[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52293-52300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21244]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0052; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Mimulus gemmiparus (Rocky Mountain Monkeyflower) as
Endangered or Threatened and To Designate Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Mimulus gemmiparus (Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower; also known as budding monkeyflower, or Weber's
monkeyflower) as an endangered or threatened species throughout its
entire range and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the purposes of this
document, we will refer to Mimulus gemmiparus as Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing Rocky Mountain monkeyflower may be warranted. Therefore, with
the publication of this notice, we will be initiating a review of the
status of the species to determine whether listing Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower is warranted. To ensure that this status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. We will make a determination on critical habitat
for this species if and when we initiate a listing action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before October 29, 2012. The deadline
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date. After October 29, 2012, you must submit information directly
to the Division of Policy and Directives Management (see ADDRESSES
section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0052, which
is the docket number for this action. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2012-0052; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all information we
receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for
Information section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patty Gelatt, Western Colorado
Supervisor, Ecological Services, 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B, Grand
Junction, CO 81506-3946; telephone (970) 243-
[[Page 52294]]
2778; fax (970) 245-6933. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower from governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek
information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures and programs for the
species, its habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower is warranted, we will propose critical habitat
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), in accordance with
section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at
the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request
data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species''; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding will be available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which is
subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On October 4, 2011, we received a petition dated September 30,
2011, prepared by WildEarth Guardians (petitioner) requesting that
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower be given immediate protection and listed as
an endangered or threatened species under the Act and that we designate
critical habitat for the species. The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite identification information
for the petitioners, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
In a December 20, 2011, letter to WildEarth Guardians, we responded
that we reviewed the information presented in this and eight other
petitions that we received in September and October of 2011 (Alt 2011,
entire). We noted that these petitions will be considered submitted
within Fiscal Year 2011 for purposes of accounting under our
multidistrict litigation settlement and its petition cap provision,
which limits the number of petitions that WildEarth Guardians may
submit each fiscal year.
We also noted that emergency listing of a species is not a
petitionable action under the Administrative Procedure Act or the
Endangered Species Act (Act); therefore, we treat requesting emergency
listing solely as a petition to list a species under the Act. We stated
in the letter to the petitioners that, while we had not made a decision
on whether the petition presents substantial information that the
petitioned actions may be warranted, we had looked at the immediacy of
possible threats to the species to determine if emergency listing may
be necessary at this time. Our initial review of the petition indicated
that an emergency situation does not exist for this species. However,
if at any time conditions change and we determine emergency listing is
necessary, an emergency rule may be developed. We stated that we are
currently required to complete a significant number of listing and
critical
[[Page 52295]]
habitat actions by the end of Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to court
orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other statutory
deadlines. We said we may conduct a review of this petition prior to
that time should budget and workload permit. This finding addresses the
petition.
Previous Federal Actions
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower was included in the 1985 Review of
Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (50 FR
39526, September 27, 1985). In that document, we included the species
as a Category 2 candidate, based on our evaluation at that time.
Category 2 candidates were species for which the Service had
information indicating that protection under the Act may be warranted
but for which we lacked sufficient information on status and threats to
determine if elevation to ``Category-1 candidate'' status was
warranted. We published our decision to discontinue candidate
categories and to restrict candidate status to those taxa for which we
have sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed rule on
December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64481). This decision resulted in the deletion
of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower from the list of candidate taxa for
listing.
In 2009, we published a 90-day finding on 165 species from a
petition to list 206 species, including Rocky Mountain monkeyflower (74
FR 6122, February 5, 2009). We found that the petition did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing Rocky Mountain monkeyflower may be warranted. The information
we reviewed for the species described one or more threats for a general
area, but did not link the threats to the species or the habitat
occupied by the species. We were subsequently petitioned to list this
species on October 4, 2011. This finding is in response to that
petition.
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
Ruth Ashton Nelson discovered Rocky Mountain monkeyflower in 1950
(Beatty et al. 2003, p. 13). The species was identified and described
by William A. Weber (Weber 1972, pp. 423-425). Taxonomic classification
of the genus Mimulus has been changed from the family Scrophulariaceae
to the family Phrymaceae (Beardsley and Olmstead 2002, p. 1098;
Olmstead 2002, pp. 16, 18, 21, 22). We consider Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower to be a valid species and, therefore, a listable entity
under the Act (ITIS 2012, p. 1).
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is a small annual herb 1 to 10
centimeters (cm) (0.4 to 4 inches (in.)) tall, weak, and somewhat
fleshy (Weber 1972, p. 423), with a hairless, usually unbranched, stem.
Leaves are opposite, entire, oval in shape, and hairless, and will grow
to 10 millimeters (mm) (0.4 in.) long and 7 mm (0.3 in.) wide. Leaf
stems are 2 to 3 mm (about 0.11 in.) long, with a small pocket at the
base that contains a dormant embryonic shoot called a bulbil or gemma,
which reproduces vegetatively (Spackman et al. 1999a; Spackman et al.
1999b, p. 34; Moody et al., 1999, p. 1521). Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
plants do not usually have flowers, but they can produce flowers and
seeds in laboratory conditions (Beardsley 1997, p. 3). The solitary
yellow flowers are about 5 mm (0.20 in.) long, with spreading petals
and an open throat (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 14); they bloom in mid-July.
Life History
The asexual gemmae of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower are dispersed
when the parent plant dies, and are capable of overwintering in the
soil and germinating the following spring. The flat, lens-shaped gemmae
float down slope in seepage water and tend to collect in drifts in
sites suitable for germination (Weber 1972, p. 3). Thus, the species
behaves like an annual, but with asexually produced bulbils carrying
out the function of seeds (Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, p. 2). This
particular method of reproduction and development is unique within the
genus Mimulus, and probably unique within all flowering plants
(Beardsley et al. 2004, p. 487; Moody et al. 1999, p. 1522).
Habitat
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is a montane to subalpine species that
grows at elevations of 2,572 to 3,413 meters (m) (8,438 to 11,198 feet
(ft)) (CNHP 2011b, p. 1). Plants grow primarily on substrates of
granite with surface seepage water and on moist forest soils near
seeps, waterfalls, and springs. Often they are protected by granite
overhangs, on south- or west-facing aspects, and are associated with
mosses and ferns (CNHP 2012, p. 2).
Distribution and Abundance
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is currently known from seven
populations in five counties (Boulder, Clear Creek, Grand, Jefferson,
and Larimer) along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.
As noted in the petition, one additional population in Rocky Mountain
National Park (RMNP) is no longer considered extant. The species'
estimated range is 2,519 square kilometers (972 square miles) (CNHP
2011a, p. 3). The total estimated occupied habitat is about 10.5
hectares (ha) (26 acres (ac)) (CNHP 2011a, p. 3). Actual occupied area
as measured on the ground during surveys within the documented
populations is 168 square meters (sq m) (1,808 sq ft) (Steingraeber and
Beardsley 2005, p. 22). Estimated total abundance is about 126,000
plants (Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, pp. 9, 22).
Table 1--Summary of Currently Known Populations
[Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, pp. 9, 22]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area occupied in
Site name Estimated number square meters Management
of plants (square feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Vrain.................................... 14,660 68 (732) USFS
Hankins Gulch................................ 102,000 13 (140) USFS
Guanella Pass................................ 600 10 (108) USFS
Horseshoe Park............................... 3,200 38 (409) RMNP
North Inlet.................................. 4,400 25 (269) RMNP
East Inlet................................... 800 13 (140) RMNP
Staunton State Park.......................... 73 1 (11) CDNR
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 125,733 168 (1,808) .............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDNR = Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
[[Page 52296]]
Conservation Status
NatureServe ranks Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as a ``G1'' species
(critically imperiled globally and at very high risk of extinction)
(NatureServe 2010, p. 1). The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)
ranks the species as ``S1'' (critically endangered throughout its range
in Colorado) (CNHP 2011, p. 1). The USFS, Rocky Mountain Region (Region
2) has designated Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as a sensitive species
(Beatty et al. 2003, p. 3). USFS objectives for designated sensitive
species are to develop and implement management practices to ensure
that species do not become endangered or threatened species because of
USFS actions (Wrigley et al. 2007, p. 3).
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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 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 may meet the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could
impact the species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
substantial finding. The information must contain evidence sufficient
to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Recreation, Trails, and Roads
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner states that recreational activities are the primary
threats to the habitat for Rocky Mountain monkeyflower (CNHP 2011a, p.
3). Nearly all known locations are near trails and roads subject to
impacts from hikers, people fishing, horses, dogs, off-road vehicles
(except in wilderness locations), or road and trail maintenance
activity (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 3). Habitat for the plants also
provides good camping and shelter areas, given their proximity to
trails, water, and protective overhangs. Resulting impacts include
crushed plants, disturbed soil, and diversion of water away from the
plants, as well as introduction of weedy species that compete with
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 3). A hiking trail
bisects one population in RMNP (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 28). The
location in Hankins Gulch is about 2 m (6 ft) from a trail, where
observers saw clusters of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower trampled by
human, dog, and horse footprints (Beardsley 1997, p. 221). One of the
other locations in RMNP is used as a latrine and rest stop by hikers
(Beatty et al. 2003, p. 28). The waterfall area where Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower occurs in Staunton State Park will likely be a popular
destination for visitors when the park opens to the public (Beatty et
al. 2003, p. 28). The park opening is expected before the end of 2012.
Road improvement and construction activities at Guanella Pass could
change the amount of water available to Rocky Mountain monkeyflower at
that location (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 12; CFLHD 2009, entire).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information cited in the petition and available in our files is
consistent with the petitioners' assertions that recreational
activities have caused documented impacts to the habitat for Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower as well as to the plants (CNHP 2011a, p. 3). At
least 54 percent of the known occupied habitat for the species, which
supports about 88 percent of the documented plants, is highly
vulnerable to trampling of plants and the moist soils they grow on
(Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, pp. 9, 22). The trail through the
large Hankins Gulch population, where observers saw clusters of Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower trampled by human, dog, and horse footprints
(Beardsley 1997, p. 221), was rerouted to the other side of the creek
in 2011, to protect the plants (Olson in Anderson et al. 2011, p. 19).
Information on the current status of this population is not in our
files. Plant surveyors have found new locations that were inaccessible
by trail, but they have been unsuccessful at detecting the plant at
similar remote sites. Four areas of additional suitable habitat have
been identified but not surveyed (Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, p.
8). All four are near known locations and within the known range of the
species. We will use all information available at the time we conduct
our status review to determine the total percent of suitable habitat
that may be subject to impacts by recreational use.
Information in our files shows that inadvertent trampling due to
off[hyphen]trail hiking, rock climbing, and scrambling is likely to
impact this species in Staunton State Park, because the species is
found in areas that are attractive to visitors (Beatty et al. 2003, p.
29). A 2007 survey report noted that ``a park visitor could easily stop
for a break near the waterfall and unknowingly eliminate nearly the
entire population by settling down in the wrong area'' (Colorado State
Parks 2010, p. 5). However, because the park is not yet open to public
use, we do not have substantial scientific or commercial information in
our files, nor was any provided by the petitioners, indicating that
trampling by recreational users is a threat to the Staunton State Park
population of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. We will analyze this
potential threat in more detail in our status review for the species.
Although we do not have substantial information that trampling may
be a threat to the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower in Staunton State park,
this population comprises only a small
[[Page 52297]]
portion of the species' total known numbers. The majority (88 percent)
of documented plants and 54 percent of the known occupied habitat are
in areas near roads and trails commonly used for hiking and other
recreational and maintenance activities, where the plants are
considered highly vulnerable to trampling. Additionally, Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower is a small, fragile, and inconspicuous plant that is
highly susceptible to inadvertent trampling and is unlikely to
withstand such impacts. Therefore, we find there is substantial
information overall to indicate that trampling by recreational users
may pose a threat to the species.
Human Population Growth
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners point out that all Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
locations are close to large human populations that have grown
significantly over the last several decades along the Colorado Front
Range Urban Corridor, and are projected to increase another 26.5
percent by 2025 (State Demography Office 2011, entire). This increased
population may have significant impacts on Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
locations due to increased recreational use of public lands.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
References cited by the petitioners support their assertion that
recent and projected population growth within day-trip distance of
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower habitat is likely to occur. Although it is
likely that an increasing human population will result in an increase
in visitor use of the surrounding areas, and that heavier use of the
trails where the species is located would increase the likelihood of
plant damage and habitat disturbance, we have no substantial
information to show that this may pose a threat to the species at this
time. We will analyze this potential threat in more detail in our
status review for the species.
Livestock and Herbivore Grazing
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that Rocky Mountain monkeyflower plants may
be trampled and their habitat degraded by excessively large herds of
elk (Cervus elaphus) in RMNP that are overutilizing willow (Salix spp.)
thickets and aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands that provide habitat
for Rocky Mountain monkeyflower (RMNP 2009, entire).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
References cited by the petitioners support their assertion that
large elk herds are degrading willow and aspen stands near Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower habitat. However, available information does not
show substantial evidence of direct impacts by elk on the seeps and
stream habitat where Rocky Mountain monkeyflower occurs (Beatty et al.
2003, pp. 26-27). Therefore, we find that there is not substantial
information to indicate that livestock and herbivore grazing may pose a
threat to the species. We will evaluate this factor more thoroughly
during our status review.
Changes in Natural Regimes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners list wildfires, drought, rockfalls, flash floods,
global warming, erosion, blow-downs, and timber harvests as impacts
that can alter the hydrology, topography, soils, or shading of Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower habitat (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 28). They cite a
report of areas intensely burned by wildfire that were observed within
9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft) of the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower population
at Hankins Gulch in 2003 (Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, p. 9). While
the riparian location of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower protected it from
direct fire impacts, ecology of the site was reportedly altered in its
hydrology and vegetation, as were possibly soils, water runoff,
erosion, and deposition of biotic mass (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 28).
According to the petitioner, loss of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
habitat has been documented in RMNP (2007b, p. 3). There has been a 69
percent reduction in surface water, as well as lowered water tables,
attributed to the loss of beaver (Castor canadensis), which has led to
a significant decline in montane riparian willows (RMNP 2007b, p. 3).
Like willows, the riparian habitat occupied by Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower is more dependent on groundwater from streams and snowmelt
than from rainfall. The petitioners say it is reasonable to conclude
that the same factors responsible for declining willow populations may
impact Rocky Mountain monkeyflower.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information cited in the petition and available in our files is
consistent with the petitioners' description of impacts to Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower habitat due to natural events. An intense
wildfire and subsequent drying of soil and erosion by water runoff
occurred at the largest known population of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
(Hankins Gulch) in 2002 (Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, p. 9). The
petitioner's descriptions of lowered water tables and reduced surface
water in RMNP are based on reports from the park (RMNP 2007b, p. 3).
The conclusion that Rocky Mountain monkeyflower populations will
decline from lack of groundwater in the same way that willows have is
reasonable. However, we have no information in our files to show that
reduced groundwater for willow and aspen habitat due to lack of beaver
ponds is affecting the seeps and drainages on shaded slopes that
support Rocky Mountain monkeyflower habitat. Therefore, we find that
there is not substantial information to indicate that changes in
natural regimes may pose a threat to the species. We will evaluate this
factor more thoroughly during our status review.
Climate Change
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner states that the western United States will likely
suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change, which will
affect montane and subalpine ecosystems in RMNP and across Colorado. In
support of this assertion, they cite conclusions from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, p. 52) and RMNP
(2007a, p. 6). The IPCC projected that warming in western mountains
will cause decreased snowpack and reduced summer flows (IPCC 2007, p.
52). RMNP postulates that the subalpine ecosystem will change due to
dramatic disturbances, such as fire and insects, and from more gradual
processes, such as warming temperatures (RMNP 2007a, p. 13). Regional
changes in precipitation play a major role in large-scale fires in
subalpine forests, which take place during extreme regional drought
conditions. Increased numbers or intensities of fires could have a
damaging impact on Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, easily destroying
entire populations. Tree community composition will likely shift within
the subalpine zone. For instance, north-facing hillsides may no longer
be moist enough to support Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir)
regeneration (RMNP 2007a, p. 13), or Rocky Mountain monkeyflower.
``Mountain ecosystems such as those found in RMNP could shift upslope,
reducing habitat for many subalpine species.
[[Page 52298]]
Changes in rainfall and snowfall could alter streamflows and affect
wetlands and wildlife'' (Environmental Protection Agency 1997, p. 4).
The petitioners assert that, as a montane and subalpine plant that
depends on seeps and streams for survival, reproduction, and dispersal,
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower will likely be adversely affected by
reductions in stream flows and decreases in habitat acreage.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the IPCC. ``Climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007,
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Sources cited by the petitioners and in our files support their
assertion that climate change is occurring and likely to continue to
occur within Rocky Mountain monkeyflower habitat. However, the petition
did not present information on the species' likely response to these
changes. The response of species to climate change can be extremely
complex, and we have no information in our files on the actual or
likely response of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. We think it possible
that, as a montane and subalpine plant that disperses generally by
gemmae floating downstream, Rocky Mountain monkeyflower will likely be
adversely affected by decreases in range and upward shifts in its
suitable habitat. Because Rocky Mountain monkeyflower depends on a
constant source of moisture for survival, reproduction, and dispersal,
reduction in stream flows may affect its survival. Because the climate
is expected to become warmer and drier, habitat for Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower may diminish, and fire danger will likely increase. High
fire risk is more than a theoretical threat for this species, because
two major fires have occurred within the past 4 years in and near two
of the populations. Overall, the information regarding the species'
response to climate change appears speculative in nature, and therefore
we find that there is not substantial information to indicate that the
effects of climate change may pose a threat to Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower. However, we will analyze this potential threat in more
detail during our status review of the species.
Summary of Factor A
Information provided in the petition, as well as available
information in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that trampling by recreational users may pose a
threat to the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. Habitat alteration and
destruction of plants due to trampling may pose a threat to at least 54
percent of the known occupied habitat for the species, supporting about
88 percent of the documented plants, which are located near roads or
trails used for recreational and maintenance activities. The biology of
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as a small, fragile, and inconspicuous
plant makes it highly susceptible to inadvertent trampling and means
that the plant is unlikely to withstand such impacts. Therefore, the
petition and information in our files presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range may
be a threat to Rocky Mountain monkeyflower.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Neither the petition nor information within our files presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes may present a threat to Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower.
C. Disease or Predation
Neither the petition nor information within our files presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
disease or predation may present a threat to Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that current regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the documented populations of Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower. Habitat for the known populations is managed by RMNP,
USFS, and CDNR. The petitioners claim that the efforts by these
agencies to balance conflicting interests with conservation and
survival of sensitive species threatens Rocky Mountain monkeyflower.
Populations in the RMNP are protected under National Park Service (NPS)
guidelines in general, which prohibit the collection of any native
plants without a permit, but RMNP also provides recreational
opportunities that negatively affect Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
(Steingraeber and Beardsley 2005, p. 10). A hiking trail bisects one
population in the park, and another location is used as a latrine and
rest stop by hikers (Beatty et al. 2003, p. 28).
The petitioners point out that Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is
designated as a USFS Region 2 sensitive species. As such, the species
may obtain some protection under various conservation strategies
designed to protect plants and animals within Federal lands. USFS
policies require a biological evaluation to assess project impacts to
sensitive species and prohibit collection of sensitive plants without a
permit. On the other hand, the USFS has a statutory, multiple-use
mandate governing its land management activities. Some authorized
activities on USFS lands, such as timber harvesting, cattle grazing,
and recreational uses, may affect Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. The
petitioners assert that balancing these other interests with the
species' survival threatens Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. The
petitioners assert that populations in wilderness areas within the
forest are still threatened by recreational activities. As an example,
they cite information concerning the population at Hankins Gulch (in
Lost Creek Wilderness Area) about 2 m (6 ft) from a trail, where
observers saw clusters of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower trampled by
human, dog, and horse footprints (Beardsley 1997, p. 221). The
petitioners say that this trail was expected to be rerouted in 2011 to
avoid damage to the plant (USFS 2011, p. 1), and also that Staunton
State Park managers were expected to consider Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower in their
[[Page 52299]]
land use plans (Beatty 2003, p. 12), but they do not mention whether
these actions have been implemented.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information cited in the petition and available in our files is not
sufficient to support the claim that existing regulations for
management of designated sensitive plant species on RMNP- and USFS-
managed lands may be inadequate to protect Rocky Mountain monkeyflower.
Adequacy of the management plan for Staunton State Park cannot be
considered because it consists of ``non[hyphen]regulatory protective
designations that are intended to promote the conservation of sensitive
resources through voluntary measures and proactive partnerships''
(Colorado State Parks 2010, Appendix A. p. 2). Voluntary measures in
the Staunton State Park management plan have yet to be implemented, and
the new park is not yet open to the public.
The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended,
states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal
areas known as national parks, * * * to conserve the scenery and the
national and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' To
meet these obligations, ``the National Park Service will inventory,
monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in a manner
similar to its treatment of federally listed species to the greatest
extent possible. In addition, the [Park] Service will inventory other
native species that are of special management concern to parks (such as
rare, declining, sensitive, or unique species and their habitats) and
will manage them to maintain their natural distribution and abundance''
(San Miguel 2011, p. 5). We do not have information readily available
in our files to indicate that RMNP has a management plan specific to
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, or whether any protective measures have
been taken to restrict hikers from trampling plants and habitat along
the trails, or digging latrines in the soft soil where the plants grow.
Steingraeber and Beardsley (2005, p. 10) reported that RMNP had not
rerouted trails or monitored impacts to Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
populations. We have no recent information in our files to show whether
the Organic Act regulations are adequate to protect Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower from the threat of trampling by hikers in RMNP.
The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) directs
the USFS, as part of the land use planning process, to manage for
protection of scientific values and protect wildlife habitat. The USFS
Sensitive Species Management directive states that sensitive species of
native plants and animals must receive special management emphasis to
ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that
would result in the need for Federal listing (USFS 2002, p. 1). On USFS
land, the trail at Hankins Gulch was rerouted in 2011 to avoid the
plant population (Anderson et al. 2011, p. 19). Although we do not yet
have monitoring results to show whether implementation of the
regulations has reduced impacts to the largest population, we estimate
that this is a positive step and should ameliorate the impacts to this
population from recreational use on USFS lands.
CDNR--Colorado State Parks has completed the Staunton State Park
Master Plan, which includes recommendations for protecting two rare and
unique plant species: Telesonix jamesii (James' telesonix) and Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower. The greatest threat to these species in the park
is from inadvertent trampling due to off[hyphen]trail hiking and rock
climbing and scrambling, as both species grow in areas that are
attractive to visitors. Surveys for these two species were conducted in
2007. The plan contains the following recommendations to minimize human
activity in habitat areas that are known to support these species:
protect known Rocky Mountain monkeyflower locations as well as high-
priority introduction sites; carefully plan trails and climbing access
in known or potential habitat areas to minimize the potential for
trampling or other impacts; survey climbing areas before they are open
to the public; and provide interpretive opportunities at the Visitor's
Center, including experimental introduction efforts. These
recommendations are nonregulatory and, as such, are intended to promote
the conservation of sensitive resources through voluntary measures and
proactive partnerships (Colorado State Parks 2010, Appendix A. pp. 4-
5). Therefore, we are not considering the adequacy of the plan as a
regulatory mechanism.
Projects conducted within the species' range may be subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). All Federal agencies are required to adhere to NEPA for projects
they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on Environmental
Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1518)
state that agencies shall include a discussion on the environmental
impacts of the various project alternatives, any adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA is a
disclosure law that does not require subsequent minimization or
mitigation measures by the Federal agency involved.
Summary of Factor D
Based on the information provided in the petition, as well as other
information available in our files, we find that there is no
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower. RMNP has nearly 7 percent of the entire known
population of the species on 45 percent of the occupied habitat, and
impacts to plants and habitat have been observed, but aside from the
2005 survey reports, we have no available information in our files or
from the petitioners to indicate whether RMNP is implementing their
directives to protect the species. The USFS has about 93 percent of the
plants on 54 percent of the occupied habitat. About 81 percent of these
plants are on the site that has been heavily trampled by hikers and
exposed to drying after a large wildfire. Use of a newly built trail is
expected to avoid further hiking impacts, although monitoring results
are not yet available.
Given the level of information we have at this 90-day finding
stage, it is unclear whether these Federal laws and regulations are
adequate as they pertain to addressing the threats to the habitat of
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower. We lack information regarding the
implementation of existing regulatory mechanisms, and there is
uncertainty about the efficacy of new protective measures and plans. We
will contact RMNP and other agencies during the status review process
to gather information to determine how and to what extent the existing
regulations provide protection.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Biological Vulnerability and Small Population Size
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners assert that Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is
especially vulnerable to extinction due to its
[[Page 52300]]
unique asexual reproductive strategy, which does not produce seeds or a
seed bank to maintain populations during dry years. Plants produce a
small propagation tool (the gemma) inside the stalk of each leaf, which
separates at the end of each season and seems to die, but then
regerminates from the ground in the spring. Because of the limited
reproductive ability of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, the petitioners
assert that loss of any individuals could undermine the survival of the
species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The Service does not consider rarity in and of itself to be a
threat. Some species, such as Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, have existed
in low numbers throughout their history. However, we recognize that
limited reproduction, small population size, and restricted range can
increase the species' vulnerability to extinction in the presence of
threats or other stressors. Another vulnerability is the stature of the
plants. Being small, fragile annuals that seldom produce flowers to
advertise their presence, Rocky Mountain monkeyflower plants are easily
overlooked and crushed underfoot and are, therefore, vulnerable to
trampling, which is the primary threat to the species. The crushed
plants cannot produce gemmae for reproduction, which reduces the size
of the population the following year. Due to their fragile and
inconspicuous nature, uniquely limited reproduction, small population
size, and limited range, all populations of Rocky Mountain monkeyflower
may be vulnerable to local extirpation from seemingly insignificant
disturbances.
Cumulative Threats
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners assert that any of the above-mentioned threats
working in tandem could lead to the extinction of Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower. For example, they assert that habitat loss and
degradation due to impacts from human recreation is exacerbated by the
threats of increased temperatures and more extreme weather caused by
climate change, which may impact the plant's reproductive success. They
state that Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is already at risk due to its
small population size and, thus, could easily be at risk from
cumulative impacts of other threats.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information cited in the petition and available in our files is
consistent with the petitioners' assertions that the vulnerability of
small populations with limited range may be increased when threats are
present. Warming, drying weather trends due to changing climate in the
Rocky Mountains decreases the water available to support the moist
habitat conditions essential for the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower's
survival. The same warmer, drier weather increases the frequency of
wildfire, which, in one such wildfire incident, has increased the
exposure of the largest plant population to more drying. Drier
conditions reduce the numbers and growth of these annual plants.
Trampling by hikers further reduces the numbers of individuals
available for continued reproduction.
Summary for Factor E
We find that the information provided in the petition, as well as
other information available in our files, presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that other natural or
manmade factors affecting the continued existence of Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower may be a threat. Its unique asexual reproduction, annual
life history, small population size, specialized habitat needs,
reliance on surface water and moist soils, and discontinuous
distribution all make the species vulnerable to increasingly drier
habitat conditions, wildfires, and trampling by hikers.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower throughout its entire range may be warranted. Given the
rarity of this species, its specific life-history traits that increase
vulnerability to extinction in the presence of other stressors, and
potential impacts to the existing populations from trampling, the
petition and our files contain substantial information that Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower may be threatened by at least two of the five
listing factors: present and threatened destruction, modification, and
curtailment of its habitat and range, and other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
This finding is based on information provided under Factors A and
E. We determine that the information provided under Factors B and C is
not substantial. The information on Factor D is unclear; we will
further analyze this issue in our status review.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing Rocky Mountain monkeyflower may be
warranted, we will initiate a status review to determine whether
listing Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 17, 2012.
Benjamin N. Tuggle,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21244 Filed 8-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P