[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61307-61321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25530]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034; MO 92210-0-0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Calopogon oklahomensis as Threatened or
Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass
pink orchid) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
After review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing Calopogon oklahomensis is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any
new information that becomes available concerning the threats to
Calopogon oklahomensis or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 4,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034. Supporting
documentation used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field
Office, 1250 South Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Louise Clemency, Field Supervisor,
Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by
telephone at 847-381-2253; or by facsimile at 847-381-2285. Persons who
[[Page 61308]]
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On May 28, 2008, we received a petition dated May 22, 2008, from
Dr. Douglas Goldman of the Harvard University Herbaria requesting that
Calopogon oklahomensis be listed as threatened or endangered under the
Act. Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution,
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Dr. Douglas
Goldman, dated September 15, 2008. In that letter we also stated that
due to funding constraints in fiscal year 2008, we would not be able to
begin processing the petition at that time.
Funding became available in fiscal year 2010, wherein work began on
the 90-day finding. The 90-day finding was published on August 24, 2010
(75 FR 51969). This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the May
22, 2008, petition to list Calopogon oklahomensis as threatened or
endangered.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
Calopogon oklahomensis, commonly known as the Oklahoma grass pink
or prairie grass pink, is a terrestrial species of orchid (family
Orchidaceae) native to the United States and primarily occurring in the
south-central United States. It is a member of the genus Calopogon, a
group of terrestrial orchids known as grass pinks.
The number of species identified as belonging to the genus
Calopogon has varied since the genus was identified by Linnaeus in 1753
(Correll 1978, p. 167). The first species of the current genus
Calopogon, was identified by Linnaeus as Limodorum tuberosum in 1753
(Correll 1978, p. 167). In 1788, Walter originally identified Ophrys
barbata, with Ames (1908) later changing the name to Calopogon
barbatus, which was subsequently accepted and conserved (Correll, 1978,
p. 167). Calopogon multiflorus was first described by Lindley in 1840
(Correll 1978, p. 169). In 1860, Chapman identified and described
Calopogon pallidus (Correll 1978, p. 171). By 1888, Limodorum tuberosum
was accepted and given the conserved name of Calopogon tuberosus (L) by
Britton, Sterns, and Poggenburg (Jarvis and Cribb 2009, p. 368). In
1933, Small (pp. 363-399) recognized six species of Calopogon based on
minor variations, which Correll (1978, p. 167) believed were difficult
to interpret. By 1950, Correll, taking a more conservative approach,
recognized four species of Calopogon: C. barbatus, C. multiflorus, C.
pallidus, and C. pulchellus, with two variants of C. pulchellus, the
more northern variant, latifolius, and the more southern variant,
simpsonii Ames (1904) (Correll 1978, pp. 167-176). The former species,
C. pulchellus, is now considered a variant of C. tuberosus, that being,
C. tuberosus var. tuberosus. By 1989, it was recognized that Calopogon
tuberosus encompassed two variants, variant simpsonii (southern
variant) and variant tuberosus (northern variant). The four species, C.
barbatus, C. multiflorus, C. pallidus, and C. tuberosus, were thought
to compose the genus Calopogon until Goldman (1995, p. 37) proposed a
fifth species, C. oklahomensis.
Goldman (1995, p. 41) asserts that morphological and phenological
variation of the genus Calopogon in the midwestern States was not
previously recognized by Correll (1978) or Luer (1975) (Goldman 1995,
p. 41) and that while examining herbarium specimens from eastern Texas,
western Louisiana, and northward to central Missouri, he (Dr. Douglas
Goldman) observed several morphological and ecological characteristics,
which he believed were inconsistent with true C. tuberosus or C.
barbatus. These characteristics included corm (a modified underground
stem) shape and formation, average leaf width, leaf length verses
inflorescence (a branching stem with flowers) length, bud
characterization, anthesis (the period from flowering to fruiting),
floral fragrance, dorsal sepal description, lateral sepal description,
distal portion of labellum disc (portion of the lower petal that is
attached to the center of the flower), and stigma (where deposited
pollen germinates) characteristics (Table 1) (Goldman 1995, pp. 37-39).
In addition, although C. oklahomensis may occur in close geographic
proximity to C. tuberosus, they are temporally isolated, as C.
oklahomensis flowers at different times of the year than C. tuberosus
(Goldman 1995, p. 40). In Missouri, C. oklahomensis blooms from early
May to June, whereas C. tuberosus blooms from mid-June to early July
(Summers 1987 in Goldman 1995, p. 40). Goldman (1995, p. 40)
ascertained from herbarium label data that in eastern Texas and western
Louisiana, C. oklahomensis blooms from March to early May, whereas C.
tuberosus blooms from May to June. Calopogon oklahomensis was
subsequently described, by Goldman, as unique and distinct from all
other species of Calopogon, with a large geographic range, many
consistent morphological features, and temporal isolation from its
occasional associate, Calopogon tuberosus (Goldman 1995, p. 41).
In addition to timing of flower emergence and a suite of
morphological features differing from Calopogon tuberosus and C.
barbatus, C. oklahomensis has been shown to have unique genetic
characteristics. Genetic analysis has shown C. oklahomensis to be
hexaploid (having six sets of chromosomes), where all other taxa within
Calopogon are diploid (consisting of two sets of chromosomes),
suggesting that this species may be an alloploid (number of chromosomes
is doubled in the hybrid), possibly derived from ancient hybridization
between C. barbatus and C. tuberosus (Goldman 2000, p. 79). Recent
genetic analyses by Goldman et al. (2004a, p. 719), however, concluded
that if hybrid in origin, the cross is ancient, and it may be prudent
to conclude that the origin and affinities of C. oklahomensis remain
uncertain (Goldman et al. 2004a, p. 719). Trapnell et al. (2004, p.
314) conducted additional genetic testing for genetic variation among
the five species of the
[[Page 61309]]
terrestrial orchid genus Calopogon, with results indicating that C.
oklahomensis is the most genetically diverse species of the five
species tested.
The review of Calopogon oklahomensis is complete, and the name is
accepted by Govaerts (1999) and Govaerts (2003). Recognition of C.
oklahomensis as the fifth Calopogon species was affirmed in Flora of
North America (Goldman 2002, pp. 601-602), and reaffirmed by Brown
(2006, p. 21; 2008, p. 177), who describes the genus Calopogon as being
composed of five species: C. barbatus, C. multiflorus, C. pallidus, C.
tuberosus, and C. oklahomensis (Brown 2006, p. 21). Currently, Govaerts
et al. (2011, entire) and Kartesz (2011, in press) also recognize C.
oklahomensis as a distinct species.
For these reasons, we accept the characterization of Calopogon
oklahomensis as a distinct species of Calopogon, with a large
geographic range, many consistent morphological features, temporal
isolation in flower timing from other species in the genus Calopogon,
and genetic differentiation from all other Calopogon (Brown 2006, p.
22; Goldman 1995, p. 41; Goldman 2002, pp. 601-602), and, therefore, a
listable entity under the Act.
Calopogon oklahomensis is a terrestrial plant growing (6 to 14
inches (in) (15 to 36 centimeters (cm)) tall (Brown 2006, p. 22). It
has a forked corm, with the new corm at the base of the leaf and the
inflorescence rapidly growing distally at the time of anthesis (Goldman
1995, p. 39). It has one or two leaves, which are lanceolate, slender,
and 0.2 to 0.6 in (0.5 to 1.5 cm) wide by 3 to 14 in (7 to 35 cm) long
(Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 1995, p. 37). The leaf is almost always as
long as or longer than the inflorescence (Goldman 1995, p. 39). The
flower buds are deeply grooved longitudinally, waxy, and shiny with
elongated acuminate apices (narrowing to a point at the tip). The
flower has three to seven non-resupinate flowers (labellum is
uppermost) that are fragrant (smelling of citronella) and open
simultaneously, with the color being highly variable, from lilac blue
to bright magenta pink or, in the form albiflorus, white. All have a
golden crest on the lip (Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 1995, p. 39). The
labellum disk is pinkish with a basal region of short to long yellow
hairs, above which there is a triangular region of short, stout,
pinkish hairs, which extend to the labellum apex (terminal end of the
lower petal) (Goldman 1995, p. 39).
Calopogon oklahomensis has a winged column with two soft pollinia
(a mass of pollen grains) (Goldman 2000, p. 3). The stigma is flat
against the column surface (Goldman 1995, p. 40), and the species
blooms April throughout May or June (Brown 2006, p. 22). Calopogon
oklahomensis flowers produce little or no nectar and offer no pollen
reward; they attract pollinators using showy yellow and pink lip hairs
that resemble a mass of pollen. When an insect lands on the labellum,
if it is heavy enough, the labellum swings down and the insect's
posterior comes into contact with the sticky pollinia located on the
end of the column (Trapnell et al. 2004, p. 308). The tiny, dustlike
seeds are wind dispersed (Trapnell et al. 2004, p. 308).
Table 1--Comparison of 11 Characters Used To Distinguish Calopogon oklahomensis From C. tuberosus and C.
barbatus, Obtained From Goldman's Personal Observations, Correll (1978), and Luer (1972, 1975) (Goldman 1995, p.
39)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character Calopogon oklahomensis Calopogon tuberosus Calopogon barbatus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corm................................. Forked................. Spherical.............. Spherical.
New corm forming distally at anthesis Yes.................... No..................... No.
Average leaf width (range) *......... 7 mm (0.28 inches) (5- (10 mm (0.39 inches) (4- 2 mm (0.08 inches) (1-4
15 mm (0.20-0.59 37 mm 0.16-1.46 mm (0.04-0.16
inches)). inches)). inches)).
Leaf length vs. inflorescence length. About equal............ Usually shorter........ Shorter.
Buds................................. Grooved longitudinally, Generally smooth, acute Smooth, acute or
acuminate, very waxy. or apiculate, waxy. apiculate, waxy.
Anthesis............................. Flowers open in rapid Flowers open in slow Flowers open in rapid
succession. succession. succession.
Floral fragrance..................... Yes.................... No..................... No.
Dorsal sepal *....................... Lanceolate, average 19 Oblong-elliptical, Oblong-elliptical,
mm x 6 mm (0.75 inches average 22 mm x 8 mm average 16 mm x 5 mm
x 0.24 inches), (0.87 inches x 0.31 (0.63 inches x 0.20
straight to reflexed inches), straight. inches), straight to
backwards. reflexed backwards.
Lateral sepals *..................... Acuminate, grooved Apiculate, smooth, Apiculate,
longitudinally, straight. longitudinally
recurved backwards. grooved, recurved
backwards.
Distal portion of labellum disc...... Same color as most of White, generally Same color as most of
flower, triangular circular region of flower, triangular,
region of short, pink short, white, yellow, region of short, pink
hairs. or orange hairs. hairs.
Stigma............................... Flat against column Most often Flat against column
surface. perpendicular to surface.
column surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on 60 herbarium specimens of Calopogon oklahomensis, 60 specimens of C. tuberosus, and 30 specimens of
C. barbatus, collected throughout the geographic range of each species.
Distribution and Population Status
Calopogon oklahomensis was originally thought to be restricted to
the prairies of the south-central States; however, herbarium specimens
(Goldman 1995, pp. 37, 40-41) indicate that it was previously much more
widespread (Brown 2006, p. 22). Goldman (1995, p. 41) based his
description of the species' range on collected specimens in six States
(Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas), and
hypothesized that overall, the historical range covered 17 States
(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) (Goldman 2008a, pp. 2-3). Brown (2006,
p. 22) identifies the historical range of C. oklahomensis as occurring
in only 10 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) and does not list
this
[[Page 61310]]
species as occurring in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Indiana, Tennessee, or Mississippi. NatureServe (2011) identifies the
historical range of the species in 14 States (Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin); however, the
source of this information is also Goldman (2008a).
Goldman (2008a, pp. 2-3) states that there are 233 historical
occurrences from 17 States (Table 2). A thorough review of the
available information on the distribution of Calopogon oklahomensis,
however, indicates that there are 86 to 90 historical occurrences of C.
oklahomensis from 11 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin (Table 2). This 11-State historical range, which is based on
a review of actual occurrences rather than the generalized range
discussion presented above, is what we used in conducting our
assessment of the species' status.
Table 2--A Comparison of Information on Historical and Extant Occurrences of Calopogon oklahomensis, Based on Goldman's (2008b, p. 3) Review of
Herbarium Specimens as Provided in the Petition and Information Available to the Service, Primarily From State Databases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Estimated extant
Last observed Number of historical records Estimated extant populations
State (Goldman) historical records (based on State populations (based on State
(Goldman) databases) (Goldman) databases)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL *................................................ 1887 5 0 0 0
AR.................................................. 1995 22 25 3 to 5 17
FL *................................................ 1882 1 0 0 0
GA *................................................ 1943 1 0 0 0
IA.................................................. 1941 8 3 to 6 0 0
IL.................................................. 2006? 42 7 1 2
IN *................................................ 1933 15 0 0 0
KS.................................................. 1980 1 1 0 0
LA.................................................. 1996 22 3 3 to 6 0
MN *................................................ 1884 5 0 0 0
MO.................................................. 1994 16 2 4 to 6 11
MS.................................................. 2006 4 1 2 to 3 3
OK.................................................. 2004 53 24 10? 6
SC *................................................ ? 1 0 0 0
TN.................................................. 1939 2 1 0 0
TX.................................................. 2004 27 12 to 13 1 to 3 1
WI.................................................. 1987 8 7? 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... .................. 233 86 to 90 25 to 35 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Service does not consider these States to be within the historical range for the species.
The historical range suggested by Goldman (2008a, p. 6) includes
the States of Florida and Georgia. Goldman (2008a, p. 6) describes one
historical herbarium specimen of Calopogon oklahomensis from Florida,
dated 1882 and labeled only as ``Florida'' for the locality. He
hypothesizes that it may have been collected from the western Florida
panhandle (Goldman 2008a, p. 6). This record is questionable because
Florida has no other information or records regarding historical or
extant occurrences of C. oklahomensis in the State (Brown 2011, pers.
comm.; Johnson 2011, pers. comm.; Knight 2009, pers. comm.; Halupa
2009, pers. comm.). Based on the lack of records, we believe this
species is not a component of the Florida flora and, therefore, do not
include Florida in the range for this species.
Goldman (2008a, p. 6) states that one specimen of Calopogon
oklahomensis was collected in southwestern Georgia by Robert Thorne in
1947. As in the case of Florida, because we have no other historical or
extant records of C. oklahomensis as occurring in Georgia (Pattavina
2009, pers. comm.), we do not include Georgia in the range of C.
oklahomensis.
There are no confirmed specimens from South Carolina for this
species (Holling 2011, pers. comm.; Pittman 2011, pers. comm.);
however, there is one specimen (probably over 200 years old) housed at
the herbarium at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is marked simply
as ``S.C.,'' but without information on collector, locality, or date
(Goldman 2010, pers. comm.). We do not include South Carolina in the
current or historical range of Calopogon oklahomensis because we have
no other information of C. oklahomensis as occurring in South Carolina
(Holling 2011, pers. comm.).
We do not have comprehensive survey information for Calopogon
oklahomensis. Therefore, we do not know the full extent of the species'
distribution or if the distribution has changed over time. The
following paragraphs outline the distribution and status information
that is available.
Goldman (2008a, p. 3) estimates 25 to 35 extant Calopogon
oklahomensis populations from 8 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana,
Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) (Table 2). The
Service cannot confirm Goldman's information regarding extant
populations of C. oklahomensis in Louisiana. The Service has
information from Goldman's personal collection data (provided as
supplemental information to the petition (Goldman 2008b)) of three
specimens from Louisiana dated 1995 to 1996. More recent information,
however, is not available regarding the sites from where these
specimens originated.
Alabama has no extant occurrences of Calopogon oklahomensis
(Everson 2009, pers. comm.; Schotz 2011, pers. comm.). Goldman (2008a,
p. 5) asserts that this species was collected in Alabama a handful of
times in the late 1800s, near the town of Mount Vernon, but over a few
visits to this area in the last 10 years, the species has not been
found, even under favorable conditions.
[[Page 61311]]
Arkansas has 25 documented historical occurrences of Calopogon
oklahomensis, of these, 17 are extant populations (Witsell 2009, pers.
comm.).
Illinois has seven historical specimens, which perhaps were
originally misidentified as Calopogon pulchellus and C. tuberosus,
then, in 1999, determined to be C. oklahomensis by Goldman (Phillippe
2010, pers. comm.). Currently, Illinois has two extant populations of
C. oklahomensis (Phillippe et al. 2008, p. 11; Armstrong 2010, pers.
comm.; Kieninger 2010, pers. comm.; Catchpole 2010, pers. comm.).
There is one record of Calopogon oklahomensis collected in Lake
County, Indiana. It was originally (in 1912) identified in the Indiana
Natural Heritage Database as C. pulchellus, however, it was later (in
1999) determined to be C. oklahomensis by Goldman (Phillippe 2010,
pers. comm.). Indiana has records of the closely related congener, C.
puchellus, that were collected prior to C. oklahomensis being described
as a unique species (Deam 1940, p. 347; King 2009, pers. comm.). We
have no information of extant C. oklahomensis populations in Indiana.
There are no known extant populations of Calopogon oklahomensis in
Iowa. Our information indicates that only historical records exist, but
we do not know how many historical records exist. The species is
believed to be extirpated in the State (Pearson 2009, pers. comm.).
Kansas has one historical record of Calopogon oklahomensis from
Cherokee County, dated May 1980 (Freeman 2011, pers. comm.). This
specimen was annotated as C. oklahomensis by Goldman in 1999 (Freeman
2008, pers. comm.). This site and other prairie hay meadows in the
county have been searched for C. oklahomensis over the past 30 years,
with no populations of this species located (Freeman 2011, pers.
comm.).
Mississippi has three known extant populations of Calopogon
oklahomensis located at the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center
(Camp Shelby), a National Guard installation operating under a special
use permit on U.S. Forest Service land. These three populations are
separated by more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometers (km)) each and occur in
three separate watersheds; therefore, they are considered separate
populations (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). The Poplar Creek population
includes four separate colonies. One colony was last surveyed in 2004,
with an estimated population of 1 to 10 individuals (Wiggers 2011b,
pers. comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The second and third colonies were
last surveyed in 2006, with one population estimated at 11 to 50
individuals and the other population estimated at 101 to 1,000
individuals (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The
fourth Poplar Creek colony size is unknown (Wiggers 2011c, pers.
comm.). The minimum population size of all the Poplar Creek colonies is
estimated at 113 individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.).
In Mississippi, the Clear Creek population includes two colonies,
one of which was last surveyed in 1999, with a population estimate of
11 to 50 individual plants, and the other colony last surveyed in 2004,
with a population estimate of 1 to 10 individuals (Wiggers 2011b, pers.
comm.; 2011c, pers. comm.). The minimum population size of all Clear
Creek colonies is 12 individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.).
The Pearces Creek population in Mississippi consists of two
colonies of Calopogon oklahomensis, both with a population estimate of
1 to 10 individuals, with one colony last surveyed in 1999 and the
other last surveyed in 2004 (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.; 2011c, pers.
comm.). The minimum population size of both Pearces Creek colonies is
two individuals (Wiggers 2011c, pers. comm.). The total Camp Shelby
population estimate of C. oklahomensis is 127 individuals; however,
this is only a rough estimate, as current population counts are
unavailable (Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). Within Camp Shelby, there may
be other areas of C. oklahomensis located within an ``impact area'' (an
area containing unexploded ordnance), which has been protected from
active training, draining, and clearing since World War I (Wiggers
2011a, pers. comm.; Lyman 2011a, pers. comm.). Surveys have not been
conducted in this ``impact area'' due to its restricted access (Wiggers
2011b, pers. comm.).
In Missouri, prior to describing Calopogon oklahomensis as distinct
from C. tuberosus, C. oklahomensis was not tracked in the Missouri
Natural Heritage Database. Once C. tuberosus was split into the two
species, Missouri began tracking only the rarer and range-limited C.
tuberosus (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.; Kruse 2010, pers. comm.);
however, the Missouri Botanical Garden indicates that Missouri has at
least 11 sites with extant populations of C. oklahomensis (Yatskievych
2009, pers. comm.). At least 10 of the 11 extant sites occur on public
lands that are managed as native prairie, however, there are no current
studies in Missouri on population size, success of reproduction, or
other indicators of status (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.).
Oklahoma has 24 historical populations of Calopogon oklahomensis
from 15 counties, with 6 sites having extant populations, 5 of which
occur on private land (Hoagland et al. 2004, entire; Buthod 2010, pers.
comm.). The site of the sixth C. oklahomensis population in Oklahoma is
owned by the State of Oklahoma and used by the Department of
Corrections as the Jess Dunn Prison.
Tennessee acknowledges a single occurrence of Calopogon
oklahomensis in the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program Geographic
Information System (GIS) database. It was last observed in 1937, with
no details available in the record regarding location or abundance
(Call 2009, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, the species has not been
recorded in Tennessee for more than 20 years, and is possibly
extirpated from the State (Call 2009, pers. comm.).
Texas has historical records of 12 to 13 specimens of C.
oklahomensis from 12 counties, including information from the
University of Texas herbarium database, which lists only 5 specimens
collected from 1927 to 1965 (Poole 2008, pers. comm.). It is believed
that some of the sites from where the specimens were collected may no
longer be extant (Poole 2008, pers. comm.; Best 2009, pers. comm.). The
most recent specimen from Brazos County, Texas, was last observed by
Goldman in 2004 (Goldman 2008a, p. 9). Although this species is not
tracked in Texas, we assume presence of C. oklahomensis at the Brazos
County site because it was last observed in 2004, although no further
surveys have taken place since then. We acknowledge that there may be
other extant sites of C. oklahomensis in Texas, but because this
species is not tracked in Texas, we have no information other than what
is stated above.
In Wisconsin, records indicate that Calopogon oklahomensis was
historically known from seven sites in five counties between 1872 and
2005 (Anderson 2010a, pers. comm.; Anderson 2010b, pers. comm.).
Currently, Greene Prairie at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Arboretum supports perhaps the only extant population of C.
oklahomensis in Wisconsin (Anderson 2010a, pers. comm.). The plants at
Greene Prairie originated from a site in Sauk County near Sauk City,
but the exact location is unknown. Wisconsin's historical collections
do not contain specific site information other than they originated
[[Page 61312]]
from Dane, Grant, Monroe, Sauk, and Waukesha Counties (Anderson 2010a,
pers. comm.; Anderson 2010b, pers. comm.). Although the Arboretum
population is not naturally occurring, it is considered a self-
sustaining introduction and relocation, which is valuable for
biodiversity conservation (O'Connor 2011, pers. comm.).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Rare Features
Database contains no records for this species (Delphey 2009, pers.
comm.).
Based on the information described above regarding locations of
extant populations, we believe the current range of Calopogon
oklahomensis includes the seven States of Arkansas, Illinois,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The State Natural Heritage programs and NatureServe (NatureServe
2010c, p. 3) rank Calopogon oklahomensis as S1 in Illinois,
Mississippi, and Texas. The S1 designation indicates the species is
considered critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer
occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals) or because of extreme
vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or human-made factor.
The Arkansas and Oklahoma State Natural Heritage Programs rank C.
oklahomensis populations in Arkansas and Oklahoma as S2, meaning the
species is considered imperiled because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences
of less than 3,000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor (NatureServe 2010c,
p. 3). In Wisconsin, the State Natural Heritage program ranks C.
oklahomensis as SH, meaning the species is possibly extirpated in that
State (NatureServe 2010c. p. 3). These State heritage program rankings
are not legal designations and do not confer State regulatory
protection to this species.
This species is either not State ranked or is under review in the
States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri (NatureServe 2010c). In
Missouri, the species is not tracked by the State; however, status
surveys for Calopogon oklahomensis are being conducted in 2011
(Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.; 2011, pers. comm.).
Based on the available information, as summarized above, we believe
the historical range of Calopogon oklahomensis includes 11 States
(Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin), and the current range
includes 7 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Mississippi,
Texas, and Wisconsin).
Habitat
Calopogon oklahomensis inhabits a variety of habitats, including
moist to seasonally dry-mesic prairies; tallgrass and coastal prairies;
prairie-haymeadows; upland prairies; savannas; open woodlands (e.g.,
post oak-blackjack oak woodlands); hillside seepage bogs; edges of
bogs; and occasionally pine plantations, acidic wet barrens, or claypan
savannas (Goldman 1995, p. 40; Brown 2006, p. 22). The species is not
found in the wetter habitats preferred by most of the other species in
the genus (Goldman 1995, p. 40; Brown 2006, p. 22; Goldman 2008, p. 2).
It is also found in prairie remnants such as those beside railroads, as
well as other mowed meadows, savannas (e.g., longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) savannas), and wetland savanna borders (NatureServe 2010b,
p. 10). The upland prairies often contain ``pimple mounds'' (naturally
occurring low, flattened, circular to oval, domelike, mounds composed
of loose, sandy loam or loamy sand lying either on a more or less flat
or slightly, but noticeably depressed, clayey B horizon (subsoil
layer)). In Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, the species occupies
moist to seasonally dry-mesic prairies and high-quality hay meadow
associated with pimple mounds (Goldman 2008a, p. 8).
Biology
Calopogon oklahomensis occurs sporadically at known locations, with
the number of flowering plants varying dramatically from year to year.
The number of flowering plants may depend on management practices; for
example, abundance of C. oklahomensis increases significantly after a
fire has occurred (Goldman 2008a, p. 10). Calopogon oklahomensis
appears to thrive under relatively frequent fires (every 1 to 3 years),
particularly dormant-season burns; late-season haymeadow mowing, where
most or all of the above-ground vegetation is removed once every 1 to 2
years, with no thatch left behind; and light grazing (Osborne 2010,
pers. comm.). The species also appears to respond favorably to summer
haying (late June or July) on prairie remnants managed as hayfields
(Osborne 2010, pers. comm.).
Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5) describes the genus Calopogon as having
two growing points, which means that the plant has two chances for
reproductive success in a given year. He has observed that if both
growing points initiate, they do so at different times, one earlier in
the season and one slightly later. When dormant, Calopogon corms can
survive some drying, but if drought or other disturbance strikes while
they are forming new leaves or flowering, they can be severely damaged
or killed. The second growing point, by initiating up to a few months
later when environmental conditions may have improved, seems to be an
adaptation to survive springtime drought or other disturbance such as
fires or grazing (Goldman 2008a, p. 5). Most other vascular plants
survive such disturbance by resprouting from multiple tiny, dormant
buds, or forming new buds. Therefore, Calopogon may be more vulnerable
to local extirpation because of the limitation of having only two
growing points (Goldman 2008a, p. 5).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to Calopogon
oklahomensis in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors
might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as
those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some
[[Page 61313]]
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition to list Calopogon
oklahomensis, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific
and commercial information.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Some habitats of Calopogon oklahomensis, such as tallgrass prairie,
remnant prairie, prairie-haymeadow, and mowed meadow, have historically
suffered destruction across their entire range through development,
plowing, lowering of the water table, fire suppression, construction,
and conversion to nonnative grasses. Appropriate management for these
habitats (typically burning or haying) to prevent the encroachment of
woody vegetation and nonnative species is crucial for the continued
existence of prairie-dependent species within these habitats, including
C. oklahomensis. Because these habitats are the preferred habitat of C.
oklahomensis, and because proper management of prairie habitat on
public land cannot be ensured, and is even less ensured on private
land, it is reasonable to conclude that overall habitat of C.
oklahomensis has been modified and destroyed in the past, and could
foreseeably continue into the future. However, this threat does not
rise to the level where listing C. oklahomensis as threatened or
endangered is warranted, as discussed below.
There are 41 extant sites supporting populations of Calopogon
oklahomensis within the 7-State range (Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) of the species (Table 3).
Many of the remaining populations of C. oklahomensis occur within high-
quality habitat, which is protected from further modification and
destruction by various measures, as further described below. In
Arkansas, 9 of the 17 extant occurrences of C. oklahomensis occur in
high-quality, unplowed tallgrass prairie remnants (Leone 2011, pers.
comm.; Witsell 2010, pers. comm.; Osborne 2010, pers. comm.), which are
currently protected and managed on 9 State Natural Areas in five
counties. The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) is charged
with the responsibility of protecting the best of the last remaining
vestiges of the State's natural communities through its System of
Natural Areas. Natural Areas are lands specifically managed to
preserve, and sometimes restore, rare natural communities. These nine
State Natural Areas have specific ``conservation visions'' that guide
site management in maintaining native prairie communities (ANHC 2010,
pp. 10-88). In addition, ANHC rules and regulations prohibit the
collection or removal of plants (including fruits, nuts, or edible
plant parts), animals, fungi, rocks, minerals, fossils, archaeological
artifacts, soil, downed wood, or any other natural material, alive or
dead (ANHC 2010, p. 1). Although these ``conservation visions'' do not
specifically address management for C. oklahomensis, they include
appropriate management for the continued existence of C. oklahomensis
at these sites, through burning or haying to prevent the encroachment
of woody vegetation and nonnative species.
Of the 9 extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations within Arkansas
State Natural Areas, C. oklahomensis was last observed in 2002 at Baker
Prairie with 75 to 100 plants in bloom, in Searles Prairie in 2003 with
at least 35 plants in bloom, Chesney Prairie in 2003 had several
hundred C. oklahomensis plants in bloom, and Cherokee Prairie had
several hundred to at least 1,000 plants in 2003 (Arkansas Natural
Heritage Commission (ANHC) 2011). In 2008, three other C. oklahomensis
populations surveyed at three different Natural Areas (Downs Prairie,
Konecny Prairie, and Roth Prairie) had 5, 12, and more than 50 blooming
plants, respectively (ANHC 2011). The H.E. Flanagan Prairie, surveyed
in 2007, had hundreds of C. oklahomensis blooms, and the Railroad
Prairie was surveyed in 2009, with 3 C. oklahomensis plants found (ANHC
2011).
One Calopogon oklahomensis population in Arkansas occurs on the
Fort Chaffee Maneuver Training Center (Fort Chaffee). Management
specifically for C. oklahomensis does not occur at Fort Chaffee;
however, Fort Chaffee has the largest known population of the federally
endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) and is
implementing a ``Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle''
(CPABB 2010) (Leone 2011, pers. comm.). The goal of the Conservation
Plan is to maintain existing populations of the American burying
beetle, with sustainable habitat. American burying beetles require
large tracts of open oak woodland and prairie, some of which are also
occupied by C. oklahomensis at Fort Chaffee. The Conservation Plan
outlines a strategy that limits long-term and short-term habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation to the greatest extent possible (CPABB
2010, p. 31). Another strategy in the Conservation Plan uses fire as a
management tool and evaluates the effects that fire has on the habitat
(CPABB 2010, p. 36). Such fire management is also beneficial to C.
oklahomensis habitat (Goldman 2008a, p. 10).
Because the Conservation Plan manages for American burying beetle
habitat, including prairie, its implementation also will benefit
Calopogon oklahomensis, which occurs in that prairie habitat. Although
the Conservation Plan does not specifically address C. oklahomensis,
this plan includes appropriate management tools to manage for the
continued existence of C. oklahomensis at this site.
Arkansas has seven additional Calopogon oklahomensis populations
that occur on private land (Table 3), of which four are managed as
hayfield, two are managed for prairie, and one is mowed (Leone 2011,
pers. comm.). These seven populations are not currently protected from
conversion to other uses, and habitat destruction or modification may
be a threat to these C. oklahomensis populations.
[[Page 61314]]
Table 3--Extant Calopogon oklahomensis Population Information by State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current habitat
State Est. extant Site/location NA = Land ownership management plan and Protection status Threats
pops. Natural Area future plans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR................... 1 Cherokee Prairie NA. AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to restore and
protect biological
diversity representative
of tallgrass prairies of
the western Arkansas
Valley by maintaining
natural ecosystem
processes.
AR................... 1 Chesney Prairie NA.. AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to restore and
protect biological
diversity representative
of Northwest Arkansas
prairies by maintaining
natural ecosystem
processes.
AR................... 1 Downs Prairie NA.... AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes.................. Factor B (poaching
Commission. is to maintain at one State
representative Natural Area).
communities and species
related to the landform,
hydrology, fire, and
other ecosystem
processes of the Grand
Prairie.
AR................... 1 H. E. Flanagan AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Prairie NA. Commission. is to restore and
protect the biological
diversity representative
of tallgrass prairies of
the western Arkansas
Valley by maintaining
natural ecosystem
processes.
AR................... 1 Konecny Prairie NA.. AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to maintain the
integrity of this
remnant of tallgrass
prairie community
representative of the
vegetation and biota of
the Grand Prairie.
AR................... 1 Railroad Prairie NA. AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to maintain a
representative transect
of communities and
species related to the
landform, hydrology,
fire and other ecosystem
processes of the Grand
Prairie of eastern
Arkansas.
AR................... 1 Roth Prairie NA..... AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to work in
conjunction with
Arkansas State
University to maintain
the viability and
associated biological
diversity of a remnant
tallgrass prairie in the
Grand Prairie of eastern
Arkansas.
AR................... 1 Searles Prairie NA.. AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission. is to protect the
biological diversity
characteristic of a
tallgrass prairie
remnant on the
Springfield Plateau of
the Ozark Mountains.
AR................... 1 Baker Prairie NA.... AR Natural Heritage The conservation vision Yes. ...................
Commission and The is to maintain a mosaic
Nature Conservancy of prairie communities
(TNC). and associated
ecological diversity
buffered from the
stresses of nearby
development. C.
oklahomensis falls on a
tract owned by TNC.
AR................... 1 Ft. Chaffee Military Department of This site has an Yes. ...................
Base. Defense. Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plan
and an American burying
beetle (ABB)
Conservation Plan. The
goal of the ABB plan is
to maintain existing
populations with
sustainable habitat.
ABBs require large
tracts of open oak
woodland and prairie.
AR................... 1 Gray................ Private............. Managed as prairie....... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
AR................... 1 Crossett Airport.... Private............. Mowed.................... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
[[Page 61315]]
AR................... 1 Burt Prairie........ Private............. Managed as hayfield...... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
AR................... 1 McFarren............ Private............. Managed as hayfield...... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
AR................... 1 Stump............... Private............. Managed as hayfield...... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
AR................... 1 Halijan............. Private............. Managed as hayfield...... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
AR................... 1 Weber Prairie....... Private............. Managed as hayfield...... No................... Factor A (No land
protection
status).
IL................... 1 Hitt's Siding .................... Managed by the Nature Yes.................. Factor C
Prairie Nature Preserves with regular (predation).
Preserve. burns, and control of
exotic species (woody
and herbaceous).
IL................... 1 Braidwood Nature .................... Managed by the Forest Yes. ...................
Preserve. Preserve District of
Will County with regular
burns, and control of
exotic species (woody
and herbaceous).
MO................... 8 .................... 2 to 3 sites owned Managed by MO Department Yes. ...................
by TNC. of Conservation for
prairie habitat.
MO................... 2 Coyne Prairie....... MO Prairie Managed for prairie Yes. ...................
Foundation. habitat.
MO................... 1 .................... Private............. No management plan in No................... Factor A (No land
effect. protection status;
lack of
management).
MS................... 3 Camp Shelby Joint U.S. Forest Service/ No known management plan Yes. ...................
Forces Training Dept. of Defense in effect, however
Center. with special use portions of these
permit. populations receive
incidental protection
because they are located
within a 165 foot buffer
for the federally
endangered Isoetes
louisianensis (Louisiana
quillwort).
OK................... 5 .................... Private............. No known management plans No................... Factor A (No land
in effect. protection status;
development and/or
conversion to
fescue for grazing
use).
OK................... 1 .................... State of Oklahoma/ No known management plans ? ...................
Dept. of in effect.
Corrections.
TX................... 1 College Station, City owned park..... No known management plan No................... Factor A (No land
Brazos County. in effect. protection status;
development; lack
of appropriate
management).
WI................... 1 Greene Prairie...... University of Managed for prairie Yes. ...................
Wisconsin Arboretum. habitat.
----------------
Total............ 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois has two extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations, which
occur within designated Illinois Nature Preserves (Table 3). This
designation affords land protection only to high-quality natural areas.
Dedication as a Nature Preserve is the strongest protection given to
land in Illinois, and provides permanent protection. The landowner
retains custody of the property, but voluntarily restricts future uses
of the land in perpetuity to preserve its natural state and to
perpetuate natural conditions. Illinois Nature Preserves are managed
for native plant communities. This type of management is appropriate
for the continued existence of C. oklahomensis
[[Page 61316]]
at these sites, as the species occurs within native prairie
communities.
In Mississippi, all three extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations
occur on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land (Table 3), with a special use
permit issued to the Camp Shelby. Under the Act, the USFS must ensure
that activities they implement, fund, or permit are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Federal
agencies are also instructed to implement programs for the conservation
of listed species. Portions of two of the C. oklahomensis populations
(Poplar Creek and Clear Creek) in Mississippi and on USFS land receive
incidental protection from future forest clearing and development
because they are located within the 165-foot (ft) (50-meter (m)) buffer
of the federally endangered Isoetes louisianensis (Louisiana quillwort)
(Lyman 2011, pers. comm.; Wiggers 2011b, pers. comm.). This buffer was
established in the Federal recovery plan for I. louisianensis and
includes restricted timber harvest and riparian zone protection to
ensure that habitat conditions are not altered, such as changes in
ambient light, increase in sediment load from runoff, or alteration of
stream flow from debris deposition (USFWS 1996, p. 18). Because these
populations of C. oklahomensis occur within the 165-ft (50-m) buffer
for I. louisianensis, the protections in place for the quillwort also
protect those portions of the Poplar Creek and Clear Creek populations
of C. oklahomensis (FEIS 2008).
Missouri has experienced declines in prairie habitat (less than 0.5
percent of original prairie acreage remains), possibly resulting in
Calopogon oklahomensis being uncommon in this State. At least 10 of the
11 extant sites in Missouri occur on public lands managed as native
prairie (Table 3) (Yatskievych 2009, pers. comm.). Although C.
oklahomensis is considered uncommon in Missouri, it is not considered
so rare as to be tracked. Therefore, population status studies in
Missouri have not been conducted. Even so, Yatskievych (2009, pers.
comm.) believes the existing sites are reasonably secure. Kruse (2010,
pers. comm.) believes that management of public prairies will ensure
the stable and continued existence of Missouri's populations of C.
oklahomensis (Kruse 2010, pers. comm.). This species is reported from a
number of prairie preserves in southwestern Missouri, and likely is
more secure in Missouri than any other State (Goldman 2008a, p. 3).
Goldman (2008a, p. 8) believes Oklahoma had the greatest number of
records of the species from the last 30 years; however, there are
currently six extant sites of Calopogon oklahomensis in Oklahoma (Table
3) (Buthod 2010, pers. comm.) Buthod (2010, pers. comm.) indicates that
portions of C. oklahomensis habitat in Oklahoma are being converted to
fescue and being used for grazing, as five of the six extant
populations are on private land. The site of the sixth C. oklahomensis
population in Oklahoma is owned by the State of Oklahoma and used by
the Department of Corrections (Table 3) as the Jess Dunn Prison.
Current information indicates that the prison grounds have no native
grass pasture and are actively hayed and growing fescue (Frye 2011,
pers. comm.). In 2009 and 2010, personnel from the Oklahoma Biological
Survey and the Oklahoma Natural Heritage collected information on the
status of extant C. oklahomensis populations on private land in
Oklahoma (Buthod 2010, pers. comm.). Two populations of C. oklahomensis
exist in Bryan County, Oklahoma. One of those population's sites is
described as having native prairie hay meadow elements, but C.
oklahomensis could not be located at this site (Buthod 2011, pers.
comm.). This site is on the outskirts of Durant, Oklahoma, where the
land is currently not in use, but exhibits evidence of disturbance from
pipeline construction, and is expected to be developed for commercial
or private use (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.). The second C. oklahomensis
population in Bryan County, Oklahoma, was surveyed in May 2010. It has
some native prairie hay meadow elements, but is used for hay. Calopogon
oklahomensis could not be located at that site in 2010 (Buthod 2011,
pers. comm.).
Two other Calopogon oklahomensis populations occur in LeFlore
County, Oklahoma. Surveys conducted in May 2009 indicated 20 plants of
C. oklahomensis at one LeFlore County site, which is mowed for hay
(Buthod 2011, pers. comm.). The other site in LeFlore County had one C.
oklahomensis plant observed in native prairie hay meadow with mima
mounds (natural domelike soil mounds) (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.).
The fifth Calopogon oklahomensis population in Oklahoma that is on
private land is in Muskogee County. Over 50 stems of C. oklahomensis
(80 percent in bloom) were seen in May 2009 (Buthod 2011, pers. comm.).
The site is mowed for hay and also has mima mounds.
The destruction, modification, or curtailment of Calopogon
oklahomensis habitat may be a threat for at least five of Oklahoma's
six extant populations because they occur on private land. The private
land, as currently managed, does not afford the species any land
protection status or certainty on future land use, nor does it provide
an obligation for management, such as burning or mowing, conducive to
the continued existence of C. oklahomensis.
In Texas, there is one extant population of C. oklahomensis located
in Brazos County, which exists in a city-owned park near College
Station, Texas (Goldman 2008a, p. 9). We have no information on the
management of the site other than Goldman (2008a, p. 9) believes the
site is not burned, even occasionally, and, therefore, is experiencing
tree and shrub encroachment.
In Wisconsin, Calopogon oklahomensis occurs within the University
of Wisconsin Arboretum's Greene Prairie. Greene Prairie is not
specifically managed for C. oklahomensis, but it is managed to maintain
native prairie communities, which is the preferred habitat of C.
oklahomensis.
Summary of Factor A
The destruction and modification of Calopogon oklahomensis habitat,
specifically tallgrass prairie, remnant prairie, prairie-haymeadow, and
mowed meadow, has historically occurred rangewide. Furthermore, the
destruction and modification of some types of C. oklahomensis habitat
(tallgrass prairie, remnant prairie, prairie haymeadow, and mowed
meadow) currently continues rangewide. However, of the 41 extant C.
oklahomensis populations, 26 are on land that is protected, and
although those sites may not be managed specifically for C.
oklahomensis, the management focuses on the continued existence of
native prairie communities, which benefits C. oklahomensis as its
preferred habitat is native prairie communities. Therefore, we believe
this threat may only be applicable to 15 of the 41 extant populations
in 4 (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas) of the 7 States where
the species currently occurs (Table 3).
Of the 15 extant populations that may be threatened by destruction
or modification of habitat, 14 populations occur on private land with
no land protection status, and we have no information on the land
protection status for one other population that occurs on land owned by
the State of Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The 14 populations
that occur on private land, and that are documented as having no land
protection status, may be threatened by destruction or
[[Page 61317]]
modification of habitat from drainage, clearing, plowing, development,
and lack of management, including the conversion to fescue for grazing
(Table 3). In Arkansas, where 7 of those 14 populations occur, 4 sites
are managed as hayfield, 2 as prairie, and 1 is mowed. The management
of these seven extant Calopogon oklahomensis populations on private
land may be adequate to maintain their continued existence.
Fourteen populations of Calopogon oklahomensis occur on private
land, which are not protected from destruction or modification of
habitat. Habitat destruction and modification, however, have not been
linked to widespread declines throughout the range of the species. The
majority of C. oklahomensis populations (26 populations) occur on
protected, public land that is managed for native plant communities.
These 26 protected populations occur in 5 (Arkansas, Mississippi,
Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin) of the 7 States within the species'
current range. Furthermore, although the 14 populations that occur on
private land are not specifically protected from habitat destruction,
we have no information indicating that these 14 populations are
expected to be destroyed in the future. Therefore, a review of the best
available information indicates that although some populations of C.
oklahomensis may be threatened by habitat destruction or modification,
the continued existence of the species is not threatened throughout all
of its range by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, or likely to become so.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In Arkansas, poaching of Calopogon oklahomensis was observed at one
State Natural Area (Down's Prairie) in recent years (Osborne 2010,
pers. comm.). In this case, a number of obvious and fresh shovel holes
were observed in the center of a patch of C. oklahomensis during the
blooming period (Osborne 2010, pers. comm.). The poaching was noted as
a one-time event, and C. oklahomensis persisted at this location after
the incident (Osborne 2011, pers. comm.). This State Natural Area is
regularly monitored with no additional poaching observed, but it is
difficult to determine the true impact of this one-time poaching event
as population numbers of C. oklahomensis fluctuate greatly from one
year to the next (Osborne 2011, pers. comm.).
We have no other information regarding overutilization of this
species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes. Because poaching of plants is known to have occurred at only
1 extant Calopogon oklahomensis population and does not appear to have
adversely impacted that population, poaching does not constitute a
threat to the species throughout its range. In summary, a review of the
best available information indicates that C. oklahomensis is not
threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes throughout its range.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease and herbivory by insects, wildlife, or livestock was
documented for Calopogon oklahomensis at only one location. At Hitt's
Siding Prairie Nature Preserve, the State of Illinois has documented
deer browse on the species and seed capsule destruction by weevils
(Masi 2010, pers. comm.). We do not know how widespread this herbivory
may be or if it resulted in detrimental effects on C. oklahomensis as
deer and weevils naturally feed on many plant species. We have no other
evidence of unnatural levels of predation for this species, and we do
not have any information indicating that disease impacts C.
oklahomensis. In summary, a review of the best available information
indicates that C. oklahomensis is not threatened by disease or
predation throughout its range.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are no Federal laws that specifically protect Calopogon
oklahomensis. At the State level, of the seven States within the
current range of the species, C. oklahomensis is currently protected by
State regulations only in Illinois, where it is State listed as
endangered. The species is also State listed as endangered in
Tennessee, but the species is believed to be extirpated there.
The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act requires State and
municipal agencies taking actions that might affect State or federally
listed species (including plants) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts to the listed species (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/lcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1730&ChapterID=43&Print=True accessed on 09/06/2011).
Furthermore, it is unlawful in the State of Illinois for any person to
take plants on the List of Endangered and Threatened Species in
Illinois without the express written permission of the landowner, or to
sell or offer for sale plants or plant products of endangered species.
In addition, Illinois's two extant Calopogon oklahomensis sites occur
on dedicated Nature Preserve land, which affords the species additional
protections. Only high-quality natural areas qualify for this land
protection status. Dedication as a Nature Preserve is the strongest
protection that can be given to land in Illinois, and provides
permanent protection. The landowner retains custody of the property,
but voluntarily restricts future uses of the land in perpetuity to
preserve its natural state and to perpetuate natural conditions.
In the State of Tennessee, Calopogon oklahomensis is considered
endangered and possibly extirpated, as it has not been seen in the
State for the past 20 years. It is possible that C. oklahomensis may no
longer occur in Tennessee, however, if it is determined that the
species still persists in Tennessee, under Tennessee Code Annotated 70-
8-309, it is a violation for any person, other than the landowner,
lessee, or other person entitled to possession, or the manager, in the
case of publicly owned land, or a person with the written permission of
the landowner or manager, to knowingly uproot, dig, take, remove,
damage, destroy, possess, or otherwise disturb for any purpose any
endangered species (Tenn. Code Ann. 2011).
Despite the lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect Calopogon
oklahomensis in most States, we found that there are no threats that
are placing the species at risk (Factors A, B, C, and E) that require
regulatory mechanisms to protect the species. Therefore, we do not
consider the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms a threat to this
species. We conclude that the best scientific and commercial
information available indicates that Calopogon oklahomensis is not
threatened throughout its range due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Small, Isolated Populations
Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5) describes Calopogon species as having a
unique biology that makes small or widely scattered populations more
vulnerable to extirpation. A Calopogon corm contains only two growing
points compared to other vascular plants, which have multiple tiny,
dormant buds (Goldman 2008a, pp. 4-5). Because Calopogon does not form
new buds, this species has only two chances for success at perpetuating
the plant
[[Page 61318]]
through the next winter (Goldman 2008a, pp. 4-5). Therefore, the
species may be particularly vulnerable to stochastic events, which, if
they occur at a certain time (when the buds have formed or are
forming), may destroy the chance for the plant to reproduce that year.
Historically, the species most likely relied on a widespread mosaic of
large populations, and thus some populations were able to escape local
or regional droughts, allowing the species to persist and recolonize
the drought-affected areas. This species now consists of smaller
populations that may be geographically disconnected from each other.
Existence in small, isolated populations can render species vulnerable
to local, regional, or widespread extirpation due to uncontrollable
natural forces, including local or regional climate perturbation such
as drought. Such an event could eliminate most or all of a small
population.
Species that are known from few, widely dispersed locations are
inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species
because of the higher risks from genetic bottlenecks, random
demographic fluctuations, and localized catastrophes such as long-term
drought (Lande 1988, p. 1455; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier
1994, p. 607). These problems are further magnified when populations
are few and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process
described as an ``extinction vortex'' by Gilpin and Soul[eacute] (1986,
pp. 24-25). Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level
of genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which
diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental
changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence
(Soul[eacute] 1987, pp. 4-7). Inbreeding depression as the result of
isolated, small populations can result in death, decreased fertility,
smaller body size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and various
chromosome abnormalities (Smith 1974, p. 350).
Although changes in the environment may cause populations to
fluctuate naturally, small and low-density populations are more likely
to fluctuate below a minimum viable population (the minimum or
threshold number of individuals needed in a population to persist in a
viable state for a given interval) (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Shaffer and
Samson 1985, pp. 148-150; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-33). The
problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further
magnified by synergistic interactions with other potential threats,
such as those discussed above under Factor A. Despite evolutionary
adaptations for rarity, habitat loss and degradation increase a
species' vulnerability to extinction (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp.
58-62). Historically, Calopogon oklahomensis was more widespread. An
important benefit of this greater historical range resulted in an
advantage of redundancy: Additional populations separated by some
distance likely allowed some populations to be spared the impacts of
localized or more discrete catastrophic events, such as drought.
However, this advantage of redundancy may be lost with the reduction in
C. oklahomensis range. Additionally, the unique biological features of
C. oklahomensis described by Goldman (2008a, pp. 4-5), which limit
reproduction and the ability to recolonize, may make this species more
vulnerable to the effects of small population sizes and fragmented
habitats.
Our assessment of this species' status is complicated by the fact
that we have limited information regarding population sizes of
Calopogon oklahomensis. Although C. oklahomensis may be considered
uncommon, it is not considered so rare as to be tracked by most States.
(This may also be due to the recent recognition of C. oklahomensis as a
distinct species). Therefore, population status studies have not been
regularly conducted across its range for the 41 extant populations.
Throughout the range of C. oklahomensis (the States of Arkansas,
Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin), we
have limited population status information for three States (Arkansas,
Mississippi and Oklahoma). Further complicating the availability of
population data, the number of flowering plants annually can vary
dramatically at any C. oklahomensis site, with this species not
appearing some years (Witsell 2009, pers. comm.). In addition, because
this species was relatively recently identified (1995), C. oklahomensis
specimens have been confused for other Calopogon species, especially C.
tuberosus, due to the difficulty in distinguishing the two species
(Goldman 1995, pp. 37-41; Goldman et al. 2004b pp. 37-38; Anderson
2010a, pers. comm.). For these reasons, meaningful long-term monitoring
of the species is difficult, and long-term population abundance
datasets are absent.
Unique features of the species' biology increase its vulnerability
to extirpation because it now exists in small, isolated populations.
However, we have population density information only for some
populations, and for some years, in three (Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Oklahoma) of the seven States (Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) where Calopogon oklahomensis
is believed to be extant. Populations may be large enough to withstand
stochastic events. In addition, because C. oklahomensis is not tracked
in four of the seven States where it exists, and there is, thus, likely
unsurveyed potential habitat, there may be other, as yet unknown
populations of C. oklahomensis. Although C. oklahomensis may be exposed
to a potential threat from small population size and fragmented
habitats, we have no evidence of a response to this factor. Rangewide,
C. oklahomensis habitat is fragmented compared to historical
occurrences of the species, and it's unique biology may make it more
vulnerable to extirpation than other vascular plants; however, we have
no information that this threat may act on this species to the point
that the species itself may be at risk or likely to become so.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Program in response to growing concerns
about climate change and, in particular, the effects of global warming.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007, entire) synthesized the
projections of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase
3, a coordinated large set of climate model runs performed at modeling
centers worldwide using 22 global climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p.
11). Based on these projections, the IPCC has concluded that the
warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level
(IPCC 2007, pp. 6, 30; Karl et al. 2009, p. 17). Changes in the global
climate system during the 21st century are likely to be larger than
those observed during the 20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). Several
scenarios are virtually certain or very likely to occur in the 21st
century including: (1) Over
[[Page 61319]]
most land, weather will be warmer, with fewer cold days and nights, and
more frequent hot days and nights; (2) areas affected by drought will
increase; and (3) the frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most
land areas will likely increase (IPCC 2007, pp. 13, 53).
In instances for which a direct cause and effect relationship
between global climate change and regional effects to a specific
species has not been documented, we rely primarily on synthesis
documents (e.g., IPCC 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009, entire) to inform
our evaluation of the extent that regional impacts due to climate
change may affect our species. These synthesis documents present the
consensus view of climate change experts from around the world.
Typically, the projections of downscaled models agree with the
projections of the global climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 25).
Climate change projections are based on models with assumptions and are
not absolute. Portions of the global climate change models can be used
to predict changes at the regional-landscape scale; however, this
approach contains higher levels of uncertainty than using global models
to examine changes on a larger scale. The uncertainty arises due to
various factors related to difficulty in applying data to a smaller
scale, and to the paucity of information in these models such as
regional weather patterns, local physiographic conditions, life stages
of individual species, generation time of species, and species
reactions to changing carbon dioxide levels. Additionally, global
climate models do not incorporate a variety of plant-related factors
that could be informative in determining how climate change could
affect plant species (e.g., effect of elevated carbon dioxide on plant
water-use efficiency, the life stage at which the limit affects the
species (seedling versus adult), the lifespan of the species, and the
movement of other organisms into the species' range) (Shafer et al.
2001, p. 207).
Regional landscapes also can be examined by downscaling global
climate models. Global climate models can play an important role in
characterizing the types of changes that may occur, so that the
potential impacts on natural systems can be assessed (Shafer et al.
2001, p. 213).
Climate change is likely to affect the habitat of Calopogon
oklahomensis, but we lack scientific information on what those changes
may ultimately mean for the status of the species. Climate change
effects are not limited to the timing and amount of precipitation;
other factors potentially influenced by climate change may in turn
affect the habitat conditions for C. oklahomensis. For example, fire
frequency may be influenced by climate change (Logan and Powell 2001,
p. 170; Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 942-943) and may in turn increase
suitable habitat of C. oklahomensis, as it is believed that frequent
burns tend to increase population numbers of C. oklahomensis (Goldman
2008, p. 10). Impacts of specific events on C. oklahomensis and its
habitat have not been analyzed. Climate change is likely to affect
multiple variables that may influence the suitability of habitat for C.
oklahomensis. As habitat conditions have fluctuated in the past, and C.
oklahomensis has persisted throughout these fluctuations, this species
should be able to persist so long as climate change does not result in
extreme changes to important characteristics of the species habitat or
life cycle, such as the complete loss of prairie habitat or the
complete loss of available moisture at a crucial life stage. At this
time, the best available scientific information does not indicate that
impacts from climate change are likely to be a threat to the species to
the point that the species may be at risk or likely to become so.
Summary of Factor E
Based on our evaluation, we find that Calopogon oklahomensis is not
threatened by other natural or manmade factors. Calopogon oklahomensis
may be more vulnerable to other natural or manmade factors such as
genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change,
and localized catastrophes such as long-term drought because of its
unique biology and because populations may be small and fragmented from
each other. At this time, the best available information on long-term
population abundance does not enable us to make a connection between
the species unique biology and small population size and the potential
impacts outlined above. For this reason, a review of the best available
information indicates that threats considered under Factor E may act on
C. oklahomensis, but not to the point that the species is at risk now
or now or likely to become so.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether Calopogon oklahomensis is threatened or endangered throughout
all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by Calopogon oklahomensis. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with species and habitat experts, and
other Federal, State, and tribal agencies.
The available information indicates that C. oklahomensis is a
fairly wide-ranging species with relatively stable, protected
populations in much of its current range. Based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the
five factors, we find that despite range reductions that have resulted
in smaller, disconnected populations, and the species' reproductive
biology, which may make it more vulnerable to extirpation through
stochastic events, the threats, either individually or in combination,
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that Calopogon oklahomensis is in danger of extinction (endangered), or
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that Calopogon oklahomensis is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are
any significant portions of the range where C. oklahomensis is in
danger of extinction or is likely to become in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any
species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any
species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this
discussion. The Act defines the term ``species'' as follows: ``The term
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and we have
never addressed in our regulations: (1) The consequences of a
determination that a species is either endangered or likely to become
so throughout a significant portion of its range, but not throughout
all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a range as
``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the
significant portion of its range language allows the
[[Page 61320]]
Service to list or protect less than all members of a defined
``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the Northern Rocky
Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr. 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians
v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010),
concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to list the
Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had
asserted in both of these determinations that it had authority, in
effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as defined by
the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts
ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the
grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language
of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the significant portion
of its range language to allow protecting only a portion of a species'
range is inconsistent with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The
courts concluded that once a determination is made that a species
(i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS) meets the definition of
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' it must be placed on
the list in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently
to all members of that species (subject to modification of protections
through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, it, the
species, is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis applies to
``threatened species.'' Therefore, the consequence of finding that a
species is endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of
its range is that the entire species shall be listed as endangered or
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections shall be applied
across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the significant portion of its range phrase as providing an independent
basis for listing is the best interpretation of the Act because it is
consistent with the purposes and the plain meaning of the key
definitions of the Act; it does not conflict with established past
agency practice (i.e., prior to the March 16, 2007, Memorandum Opinion
issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, ``The
Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant
Portion of Its Range' '') as no consistent, long-term agency practice
has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial opinions
that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded that the
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an independent
basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we next turn to
the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold for when such
an independent basis for listing exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, a portion of the range of a
species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without that portion, the species would
be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy (having
multiple populations distributed across the landscape) may be needed to
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic
events. Representation (the range of variation found in a species)
ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved.
Redundancy, resiliency, and representation are not independent of each
other, and some characteristic of a species or area may contribute to
all three. For example, distribution across a wide variety of habitats
is an indicator of representation, but it may also indicate a broad
geographic distribution contributing to redundancy (decreasing the
chance that any one event affects the entire species), and the
likelihood that some habitat types are less susceptible to certain
threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability of the species to
recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is intended to be
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range may be determined
to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under any one of these
concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether, without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' establishes a
threshold that is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the
consequences of finding a species to be endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range would be listing the species
throughout its entire range, it is important to use a threshold for
``significant'' that is robust. It would not be meaningful or
appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a portion of the
range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a negligible
increase in extinction risk would result from its loss. Because nearly
any portion of a species' range can be said to contribute some
increment to a species' viability, use of such a low threshold would
require us to impose restrictions and expend conservation resources
disproportionately to conservation benefit: listing would be rangewide,
even if only a portion of the range of minor conservation importance to
the species is imperiled. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate
to establish a threshold for ``significant'' that is too high. This
would be the case if the standard were, for example, that a portion of
the range can be considered ``significant'' only if threats in that
portion result in the entire species' being currently endangered or
threatened. Such a high bar would not give the significant portion of
its range phrase independent meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in
Defenders of
[[Page 61321]]
Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the significant portion of its range
language for such a listing.) Rather, under this interpretation we ask
whether the species would be in danger of extinction everywhere without
that portion, i.e., if the species was completely extirpated from that
portion.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be
``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the portion status analysis
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the
species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based
definition of ``significant,'' such portions will not warrant further
consideration.
In determining whether Calopogon oklahomensis is threatened or
endangered in a significant portion of its range, we first addressed
whether any portions of the range of C. oklahomensis warrant further
consideration. We have no evidence that any particular population or
portion of the range of C. oklahomensis is critical to the species'
survival. Calopogon oklahomensis may actually occur continuously across
its known range, but consistent, range-wide surveys have not been done.
The population areas delineated in this document were derived from
existing data and information; however, information on the species'
distribution and numbers may change with more survey effort. Other than
the potential threat of habitat destruction and modification, which is
concentrated on private land, other potential threats to the species
are essentially uniform throughout its range. The 14 C. oklahomensis
populations that occur on private lands, which are not specifically
protected from habitat destruction or modification, are not contiguous,
but scattered throughout the range of the species. Other than the land
ownership, there is nothing unique about these 14 populations that
would contribute to the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of
the species--they have the same biological characteristics that
contribute to the species resiliency to periodic disturbance; even in
their absence, there are multiple, stable and protected populations
distributed throughout the species' range; and they do not contain
unique genetic, morphological, physiological, behavioral, or ecological
diversity of the species that is not represented in the protected
populations. Therefore, we find that C. oklahomensis is not in danger
of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, listing C. oklahomensis as threatened or endangered
under the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, Calopogon oklahomensis to our Chicago,
Illinois Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor C. oklahomensis and
encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for C.
oklahomensis or any other species, we will act to provide immediate
protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Chicago, Illinois
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this notice is a staff member of the Chicago,
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 23, 2011.
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25530 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P