate............... Some mortality, Continue.......... None.
Mechanical Weed strong regrowth
Treatment. by survivors.
D............... National Park Laws Moderate............... Low.................... 50................ Moderate............... No management plan Stronger Low.
& Regulations. for species. protection.
D............... Tribal Laws & Moderate............... Low.................... 50................ Moderate............... No management or Increase Low.
Regulations. monitoring. management
actions.
E............... Limited Range..... High................... Low.................... 100............... High................... No range expansion Increased effect None.
with drought &
climate change.
E............... Pollinator Low.................... Low.................... 22................ Low.................... Decreased seed Increase with fire None.
Availability. production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
? indicates significant uncertainty.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether Astragalus schmolliae is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully examined the
best available scientific and commercial information regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, other available published
and unpublished information, and we consulted with A. schmolliae
experts and other Tribal, State, and Federal agencies.
Threats to Astragalus schmolliae and its habitat from nonnative
cheatgrass invasion following wildfires and management of fire and
fuels currently affect about 40 percent of the species entire known
range. Drought is a threat that facilitates cheatgrass invasion and
increased fire frequency. Frequent wildfires, and at more frequent
intervals than historically, have burned the pinyon-juniper forest
habitat of A. schmolliae in the past two decades. Burned areas and fire
breaks are being invaded by weedy species, especially cheatgrass. We
consider the invasion of nonnative weedy plants, particularly
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high magnitude to A. schmolliae because:
(1) Cheatgrass has invaded all of the burned and disturbed habitat of
A. schmolliae; (2) it competes with seedlings and resprouting adult
plants for water and nutrients; (3) no landscape-scale successful
control methods are available; and (4) the proven ability of cheatgrass
to alter fire frequency, thereby facilitating further rapid spread,
threatens both burned and previously unburned occupied habitat. We
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is likely to cause fire frequency to
increase, with the result that only small patches of undisturbed
habitat will remain for A. schmolliae within the foreseeable future.
Because no regulations exist that address the primary threat to the
species of cheatgrass invasion following wildfires, fire and fuels and
management, and drought, we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms for the species are inadequate, and represent a threat of
low magnitude.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that listing of the Astragalus schmolliae as
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on
the status of the species as endangered or threatened during the
proposed listing process. As explained in more detail below, an
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is
precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now, such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species, as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted.
We determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing
the species is not warranted at this time, because the threats acting
on the species are not immediately impacting all of the species across
its range to the point where the species will be immediately lost.
However, if at any time we determine that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing Astragalus schmolliae is warranted, we
will initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098)
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines'' address the immediacy and
[[Page 78548]]
magnitude of threats, and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by
assigning priority in descending order to monotypic genera (genus with
one species), full species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct
population segments of vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have assigned Astragalus schmolliae a
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based on our finding that the
species faces threats that are of moderate magnitude and are imminent.
These threats include the present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its habitat and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. These threats are ongoing and, in some
cases (such as nonnative species), are considered irreversible because
large-scale invasions cannot be recovered to a native functioning
ecosystem. Our rationale for assigning A. schmolliae an LPN of 8 is
outlined below.
Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We
consider the threats that Astragalus schmolliae faces to be moderate in
magnitude because the major threats (weed invasion facilitated by fire,
management of fire and fuels management, and drought, plus inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms), while serious and occurring
rangewide, do not collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For
example, the last known populations are not about to be completely lost
due to the effects of wildfires.
The magnitude of threat Factor A is considered moderate because
about 40 percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat has been modified by
fires and fire-related activities, followed by unprecedented invasion
by cheatgrass, facilitated by drought. Factor A is shown to have
occurred in the past, and it is clearly a threat today and into the
future. These impacts affect the competitive ability and reproductive
success of A. schmolliae individuals, and increase the likelihood of
more frequent fire intervals in the future.
The magnitude of threat Factor D is considered low. While no plans,
policies, or regulations have been signed and implemented for the
specific purpose of monitoring and protecting Astragalus schmolliae
from cheatgrass invasion and recurrent fires, we anticipate that MEVE
and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe will formalize and implement their
management plans within the near future.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such threats. We consider all of the
threats to be imminent because we have factual information that the
threats are identifiable and that the species is currently facing them
in many portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are
covered in greater detail in Factors A and D of this finding. All of
the threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent, although the
likelihood varies (Table 8). In addition to their current existence, we
expect these threats, except for inadequate regulations, to continue
and likely intensify in the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our Listing Priority Number guidance is
intended to devote resources to those species representing highly
distinctive or isolated gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Astragalus
schmolliae is a valid taxon at the species level and, therefore,
receives a higher priority than subspecies, but a lower priority than
species in a monotypic genus. Therefore, we assigned A. schmolliae an
LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the threats to Astragalus schmolliae
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of
the LPN.
While we conclude that listing Astragalus schmolliae is warranted,
an immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher
priority listings, which we address in the Preclusion and Expeditious
Progress section below. Because we have assigned A. schmolliae an LPN
of 8, work on a proposed listing determination for A. schmolliae is
precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from fiscal year (FY) 2010. This work includes all the actions
listed in the tables below under expeditious progress (see Tables 9 and
10).
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing
actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, the median cost is $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a
[[Page 78549]]
statutory cap on funds which may be expended for the Listing Program,
equal to the amount expressly appropriated for that purpose in that
fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent funds appropriated for
other functions under the Act (for example, recovery funds for removing
species from the Lists), or for other Service programs, from being used
for Listing Program actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress,
1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107--103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. In FY 2011 we anticipate that we will be able to
use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the
current statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding,
states that the amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary
to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than
that the existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species
subject to a greater degree of threat would make allocation of
resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species]
unwise.'' Although that statement appeared to refer specifically to the
``to the maximum extent practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline
for making a ``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made
at the point when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a
status review that will determine the degree of threats facing the
species, and therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more
relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is
made when the Service has already determined the degree of threats
facing the species and is deciding whether or not to commence a
rulemaking.
In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations
for species that are already listed). Therefore, a proposed listing is
precluded if pending proposals with higher priority will require
expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and expeditious progress is the
amount of work that can be achieved with $10,471,000. Since court
orders requiring critical habitat work will not require use of all of
the funds within the critical habitat subcap, we used $1,114,417 of our
critical habitat subcap funds in order to work on as many of our
required petition findings and listing determinations as possible. This
brings the total amount of funds we had for listing actions in FY 2010
to $11,585,417.
The $11,585,417 was used to fund work in the following categories:
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. For FY
2011, on September 29, 2010, Congress passed a continuing resolution
which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. Until Congress
appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will fund listing work based on the
FY 2010 amount. In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species
under the Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific
Authority, International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species
Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we use a portion of our
funding to work on the actions described above as they apply to listing
actions for foreign species. This has the potential to further reduce
funding available for domestic listing actions. Although there are
currently no foreign species issues included in our high-priority
listing actions at this time, many actions have statutory or court-
approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their priority. The
budget allocations for each specific listing action are identified in
the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table (part of our administrative
record).
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for
each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number of
species with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, we assign each candidate
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the
higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would
have the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking
[[Page 78550]]
criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species. Finally,
proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered
are lower priority, since as listed species, they are already afforded
the protection of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to
reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work
that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
We assigned both Astragalus microcymbus and A. schmolliae an LPN of
8. For A. microcymbus, this is based on our finding that the species
faces immediate and moderate magnitude threats from the present or
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat;
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other
natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. In the
case of A. schmolliae, this is based on our finding that the species
faces immediate and moderate magnitude threats from the present or
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat and
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. These threats are
ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered
irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a ``species'' facing imminent
moderate-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 7, 8, or 9 depending
on its taxonomic status. Because both A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae
are species, we assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore, work on a
proposed listing determination for A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae is
precluded by work on higher priority candidate species (i.e., species
with LPN of 7); listing actions with absolute statutory, court ordered,
or court-approved deadlines; and final listing determinations for those
species that were proposed for listing with funds from previous FYs.
This work includes all the actions listed in the tables below under
expeditious progress.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY
2010, we have completed two proposed delisting rules and two final
delisting rules.) Given the limited resources available for listing, we
find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2010 in the Listing
Program and are making expeditious progress in FY 2011. This progress
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:
FY 2010 and FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009..................... Listing Lepidium Final Listing 74 FR 52013-52064
papilliferum Threatened.
(Slickspot
Peppergrass) as a
Threatened Species
Throughout Its Range.
10/27/2009..................... 90-day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 55177-55180
Petition To List the Petition Finding, Not
American Dipper in the substantial.
Black Hills of South
Dakota as Threatened
or Endangered.
10/28/2009..................... Status Review of Arctic Notice of Intent to 74 FR 55524-55525
Grayling (Thymallus Conduct Status Review
arcticus) in the Upper for Listing Decision.
Missouri River System.
11/03/2009..................... Listing the British Proposed Listing 74 FR 56757-56770
Columbia Distinct Threatened.
Population Segment of
the Queen Charlotte
Goshawk Under the
Endangered Species
Act: Proposed rule.
11/03/2009..................... Listing the Salmon- Proposed Listing 74 FR 56770-56791
Crested Cockatoo as Threatened.
Threatened Throughout
Its Range with Special
Rule.
11/23/2009..................... Status Review of Notice of Intent to 74 FR 61100-61102
Gunnison sage-grouse Conduct Status Review
(Centrocercus minimus). for Listing Decision.
12/03/2009..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 63343-63366
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Black-tailed Prairie warranted.
Dog as Threatened or
Endangered.
12/03/2009..................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 63337-63343
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Sprague's Pipit as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
12/15/2009..................... 90-Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66260-66271
Petitions To List Nine Petition Finding,
Species of Mussels Substantial.
From Texas as
Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
12/16/2009..................... Partial 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66865-66905
on a Petition to List Petition Finding, Not
475 Species in the substantial and
Southwestern United Substantial.
States as Threatened
or Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
[[Page 78551]]
12/17/2009..................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 66937-66950
Petition To Change the petition finding,
Final Listing of the Warranted but
Distinct Population precluded.
Segment of the Canada
Lynx To Include New
Mexico.
1/05/2010...................... Listing Foreign Bird Proposed Listing 75 FR 605-649
Species in Peru and Endangered.
Bolivia as Endangered
Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010...................... Listing Six Foreign Proposed Listing 75 FR 286-310
Birds as Endangered Endangered.
Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule, 75 FR 310-316
Rule to List Cook's withdrawal.
Petrel.
1/05/2010...................... Final Rule to List the Final Listing 75 FR 235-250
Galapagos Petrel and Threatened.
Heinroth's Shearwater
as Threatened
Throughout Their
Ranges.
1/20/2010...................... Initiation of Status Notice of Intent to 75 FR 3190-3191
Review for Agave Conduct Status Review
eggersiana and Solanum for Listing Decision.
conocarpum.
2/09/2010...................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 6437-6471
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
American Pika as warranted.
Threatened or
Endangered.
2/25/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 8601-8621
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Sonoran Desert warranted.
Population of the Bald
Eagle as a Threatened
or Endangered Distinct
Population Segment.
2/25/2010...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Withdrawal of Proposed 75 FR 8621-8644
Rule To List the Rule to List.
Southwestern
Washington/Columbia
River Distinct
Population Segment of
Coastal Cutthroat
Trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki clarki) as
Threatened.
3/18/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13068-13071
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Berry Cave salamander Substantial.
as Endangered.
3/23/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13717-13720
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Southern Hickorynut substantial.
Mussel (Obovaria
jacksoniana) as
Endangered or
Threatened.
3/23/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13720-13726
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Striped Newt as Substantial.
Threatened.
3/23/2010...................... 12-month Findings for Notice of 12-month 75 FR 13910-14014
Petitions to List the petition finding,
Greater Sage-Grouse Warranted but
(Centrocercus precluded.
urophasianus) as
Threatened or
Endangered.
3/31/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 16050-16065
Petition to List the petition finding,
Tucson Shovel-Nosed Warranted but
Snake (Chionactis precluded.
occipitalis klauberi)
as Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
4/5/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17062-17070
Petition To List Petition Finding,
Thorne's Hairstreak Substantial.
Butterfly as
Threatened or
Endangered.
4/6/2010....................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17352-17363
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Mountain Whitefish in warranted.
the Big Lost River,
Idaho, as Endangered
or Threatened.
4/6/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17363-17367
Petition to List a Petition Finding, Not
Stonefly (Isoperla substantial.
jewetti) and a Mayfly
(Fallceon eatoni) as
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
4/7/2010....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17667-17680
Petition to Reclassify petition finding,
the Delta Smelt From Warranted but
Threatened to precluded.
Endangered Throughout
Its Range.
4/13/2010...................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 18959-19165
Endangered Status for Endangered.
48 Species on Kauai
and Designation of
Critical Habitat.
4/15/2010...................... Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 19591-19592
Review of the North Status Review for
American Wolverine in Listing Decision.
the Contiguous United
States.
4/15/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 19592-19607
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Wyoming Pocket Gopher warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
4/16/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 19925-19935
Petition to List a Petition Finding,
Distinct Population Substantial.
Segment of the Fisher
in Its United States
Northern Rocky
Mountain Range as
Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
4/20/2010...................... Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 20547-20548
Review for Sacramento Status Review for
splittail Listing Decision.
(Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus).
[[Page 78552]]
4/26/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 21568-21571
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Harlequin Butterfly as Substantial.
Endangered.
4/27/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 22012-22025
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Susan's Purse-making warranted.
Caddisfly
(Ochrotrichia susanae)
as Threatened or
Endangered.
4/27/2010...................... 90-day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 22063-22070
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Mohave Ground Squirrel Substantial.
as Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
5/4/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 23654-23663
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Hermes Copper Substantial.
Butterfly as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/1/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 30313-30318
Petition To List Petition Finding,
Castanea pumila var. Substantial.
ozarkensis.
6/1/2010....................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 30338-30363
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
White-tailed Prairie warranted.
Dog as Endangered or
Threatened.
6/9/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 32728-32734
Petition To List van Petition Finding,
Rossem's Gull-billed Substantial.
Tern as Endangered or
Threatened.
6/16/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on Five Notice of 90-day 75 FR 34077-34088
Petitions to List Petition Finding,
Seven Species of Substantial.
Hawaiian Yellow-faced
Bees as Endangered.
6/22/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 35398-35424
Petition to List the petition finding,
Least Chub as Warranted but
Threatened or precluded.
Endangered.
6/23/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 35746-35751
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Honduran Emerald Substantial.
Hummingbird as
Endangered.
6/23/2010...................... Listing Ipomopsis Proposed Listing 75 FR 35721-35746
polyantha (Pagosa Endangered Proposed
Skyrocket) as Listing Threatened.
Endangered Throughout
Its Range, and Listing
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute
Beardtongue) and
Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia) as
Threatened Throughout
Their Range.
6/24/2010...................... Listing the Flying Final Listing 75 FR 35990-36012
Earwig Hawaiian Endangered.
Damselfly and Pacific
Hawaiian Damselfly As
Endangered Throughout
Their Ranges.
6/24/2010...................... Listing the Cumberland Proposed Listing 75 FR 36035-36057
Darter, Rush Darter, Endangered.
Yellowcheek Darter,
Chucky Madtom, and
Laurel Dace as
Endangered Throughout
Their Ranges.
6/29/2010...................... Listing the Mountain Reinstatement of 75 FR 37353-37358
Plover as Threatened. Proposed Listing
Threatened.
7/20/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 42033-42040
Petition to List Pinus Petition Finding,
albicaulis (Whitebark Substantial.
Pine) as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
7/20/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 42040-42054
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Amargosa Toad as warranted.
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/20/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 42059-42066
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Giant Palouse Substantial.
Earthworm (Driloleirus
americanus) as
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/27/2010...................... Determination on Final Listing 75 FR 43844-43853
Listing the Black- Endangered.
Breasted Puffleg as
Endangered Throughout
its Range; Final Rule.
7/27/2010...................... Final Rule to List the Final Listing 75 FR 43853-43864
Medium Tree-Finch Endangered.
(Camarhynchus pauper)
as Endangered
Throughout Its Range.
8/3/2010....................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 45497-45527
Threatened Status for Threatened.
Five Penguin Species.
8/4/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 46894-46898
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Mexican Gray Wolf as Substantial.
an Endangered
Subspecies With
Critical Habitat.
8/10/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 48294-48298
Petition to List Petition Finding,
Arctostaphylos Substantial.
franciscana as
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
8/17/2010...................... Listing Three Foreign Final Listing 75 FR 50813-50842
Bird Species from Endangered.
Latin America and the
Caribbean as
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
8/17/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 50739-50742
Petition to List Brian Petition Finding, Not
Head Mountainsnail as substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
[[Page 78553]]
8/24/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 51969-51974
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Oklahoma Grass Pink Substantial.
Orchid as Endangered
or Threatened.
9/1/2010....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 53615-53629
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
White-Sided Jackrabbit warranted.
as Threatened or
Endangered.
9/8/2010....................... Proposed Rule To List Proposed Listing 75 FR 54561-54579
the Ozark Hellbender Endangered.
Salamander as
Endangered.
9/8/2010....................... Revised 12-Month Notice of 12-month 75 FR 54707-54753
Finding to List the petition finding,
Upper Missouri River Warranted but
Distinct Population precluded.
Segment of Arctic
Grayling as Endangered
or Threatened.
9/9/2010....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 54822-54845
Petition to List the petition finding,
Jemez Mountains Warranted but
Salamander (Plethodon precluded.
neomexicanus) as
Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
9/15/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 56028-56050
Petition to List petition finding,
Sprague's Pipit as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened Throughout
Its Range.
9/22/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 57720-57734
Petition to List Agave petition finding,
eggersiana (no common Warranted but
name) as Endangered. precluded.
9/28/2010...................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 59645-59656
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the African Penguin.
9/28/2010...................... Determination for the Notice of 12-month 75 FR 59803-59863
Gunnison petition finding,
Sage[dash]grouse as a Warranted but
Threatened or precluded.
Endangered Species.
9/30/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 60515-60561
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Pygmy Rabbit as warranted.
Endangered or
Threatened.
10/6/2010...................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010...................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding, Not
Sacramento Splittail warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/28/2010..................... Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Endangered (uplisting).
Critical Habitat for
Spikedace and Loach
Minnow.
11/2/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Bay Springs Salamander substantial.
as Endangered.
11/2/2010...................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010...................... Listing the Rayed Bean Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List petition finding,
Cirsium wrightii Warranted but
(Wright's Marsh precluded.
Thistle) as Endangered
or Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and
funding, as compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of
them in the future.
Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Eurasia............... Final listing determination.
Flat-tailed horned lizard.......... Final listing determination.
Mountain plover \4\................ Final listing determination.
[[Page 78554]]
6 Birds from Peru.................. Proposed listing determination.
Pacific walrus..................... 12-month petition finding.
Wolverine.......................... 12-month petition finding.
Solanum conocarpum................. 12-month petition finding.
Desert tortoise--Sonoran population 12-month petition finding.
Thorne's Hairstreak butterfly \3\.. 12-month petition finding.
Hermes copper butterfly \3\........ 12-month petition finding.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting)....... 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle................ Final listing determination.
7 Bird species from Brazil......... Final listing determination.
Southern rockhopper penguin-- Final listing determination.
Campbell Plateau population.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Final listing determination.
Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk............ Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish Final listing determination.
(Cumberland darter, rush darter,
yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom,
and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\............... Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\........... Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis Final listing determination.
polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
Penstemon debilis (Parachute
Beardtongue), and Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo............ Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries Service)
\5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), Final listing determination.
snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
Mt Charleston blue \5\............. Proposed listing determination.
CA golden trout \4\................ 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross............. 12-month petition finding.
Mount Charleston blue butterfly.... 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\...... 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population 12-month petition finding.
\1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\... 12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog.............. 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander....... 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero...................... 12-month petition finding/Proposed
listing.
Dusky tree vole.................... 12-month petition finding.
3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly 12-month petition finding.
(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3,
Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species
petition.
5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, 12-month petition finding.
Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium
ostleri, Penstemon flowersii,
Trifolium friscanum) from 206
species petition.
2 CO plants (Astragalus 12-month petition finding.
microcymbus, Astragalus
schmolliae) from 206 species
petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, 12-month petition finding.
Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus
proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis)
pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from
206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species 12-month petition finding.
petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species 12-month petition finding.
petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern population 12-month petition finding.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly 12-month petition finding.
from 475 species petition) \4\.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 12-month petition finding.
475 species petition) \3\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, 12-month petition finding.
Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
galbina) (from 475 species
petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., 12-month petition finding.
Cyprinella lepida) (from 475
species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron 12-month petition finding.
piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475
species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 12-month petition finding.
from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)....... 12-month petition finding.
Berry Cave salamander \1\.......... 12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\................... 12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain 12-month petition finding.
Range \1\.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\......... 12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly \3\ 12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern........... 12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila 12-month petition finding.
var. ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees............... 12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm............ 12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine..................... 12-month petition finding.
[[Page 78555]]
OK grass pink (Calopogon 12-month petition finding.
oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\.............. 12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover & 90-day petition finding.
wintering pop. of piping plover
\1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\............... 90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\.............. 90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks 90-day petition finding.
species (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)... 90-day petition finding.
Red knot roselaari subspecies...... 90-day petition finding.
Peary caribou...................... 90-day petition finding.
Plains bison....................... 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
Spring pygmy sunfish............... 90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper........................ 90-day petition finding.
Unsilvered fritillary.............. 90-day petition finding.
Texas kangaroo rat................. 90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard......... 90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat........... 90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat............ 90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub....................... 90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90-day petition finding.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles....... 90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\.......... 90-day petition finding.
Sand-verbena moth.................. 90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species.............. 90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\.......... 90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly 90-day petition finding.
& Idaho snowfly) \4\.
American eel \4\................... 90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population) \4\. 90-day petition finding.
Arapahoe snowfly \4\............... 90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\............ 90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\.................... 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\......... 90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel \5\. 90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\.............. 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\............. 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\.......................... 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16 Proposed listing.
plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with
LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with
LPN =9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ Proposed listing.
(16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Proposed listing.
Sand dune lizard) \4\ (LPN = 2).
2 Arizona springsnails \2\ Proposed listing.
(Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2),
Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)).
New Mexico springsnail \2\ Proposed listing.
(Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2).
2 mussels \2\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2), Proposed listing.
spectaclecase (LPN = 4)).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe
(LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5),
narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and
tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) \4\.... Proposed listing.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\....... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9))
\4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\....... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) \4\. Proposed listing.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\........... Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Proposed listing.
Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia texana)
(LPN = 2), Neches River rose-
mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN =
2)) \3\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\...... Proposed listing.
Kittlitz's murrelet (LPN = 2) \5\.. Proposed listing.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) \3\.... Proposed listing.
[[Page 78556]]
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ Proposed listing.
(includes 8 candidate species--5
plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN =
2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4,
2 with LPN = 8).
Oregon spotted frog (LPN = 2) \5\.. Proposed listing.
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
\5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae will be added to
the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month
finding. We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new
information becomes available. This review will determine if a change
in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae will be as accurate as possible.
Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and
comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Western Colorado Ecological Services Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 6, 2010.
Paul R. Schmidt,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31225 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P