Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus, 78514-78556 [2010-31225]
Download as PDF
78514
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Colorado Ecological Services Office (see
by telephone, 970–243–
2778; or by facsimile, 970–245–6933.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ADDRESSES);
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R6–ES–2010–0080; MO 92210–0–
0008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus
schmolliae as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY:
Background
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
ACTION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service/USFWS),
announce a 12-month finding on a
petition to list Astragalus microcymbus
(skiff milkvetch) and Astragalus
schmolliae (Schmoll’s milkvetch) as
endangered or threatened, and to
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a review of all the
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing A.
microcymbus and A. schmolliae is
warranted. However, currently listing of
A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae is
precluded by higher priority actions to
amend the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon
publication of this 12-month petition
finding, we will add A. microcymbus
and A. schmolliae to our list of
candidate species. We will make any
determinations on critical habitat during
development of the proposed listing
rule. In any interim period, the status of
the candidate taxon will be addressed
through our annual Candidate Notice of
Review.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on December 15,
2010.
SUMMARY:
This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R6–ES–2010–0080. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764
Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction,
CO 81506–3946. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al
Pfister, Field Supervisor, Western
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is:
(a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned
action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species
are threatened or endangered, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, titled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249), and the
Department of the Interior’s manual on
Departmental Responsibilities for Indian
Trust Resources, at 512 DM 2, we
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with the Tribes in developing programs
for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands,
to remain sensitive to Indian culture,
and to make information available to
Tribes. In fulfilling our trust
responsibilities for government-to-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
government consultation with Tribes,
we met with the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe regarding the process we would
take to conduct a 12-month status
review of Astragalus schmolliae. As an
outcome of our government-togovernment consultation, we recognize
the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe to manage the habitat for A.
schmolliae on its tribal lands, and
acknowledge that right in this 12-month
finding.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
(then A. schmollae) began as a result of
section 12 of the Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which
directed the Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution to prepare a
report on plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the
United States. This report, designated as
House Document No. 94–51, was
presented to Congress on January 9,
1975. In that document, both species
were designated as endangered (House
Document 94–51, pp. 57–58). On July 1,
1975, the Service published a notice in
the Federal Register (40 FR 27823, p.
27847) of its acceptance of the
Smithsonian report as a petition within
the context of section 4(c)(2) (now
section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and giving
notice of its intention to review the
status of the plant taxa therein.
As a result of that review, the Service
published a proposed rule on June 16,
1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR
24523, pp. 24543–24544) to determine
endangered status pursuant to section 4
of the Act for approximately 1,700
vascular plant taxa, including
Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus
schmolliae. The list of 1,700 plant taxa
was assembled on the basis of
comments and data received by the
Smithsonian Institution, and the Service
in response to House Document No. 94–
51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal
Register publication. General comments
received in response to the 1976
proposal are summarized in an April 26,
1978, Federal Register publication (43
FR 17909). In 1978, amendments to the
Act required that all proposals more
than 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year
grace period was given to proposals
already more than 2 years old. On
December 10, 1979, the Service
published a notice in the Federal
Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the
portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal
that had not been made final which
removed both A. microcymbus and A.
schmolliae from proposed status but
retained both species as candidate plant
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
taxa that ‘‘may qualify for listing under
the Act.’’
On December 15, 1980, the Service
published a current list of those plant
taxa native to the United States being
considered for listing under the Act
where Astragalus microcymbus and
Astragalus schmolliae were identified as
a category 2 taxon ‘‘currently under
review’’ (45 FR 82479, pp. 82490–
82491). On November 28, 1983, A.
schmolliae was moved to the ‘‘taxa no
longer under review’’ list, and given a
3C rank indicating the species was
proven to be more abundant or
widespread than previously believed or
not subjected to an identifiable threat
(48 FR 53640, pp. 53641, 53662). The
two species also were included as a
category 2 species (A. schmolliae was
not included as a 3C species despite the
conclusions of the 1983 review) on
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39525, p.
39533–39534), February 21, 1990 (55 FR
6184, p. 6190), and September 30, 1993
(58 FR 51144, pp. 51151–51152). The
category 2 species designation was
defined as having enough information to
indicate that listing the species as an
endangered or threatened species was
possibly appropriate.
On October 22, 1993, we received a
petition dated October 19, 1993, from
the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and
Lee Dyer requesting that Astragalus
microcymbus be listed as endangered
under the Act, and that critical habitat
be designated (Carlton et al. 1993, pp.
1–11). The petition included biological
information regarding the species and
several scientific articles in support of
the petition. After careful consideration,
we did not issue a 90-day finding on the
petition because the species was already
included as a category 2 species (Spinks
1994, pp. 1–8).
On February 28, 1996, we proposed
removing all category 2 species,
including Astragalus microcymbus and
Astragalus schmolliae, from our
candidate species notice of review (61
FR 7596). This policy change was
finalized on December 5, 1996, stating
that the list was not needed because of
other lists already maintained by other
entities such as Federal and State
agencies (61 FR 64481).
On July 30, 2007, we received a
petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians)
requesting that the Service: (1) Consider
all full species in our Mountain Prairie
Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the
organization NatureServe, except those
that are currently listed, proposed for
listing, or candidates for listing; and (2)
list each species as either endangered or
threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp.
1–37). The petition incorporated all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
analyses, references, and documentation
provided by NatureServe in its online
database at https://www.natureserve.org/
into the petition. We acknowledged the
receipt of the petition in a letter to the
Forest Guardians, dated August 24, 2007
(Slack 2007, p. 1). In that letter we
stated that, based on preliminary
review, we found no evidence to
support an emergency listing for any of
the species covered by the petition, and
that we planned work on the petition in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV–
472–CKK) indicating that the Service
failed to comply with its mandatory
duty to make a preliminary 90-day
finding on their two multiple species
petitions—one for the Mountain-Prairie
Region, and one for the Southwest
Region (WildEarth Guardians v.
Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08–CV–472–
CKK). We subsequently published two
90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74
FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR
6122), identifying species for which we
were then making negative 90-day
findings, and species for which we were
still working on a determination. On
March 13, 2009, the Service and
WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement in the District of Columbia
Court, agreeing that the Service would
submit to the Federal Register a finding
as to whether WildEarth Guardians’
petition presents substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
38 Mountain-Prairie Region species by
August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar 2009, case 1:08–CV–472–CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a
partial 90-day finding for the 38
Mountain-Prairie Region species, and
found that the petition presented
substantial information to indicate that
listing of Astragalus microcymbus may
be warranted based on threats from offroad vehicle use and drought; and that
listing Astragalus schmolliae may be
warranted based on threats from fire,
nonnative species invasions, road
construction, grazing, and drought; and
went on to request further information
from the public pertaining to both
species (74 FR 41649, pp. 41655–
41656).
This notice constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 24, 2007, petition to
list Astragalus microcymbus and
Astragalus schmolliae as threatened or
endangered. Given that we are doing 12month findings for 38 species from this
petition, and 67 species from the
Southwest Region multiple species
petition (74 FR 419, January 6, 2009; 74
FR 66866, December 16, 2009), and
given the amount of resources that it
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78515
takes to complete a 12-month finding,
we are unable to complete 12-month
findings for all these species at this
time.
Species Information—Astragalus
Microcymbus
Species Description and Taxonomy
Astragalus microcymbus is a
perennial forb (a plant that can live to
more than 3 years of age and without
grass-like, shrub-like, or tree-like
vegetation) that dies back to the ground
every year. The plant has slender stems
that are sparsely branched with dark
green pinnate leaves, with 9–15 leaflets
arranged in an evenly spaced fashion
along either side of a central axis. It is
in the pea (Fabaceae) family. The
spindly red to purple branches grow
from 30–60 centimeters (cm) (12–24
inches (in.)) long to 30 cm (12 in.) high,
and may trail along the ground, arch
upwards, or stand upright, often being
supported by neighboring shrubs.
Flowers are small (0.5 cm (0.2 in.)), pealike, are found at the end of branches in
clusters of 7–14 flowers, and have white
petals that are tinged with purple. Fruits
are boat-shaped (hence the common
name ‘‘skiff’’ and the Latin name
microcymbus meaning ‘‘small boat’’),
grow to less than 1 cm (0.4 in.), are
triangular in cross-section, and hang
abruptly downward from the branches.
These characteristics, particularly the
plant’s diffuse branching, small whitepurple pea-like flowers, and boat-like
fruit pods distinguish this species from
other Astragalus species in the area
(description adapted from Peterson et
al. 1981, pp. 5–7; Heil and Porter 1990,
pp. 5–6; Isley 1998, p. 349).
Astragalus microcymbus was
discovered in 1945 by Rupert Barneby
roughly 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi))
west of Gunnison, Colorado (Barneby
1949, pp. 499–500). The species was not
located again until 1955 by the Colorado
botanical expert William Weber, who
originally considered it to be nonnative
because of its dissimilarity to the other
numerous Astragalus species in the
region (Barneby 1964, p. 193). Both of
these early collections were from
alongside Highway 50 near Gunnison,
Colorado, at a location that has likely
been destroyed. The plant was not
located in its more intact and native
habitat along South Beaver Creek until
Joseph Barrell rediscovered the species
in 1966 (Barrell 1969, p. 284; Colorado
Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)
2010a, p. 14).
The Astragalus genus is large, with
over 1,500 species that are found on all
continents except Antarctica and
Australia, and with almost 600 species
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78516
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
in the United States, primarily in the
West (Isley 1998, p. 149). The genus is
divided into many sections. A.
microcymbus is not similar in
appearance to other Astragalus species
in the region. Its presumed closest
relative (from the Strigulosi section of
Astragalus) is found in New Mexico,
with other relatives extending
southward, and being found mostly in
Mexico (Barneby 1964, p. 193; Isley
1998, pp. 349–350). The taxonomic
status of A. microcymbus has not been
disputed, although the monophyly (all
members descended from a single
common ancestor) of the Strigulosi
section, and the placement of A.
microcymbus within the section has
been debated (Spellenberg 1974, pp.
394–395; Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 12–
13). For the purposes of this finding, we
consider A. microcymbus to represent a
valid species and, therefore, a listable
entity.
Biology and Life History
Astragalus microcymbus individuals
live on average 2.2–3 years (with a range
of 1–14 years). Most frequently, plants
are alive for only 1 year (DePrengerLevin 2010a, pers. comm.). The plant
flowers from mid to late May into July
(Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18; Japuntich
2010a, pers. comm.). There are more
flowering plants in early June than at
any other time, and flowering then
drops off or stops, with a second bloom
occurring in July (Japuntich 2010a, pers.
comm.). The earlier flowering plants are
reportedly larger and more vine-like,
and later flowering plants are much
smaller sized and less vine-like
(Japuntich 2010a, pers. comm.).
Little is known of how Astragalus
microcymbus reproduces. For example,
we do not know if the plant requires
pollinators, or what pollinators are
important for reproduction. A single
plant that was caged in 1980 did not
produce fruit (Heil and Porter 1990, p.
18). Although this was suggested as
evidence that the plant may require
pollinators, we believe that this
speculation is premature, because the
study was completed for only one
individual. Studies of other Astragalus
species have found some species to be
totally reliant on pollinators, and others
to be somewhat self-compatible (able to
produce seed without pollen from a
different plant) but still relying on
pollinators to some degree (Karron 1989,
p. 337; Kaye 1999, p. 1254). Astragalus
species with limited ranges are
somewhat more self-compatible than
wider ranging relatives (Karron 1989, p.
337).
Several pollinators have been
observed visiting Astragalus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
microcymbus, suggesting that
pollinators may be important for
reproduction, but little is known about
what pollinators these are (with the
exception of the two listed below) and
which are most important. Two insects
that regularly visit the flowers of A.
microcymbus were collected in 1989
(Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18–19). One
visitor was a small, black carpenter bee,
Ceratina nanula that was collected from
3 sites (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18–
19), and is known from at least 11
western States (Discover Life 2009, p. 1).
The other visitor was a small, yellow
and brown satyr butterfly,
Coenonympha ochracea ssp. ochracea, a
species of the Rocky Mountains (Heil
and Porter 1990, p. 19). We expect there
are more pollinators than these two
species, based on the limited number of
observations and collections to date
(Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 6, 18–19;
Sherwood 1994, p. 12), and because
other Astragalus species are visited by
many different pollinator species
(Karron 1989, p. 322; Kaye 1999, pp.
1251–1252; Sugden 1985, p. 303).
Fruits of Astragalus microcymbus
have been observed as early as late-May,
are always present by mid-June, with
peak fruiting occurring in mid-July, and
all fruits falling off the plants by lateAugust (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18).
Fruit production varies greatly. For
example, during a life-history study
(discussed in further detail in
Distribution and Abundance below), no
fruits were counted in 2002, and 33,819
fruits were counted in 2008 (Denver
Botanic Gardens [DBG] 2010a, p. 5). In
the same 14-year life history study
(1995–2009), fruit production was high
in only 3 years: 1995, 1997, and 2008
(DBG 2010a, p. 5). This type of
synchronous seeding is sometimes
referred to as mast seeding or mast
years. Mast seedings may be a strategy
to release enough seeds to feed seed
predators, that are kept at lower
numbers in years with little or no seed
production, and still allow other seeds
to germinate. Alternatively, it may be a
product of increased pollination success
(Crone and Lesica 2004, p. 1945). We
are unsure of the conditions that lead to
good seed and fruit set; overall annual
precipitation does not explain the
variability (DBG 2010a, p. 12).
Seed dispersal mechanisms have not
been researched, but wind and rain are
considered candidates (Heil and Porter
1990, p. 19). Seed dormancy, seed
survival, and seed longevity in the soil
are unknown. We do not know if
specific cues (e.g., temperature,
precipitation, or seed coat alterations)
are needed to break seed dormancy.
Seed bank studies for other Astragalus
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
species indicate that the group generally
possesses hard impermeable seed coats
with a strong physical germination
barrier. As a result, the seeds are
generally long-lived in the soil, and only
a small percentage of seeds germinate
each year (summarized in Morris et al.
2002, p. 30). Conversely, the DBG
looked at soil cores taken from A.
microcymbus monitoring sites and
found only one seed. The authors
concluded that A. microcymbus does
not have an active seed bank (DBG
2010a, p. 6). More research is needed to
better understand the seed bank’s role in
the life history of the species.
Astragalus microcymbus individuals
may exhibit prolonged dormancy
(remaining underground throughout a
growing season). This trait may help a
species better cope with drought or
resource-limiting conditions (Lesica and
Steele 1994, pp. 209–210). Between 6
and 90 percent of A. microcymbus
individuals are dormant in a given year
(DBG 2008, pp. 6, 13, 18). Dormancy
varies significantly from year to year
and between plots (DBG 2010a, p. 15).
Of the individuals that exhibited
prolonged dormancy, 54 percent
remained dormant for 1 year, 10 percent
were dormant for 2 years, with a
decreasing percentage of individuals
remaining dormant for each
successively longer time period to 11
years (DBG 2008, p. 6). These numbers
for prolonged dormancy are not
definitive because researchers are
unable to say with certainty if a plant
returning to a spot where an individual
was previously found is a new
individual or an individual returning
from prolonged dormancy (DePrengerLevin 2010a, pers. comm.).
Distribution and Abundance
We use several terms to discuss
various sizes or groupings of Astragalus
microcymbus individuals: Element
Occurrence, site, polygon, point, and
units. We consider the term Element
Occurrence synonymous with
population and it is further defined
below. Within a population, various
smaller ‘‘sites’’ have been hand drawn
on maps between 1955 and 1994, and
counted or tracked by site. To
distinguish these older sites from more
recent Global Positioning System (GPS)
mapping efforts, we have used the term
‘‘polygon’’ (circles around clusters of
individuals) or ‘‘point’’ (points
representing one or a few plants within
the immediate area) to describe data that
was collected after 2003 with a GPS
unit. Finally, we have taken the
polygons and points and created ‘‘units’’
on which to conduct our spatial
analyses for this 12-month finding. The
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reasons for creating these units are
described in further detail below.
The CNHP, the agency that tracks rare
plant species in the State of Colorado,
operates within the national
NatureServe network and follows
NatureServe protocols. NatureServe
guidelines on designating Element
Occurrences state they are to be
designated to best represent individual
populations, and are typically separated
from each other by barriers to movement
or dispersal (NatureServe 2002, p. 11).
The CNHP assigns overall species ranks
for rare plants within the State of
Colorado. Astragalus microcymbus has a
Global rank of G1 indicating the species
is critically imperiled across its range,
and a State rank of S1 indicating the
species is critically imperiled within the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
State of Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1,
5). Since the species is known only from
the State of Colorado, the State (S) and
Global (G) ranks are the same.
Astragalus microcymbus has a very
limited range. It is found in an area
roughly 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from east to
west and 10 km (6 mi) from north to
south with a small, disjunct (widely
separated) population found 17 km
(10.5 mi) to the southwest on Cebolla
Creek (Figure 1). The species is known
primarily from Gunnison County with
one site located in Saguache County.
The majority of sites and individuals are
along South Beaver Creek just southwest
of Gunnison, Colorado. The species
occurs on lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison
Resource Area and adjacent private
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78517
lands. Within known areas, A.
microcymbus has a spotty distribution,
most likely linked to the habitat being
spotty on the landscape (Heil and Porter
1990, p. 16). Using the highest counts
across years and across all sites, we
estimate the total maximum historic
population to be around 20,500
individuals in 5 populations (Table 1;
USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4). However, more
recent counts indicate there are
substantially fewer individuals than this
today (DBG 2010a, p. 7; BLM 2010, p.
3). We estimate A. microcymbus
occupied roughly 34 hectares (ha) (83
acres (ac)) in 2008 (BLM 2010, pp. 8–
10). In previous hand-drawn estimates,
A. microcymbus occupied roughly 131
ha (324 ac) (CNHP 2010a).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
EP15DE10.010
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78518
78519
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS POPULATIONS (ELEMENT OCCURRENCES) (USFWS 2010a, PP. 1–4)
Population name
Number of sites
(pre-2004)
Population No.
Beaver Creek SE ....................
Henry .......................................
Gold Basin Creek ....................
South Beaver Creek ................
Cebolla Creek ..........................
Total .................................
9
10
1
2
none
Estimated number
of individuals
unknown
1
4
39
1
45
25
513
5,618
14,317
unknown
20,473
Ownership
private .........................
BLM ............................
BLM ............................
BLM/private .................
private .........................
Population rank
Historic
B
A
A
C or D
Population rankings are categorized from A through D, with ‘‘A’’ ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and
higher quality habitat, and ‘‘D’’ ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A
historic rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The CNHP defines an Element
Occurrence of Astragalus microcymbus
as any naturally occurring population
that is separated by a sufficient distance
or barrier from a neighboring
population. More specifically, for A.
microcymbus, a population is separated
by 1.6 km (1 mi) or more across
unsuitable habitat, or 3.2 km (2 mi)
across apparently suitable habitat
(CNHP 2010b, p. 1). Given this
definition, the CNHP has four
populations of A. microcymbus in its
database (CNHP 2010b, p. 2). Of these
four populations, one (likely the type
locality) has not been relocated since
1985 and is considered historic. This
site was partially searched (because of
private land access) in 1994 and not
relocated, although there have not been
subsequent visits. It is considered
historic because it has not been seen in
20 years. The site along Cebolla Creek
has not yet been incorporated into the
CNHP’s database, but when
incorporated will comprise a separate
population based on the separation
distances described above.
While individuals of the species have
been lost, we are unaware of the loss of
any Astragalus microcymbus
populations, although we are unsure of
the status of Beaver Creek Southeast
population. Two A. microcymbus
populations comprise multiple sites
(Gold Basin Creek and South Beaver
Creek), and a few of these sites may
have been extirpated (locally extinct).
Site revisits using more accurate GPS
mapping equipment from 2004–2008
generally re-located historical sites but
decreased the overall footprint of most
sites into smaller polygons and points.
We roughly estimate the new mapping
of polygons and points generally
represents a reduction of about 75
percent in aerial extent from the original
sites. We are unsure if the reduction of
the site footprints is because of an actual
contraction in the size of the sites, if the
sites moved over time, or if it is an
artifact of mapping efforts using
improved technology. We expect it may
be a combination of all three. At three
sites in the South Beaver Creek area, no
plants were re-located despite several
survey efforts; these sites may have been
extirpated (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1–4; BLM
2010, pp. 7–10; DePrenger-Levin 2010b,
pers. comm.). In an extreme example,
one site along South Beaver Creek (023–
033–31975), was reduced from a larger
4-ha (10-ac) site to two small polygons
that are 97 percent smaller than
previously mapped (USFWS 2010a; pp.
1–4; BLM 2010, pp. 7–10).
The lumping of multiple sites into
populations makes sense biologically
because it generally represents areas
where genetic exchange is possible (e.g.,
populations). However, past mapping
efforts, site assessments, and count data
have often been collected for smaller
sites within a population (USFWS
2010a, pp. 1–4). The information
gathered for these smaller sites is
essential for tracking the status of the
species but is somewhat problematic for
an over-arching analysis for several
reasons. First, the confusion between
numbering protocols makes it difficult
to ensure that particular counts, habitat
specifics, or threats discussed by
different sources are from the same
sites. Second, mapping methodologies
have resulted in varying delineations,
especially with the advent of GPS
technology.
For our analyses in this 12-month
finding, we evaluated the sites,
polygons, and points within Astragalus
microcymbus populations, and created
what we call units from which to
conduct our analysis. We did this for
several reasons: (1) To simplify the
problems associated with tracking sites
(i.e., different sources used different
descriptors, making it difficult to ensure
that they were talking about the same
site); (2) to more broadly characterize
and analyze the threats to the species’
habitat (we believe that sites, polygons,
and points are too fine scale); (3)
because the polygons mapped in 2008
were on average much smaller than the
original hand-drawn sites, we wanted to
include more of the potential or
previously occupied habitat rather than
restricting our analysis to the 2008
mapped polygons; and (4) to provide for
a more detailed analysis than would
occur if we were to look at populations.
To designate the units, we drew a
perimeter around all GPS-derived
polygons and points that were within
200 m (656 ft) of one another, and then
buffered each perimeter by an
additional 100 m (328 ft) (Figure 1;
Table 2). This 100-m (328-ft) buffer was
included so that previously occupied
habitat, as drawn on maps, fell within
the boundaries of these units. As a
result of this exercise, all of the sites
within the Gold Basin Creek population
were lumped. As shown in Figure 1
above, this methodology divided the
South Beaver Creek population into six
separate units. The Beaver Creek
Southeast population, located entirely
on private land, is not included in our
units because we are unsure of its exact
location and current existence.
TABLE 2—ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS UNITS FOR OUR SPATIAL ANALYSIS IN THIS 12-MONTH FINDING (USFWS 2010a,
PP. 1–4; 2010b, PP. 1–3).
Unit name
Population No.
Est. number of individuals
Acres
Hectares
Beaver Creek SE ..........................
Henry ............................................
Gold Basin Creek .........................
9 ............................
10 ..........................
1 ............................
25 ..........................
513 ........................
5,618 .....................
Unknown ...............
10.8 .......................
315.1 .....................
Unknown ...............
4.4 .........................
127.5 .....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Ownership
private
BLM
BLM
78520
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS UNITS FOR OUR SPATIAL ANALYSIS IN THIS 12-MONTH FINDING (USFWS 2010a,
PP. 1–4; 2010b, PP. 1–3).—Continued
Unit name
Population No.
Est. number of individuals
Acres
Hectares
Ownership
South Beaver Creek 1 ..................
2 ............................
6,136 .....................
918.5 .....................
371.7 .....................
South Beaver Creek 2 ..................
2 ............................
3,667 .....................
684.5 .....................
277.0 .....................
South Beaver Creek 3 ..................
2 ............................
2,464 .....................
163.6 .....................
66.2 .......................
South Beaver Creek 4 ..................
2 ............................
778 ........................
24.1 .......................
9.75 .......................
South Beaver Creek 5 ..................
South Beaver Creek 6 ..................
Cebolla Creek ...............................
2 ............................
2 ............................
none ......................
1,232 .....................
unknown ................
unknown ................
38.3 .......................
11.5 .......................
24.6 .......................
15.5 .......................
4.6 .........................
9.9 .........................
TOTAL ...................................
................................
20,433* ..................
2,190.8 ..................
886.6 .....................
70% BLM, 30% private
68% BLM, 32% private
96% BLM, 4% private
70% BLM, 30% private
BLM
BLM
6% BLM, 94% private
75% BLM, 25% private
*Number is different from Table 1 above because the counts from two historical sites were excluded from the units.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Comprehensive surveys for
Astragalus microcymbus were
conducted in 1989 (BLM 1989a, pp. 1–
31) and 1994 (Sherwood 1994, pp. 1–
24). In 2008, the BLM conducted a
comprehensive mapping effort without
counts or population assessments (BLM
2010, p. 3). Several other efforts have
counted individuals within certain sites
(Japuntich 2010b, pers. comm.;
DePrenger-Levin 2010b, pers. comm.;
2010c, pers. comm.; 2010d, pers.
comm.; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4). Count
data from various sites are difficult to
compare because there is no way of
knowing if two observers, during
different years, travelled across similar
areas, and if the effort between the two
counts were similar. In general, counts
in 1994 were higher than 1989
(Sherwood 1994, p. 13; USFWS 2010a,
pp. 1–4). Several other observers have
subsequently returned to these sites and
found that A. microcymbus numbers in
2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 were much
lower than those of 1994 and the 1980s,
with many sites shrinking from
thousands to hundreds of individuals
(DBG 2010a, p. 7; BLM 2010, p. 3;
USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4). Site counts and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
estimates from the 1980s and 1990s
often reported the number of A.
microcymbus individuals as more than
500, and sometimes as more than 2,000
individuals. Most counts in the last 5
years have been far less, generally under
150 individuals with only 1 count over
400 individuals (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–
4).
In 1989, the BLM developed a
protocol to provide long-term trend data
for selected populations of Astragalus
microcymbus (BLM 1989b, pp. 1–4).
They applied the protocol in select
locations in 1990, 1994, and 2008. The
number of individuals between 1990
and 2008 was not statistically different,
and both years had similar low annual
precipitation (20 cm (8 in.)) compared to
the average of 25 cm (10 in.) (USFWS
2010c, pp. 1–8; DBG 2010a, p. 12;
Western Regional Climate Center
[WRCC] 2010a, pp. 1–8). However, there
were significantly more plants in 1994
(three to four times) than either 1990 or
2008. Precipitation was higher in 1994,
roughly 10 cm (4 in.) more than in 1990
or 2008 (USFWS 2010c, pp. 1–8). We
conclude that there are more above-
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ground plants in years with more
precipitation.
The DBG has been monitoring
Astragalus microcymbus annually since
1995 (Carpenter 1995, pp. 1–7; DBG
2003, pp. 1–23; 2007, pp. 1–16; 2008,
pp. 1–20; 2010a, pp. 1–17). The DBG
found a decline in the number of A.
microcymbus individuals from 1995–
2009 (Figure 2), especially from 1995–
2002 (DBG 2010a, p. 5). When
comparing the first year of monitoring to
the last, this decline is not statistically
significant because of a partial rebound
in the last few years (DBG 2010a, pp. 5,
10–11). This decline is apparent,
although not significant, when
considering only above-ground
individuals (p = 0.11) as well as when
combining above-ground individuals
with dormant individuals (p = 0.19)
(Figure 2). Dormant individuals are
unknown for the first and last years of
the study (1995 and 2008) because of
problems associated with finding
dormant individuals in the first year,
and because dormant individuals
cannot be distinguished from dead
individuals in the last year.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
In conjunction with the life-history
monitoring, the DBG conducted a
population viability analysis using data
from 1995–2006. They found that all
monitored populations of Astragalus
microcymbus were in rapid decline, and
predicted that all populations will
comprise 20 individuals or less—their
definition of extinct—by 2030 (DBG
2010a, p. 10). This analysis has not been
updated incorporating more recent
monitoring data. However, a
preliminary review for a subsequent
population viability analysis has found
still declining trends but with a more
gradual decline that would likely delay
the predicted extinction date
(DePrenger-Levin 2010e, pers. comm.).
Unfortunately, the population viability
analysis including the 2007 and 2008
data has not been completed. The 2009
data cannot be used because of the
problems associated with identifying
dead or dormant individuals.
Astragalus microcymbus numbers are
positively correlated with precipitation.
In a statistical comparison, annual
rainfall from August of the previous
growing season to July of the current
growing season positively influenced
the number of A. microcymbus
individuals, average maximum
temperature in May and July negatively
influenced the number of individuals,
and rainfall in May and July positively
influenced the number of individuals
significantly (DBG 2010a, p. 6). In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
addition, rainfall in springtime months
during the growing season was
statistically correlated with more aboveground growth (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
Survey efforts, trend monitoring, lifehistory monitoring, and the
corresponding population viability
analysis all suggest that Astragalus
microcymbus numbers are declining. In
both of the more rigorous monitoring
efforts, the decline seems to be
correlated with precipitation. The
drought in the early 2000s caused a
huge decline in numbers, with a
rebound in the later 2000s (DBG 2010a,
p. 5). However, the very low survey
numbers from this decade as compared
to the 1980s and 1990s seem less
correlated with precipitation (USFWS
2010a, pp. 1–4; WRCC 2010a, pp. 1–8).
The reasons for these declines are not
fully understood.
Habitat
Astragalus microcymbus is found in
the sagebrush steppe ecosystem at
elevations of 2,377–2,597 meters (m)
(7,800–8,520 feet (ft)). The plant is most
commonly found on rocky or cobbly,
moderate to steep (9–38 degrees) slopes
of hills and draws (Heil and Porter 1990,
p. 16), although there are some sites that
are flat. Plants are generally found on
southeast to southwest aspects, but are
occasionally found on northern
exposures (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13).
The average annual precipitation is
around 25 cm (10 in.) a year, and is
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78521
fairly consistently spread across the
year, except for July and August when
roughly twice the precipitation falls
compared to the other months (WRCC
2010b, pp. 3, 8). Snow falls in the
winter and remains on the ground from
November/December through March/
April (WRCC 2010a, pp. 3, 8). Winters
are cold with an average daily high in
January of -3 °C (26.5 °F) and an average
daily low of -20 °C (-4.0 °F). Summers
are warmer. July is the hottest month
with an average daily high of 27 °C (81
°F) and an average daily low of 6 °C (44
°F) (WRCC 2010b, pp. 3–8).
Astragalus microcymbus is found in
open park-like landscapes dominated by
several sagebrush species, cacti, sparse
grasses, and other scattered shrubs.
Shrubs are primarily represented by
Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana
(mountain big sagebrush), Artemisia
tridentata ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming
sagebrush), Artemisia frigida (fringed
sagebrush or prairie sagewort), and
Artemisia nova (black sagebrush); cacti
include Yucca harrimaniae (Spanish
bayonet), and Opuntia polyacantha
(plains pricklypear); grasses most
commonly include Achnatherum
hymenoides (formerly Oryzopsis
hymenoides—Indian ricegrass), Elymus
elymoides (formerly Sitanion hystrix—
squirreltail), Hesperostipa comata
(formerly Stipa comata—needle and
thread grass), and Poa sp. (fescue); and
the most common forbs include
Cryptantha cinerea (James’ Cryptantha)
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
EP15DE10.011
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
78522
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and Penstemon teucrioides (germander
beardtongue). Other shrubs and small
trees found within A. microcymbus’
habitat include Ribes cereum (wax
currant), Symphoricarpos oreophilus
(mountain snowberry), and Juniperus
scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper).
Soils are well drained and vary from
sandy to rocky, but are primarily a thin
cobble-clay loam (Heil and Porter 1990,
p. 13). The primary soils within
Astragalus microcymbus units are stony
rock land (46 percent), Lucky-Cheadle
gravelly sandy loams with 5–45 percent
slopes (39 percent), alluvial land (8
percent), and Kezar-Cathedral gravelly
sandy loams with 5–35 percent slopes (4
percent) (Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) 2008; USFWS 2010b,
pp. 12–13). Geologically, A.
microcymbus is associated with: (1)
Felsic and hornblendic gneiss
(metamorphic from igneous) substrates;
(2) granitic (igneous) rocks of 1,700
million-year age group; and (3) biotitic
gneiss, schist, and migmatite
(sedimentary) substrates with 52, 37,
and 11 percent, respectively, in each
geology (Knepper et al. 1999, pp. 21–22;
USFWS 2010b, pp. 10–11).
The areas where Astragalus
microcymbus is found are generally
distinct from surrounding habitats. They
are more sparsely vegetated, drier than
surrounding areas, more heavily
occupied by cacti, and appear to have
some specific soil properties as
described above. This habitat is limited
and patchily distributed on the
landscape.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424) set forth procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this 12-month finding, we
evaluated the best scientific and
commercial information available. Our
evaluation of this information is
presented below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a factor to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the factor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it
is. The threat is significant if it drives,
or contributes to, the risk of extinction
of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined in
the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following potential factors that
may affect the habitat or range of
Astragalus microcymbus are discussed
in this section, including: (1)
Residential and urban development; (2)
recreation, roads, and trails; (3) utility
corridors; (4) nonnative invasive plants;
(5) wildfire; (6) contour plowing and
nonnative seedings; (7) livestock, deer
and elk use of habitat; (8) mining, oil
and gas leasing; (9) climate change; and
(10) habitat fragmentation and
degradation.
Residential and Urban Development
The majority of Astragalus
microcymbus is located between 3.2 and
11 km (2 and 7 mi) of the town of
Gunnison, Colorado, the largest town in
Gunnison County (Figure 1). Rapid
population growth in the rural Rocky
Mountains, including the Gunnison
area, is being driven by the availability
of natural amenities, recreational
opportunities, aesthetically desirable
settings, grandiose viewscapes, and
perceived remoteness (Riebsame 1996,
pp. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, p.
408; Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 192–
197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; Hansen
et al. 2005, pp. 1899–1901). Gunnison
County grew from 5,477 people in 1960
to 15,048 people in 2007, constituting a
300 percent increase in population in
less than 50 years (CensusScope 2010,
pp. 1–3; Colorado State Demography
Office 2008, p. 1). The population of
Gunnison County is predicted to more
than double by 2050 to approximately
31,100 residents (Colorado Water
Conservation Board 2009, p. 53).
Human population growth results in
increased fragmentation of habitat (see
Factor E below) (Theobald et al. 1996,
pp. 410–412), increased recreation and
more roads (see Recreation, Roads, and
Trails below) (Mitchell et al. 2002, pp.
5–6; Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1899), more
utility corridors (see Utility Corridors
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
below), more nonnative invasive plants
(see Nonnative Invasive Plants below)
(Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1896), and
changes to ecological processes (Hansen
et al. 2005, p. 1901). A recent but
common pattern of population growth
in the Gunnison area is ‘‘exurban’’ or
‘‘ranchette’’ development. These
ranchettes consist of larger lots
(generally more than 14 ha (35 ac)) each
with an isolated large house. This type
of development, because of its location
outside of urban footprints, may have
more impacts to ecosystems and
biodiversity than urban or urban fringe
development (Hansen et al. 2005, p.
1903). Much of this development occurs
on steeper slopes, like those where
Astragalus microcymbus is found,
where views are better.
To the best of our knowledge,
residential and urban development
(aside from roads) has impacted only
one Astragalus microcymbus unit: the
Beaver Creek Southeast Unit. The
original type locality along Highway 50
may have been lost to highway
activities, and the nearby private lands
where the plant was located in the late
1970s and early 1980s may have been
lost to a gravel pit (Sherwood 1994, pp.
18–19). No more than 30 plants were
reported from this unit in any given year
from 1955–1994 (USFWS 2010a, p. 1).
Only two A. microcymbus sites are near
buildings: There is a cabin near one of
the larger A. microcymbus sites within
the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit (BLM
1989a, p. 31), and there is a house
within the Cebolla Creek Unit. We do
not know if construction of either of
these structures impacted A.
microcymbus.
Twenty-five percent of the Astragalus
microcymbus units are on private land,
mostly along South Beaver Creek (Table
2). Five parcels of private land (with an
additional parcel nearby) are currently
within A. microcymbus units along
South Beaver Creek ranging in size from
17 to 263 ha (43 to 650 ac), only one of
which has any housing or agricultural
developments. All of these parcels are
used primarily for livestock ranching
operations that have a much lower
impact than urban or residential
development.
These private land parcels bisect the
South Beaver Creek 1 and South Beaver
Creek 2 Units, and clip portions of the
South Beaver Creek 3 and South Beaver
Creek 4 Units (USFWS 2010b, pp. 2–3).
Roughly half of the known Astragalus
microcymbus individuals are within the
South Beaver Creek 1, 2, and 4 Units
(Table 2), making them especially
important to the conservation of the
species. These three units all have at
least 30 percent of their area on private
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
lands (Table 2), more than the average
across the units of 25 percent. Given
their proximity to town, the rapid
growth predicted for Gunnison County
(Colorado Water Conservation Board
2009, p. 53), the lack of undeveloped
parcels in desirable locations (Gunnison
County 2005, p. 1), and their appealing
views, these parcels are in a likely
location for development and could be
subdivided in the future. In addition,
the Cebolla Creek Unit is located almost
entirely on private land and is already
partially developed.
Residential or urban development of
these parcels would likely lead to the
destruction of Astragalus microcymbus
individuals, as well as fragment and
alter the plants’ habitat. In 2005, it was
estimated that only 30 percent of the
private lands in Gunnison County
remained undeveloped (Gunnison
County 2005, p. 1). Because only 30
percent of the private lands in Gunnison
County remain undeveloped, and
because the population of Gunnison
County is expected to double by 2050,
we conclude that the currently
undeveloped private lands where A.
microcymbus occurs are likely to be
developed by 2050. The potential loss of
up to 25 percent of the area (habitat) and
even more of the individuals of A.
microcymbus is a significant threat for
a species with such limited numbers
and a limited range (Table 2). This
development also would fragment the
habitat, potentially isolating small
populations from one another leading to
the further loss of individuals.
Currently, the impact of development
on the species is relatively minor,
consisting of the few examples provided
above. Although 25 percent of
Astragalus microcymbus individuals are
on private lands with no protective
mechanisms in place for the species,
little development is currently occurring
on these private lands. However, we
believe that the threat of development to
the species may increase in the
foreseeable future based on future
human population growth. Future
development on these lands is likely,
because of the rate of growth in the
Gunnison area. Given that Gunnison
County has seen a 300 percent increase
in population in less than 50 years, that
only 30 percent of the private lands
remain undeveloped, and A.
microcymbus’ close proximity to the
town of Gunnison, we expect that some
of these private land parcels will be
developed in the next several decades.
Based on the population projections
presented above, the foreseeable future
for development is 40 years, as the
population of Gunnison County is
predicted to more than double by 2050.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Based on the above information, we
consider residential and urban
development to be a threat to the
species in the foreseeable future.
Recreation, Roads, and Trails
It is difficult to separate the effects of
roads and trails from the effects of
recreation where Astragalus
microcymbus resides. Most forms of
recreation within A. microcymbus’
range include the use of roads and trails
either as a form of recreation (e.g.,
vehicle use, mountain biking, or hiking)
or as a way to access recreation areas
(e.g., target shooting and rock climbing
areas). For these reasons, we have
chosen to address recreation, roads, and
trails together in this section.
Roads cause habitat fragmentation
because they create abrupt transitions in
vegetation; add edge to adjacent
patches; are sources of pollutants; and
act as filters (allowing some species to
cross but not others) and barriers
(prohibiting movement) (Spellerberg
1998, pp. 317–333). Road networks
contribute to exotic plant invasions via
introduced road fill, vehicle transport of
plant parts, and road maintenance
activities (Forman and Alexander 1998,
p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and
Belnap 2003, p. 426). Many of these
invasive species are not limited to
roadsides, but also encroach into
surrounding habitats (Forman and
Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000,
p. 33; Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 427).
Aside from the indirect effects
discussed above, a road typically
removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha
(1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi), while a single
track trail removes all vegetation from
about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi)
(BLM 2005a, p. 13). Roads also act as
corridors that facilitate human
interaction with species and increase
the opportunities and the likelihood of
travel across undisturbed (non-road)
areas. The recreational use of roads is on
the rise. From 1991 to 2006, off-highway
vehicle registrations increased 937
percent (from 11,744 to 109,994 within
the state), with an average annual
increase of 16 percent (Summit County
Off Road Riders 2009, p. 1). Recreational
activities within the Gunnison Basin are
widespread, occur during all seasons of
the year (especially summer and
hunting season), and have expanded as
more people move to the area or come
to recreate (BLM 2009a, pp. 7–8).
Motorized and mechanized use has been
increasing within the Gunnison Basin
and is expected to increase in the future
based on increased population (USFS
and BLM 2010, pp. 5, 9, 85, 124–125,
136, 158, 177, 204, 244, 254, 269, 278).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78523
Because Astragalus microcymbus
generally occurs on slopes, it is
somewhat protected from the further
development of large roads. And many
of the existing roads, although not all,
run immediately along the bottom or top
of sites instead of through the middle of
sites. However, these slopes appear to
be the preferred location for dirt bike
and mountain bike trails, especially
those that were user-created instead of
formally designed. Many of the trails
within the range of A. microcymbus are
user-created and run across or up
through the slopes where the plant is
found (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.).
These user-created trails, when
redesigned, often require a series of
switchbacks, which could increase the
opportunity for impacts to the plant.
Travel management (the allocation and
utilization of motorized and
nonmotorized use), and route
designation and design, both within the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area and
outside that area, are described in
further detail below.
Except for the one disjunct
population, all of the Astragalus
microcymbus units are within 11 km (7
mi) of the town of Gunnison, the closest
of which is 3.2 km (2 mi) away. This
close proximity to an urban area makes
the species more susceptible to
recreational impacts than if it were
located more remotely. The Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area is a popular
urban interface recreation area and
contains roughly 40 percent of the A.
microcymbus units (BLM 2005a, p. 3;
USFWS 2010b, pp. 4–5). The Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area is located
between 3 and 10 km (2 and 6 mi) from
the town of Gunnison on BLM lands
(BLM 2005a, p. 3). The Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area covers 3,380 ha (8,350
ac), but trails expand out onto adjacent
lands. These lands also have A.
microcymbus plants and habitat that are
being impacted by these trails (BLM
2005a, p. 3).
We have no detailed information on
how much use occurs, how this use is
increasing, or when the use is occurring
in the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area.
In 2005, it was estimated that the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area
received 15,000–20,000 user days each
year (BLM 2005a, p. 3). Recreation
activities within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area include mountain
biking, motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle
riding, 4-wheeling, rock climbing,
camping, trail running, horseback
riding, cross country skiing,
snowmobiling, dog sledding, hill
parties, target shooting, hunting,
paintball, and more (BLM 2005a, p. 3).
We have seen most of these activities
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
occurring adjacent to or within
Astragalus microcymbus sites (USFWS
2010, pers. comm.).
The BLM’s Hartman Rocks Recreation
Management Plan closed two trails and
rerouted one trail to protect Astragalus
microcymbus (BLM 2005a, p. 18;
Japuntich 2010c, pers. comm.). These
closures were for trails that were
directly impacting A. microcymbus
individuals. The Aberdeen Loop trail
goes very close to several A.
microcymbus sites within the South
Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5,
and South Beaver Creek 6 Units. To
protect Gunnison sage-grouse broodrearing habitat, a reroute of this trail is
planned in the next few years that will
put the trail further from these A.
microcymbus sites (Japuntich 2010d,
pers. comm.). Many trails are open yearround in the Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area, but with less use in the winter and
early spring when trails are snow
covered or muddy. Closures during A.
microcymbus’ growing season (likely
late April through August) would
benefit the species by reducing impacts
to seedlings and plants, and by
lessening disruptions to pollinators. The
Aberdeen Loop trail that runs through
the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver
Creek 5, and South Beaver Creek 6
occupied A. microcymbus habitat is
subject to seasonal closures for the
Gunnison sage grouse from June 15 until
August 31. This closure provides partial
protection for A. microcymbus in the
growing season.
The South Beaver Creek Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
(also a Colorado Natural Area) was
designated in 1993 by the BLM with the
intent of protecting and enhancing
existing populations of Astragalus
microcymbus (BLM 1993, pp. 2.18, 2.29;
Colorado Natural Areas Program [CNAP]
1997, pp. 1–7). The South Beaver Creek
ACEC is 1,847 ha (4,565 ac), and
includes 60 percent of the A.
microcymbus units rangewide (BLM
1993, p. 2.18; USFWS 2010b, pp. 8–9).
Seventy percent of the South Beaver
Creek ACEC is within the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area, although the
South Beaver Creek ACEC was
developed at least 8 years prior to the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM
2005a, p. 44). Because of its designation
as a recreation area, the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area draws users to the area,
which is in conflict with the ACEC’s
intent to protect and enhance A.
microcymbus.
When the South Beaver Creek ACEC
was designated, motorized vehicle
traffic was limited to designated routes,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
whereas it had previously been open on
all lands (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). Outside
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, all lands
within the range of Astragalus
microcymbus remained open to
motorized vehicle traffic. In 2001,
mechanized travel, including mountain
bikes, on all lands within the Gunnison
Resource Area including the South
Beaver Creek ACEC and the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area was limited to
designated routes (U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) and BLM 2001a, p. 3; 2001b, pp.
1–2; BLM 2005a, p. 14). This closure
resulted in new protections for A.
microcymbus from mountain bikes and
vehicular use on BLM lands outside the
South Beaver Creek ACEC, and from
mountain bikes within the ACEC.
Enforcement of travel designations
and trail closures is difficult given the
large area of the BLM’s Gunnison
Resource Area and limited law
enforcement personnel (USFS and BLM
2010, p. 259). Illegal trails are always an
issue in well-used recreation areas (BLM
2010, p. 4). Furthermore, the open parklike habitat of Astragalus microcymbus
makes it difficult to disguise trails that
have been closed. Numerous
undesignated trails running through A.
microcymbus habitat are visible on
satellite images (see below). Law
enforcement with the Gunnison
Resource Area is provided by the BLM’s
Montrose Area Office, which is located
over 105 km (65 mi) away. Law
enforcement within this area is
intermittent, and tickets are rarely, if
ever, issued for trespass use (USFS and
BLM 2010, p. 259).
As an example, the Quarry Drop trail
that runs through the South Beaver
Creek 1 Unit was closed in 2005 with
the Hartman Rocks Recreation Plan,
because it ran directly through two
Astragalus microcymbus sites (BLM
2010, p. 4). Although this trail is posted
as closed, it was still in use during the
summer of 2009, when rocks were
placed to close the trail entrance (BLM
2010, p. 4). The Gunnison Trails group
(a local non-profit trail-building group)
and the BLM have increased their efforts
on finding illegal trails and closing them
before they become more established.
Continued pressure from the recreation
community for new trail construction is
likely, as well as trespass use (BLM
2010, p. 4). In an effort to control illegal
use, the BLM has put up educational
signs where roads enter the South
Beaver Creek ACEC explaining what A.
microcymbus is and why the species
and its habitat are important to preserve
(BLM 2010, p. 6). Trails that have been
closed are planned to be rehabilitated
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
where they meet open trails during the
summer of 2011 in an attempt to ensure
they will no longer be used (Japuntich
2010d, pers. comm.).
The BLM and the USFS finalized a
joint Environmental Impact Statement
for a Gunnison Basin Federal Lands
Travel Management Plan that includes
areas on BLM lands outside the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (USFS
and BLM 2010, pp. 1–288). This plan
builds upon the Gunnison Travel
Interim Restrictions of 2001 by closing
additional routes, mostly for resourcerelated reasons (USFS and BLM 2010, p.
1). Astragalus microcymbus is not
considered in detail in this plan, nor
does the plan designate roads be closed
specifically to protect A. microcymbus
(USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 47, 78–79).
None of the closures proposed in the
plan will benefit A. microcymbus nor do
they address routes within the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area.
We have found roads, trails, and
gravel parking areas atop Astragalus
microcymbus individuals and polygons
(USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). These
roads, trails, and parking areas have no
vegetation. A. microcymbus individuals
can be found along the margins of these
roads, trails, and parking areas,
sometimes with tire tracks atop (USFWS
2010, pers. comm.). Cheatgrass is
spreading from the old road bed upslope
and into the one site where invasion is
occurring (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.).
Trails sometimes are deeply incised and
eroded (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.).
We conducted a spatial analysis
overlaying the distribution of Astragalus
microcymbus units with designated
routes within and near the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area. We found 8.8
km (5.5 mi) of roads (3.5 km (2.3 mi))
and trails (5.3 km (3.2 mi)) overlap with
A. microcymbus units (Table 3) (BLM
2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 14–15).
Through this mapping effort, we found
four of the polygons within the Gold
Basin Creek Unit are being directly
impacted by these roads and trails
(USFWS 2010b, p. 16). We also are
aware of at least three other polygons
that are being directly impacted by
roads and trails (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Estimating that a road typically
removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha
(1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) while a single
track trail removes all vegetation from
about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi)
(BLM 2005a, p. 13), designated roads
directly impact 1.6 ha (3.9 ac) and
designated trails directly impact 0.3 ha
(0.8 ac) of habitat within A.
microcymbus units.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78525
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—ROADS, TRAILS, AND PATHS WITHIN Astragalus microcymbus UNITS
[Designated routes are those included in the BLM’s geospatial layers, undesignated are those located using satellite imagery]
Designated
Undesignated
Total
km (mi)
Unit name
Roads
km (mi)
Trails
km (mi)
Roads
km (mi)
Trails
km (mi)
Paths
km (mi)
Henry ........................................................
Gold Basin Creek .....................................
South Beaver Creek 1 .............................
South Beaver Creek 2 .............................
South Beaver Creek 3 .............................
South Beaver Creek 4 .............................
South Beaver Creek 5 .............................
South Beaver Creek 6 .............................
Cebolla Creek ..........................................
0.1 (0.06)
2.2 (1.4)
1.2 (0.7)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1.4 (0.9)
3.5 (2.2)
........................
........................
........................
0.2 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1)
........................
0.1 (0.06)
0.1 (0.06)
6.3 (3.9)
2.4 (1.5)
0.7 (0.4)
........................
........................
........................
0.6 (0.4)
0.1 (0.06)
0.4 (0.2)
3.4 (2.1)
0.3 (0.2)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1.3 (0.8)
1.6 (1.0)
3.6 (2.2)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.3 (0.2)
5.4 (3.4)
16.0 (9.9)
6.3 (3.9)
0.7 (0.4)
........................
0.2 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1)
0.6 (0.4)
Total (km) ..........................................
3.5 (2.2)
5.3 (3.3)
10.2 (6.4)
4.2 (2.6)
6.5 (4.0)
29.7 (18.5)
While travel is officially limited to
designated routes only on BLM lands,
there are numerous roads, trails, and
paths that are not designated, with some
receiving regular use. Some of these
roads have been closed, but their
footprint remains. Some of these roads
are on private lands along South Beaver
Creek, but many are trails or old roads
on BLM lands that are undesignated,
that either show evidence of use or
could be receiving use. We used the
NRCS’ 2005 National Agriculture
Imagery Program satellite imagery to
look for roads, trails, and paths in
occupied Astragalus microcymbus units
additional to those BLM roads and trails
included in the analysis above. We
designated roads, trails, and paths based
on the width of the disturbance. Roads
were the widest, trails were narrower,
and paths were the narrowest. We found
almost 21 km (13 mi) of additional
roads, trails, and paths, including: 10.2
km (6.3 mi) of roads, 4.2 km (2.6 mi) of
trails, 6.5 km (4.0 mi) of paths (Table 3)
(USFWS 2010b, pp. 21–22). Using the
BLM’s estimates of direct impacts (BLM
2005a, p. 13), undesignated roads
directly impact 4.4 ha (10.9 ac),
undesignated trails directly impact 0.3
ha (0.8 ac), and undesignated paths
directly impact less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of
A. microcymbus habitat. Because we
were using satellite imagery, we cannot
say for certain what the level of use is
on the trails, or even say if they are still
in use. Some of the paths may have been
livestock trails. Livestock trails may
receive more or less use than other
trails, but the effects are likely similar.
All units except the South Beaver
Creek 4 Unit have roads and trails.
Designated and undesignated roads
denude about 5.7 ha (14.1 ac),
designated and undesignated trails
denude about 0.6 ha (1.6 ac), and
undesignated paths denude less than 0.4
ha (1 ac) within Astragalus
microcymbus units, or less than 0.8
percent (Table 4). To estimate the
indirect effects of roads and trails, we
used a 20-m (66-ft) buffer on either side
of roads and trails. This distance
represents the area where invasive
nonnative species are most likely to
invade, pollinators may be impacted or
disturbed by passing vehicles, off-trail
use is most likely, and impacts from
dust may occur. This distance results in
a conservative estimate of impacts, as it
is probably more accurate for trails than
roads (summarized in DBG 2010b, p. 1).
Using this buffer distance, we estimate
that roughly 14.5 percent of A.
microcymbus’ total habitat may
currently be impacted by roads and
trails (Table 4) (USFWS 2010b, pp. 23–
25). We expect our 15-percent estimate
is low. For example, plumes of dust are
known to travel hundreds of meters,
especially in arid climates (Gilles et al.
2005, p. 2346). Also, we expect that the
two known pollinators of A.
microcymbus travel at least 100 m (328
ft) from their nests, and impacts within
this area could impact the nests of these
pollinators (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp.
589–596). In the case of the A.
microcymbus site with cheatgrass, we
estimate that the cheatgrass invasion
was facilitated by the road and has since
moved roughly 20 m (66 ft) upslope into
the site (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). A
100-m (328-ft) buffer (that would better
account for indirect dust and invasive
nonnative species effects) on either side
of these roads and trails would cover
roughly 46 percent of the A.
microcymbus units.
TABLE 4—DIRECT AND INDIRECT (20 METER (66 FOOT)) EFFECTS TO Astragalus microcymbus UNITS FROM ROADS,
TRAILS, AND PATHS
Direct
Road
km (mi)
Trail and path
km (mi)
Henry ........................................................
Gold Basin Creek .....................................
South Beaver Creek 1 .............................
South Beaver Creek 2 .............................
South Beaver Creek 3 .............................
South Beaver Creek 4 .............................
South Beaver Creek 5 .............................
South Beaver Creek 6 .............................
Cebolla Creek ..........................................
0.2 (0.1)
2.3 (1.4)
7.5 (4.7)
2.4 (1.5)
0.7 (0.4)
........................
........................
........................
0.6 (0.4)
Total (km) ..........................................
13.7 (8.5)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit name
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
20-m (66-ft) buffer
Area
ha (ac)
% of unit
Area
ha (ac)
% of unit
0.1 (0.06)
3.1 (1.9)
8.5 (5.3)
3.9 (2.4)
........................
........................
0.2 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1)
........................
0.1 (0.2)
1.2 (3.0)
3.8 (9.4)
1.3 (3.2)
0.3 (0.7)
........................
0.01 (0.02)
0.01 (0.02)
0.3 (0.7)
1.9
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
........................
0.05
0.2
2.8
1.8 (4.6)
22.7 (56.0)
69.7 (172.1)
26.9 (66.3)
3.2 (7.9)
........................
0.9 (2.2)
0.9 (2.2)
2.7 (6.8)
42.0
17.8
18.7
9.7
4.8
........................
5.8
19.4
27.7
16.0 (9.9)
6.9 (17.1)
0.8
128.7 (318.1)
14.5
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78526
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Given the numerous roads and trails
within Astragalus microcymbus’ habitat
(impacting between 15 and 46 percent
of the units), the dispersed and bisecting
nature of these roads and trails, the
numerous trespass trails, the likely
increase in nonnative invasive plants
from road and trail use, and the fact that
a recreation area was designated on 40
percent of the species habitat, we find
the magnitude of the threat from
recreation, roads, and trails to be high.
The threat is ongoing with a high
likelihood that it will continue to
increase over time. Given that off-road
vehicle use in Colorado is increasing 16
percent annually, that the population of
Gunnison County is estimated to double
by 2050, and that other recreational
impacts also are increasing at a rapid
pace, we expect a significant increase in
the threat from recreation, roads, and
trails in the next 40 years. The Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area’s Management
Plan is applicable for 10–15 years from
1995, although there is no definitive
expiration date (BLM 2005a, p. 7). We
are unsure if and when an update is
planned. The most recent Travel
Management Plan (USFS and BLM
2010, entire) for the Gunnison Basin
will have a similar lifespan. During this
time period travel management is not
likely to change while we anticipate use
will increase. Based on the above
information, we consider recreation,
roads, and trails to be a significant
threat to the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
Utility Corridors
Utility corridors have similar effects
to habitats as roads because both are
linear disturbances (see Recreation,
Roads, and Trails above for a review of
effects). The impact from a utility
corridor is greater than its actual
footprint, because utility corridors
fragment habitat and facilitate the
invasion of nonnative invasive plants.
We are aware of one large electrical
transmission line in Astragalus
microcymbus habitat. The Curecanti to
Poncha 230-kilovolt electrical
transmission line bisects the South
Beaver Creek 1 Unit and was built in
1962 (Japuntich 2010e, pers. comm.). A
500-foot right-of-way (ROW) (largely not
disturbed) is on both sides of the power
line (Japuntich 2010e, pers. comm.),
which overlays with about 38 ha (94 ac)
or 10 percent of the South Beaver Creek
1 Unit and 4 percent of the total area of
all A. microcymbus units. Only a small
proportion of the 500-foot ROW is
disturbed. We estimate 1.2 km (0.75 mi)
of transmission line with at least six
large structures (power poles) within the
unit. Given the close proximity of A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
microcymbus individuals to the
transmission line, we assume some
individuals were impacted during
construction. At least one access road to
a power pole also provides vehicular
access to an A. microcymbus site where
plants are being impacted by vehicles
driving on them. This transmission line
is used recreationally by snowmobile
riders in the winter (BLM 2005a, p. 53).
We do not know if there are any impacts
to A. microcymbus from these
snowmobiling activities. Direct impacts
seem unlikely from the snowmobiling
because the plants are dormant and
under snow when the use is occurring.
Compaction to the habitat is a
possibility.
Future ROW developments are
allowed in the South Beaver Creek
ACEC provided that the surface
disturbance does not impair or degrade
Astragalus microcymbus sites (BLM
1993, p. 2.30). The one known utility
corridor impacts only one A.
microcymbus unit, representing 4
percent of the total rangewide area
within units. Given the population
growth in the area, we believe there is
a moderate likelihood of additional
utility corridors in the future. We are
unaware of any plan to develop other
utility corridors through A.
microcymbus habitat. Although an
existing utility corridor in A.
microcymbus habitat may impact a
small percentage of the overall range of
the species, we have no information to
indicate that utility corridors occur at a
level that threatens the species now or
in the foreseeable future.
Nonnative Invasive Plants
Nonnative invasive plants (weeds)
invade and alter all types of plant
communities, sometimes resulting in
nonnative plant monocultures that
support little wildlife or native plants.
Many experts believe that, following
habitat destruction, nonnative invasive
plants are the next greatest threat to
biodiversity (Randall 1996, pp. 370–
383). Nonnative invasive plants alter
different ecosystem attributes including
geomorphology, fire regime, hydrology,
microclimate, nutrient cycling, and
productivity (Dukes and Mooney 2004,
pp. 411–437). Nonnative invasive plants
can detrimentally affect native plants
through competitive exclusion, altered
pollinator behaviors, niche
displacement, hybridization, and
changes in insect predation. Invasive
grasses can replace native plants such as
Astragalus microcymbus by
outcompeting them for resources, such
as soil nutrients or moisture (Brooks and
Pyke 2001, p. 6). Examples are
widespread among taxa and locations or
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ecosystems (D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, pp. 63–87; Olson 1999, pp. 6–18;
Mooney and Cleland 2001, pp. 5446–
5451).
The only nonnative invasive plant
species that has been documented
impacting Astragalus microcymbus is
cheatgrass or downy brome (Bromus
tectorum). Cheatgrass has become
dominant in many sagebrush areas
during the last century, primarily from
livestock use, agriculture, and wildfire
impacts (Pickford 1932, p. 165;
Piemeisel 1951, p. 71; Peters and
Bunting 1994, p. 34; Vail 1994, pp. 3–
4; Brooks and Pyke 2001, pp. 4–6;
Menakis et al. 2003, p. 284). Cheatgrass
displaces native plants by prolific seed
production, early germination, and
superior competitive abilities for the
extraction of water and nutrients
(Pellant 1996, pp. 3–4; Pyke 2007, pp.
1–2). Cheatgrass is capable of modifying
ecosystems by altering the soil
temperatures and soil water distribution
(Pellant 1996, p. 4). In addition, the
invasion of cheatgrass increases fire
frequency within the sagebrush
ecosystem (see Wildfire below) (Zouhar
et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press,
p. 39).
In the mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass
was seen in very small patches in the
Gunnison Basin but can now be found
in some abundance throughout the
Basin (BLM 2009a, pp. 7–8). Cheatgrass
is increasing in the South Beaver Creek
drainage and has been identified as a
major threat to Astragalus microcymbus.
This threat assessment was made
because of how cheatgrass is rapidly
expanding elsewhere in the Gunnison
Basin (BLM 2010, p. 5). Cheatgrass is
moving upslope into A. microcymbus
areas (BLM 2010, p. 5). In 2009, nine
polygons within the South Beaver Creek
1 Unit were discovered with cheatgrass
totaling 0.2 ha (0.6 ac) (USFWS 2010b,
pp. 16–17). These polygons did not exist
4 years prior to their discovery
(Japuntich 2010f, pers. comm.). In 2010,
another small site of cheatgrass was
mapped immediately adjacent to the
South Beaver Creek 5 Unit, and a 9-ha
(22-ac) site with cheatgrass was located
250 m (820 ft) away from the South
Beaver Creek 4 Unit (Japuntich 2010f,
pers. comm.).
Herbicide use to control cheatgrass in
the South Beaver Creek is limited by the
close proximity of South Beaver Creek,
because chemical spraying within the
South Beaver Creek ACEC is not
allowed, and vegetative treatments in
the South Beaver Creek ACEC must not
adversely affect Astragalus
microcymbus (BLM 1993, p. 2.29; BLM
2010, p. 6). In the spring of 2010, the
BLM conducted a mechanical removal
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
effort for cheatgrass to protect A.
microcymbus at the South Beaver Creek
1 Unit at the nine polygons mentioned
above (BLM 2010, pers. comm.). A
manual hand-pulling effort in 2010 that
treated several acres of cheatgrass was
partially successful (Japuntich 2010g,
pers. comm.). Cheatgrass spread also
may be affected by climate change (see
Climate Change below).
Other nonnative invasive species
known from the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area include: Canada thistle
(Cirsium arvense), scentless chamomile
(Matriacaria perforata), yellow toadflax
(Linaria vulgaris), and Russian
knapweed (Acroptilon repens) (BLM
2005a, p. 47). These species have not
been reported from or near Astragalus
microcymbus areas and are said to have
been controlled (BLM 2005a, p. 47). We
expect other nonnative invasive species
are likely in the area. Other nonnative
invasive species known from the
Gunnison Resource Area that are
reported to take over large areas include:
spotted knapweed (Centaurea
maculosa), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare), and field bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) (BLM 2009a, p.
7). The following weeds also are known
from the Gunnison Basin, where they
are currently limited in extent; however,
they are known to cover large expanses
in other parts of western North America:
diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa),
and whitetop (Cardaria draba). Other
invasive plant species present within
the Gunnison Basin that are problematic
yet less likely to overtake large areas
include: musk thistle (Carduus nutans),
bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), black
henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), kochia
(Kochia sp.), common tansy (Tanacetum
vulgare), and absinth wormwood
(Artemisia biennis) (BLM 2009a, p. 7;
Gunnison Watershed Weed Commission
(GWWC) 2009, pp. 4–6).
We believe the invasion of nonnative
invasive plants, particularly cheatgrass,
is likely to be a threat to A.
microcymbus in the near future because:
(1) Cheatgrass appears to be quickly
expanding into the habitat (it was
unknown just 2 years ago and there are
several cheatgrass sites nearby now); (2)
the dry, sparsely-vegetated, south-facing
slopes where A. microcymbus is found
are the warmest sites with little
competition from other native
vegetation (Japuntich 2010h, pers.
comm.) and, therefore, are inherently
vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion; (3)
cheatgrass likely competes with
seedlings and resprouting adult plants
for water and nutrients; (4) no
landscape-scale successful control
methods are available for cheatgrass;
and (5) the proven ability of cheatgrass
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
to increase fire frequency, thereby
facilitating further rapid spread. We
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is
currently not a threat but we expect that
the existing invasion will increase
quickly in the near future, and will
likely cause fire frequency to increase.
Wildfire
To date, we are aware of only one
recent wildfire near Astragalus
microcymbus habitat (BLM2009a, p. 6).
The wildfire burned in 2007 and was
8.1 ha (20 ac) (BLM 2009a, p. 6) in size.
The fire burned at a distance of 2–2.5
km (1.25–1.5 mi) away from two A.
microcymbus units–Henry and Gold
Basin Creek. This wildfire was just
outside the northwest edge of the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area,
adjacent to private land. Three wildfires
have burned within the sagebrush of the
Gunnison Basin in the last 15 years, the
biggest was 200 ha (500 ac) (Japuntich
2010h, pers. comm.). To date there has
not been a demonstrated change in the
fire cycle where A. microcymbus is
found, and fire frequency is low.
A common result of the invasion of
cheatgrass is an increase in fire
frequency within the sagebrush
ecosystem (Whisenant 1990, pp. 4–10;
D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63–
87; Hilty et al. 2004, pp. 89–96; Zouhar
et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press,
p. 39). Cheatgrass changes historical fire
patterns by providing an abundant and
easily ignitable fuel source that
facilitates fire spread. While sagebrush
is killed by fire and is slow to
reestablish, cheatgrass recovers within
1–2 years of a fire event (Young and
Evans 1978, p. 285). This annual
recovery ultimately leads to a
reoccurring fire cycle that prevents
sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et
al. 2009, p. 1324). The highly invasive
nature of cheatgrass poses increased risk
of fire and permanent loss of sagebrush
habitat, as areas disturbed by fire are
highly susceptible to further invasion
and ultimately habitat conversion to an
altered community state. For example,
Link et al. (2006, p. 116) show that risk
of fire increases from approximately 46–
100 percent when ground cover of
cheatgrass increases from 12–45 percent
or more. While cheatgrass cover is still
very low within Astragalus
microcymbus habitat, within the
Intermountain West, invasion has
occurred rapidly, especially after
wildfire.
Organisms adapt to disturbances such
as historical wildfire regimes (fire
frequency, intensity, and seasonality)
with which they have evolved (Landres
et al. 1999, p. 1180), and different
species respond differently to wildfire
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78527
(Hessl and Spackman 1995, pp. 1–90).
We do not know what Astragalus
microcymbus’ response to wildfire is at
this time because none of the species’
habitat has burned. Other Astragalus
species have demonstrated varying
responses to wildfire (see A. schmolliae
below; and A. anserinus in 74 FR
46526–46529, September 10, 2009). If
fire frequency increases in the area, we
expect it would have deleterious effects
to the habitat, given that big sagebrush
recovers slowly, which would
presumably affect the ecosystem, and
cheatgrass tends to thrive after a
wildfire.
We have no information to indicate
that wildfires currently occur at levels
that impact the species. No fires have
burned Astragalus microcymbus habitat.
However, wildfires have occurred in the
area. Furthermore, we realize there is a
strong relationship between cheatgrass
invasions and fire frequency. If
cheatgrass invasion continues to expand
as discussed above, the threat of
wildfire is likely to increase in the
future. Given the small population size
of A. microcymbus and the potential
damage a wildfire could cause, we
consider future wildfires to be a threat
to the species.
Contour Plowing and Nonnative
Seedings
Areas within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Areas (but largely outside of
the Astragalus microcymbus units) have
been subject to contour plowing and the
subsequent seeding of nonnative
species, as well as the development of
silt and water impoundment structures
(BLM 2005a, p. 57), which can destroy
A. microcymbus habitat. Contour
plowing is the past practice of plowing
across a slope following elevation lines
and is commonly done to prevent soil
erosion. We are unsure why contour
plowing and seeding efforts were
undertaken near A. microcymbus
habitat but expect that erosion control
and improving livestock forage may
have been the primary reasons for these
efforts. We have no site-specific data
regarding these activities, nor do we
know when they occurred. We expect
the contour plowing was done to
improve range conditions by
eliminating sagebrush and increasing
grazing and drought-tolerant grasses for
forage by livestock. The contour lines
from these efforts can be seen through
satellite imagery and occur largely on
BLM-managed lands. Within the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, we
estimate that roughly 18 percent (617 ha
(1,524 ac)) have been contour plowed.
Only 1.2 percent (11 ha (27 ac)) of the
A. microcymbus units have been
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78528
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
contour plowed and seeded, all within
the Gold Basin Creek (USFWS 2010b,
pp. 18–19). These contoured areas
surround the Gold Basin Creek Unit, but
there is very little overlap. We are
unsure the impact that these contour
efforts may have had on A.
microcymbus in the past. We speculate
there may have been an impact to the
species from these seeding efforts in the
past given that there is very little
overlap between the Gold Basin Creek
Unit and the contoured areas, despite
the contoured areas surrounding the
unit on the east, north and west sides
(USFWS 2010b, p. 19).
These contoured areas were seeded
with crested wheatgrass (Agropyron
cristatum). Most areas where Astragalus
microcymbus is found do not overlap
with sites where crested wheatgrass is
found in abundance (USFWS 2010b, pp.
18–19). Crested wheatgrass is commonly
found outside the contoured areas at the
Gold Basin Creek and Henry Units
(USFWS 2010, pers. comm.), and we
assume it has spread into these adjacent
native habitats from the contoured
areas. Crested wheatgrass is often used
for rangeland seedings because seed is
widely available, it establishes easily,
provides suitable forage for livestock,
provides some erosion control, and
controls competition from other
nonnative invasive plants (Walker and
Shaw 2005, p. 56). Crested wheatgrass is
extremely competitive and can outcompete other vegetation in several
ways (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 82–
83). Grasses, such as crested wheatgrass,
are wind pollinated and, therefore, do
not provide resources such as nectar or
edible pollen for pollinators.
The contour plowings and seedings of
crested wheatgrass affect only a small
proportion (1.2 percent) of the
Astragalus microcymbus units. The
likelihood of future seedings is low
because vegetative treatments that
would adversely affect A. microcymbus
are no longer allowed (BLM 1993, p.
2.29). Because crested wheatgrass
continues to invade native habitats from
these seedings, and because the plowed
areas may not provide good floral
resources for pollinators, we find these
continuing effects of past contour
plowing and nonnative seeding to
impact the species but not to the point
where it poses a threat to the continued
existence of the species. We expect
crested wheatgrass and pollinator
impacts to continue into the foreseeable
future since it does not appear that the
crested wheatgrass is disappearing.
Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat
Livestock Use—Potential threats
related to livestock, deer, and elk use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
include the eating of individual plants
(included in Factor C below), physical
effects from the trampling, and the
indirect effects of habitat degradation.
We are unaware of any research or
monitoring that has evaluated the effects
of livestock, deer, or elk use on
Astragalus microcymbus. However, the
deleterious effects of livestock on
western arid ecosystems are well
documented (Milchunas et al. 1992, pp.
520–531; Jones 2000, pp. 155–164).
Some of the adverse effects from
livestock include changes in the timing
and availability of pollinator food plants
(Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp. 298–299);
changes to insect communities (Kearns
and Inouye 1997, pp. 298–299; Debano
2006, pp. 2547–2564); damage to
ground-nesting pollinators and their
nests (Sugden 1985, p. 309); changes in
water infiltration due to soil compaction
(Jones 2000, Table 1); disturbance to soil
microbiotic crusts (Belnap et al. 1999, p.
167; Jones 2000, Table 1); subsequent
nonnative invasive plant invasions
(Parker et al. 2006, pp. 1459–1461); and
soil erosion from hoof action (Jones
2000, Table 1).
Without any species-specific research
or monitoring of livestock use, our
understanding of impacts to Astragalus
microcymbus is limited and
observational in nature. Little livestock
grazing has been recorded within A.
microcymbus areas; most plants are
located on steep slopes with little
vegetation that do not draw cows to
them (BLM 2010, p. 4). We expect that
the plant was always found primarily on
slopes, but do not know if the current
distribution has been influenced by
increased livestock use in flatter areas.
In 2008, after visiting all A.
microcymbus sites, only one appeared
to have been directly grazed by livestock
(BLM 2010, p. 5). Several observers have
attributed increased erosion within A.
microcymbus sites to cattle use, but this
impact also could be from deer or elk
use (CNHP 2010a, pp. 12, 27, 32).
Grazing utilization levels were
reportedly low in 1994 but physical
damage to A. microcymbus individuals
from trampling at two sites was noted
(Sherwood 1994, pp. 11, 17, 20). In
another review, the authors speculated
the periodicity and intensity of grazing
may influence the success of A.
microcymbus by the removal of
individuals and ground cover, thereby
influencing seedling success (Peterson
et al. 1981, p. 16). Numerous livestock
trails, feces, and tracks were found
within most A. microcymbus sites
visited in 2010 (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, overall plant cover has
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
been reduced by historic excessive
livestock grazing, drought, grazing
during the extreme drought years of
1990 through 1992, 2000, and 2001, and
the physical impacts from roads and
trails (BLM 2005a, p. 56).
Although grazing damage is minimal,
all Astragalus microcymbus areas
receive at least some livestock use.
Aside from the Cebolla Creek Unit, all
units on BLM lands are either in the
Gold Basin or Iola grazing allotments
and are actively grazed by cattle. Those
units with private lands also are grazed
on their private portions. In total, 56.1
percent of the A. microcymbus units fall
within the Gold Basin allotment and
43.9 percent fall within the Iola
allotment, with no ungrazed areas (BLM
2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 6–7). Within
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, no
additional forage allocations, beyond
those already authorized for the
allotments will be made and domestic
sheep grazing will not be authorized
(BLM 2005a, pp. 2–29 to 2–30).
Fences and water developments have
been constructed within the range of
Astragalus microcymbus to help manage
livestock grazing activities, increase the
number of livestock that the landscape
can support, keep animals in specific
areas, and distribute grazing more
evenly on the landscape (BLM 2005a, p.
12). All of the pastures are fenced, so
the four A. microcymbus units with
multiple pastures or allotments also
have fences (Gold Basin Creek, South
Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 2,
and South Beaver Creek 3).
Water developments occur across the
range of Astragalus microcymbus
(Japuntich 2010i, pers. comm.). One
water development is within 300 m (985
ft) of the Henry Unit: one is within and
three are just outside the Gold Basin
Creek Unit; and an additional three
developments are just outside the unit:
one within the South Beaver Creek 1
Unit; and one within 400 m (1,312 ft) of
the South Beaver Creek 6 Unit
(Japuntich 2010i, pers. comm.). Within
the Henry Unit, several livestock trails
run through the A. microcymbus site.
We assume these trails are from
livestock travelling to and from the
water development 300 m (985 ft) away
and expect that similar effects are
occurring from the other water
developments listed above. Water
developments concentrate livestock use
in areas near these developments, and
fence lines often funnel livestock, and
even deer and elk, into certain areas that
will receive a disproportionate amount
of use. We do not have further
information regarding whether the close
proximity of water developments or
fence lines is causing increased impacts
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to A. microcymbus habitat, but we
expect this is the case because there are
several fences running through sites and
because livestock grazing is found atop
all sites.
In addition, salt blocks draw livestock
(and deer and elk) to the areas where
they are placed. We know of one
instance where a salt block has been
placed within an Astragalus
microcymbus site. This area was
extensively trampled, there were fewer
A. microcymbus individuals in
trampled areas than surrounding
polygons, and those plants that
remained were located almost
exclusively under shrubs (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). Trails to and from the salt
block were impacting adjacent A.
microcymbus polygons (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). We do not know of any
protective mechanisms to prevent salt
block placement within A. microcymbus
sites and expect this may be occurring
elsewhere.
The Gold Basin allotment is
authorized for use between May 16 and
September 30 each year, but is used
from May 25–July 31, the time when
Astragalus microcymbus is growing and
reproducing, in most years (BLM 2010,
p. 5). Pastures used by cow/calf pairs
are generally used for 5–15 days a year
and those used by yearlings are
generally used for 15–30 days each year.
Pastures are rested occasionally some
years, although when and how often
this occurs is unknown. The Gold Basin
allotment is permitted for 4,253 animal
unit months (AUMs) a year but has
averaged 1,405 AUMs over the last 6
years. Approximately 30 percent of the
AUMs are within the pastures where A.
microcymbus units are located (BLM
2010, p. 5). In 2007, this allotment was
found to have heavy use in some
riparian areas and poor herbaceous
cover in the lowest elevation uplands,
where A. microcymbus would be found.
These results were attributed to historic
vegetation manipulation and livestock
grazing practices (BLM 2009b, pp. 1–2).
Given that damage is occurring at lower
than permitted stocking rates and
shorter than permitted periods of time,
the potential for further damage exists.
The Iola allotment is authorized for
use between May 15 and November 14
each year, but is used from late May/
early June (sometimes late June/early
July) generally 15–20 days in most years
(BLM 2009b, pp. 1–2; BLM 2010, p. 5).
These times again coincide with the
time when Astragalus microcymbus is
growing and reproducing. The permittee
is authorized up to 1,258 AUMs in the
pasture, but has used an average of 250
AUMs for the last 6 years (BLM 2010,
p. 5). A new allotment management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
plan and grazing system was developed
for this allotment in 2002. During this
analysis, grass cover was below
potential, and riparian vegetation was
being consistently grazed to less than 10
cm (4 in.) (BLM 2009b, pp. 1–2). Again,
given that damage is occurring at lower
than permitted stocking rates and
shorter than permitted periods of time,
the potential for further damage exists.
Deer and Elk Use—Livestock impacts
to the habitat are similar to those
impacts to the habitat caused by
excessive deer and elk use (Japuntich et
al. in press, pp. 1–15). For example,
Hobbs et al. (1996, pp. 200–217)
documented a decline in available
perennial grasses as elk densities
increased. All Astragalus microcymbus
areas are within areas that receive deer
and elk use. Grazing and browsing by
deer and elk occurs primarily during the
winter months when there is less snow
in the valley than the surrounding hills.
Deer numbers have seen a strong
increase in the Gunnison Basin since
1999 (Gunnison-Crested Butte 2010, p.
2). A. microcymbus is found within the
Powderhorn Creek Game Management
Unit (deer). In 2005, this unit had
between 600 and 1,600 more deer than
its objective of 4,500–5,500 individuals
(Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)
2006, p. 3). Since 1980, deer numbers
within this unit have been as high as
8,000 individuals in 1993 and as low as
4,500 individuals in 1984; and
averaging near 7,000 individuals from
2000 to 2005 (CDOW 2006, p. 3). From
1980 to 2000, elk numbers in the Lake
Fork Managment Unit (where A.
microcymbus is found) rose from 5,600
individuals to 9,256 individuals; both
numbers are substantially greater than
the 3,000–3,500 population objective
(CDOW 2001, pp. 3, appendix A).
Currently in the Gunnison Basin, deer
and elk populations have 8,000 more
individuals than the desired population
objectives (Japuntich et al. in press, p.
4).
Excessive but localized deer and elk
grazing has been documented in the
Gunnison Basin (BLM 2005b, pp. 17–
18). For example, drought and big game
were having large impacts on the
survivability and size of high-protein
shrubs including mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus utahensis), bitterbrush
(Pushia tridentata), and serviceberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia) in the Gunnison
Basin (Japuntich et al. in press, pp. 7–
9). These shrub species are not the most
common within A. microcymbus habitat
but are generally found nearby. These
authors raised concerns that observed
reductions in shrub size and vigor will
reduce drifting snow accumulation
resulting in decreased moisture
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78529
availability to grasses and forbs during
the spring melt, affecting the overall
composition of the plant community.
Impacts to Astragalus microcymbus
habitat from deer and elk are occurring.
For example, extensive moderate to
severe hedging of shrubs, attributed to
fairly heavy concentrations of wintering
big game animals, has been documented
at one A. microcymbus site in the South
Beaver Creek 5 Unit (Sherwood 1994, p.
16). Deer and elk feces can be found at
most A. microcymbus sites (USFWS
2010, pers. comm.). Deer and elk use
occurs primarily in the winter when A.
microcymbus is dormant, which
minimizes some of the direct effects to
the plants. However, deer and elk are
more likely to spend time on steeper
slopes than livestock and so may cause
more direct trampling impacts to A.
microcymbus habitat including soils,
seed banks, and plant communities.
Summary of Livestock, Deer, and Elk
Use—Describing livestock, deer, and elk
use is complicated because the
management of these animals is
complicated. Although we lack good
monitoring data, we find livestock, deer,
and elk use of Astragalus microcymbus
habitat to be a threat to the species. We
have made this determination based
upon observations that suggest moderate
use levels from livestock and heavy deer
and elk use in the winter. Use from
livestock, deer, and elk is virtually
ubiquitous across the range of the
species, and habitat degradation is
occurring, although we recognize that
these indirect effects to A. microcymbus
habitat are difficult to quantify.
Authorized AUMs are significantly
greater than those currently utilized. If
livestock use were to increase, this
threat would increase in the foreseeable
future. The current number of deer and
elk is above population objectives, and
past fluctuations suggest that more
animals are a possibility, which would
also increase this threat in the
foreseeable future. In addition, the
accompanying habitat degradation with
livestock, deer, and elk use makes this
an increasing threat especially in light
of the cheatgrass invasion.
Mining; Oil and Gas Leasing
The South Beaver Creek ACEC has
one active lode claim and one active
placer claim for mining. Lode claims are
those which generally follow some
deposited vein while placer mining is
everything else and can include sand
and gravel deposits. One of these active
claims is within the Gold Basin Creek
Unit, and the other is nearby. Neither of
these claims have Notices of Intent or
Plans of Operation that are required for
most disturbances (BLM 2010, pp. 5–6).
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78530
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
On active claims, Notices of Intent are
required for disturbances less than 2 ha
(5 ac) at least 15 days prior to
commencement of operation. A Plan of
Operation, required for disturbances
greater than 2 ha (5 ac), requires NEPA
compliance and can take between 30
and 90 days to process. The transfer of
these mineral claims to private entities
is prohibited within the South Beaver
Creek ACEC (BLM 1993, p. 2–29). A
large gravel pit is at the northwest
corner of the Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area on BLM lands and is within 1.6 km
(1 mi) of the Henry and Gold Basin
Creek Units. Because of this distance,
we expect there are probably no effects
to A. microcymbus from this gravel
operation. A gravel pit was said to be on
private lands at the Beaver Creek
Southeast Unit, but we have no further
information and, based on our maps, do
not make a similar conclusion
(Sherwood 1994, p. 15).
No lands for oil and gas development
have been leased by the BLM within the
Gunnison Basin area (USFS and BLM
2010, pp. 272–273). All habitats where
Astragalus microcymbus is currently
found are mapped as having no
potential for oil and gas development
(Gunnison Sage-Grouse Resource
Steering Committee 2005, p. 130).
Despite this lack of potential, the entire
Federal oil, gas, and geothermal estates
in the South Beaver Creek ACEC are
open to leasing but with a controlled
surface use stipulation (BLM 1993, pp.
2.29, K.5). This stipulation requires that
inventories be conducted prior to the
approval of operations and relocations
of operations. These inventories will be
used to prepare mitigative measures to
reduce the impacts of surface
disturbance to the species (BLM 1993, p.
K.5).
Given that there are only two existing
active mining claims (but without
current activity) within Astragalus
microcymbus units and that there is no
potential for oil and gas development in
the area, we do not consider mining or
oil and gas leases to threaten the species
at this time nor do we expect these
factors to pose a threat to the species in
the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
‘‘Warming of the climate system in
recent decades is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases
in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice, and rising global sea
level’’ (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Average
Northern Hemisphere temperatures
during the second half of the 20th
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
century were very likely higher than
during any other 50-year period in the
last 500 years and likely the highest in
at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007,
p. 30). Over the past 50 years, cold days,
cold nights, and frosts have become less
frequent over most land areas, and hot
days and hot nights have become more
frequent. Heat waves have become more
frequent over most land areas, and the
frequency of heavy precipitation events
has increased over most areas (IPCC
2007, p. 30). For the southwestern
region of the United States, including
western Colorado, warming is occurring
more rapidly than elsewhere in the
country (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129).
Annual average temperature in westcentral Colorado increased 3.6 °C (2 °F)
over the past 30 years, but high
variability in annual precipitation
precludes the detection of long-term
trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 5). At one
weather station in Gunnison, Colorado,
temperature has increased roughly 1.8
°C (1 °F) since 1900 (WRCC 2010c, pp.
1–9).
Future projections for the
southwestern United States, including
the Gunnison Basin, show increased
probability of drought (Karl et al. 2009,
pp. 129–134). Additionally, the number
of days over 32 °C (90 °F) could double
by the end of the century (Karl et al.
2009, p. 34). Annual temperature is
predicted to increase approximately 2.2
°C (4 °F) in the southwest by 2050, with
summers warming more than winters
(Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Projections also
show declines in snowpack across the
West with the most dramatic declines at
lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200
ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Overall,
future projections for the Southwest
predict increased temperatures, more
intense and longer-lasting heat waves,
an increased probability of drought that
are worsened by higher temperatures,
heavier downpours, increased flooding,
and increased erosion (Karl et al. 2009,
pp. 129–134).
Colorado’s complex, mountainous
topography results in a high degree of
spatial variability across the State. As a
result, localized climate projections are
problematic for mountainous areas
because current global climate models
are unable to capture this variability at
local or regional scales (Ray et al. 2008,
pp. 7, 20). To obtain climate projections
specific to the range of Astragalus
microcymbus, we used a statistically
downscaled model from the National
Center for Atmospheric Research for a
region covering western Colorado. The
resulting projections indicate that
temperature could increase an average
of 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) by 2050 with the
following seasonal increases: summer
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(July through September) 2.8 °C (5.0 °F),
fall (October through December) 2.2 °C
(4.0 °F), winter (January through March)
2.3 °C (4.1 °F), and spring (April
through June) 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) (University
Corporation of Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) 2009, pp. 1–14). This increase
in temperature could be problematic for
A. microcymbus because the species is
negatively affected by warm
temperatures during May and July (DBG
2010a, p. 6).
Annual mean precipitation
projections for Colorado are unclear;
however, multi-model averages show a
shift toward increased winter
precipitation and decreased spring and
summer precipitation by the end of the
century (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl et
al. 2009, p. 30). Similarly, the National
Center for Atmospheric Research results
show the highest probability of a 7.5
percent increase in average winter
(January through March) precipitation,
an 11.4 percent decrease in average
spring (April through June)
precipitation, a 2.1 percent decrease in
average summer (July through
September) precipitation, and a 1.3
percent increase in average fall
precipitation with an overall very slight
decrease in 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1–
14). Seasonal trends from the past 100
years at a local weather station do not
yet match this scenario, and overall
precipitation has declined by roughly 2
cm (0.75 in.) or 10 percent (WRCC
2010a, pp. 1–8). This actual data is in
contrast to regional maps that show
precipitation has increased roughly 5
percent from 1958 to 2008 within the
general area where Astragalus
microcymbus resides (Karl et al. 2009,
p. 30). A. microcymbus responds
negatively to declines in overall
precipitation and periods of drought, as
well as declines in spring precipitation
(May and July) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Given
the observed decline in precipitation at
a local weather station, predictions of
increased drought, and a predicted
significant decline in spring
precipitation, we expect A.
microcymbus will be affected negatively
by climate change effects to
precipitation.
Climate change is likely to alter fire
frequency, community assemblages, and
the ability of nonnative species to
proliferate. Increasing temperature as
well as changes in the timing and
amount of precipitation will alter the
competitive advantage among plant
species (Miller et al. in press, p. 44), and
may shift individual species and
ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al.
2001, p. 174). Dominant plant species
such as big sagebrush have a
disproportionate control over resources
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
in ecosystems (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 1).
For sagebrush communities, spring and
summer precipitation comprises the
majority of the moisture available to
species; thus, the interaction between
reduced precipitation in the springsummer growing season and increased
summer temperatures will likely
decrease growth of big sagebrush and
could result in a significant long-term
reduction in the distribution and
composition of sagebrush communities
(Miller et al. in press, pp. 41–45). In the
Gunnison Basin, increased summer
temperature was strongly correlated
with reduced growth of big sagebrush
(Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Although we
do not fully understand how changes in
plant communities will affect
Astragalus microcymbus, we expect that
a decrease in the dominant plant species
will not be a benefit because it could
drastically alter the way the ecosystem
functions where A. microcymbus
resides. In addition, changes in the
plant community could likely influence
wildfire frequency and erosion rates.
Temperature increases may increase
the competitive advantage of cheatgrass
in higher elevation areas where it is
currently limited (Miller et al. in press,
p. 47), like the Gunnison Basin.
Decreased summer precipitation, as
predicted in the model, reduces the
competitive advantage of summer
perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush
cover, and subsequently increases the
likelihood of cheatgrass invasion
(Prevey et al. 2009, pp. 1–13). This
impact could increase the susceptibility
of areas within Astragalus
microcymbus’ range to cheatgrass
invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204). In
addition, cheatgrass and other C3
grasses (C3 refers to one of three
alternative photosynthetic pathways)
are likely to thrive as atmospheric
carbon dioxide increases (Mayeux et al.
1994, p. 98). An increase in cheatgrass
would likely increase wildfire
frequency. See Nonnative Invasive
Plants above for a discussion of
cheatgrass and effects to A.
microcymbus.
Climate change predictions are based
on models with assumptions, and are
not absolute. In addition, we do not
fully understand how climate change
will affect the species or the habitat in
which it resides. These factors make it
difficult to predict the effects of climate
change to Astragalus microcymbus.
However, endemic species with limited
ranges that are adapted to localized
conditions, like A. microcymbus, are
expected to be more severely impacted
by climate change (Midgley et al. 2002,
p. 448) than those considered habitat
generalists. Furthermore, we expect the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
predicted increases in spring
temperature, increased drought, and
decreased spring precipitation will
affect A. microcymbus negatively.
Climate change has the potential to
change the plant community, allow
cheatgrass to increase, and potentially
increase the risk of wildfire, which
would likely have a negative effect to A.
microcymbus. It is difficult to assess the
threat of climate change to A.
microcymbus given the uncertainties
associated with future projections.
However, based on the best available
information on climate change
projections into the next 40 years, we
find climate change to be a threat to A.
microcymbus based on how predicted
changes could negatively influence the
species. We recognize there are many
uncertainties, and projections further
into the future become even more
uncertain, making it even more difficult
to predict how climate change might
affect the species.
Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation
Habitat fragmentation can have
negative effects on biological
populations. Often fragments are not of
sufficient size to support the natural
diversity prevalent in an area and so
exhibit a decline in biodiversity (Noss
and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 50–54).
Habitat fragments are often functionally
smaller than they appear because edge
effects (such as increased nonnative
species or wind speeds) impact the
available habitat within the fragment
(Lienert and Fischer 2003, p. 597).
Habitat fragmentation has been shown
to disrupt plant-pollinator interactions
and predator-prey interactions (SteffanDewenter and Tscharntke 1999, pp.
432–440), alter seed germination
percentages (Menges 1991, pp. 158–
164), and result in low fruit set
(Cunningham 2000, pp. 1149–1152).
Extensive habitat fragmentation can
result in dramatic fluxes in available
solar radiation, water, and nutrients
(Saunders et al. 1991, pp. 18–32).
Fragmentation within Astragalus
microcymbus habitat is largely from
linear features such as roads and utility
corridors (see Recreation, Roads, and
Trails and Utility Corridors above) that
are pervasive at every A. microcymbus
unit except the South Beaver Creek 4
Unit. In addition, past contour plowings
and subsequent seeding efforts have
created blocks of altered and degraded
habitat around A. microcymbus units
that may affect the overall plant
community, nonnative invasive plants,
and pollinator habitat and resources.
This type of fragmentation does not
carry the same negative consequences as
that of more highly fragmented habitats
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78531
impacted by agricultural or urban
development because of its more limited
extent.
However, the aforementioned type of
fragmentation leads to habitat
degradation. Habitat degradation, the
gradual deterioration of habitat quality,
can lead to a species decline, decrease,
or loss of reproductive ability. Habitat
degradation may be difficult to detect
because it takes place over a long time
period, and species with long life-cycles
may continue to be present in an area
even if they are unable to breed (Fisher
and Lindenmayer 2007, pp. 268–269).
In the case of Astragalus
microcymbus, habitat degradation is
coming from multiple sources:
Development; recreation, roads, and
trails; utility corridors; nonnative
invasive plants; contour plowing and
nonnative seedings; and accentuated by
periodic drought. In addition, wildfire
and climate change will likely
contribute to further habitat
degradation. Detailed monitoring is
needed to detect population changes
and signal the need to implement
conservation measures that could
counteract habitat degradation, but this
monitoring has not been done for A.
microcymbus.
Habitat fragmentation and habitat
degradation is occurring as a result of
multiple sources including virtually all
the threats and factors previously
described in this document. As a result,
we find habitat degradation to be a
threat to Astragalus microcymbus.
Habitat fragmentation is currently a
lesser threat, but because it is so tightly
linked with habitat degradation, we
have treated them jointly.
Summary of Factor A
The biggest habitat-related threats to
Astragalus microcymbus are recreation
(including roads and trails); the
potential for increases in nonnative
invasive plants (especially cheatgrass);
potential residential and urban
development; livestock, deer, and elk
use; and potential effects from climate
change. In addition, the habitat
degradation and fragmentation
occurring from these stressors threatens
A. microcymbus.
Recreational impacts are not likely to
lessen given the close proximity of
Astragalus microcymbus to the town of
Gunnison and the increasing popularity
of mountain biking, motorcycling, and
all-terrain vehicles. The fact that the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area was
designated on 40 percent of the A.
microcymbus units will only serve to
draw more users, and there is little
enforcement to control trespass use.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78532
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Accordingly, we find the threat from
recreation, roads, and trails to be high.
Although the impacts from nonnative
invasive plants, and particularly
cheatgrass, are low right now, we expect
this factor to increase to the level of a
serious threat in the near future.
Cheatgrass is increasing in the South
Beaver Creek drainage and has been
identified as a major threat to Astragalus
microcymbus (BLM 2010, p. 5). In the
mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen
in very small patches in the Gunnison
Basin but can now be found in some
abundance throughout the Basin (BLM
2009a, pp. 7–8). A. microcymbus is
found on warm, sparsely vegetated, and
dry, south-facing slopes, which in the
Gunnison Basin, are probably more
vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion. We
know that cheatgrass is already invading
A. microcymbus sites. Cheatgrass has
transformed millions of acres into
monocultures in the Great Basin and has
dramatically shortened the wildfire
return interval. We believe the potential
exists for a similar conversion in A.
microcymbus habitat. Although we find
the current invasion of cheatgrass into
A. microcymbus habitat to be small and
possess little threat, because of the high
potential for further invasion, we find
the overall threat is increasing.
It is difficult to assess the impact of
climate change to Astragalus
microcymbus, but we believe climate
change may be a future threat given the
predictions of increased springtime
temperatures, decreased springtime
precipitation, and increased drought.
Because a quarter of the Astragalus
microcymbus units occur on private
land, and given the rapid pace of
development in the Gunnison Basin, we
believe residential and urban
development represent a moderate
threat to A. microcymbus. Given that
livestock, deer, and elk use occurs
across the range of A. microcymbus, that
A. microcymbus individuals are being
lost from this use, and that this use is
causing habitat degradation that could
facilitate the spread of cheatgrass, we
find this threat to be moderate.
We find the potential impact of future
wildfire to be a threat to the species and
recognize that wildfire risk may increase
with further cheatgrass invasion. We do
not find utility corridors to be a threat
because they currently impact only 4
percent of the A. microcymbus units and
we do not know of any further utility
corridor plans. We do not find the
continuing effects from past contour
plowings and nonnative seedings to be
a threat because the existing plowings
only impact 1.2 percent of the A.
microcymbus units and we do not
expect these treatments to occur in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
future. Because of the low potential for
oil and gas development and because
there are only two other active mining
claims within the species’ range, we do
not find that these factors are threats to
the species.
Based on threats from recreation; the
potential for increases in nonnative
invasive plants; potential residential
and urban development; livestock, deer,
and elk use; and potential effects from
climate change, we find that Astragalus
microcymbus is threatened by the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range now and these threats
are expected to continue or increase in
the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats
involving the overutilization or
collection of Astragalus microcymbus
for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes at
this time. A. microcymbus is not
particularly showy or of horticultural
significance; therefore, we do not expect
any overutilization in the foreseeable
future. We find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not a threat to
A. microcymbus now or expected to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Astragalus microcymbus is subject to
extensive herbivory, primarily from
small mammals (Lyon 1990, pp. 2, 5;
Dyer 1993, p. 2; Sherwood 1994, pp. 10–
11; Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.; DBG
2010a, pp. 6–7). On average, 26 percent
of the plants have evidence of herbivory
(ranging from 13 to 74 percent at a given
plot) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Browsing on the
plants is very evident and in some areas,
it is hard to find an A. microcymbus
individual that has not had at least some
portion eaten (Japuntich 2010j, pers.
comm.). Some species of Astragalus are
notoriously toxic to livestock, and
presumably deer and elk. Often these
toxic species are avoided by grazers and
browsers. However, the high level of
small mammal herbivory to A.
microcymbus plants suggests the species
is not overly toxic. We do not know if
this toxicity would vary between
livestock and rabbits.
Small Mammal Herbivory
Most herbivory of Astragalus
microcymbus individuals is attributed
to small mammals. Cottontail rabbits
(Sylvilagus audobonii), small
chipmunks (Tamias sp.), and ground
squirrels (Citellus lateralis and others)
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
graze on A. microcymbus (Japuntich
2010j, pers. comm.). Mice and voles also
have been implicated as herbivores
(Sherwood 1994, p. 11). Rabbits are
generally considered the primary
herbivores of A. microcymbus, and
numerous observers have suggested they
are in abundance within A.
microcymbus habitat (Lyon 1990, p. 2;
Dyer 1993, p. 2; Japuntich 2010j, pers.
comm.).
The information we have regarding
rabbit herbivory is mostly anecdotal in
nature; however, taken in sum, we
believe this information leads to a
conclusion that rabbit herbivory impacts
Astragalus microcymbus in years with
high rabbit populations. During one
survey effort, observers found six rabbits
in one of the draws they visited (Lyon
1990, p. 5), and another observer visited
10 A. microcymbus sites in a day and
said that rabbit damage was heavy at
nine of those sites (Dyer 1993, p. 2).
Several observers have suggested that
rabbit herbivory can result in the death
of Astragalus microcymbus. One
observer suggested that 2 years of heavy
rabbit use was more than A.
microcymbus could tolerate because of
all the dead plants they encountered in
a heavy rabbit year (Lyon 1990, p. 5).
Those plants that were not dead had
only a few green leaves, again attributed
to rabbit herbivory (Lyon 1990, p. 2).
After 2 years of consecutive transect
counts at a site another observer stated
that many plants had died and
attributed that death to overuse by
rabbits (Sherwood 1994, p. 10).
Observations of small mammal
herbivory being a significant impact to
the species occurs across the years
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4).
Rabbit and small mammal
populations fluctuate widely
¨
(Korpimaki and Krebs 1996, pp. 754–
764; Hanski et al. 2001, pp. 1501–1520).
We have little information on how small
mammal populations have changed
within the range of Astragalus
microcymbus over time, but the
variability in observations from year to
year and between sites suggest there are
significant fluctuations and spatial
variations. For example in 1990, local
authorities and those surveying for A.
microcymbus stated the rabbit
population was very large compared
with other years; this year, herbivory of
A. microcymbus was repeatedly
observed (Lyon 1990, p. 2).
Observations suggest that small
mammal herbivory is impacting A.
microcymbus, especially during years
when small mammal populations are
high.
Fencing to exclude small mammals
was installed at monitoring plots in
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
2006 and 2007 (DBG 2010a, p. 6). After
2 years, the plants protected by fences
were statistically longer at 31.4 cm (12.4
in.) than those outside the fence, which
were 19.5 cm (7.7 in.) (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
This difference could be related to a
decrease in herbivory or increased
moisture (from additional snow
accumulations within the fence from
wind loading) within the exclosures, or
a combination of the two. In addition,
mammal herbivory was less within the
fenced areas, more individuals flowered
within fenced areas, and more total fruit
was produced per plant within fenced
areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). A weak
statistical correlation was found
between nonreproductive plants and
evidence of mammalian browsing across
all plots (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Although we
do not understand how small mammal
populations have changed over time,
these impacts to fruit set are significant.
Furthermore, these impacts are
consistent with other observations of
small mammal herbivory (USFWS
2010a, pp. 1–4).
Rabbit herbivory has been
documented at several Astragalus
microcymbus units, including Gold
Basin Creek, South Beaver Creek 1,
South Beaver Creek 2, and South Beaver
Creek 3 (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4).
Conversely, at several of the more
isolated A. microcymbus units, Henry
and South Beaver Creek 4, observers
specifically mention the lack of rabbit
herbivory relative to other areas
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1–4).
We are unsure of the long-term impact
to Astragalus microcymbus over time
from small mammal herbivory. Small
mammal herbivory is significantly
impacting seed set of A. microcymbus.
Fewer seeds mean fewer opportunities
for seedling and adult recruitment. In
addition, small mammal herbivory
occurs at most sites across the range of
the species, and recent observations
indicate that damage to plants is heavy.
We have no information to either
support or refute that rabbit herbivory
levels are higher than historic levels;
however, in light of other factors
affecting the species and the limited
range and small population level,
impacts to A. microcymbus from
herbivory can be large in years of high
rabbit populations. Given this, we find
small mammal herbivory to be a threat
to the species.
Deer and Elk Herbivory
Like livestock use, overgrazing by
deer and elk may cause local
degradation of habitats (see ‘‘Livestock,
Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat’’ above for
a more thorough discussion). Here we
address the actual eating of Astragalus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
microcymbus individuals as opposed to
habitat degradation. We have little
information on the impacts of deer and
elk herbivory to A. microcymbus. Much
of the deer and elk use of A.
microcymbus habitat occurs during
winter after the plants are no longer
growing, thereby not affecting the
plants, unless they are pulled up by the
roots, which we assume would happen
infrequently. One observer stated that
the previous year’s dried stalks of larger
A. microcymbus plants showed almost
universal use, and attributed this to
wintering big game (Sherwood 1994, p.
17).
Although deer and elk use is high
within Astragalus microcymbus habitat
(see Deer and Elk Use above), most of
the use occurs in the winter when A.
microcymbus is dormant. We expect the
effects of winter use to be minimal
since, once dried, the previous year’s
growth is not important to an individual
plant’s success. We expect that some
herbivory does occur since deer and elk
will sometimes visit during the growing
season. Because most use occurs in the
winter when herbivory would not
impact A. microcymbus, we do not
consider deer and elk herbivory to be a
threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Livestock Herbivory
Livestock use may cause local
degradation of habitats (see ‘‘Livestock,
Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat’’ above for
a more thorough discussion). Here we
address the actual eating of Astragalus
microcymbus individuals as opposed to
habitat degradation. Observations on
direct grazing impacts to Astragalus
microcymbus vary. Heil and Porter
(1990, p. 21) state that grazing animals
are known to occasionally use this
species as a forage plant. One observer
reported the plant shows some
resistance to grazing (CNHP 2010a, pp.
5–6). Livestock presence is reportedly
rare on the steeper slopes where A.
microcymbus resides (BLM 2010, p. 4).
We believe we have seen herbivory of
individuals in areas near salt licks,
although we cannot be sure this was not
small mammal herbivory (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). Therefore, we do not
consider the livestock herbivory to be a
threat to the species now or in the
foreseeable future.
Insect Herbivory
Grasshoppers (Orthopterans in the
Acrididae and Tettigoniidae families)
have been implicated as herbivores of
Astragalus microcymbus (Dyer 1993, p.
2). Aphids have been documented on
the plants at one A. microcymbus site
(CNHP 2010a, p. 22). A small number of
A. microcymbus individuals have been
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78533
documented with insect webs within
Gold Basin Creek Unit (Sherwood 1994,
p. 7). Insect herbivory was measured as
part of the life-history monitoring study.
This study found no significant effects
from insect herbivory on flowering
individuals (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
Therefore, we find that insect herbivory
does not constitute a threat to A.
microcymbus now or in the foreseeable
future.
Disease
A fungus has been documented on
less than 10 percent of the Astragalus
microcymbus individuals at one
monitoring transect (Sherwood 1994, p.
11). No other instances of disease are
known. Therefore, we find that disease
does not constitute a threat to A.
microcymbus now or in the foreseeable
future.
Summary of Factor C
Various herbivores have been
documented at Astragalus microcymbus
sites. Small mammal herbivory,
especially from rabbits, has been
documented at fairly high levels, and
appears to be the only type of herbivory
that is impacting the species at a low to
moderate level. Exclusion research has
found that small mammal herbivory was
less, more individuals flowered, and
there were more total fruits within
fenced areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). We
expect small mammal herbivory to
continue into the foreseeable future and
fluctuate with small mammal
populations. We do not believe that deer
and elk herbivory, livestock herbivory,
and insect herbivory constitute threats
because they are only occasionally or
minorly affecting A. microcymbus and
are not expected to increase into the
foreseeable future. Finally, we do not
consider disease to be a threat because
it is so rare. However, we do find that
Astragalus microcymbus is threatened
by predation now and these threats are
expected to continue or increase in the
foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine
whether threats to Astragalus
microcymbus are adequately addressed
by existing regulatory mechanisms.
Existing regulatory mechanisms that
could provide some protection for A.
microcymbus include: (1) Local land use
laws, processes, and ordinances; (2)
State laws and regulations; and (3)
Federal laws and regulations.
Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may preclude listing if such
mechanisms are judged to adequately
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78534
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
address the threat to the species such
that listing is not warranted.
An example of a regulatory
mechanism is the terms and conditions
attached to a grazing permit that
describe how a permittee will manage
livestock on a BLM allotment. They are
nondiscretionary and enforceable, and
would be considered a regulatory
mechanism under this analysis. Other
examples include city or county
ordinances, State governmental actions
enforced under State statute regulations,
or Federal action under statute or
regulation. Actions adopted by local
groups, States, or Federal entities that
are discretionary or are not enforceable,
including conservation strategies and
guidance, are typically not regulatory
mechanisms. In this section we review
actions undertaken by local, State, and
Federal entities designed to reduce or
remove threats to Astragalus
microcymbus and its habitat.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Local Land Use Laws and Ordinances
We are aware of no local land use
laws or ordinances that offer protection
to Astragalus microcymbus. Neither the
city of Gunnison nor the counties of
Gunnison or Saguache have guidelines,
zoning, or other mechanisms to protect
the species.
State Laws and Regulations
No State regulations in Colorado
protect Astragalus microcymbus. The
State of Colorado has no laws protecting
any rare plant species. Plants also are
not included in the Colorado Wildlife
Action Plan and do not qualify for
funding under State Wildlife Grants.
The State of Colorado’s Natural Areas
Program works to protect special
resources in the State, although there
are no regulatory enforcement
mechanisms associated with the
program. In 1997, the Colorado Natural
Areas Program designated the South
Beaver Creek Natural Area (CNAP 1997,
pp. 1–7). The South Beaver Creek
Natural Area was designated for all
areas within the South Beaver Creek
ACEC (CNAP 1997, p. 7). The Colorado
Natural Areas Program provides a
means by which Colorado’s natural
features and ecological phenomena can
be identified, evaluated, and protected
through a statewide system of natural
areas (CNAP 1997, p. 1). The purpose of
the South Beaver Creek Natural Area is
to protect Astragalus microcymbus
(CNAP 1997, p. 2).
Through this designation, the
Colorado Natural Areas Program staff is
entitled to visit the area at anytime and
convey the results of these visits to the
BLM, cooperate with the BLM on
updating the Resource Management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Activity Plan for the property, and
provide a periodic report on the
condition of the property (CNAP 1997,
p. 3). In essence, this designation allows
the Colorado Natural Areas Program to
assist the BLM with its management.
The Colorado Natural Areas Program
has not been actively monitoring
Astragalus microcymbus at the South
Beaver Creek Natural Area. Therefore,
this designation has, to-date, afforded
little protection to the species. Given
that the Colorado Natural Areas Program
is increasing its conservation efforts, we
expect the Natural Areas Program to
become more active in the conservation
of A. microcymbus in the future but
have no way of predicting what this will
mean to the species.
The State of Colorado requires private
landowners to control noxious
(nonnative invasive) weeds. Plants
considered noxious by the State of
Colorado that are within or near
Astragalus microcymbus’ habitat
include: Cheatgrass (List C), Canada
thistle (Cirsium arvense—List B),
scentless chamomile (Matriacaria
perforata—List B), yellow toadflax
(Linaria vulgaris—List B), and Russian
knapweed (Acroptilon repens—List B)
(Colorado Department of Agriculture
[CDA] 2010, pp. 2–3). List B species are
noxious weeds for which management
plans are or will be developed and
implemented to stop their spread (CDA
2010, p. 2). List C species are noxious
weeds for which management plans are
or will be developed and implemented
to provide additional education,
research, and biological control
resources but for which the continued
spread will not be halted (CDA 2010, p.
2). We have no information on how the
noxious weed law is being implemented
within the range of A. microcymbus. We
do know that the Gunnison Watershed
Weed Commission has been actively
working to control and eradicate
noxious weeds in Gunnison County but
we have few specifics from this work
(GWWC 2010, pp. 1–8). Therefore, we
cannot assess the benefits to A.
microcymbus.
Deer and elk populations are managed
by the CDOW. We have no information
to suggest that deer and elk use is being
regulated to ensure Astragalus
microcymbus and its habitat is not
impacted by this use.
Federal Laws and Regulations
The BLM has promulgated
regulations, policies, and guidelines to
protect sensitive species on Federal
lands, control wildfire and rehabilitate
burned areas, and implement rangeland
assessments, standards, and guidelines
to assess rangeland health.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Astragalus microcymbus is included
on the Colorado BLM’s sensitive species
list (BLM 2009c, p. 3). The management
guidance afforded sensitive species
under BLM Manual 6840—Special
Status Species Management (BLM 2008)
states that ‘‘Bureau sensitive species will
be managed consistent with species and
habitat management objectives in land
use and implementation plans to
promote their conservation and to
minimize the likelihood and need for
listing under the ESA’’ (BLM 2008, p.
.05V). The BLM Manual 6840 further
requires that Resource Management
Plans (RMPs) should address sensitive
species, and that implementation
‘‘should consider all site-specific
methods and procedures needed to
bring species and their habitats to the
condition under which management
under the Bureau sensitive species
policies would no longer be necessary’’
(BLM 2008, p. 2A1). A. microcymbus
has received some protections because
of its sensitive status, including the
establishment of the South Beaver Creek
ACEC and limited money for survey and
monitoring efforts. However, part of this
ACEC is overlapped by the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area, which is
resulting in some habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation.
The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 mandates
Federal land managers to develop and
revise land use plans. The RMPs are the
basis for all actions and authorizations
involving BLM-administered lands and
resources. They establish allowable
resource uses, resource condition goals
and objectives to be attained, program
constraints and general management
practices needed to attain the goals and
objectives, general implementation
sequences, and intervals and standards
for monitoring and evaluating the plan
to determine its effectiveness and the
need for amendment or revision (43 CFR
1601.0–5(k)).
The RMPs provide a framework and
programmatic guidance for activity
plans, which are site-specific plans
written to implement the RMP.
Examples of activity plans include
Allotment Management Plans that
address livestock grazing, or other
activity plans for oil and gas field
development, travel management, and
wildlife habitat management. Activity
plan decisions normally require
additional planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis. The Gunnison Resource Area’s
RMP represents an enforceable
regulatory mechanism. A. microcymbus
is not specifically protected in areas
outside the South Beaver Creek ACEC
within the RMP but is protected by the
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Special Status Species Management
guidance and general RMP guidance for
the management of special status plants
(BLM 1992, pp. 1–13; 1993, p. 2.4).
Public scoping for the next RMP for the
Gunnison Resource Area is estimated to
begin in 2010 (Japuntich 2010d, pers.
comm.). We expect that existing
protections for the species will remain
in place for the next RMP, but cannot
predict if additional protections for
Astragalus microcymbus will be
developed.
As discussed above in Recreation,
Roads, and Trails, Astragalus
microcymbus was included in the
Gunnison Resource District’s RMP when
the South Beaver Creek ACEC was
designated. This area encompasses 60
78535
percent of the A. microcymbus units
(BLM 1993, pp. 2.29–2.30). The South
Beaver Creek ACEC was designated
specifically to protect and enhance
existing A. microcymbus populations
and habitat. Actions outlined for the
South Beaver Creek ACEC, and their
implementation, are included in Table 5
below.
TABLE 5—ACTIONS IDENTIFIED, WITH NOTES ON IMPLEMENTATION, FOR Astragalus microcymbus IN THE SOUTH BEAVER
CREEK ACEC IN THE 1993 GUNNISON RESOURCE AREA’S RMP
Action
Implementation
Monitoring to determine population trends ...............................................
Being done regularly at 4 plots by DBG & intermittently at 4 plots by
BLM
Few—2 trail closures, 1 reroute, cheatgrass control efforts
Some control of vehicles
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Actions to improve habitat conditions ......................................................
Minimization of surface disturbing conditions to protect species & its
habitat.
Development of management plan for Astragalus microcymbus ............
No chemical spraying ...............................................................................
No vegetative treatments .........................................................................
No additional forage allocations ...............................................................
Controlled surface use stipulation ............................................................
No conflicting erosion control measures ..................................................
No domestic sheep grazing ......................................................................
Limit motorized vehicular traffic to designated routes .............................
Public lands with A. microcymbus will not be disposed ..........................
Acquisition of non-Federal lands if available ...........................................
ROW permitted without direct impacts to A. microcymbus .....................
Wildfire suppression .................................................................................
The South Beaver Creek ACEC has
resulted in some protections for
Astragalus microcymbus, specifically:
Monitoring, two surveys, two trail
closures, one trail reroute, and some
restrictions to herbicide use and
livestock grazing. These protections are
an improvement over more generally
managed BLM lands. However, 70
percent of the South Beaver Creek ACEC
is within the Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area, even though the South Beaver
Creek ACEC was developed at least 8
years prior to the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p. 44).
Numerous trails are also designated
through A. microcymbus units (see
Recreation, Roads, and Trails above).
The designation of this Recreation Area
overlaying A. microcymbus
demonstrates that these ACEC
protections are not adequate to protect
the species.
All Astragalus microcymbus units on
public land are within active livestock
grazing allotments. The BLM regulatory
authority for grazing management is
provided at 43 CFR Part 4100
(Regulations on Grazing Administration
Exclusive of Alaska). Livestock grazing
permits and leases contain terms and
conditions, determined by BLM to be
appropriate to achieve management and
resource condition objectives and to
ensure that habitats are, or are making,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Not implemented
Likely implemented
Implemented
Unknown, especially as related to deer & elk
Implemented
Implemented, unsure about water bars
Implemented
Implemented although enforcement is problematic
Implemented
Not implemented
Implemented
No wildfires to-date
significant progress toward being
restored or maintained for BLM special
status species (43 CFR 4180.1(d)). The
State or regional standards for grazing
administration must address habitat for
endangered, threatened, proposed,
candidate, or special status species, and
habitat quality for native plant and
animal populations and communities
(43 CFR 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). The
guidelines must address restoring,
maintaining, or enhancing habitats of
BLM special status species to promote
their conservation, as well as
maintaining or promoting the physical
and biological conditions to sustain
native populations and communities (43
CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and (10). The BLM is
required to take appropriate action not
later than the start of the next grazing
year upon determining that existing
grazing practices or levels of grazing use
are significant factors in failing to
achieve the standards and conform with
the guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)).
Livestock use specific to Astragalus
microcymbus is discussed in further
detail in Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of
Habitat above. Within the South Beaver
Creek ACEC, no additional forage
allocations will be made and domestic
sheep grazing will not be authorized
(BLM 2005a, pp. 2–29 to 2–30).
Despite management actions
undertaken by BLM, grazing is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impacting Astragalus microcymbus and
its habitat. The BLM has no research or
monitoring that specifically addresses
the impacts to A. microcymbus or its
habitat and the effects from ubiquitous
livestock use. In addition, there is no
research or monitoring that addresses
how deer and elk utilization is being
jointly considered (with livestock use)
within the range of A. microcymbus.
Therefore, we find the management of
livestock, deer, and elk to be similar to
our assessment of ‘‘Livestock, Deer, and
Elk Use of Habitat’’ above and a threat
to the species.
As discussed in ‘‘Recreation, Roads,
and Trails’’ in Factor A above, based on
the combination of the documented
impacts resulting from recreational
activities atop Astragalus microcymbus
and its habitat and the designation of
the Hartman Rock Recreation Area over
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, we
believe that existing Federal regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate for
protecting A. microcymbus.
Management prescriptions or AUMs for
livestock use are three to five times
higher than current use levels. Because
livestock impacts are occurring to A.
microcymbus at current stocking rates,
we expect if livestock were managed at
these higher AUM levels, much more
intense impacts would occur to the
plant. In addition, the South Beaver
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78536
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Creek ACEC designation, while
providing limited protection for A.
microcymbus, was not adequate to
preclude the designation of a recreation
area in the same location (70 percent of
the ACEC). We cannot say what will
happen with A. microcymbus in the
upcoming RMP revision, but if we
consider conservation efforts since the
last RMP revision, we expect A.
microcymbus and its habitat will
continue to decline in the foreseeable
future. We find that Federal laws and
regulations are currently inadequate to
protect the species from being
threatened or endangered.
Summary of Factor D
Twenty-five percent of Astragalus
microcymbus habitat occurs on private
lands with no regulatory protections. No
State laws protect the species. On
Federal lands, the species is managed as
a sensitive species but this designation
has not adequately protected the
species. Over 40 percent of the A.
microcymbus habitat and 70 percent of
the South Beaver Creek ACEC lies
within the federally managed Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area, which serves to
focus human use in this area, a
designation that runs counter to the
protection of the species. For these
reasons, we find the existing regulatory
mechanisms to be inadequate because of
increasing recreation and development
potential on private land. We find that
Astragalus microcymbus is threatened
by the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms now and these threats are
expected to continue or increase in the
foreseeable future.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Periodic Drought
Drought is a common occurrence
within the range of Astragalus
microcymbus (Braun 1998, p. 148;
WRCC 2010a, p. 8). Infrequent, severe
drought may cause local extinctions of
annual forbs and grasses that have
invaded stands of perennial species, and
recolonization of these areas by native
species may be slow (Tilman and El
Haddi 1992, p. 263). Drought reduces
vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, p.
75; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–18),
potentially resulting in increased soil
erosion and subsequent reduced soil
depths, decreased water infiltration, and
reduced water storage capacity. Drought
also can exacerbate other natural events
such as defoliation of sagebrush by
insects and the invasion of nonnative
invasive plants. A. microcymbus
responds negatively to declines in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
overall precipitation and periods of
drought, as well as declines in spring
precipitation (May and July) (DBG
2010a, p. 6). For example, during the
drought of 2001 and 2002, A.
microcymbus populations declined
precipitously (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
Because periodic drought will likely
continue and could increase (see
Climate Change in Factor A above) and
because of the decline in population
numbers associated with drought, we
find drought to be a threat to the species
(recognizing the uncertainty with
climate change models).
Small Populations
Small populations and species with
limited distributions, like those of
Astragalus microcymbus, are vulnerable
to relatively minor environmental
disturbances such as recreational
impacts, nonnative plant invasions, and
wildfire (Given 1994, pp. 66–67), and
are subject to the loss of genetic
diversity from genetic drift, the random
loss of genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand
and Elam 1993, pp. 217–237).
Populations with lowered genetic
diversity are more prone to local
extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp.
4, 28). Smaller populations generally
have lower genetic diversity, and lower
genetic diversity may in turn lead to
even smaller populations by decreasing
the species’ ability to adapt, thereby
increasing the probability of population
extinction (Newman and Pilson 1997, p.
360).
For plant populations that do not
reproduce vegetatively, like Astragalus
microcymbus, pollen exchange and seed
dispersal are the only mechanisms for
gene flow. Pollen dispersal is limited by
the distance the pollinator can travel.
Both pollen and seed dispersal can vary
widely by species (Ellstrand 2003, p.
1164). We do not understand either
pollen or seed dispersal capabilities for
A. microcymbus. As our understanding
of gene flow has improved, the
distances scientists believe genes can
travel also has increased (Ellstrand
2003, p. 1164). We believe that genetic
exchange could be possible, although
unlikely, between the Henry, Gold Basin
Creek, and South Beaver Creek Units,
and expect that genetic exchange does
occur occasionally between the South
Beaver Creek Units.
Most Astragalus microcymbus units
comprise multiple sites with many
individuals and genetic exchange
should not be limited within units.
However, two A. microcymbus units—
Henry and Cebolla Creek—are located
over 2.5 km (1.5 mi) away from any
other units and have few individuals.
For these two units in particular, small
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
population size and a loss of genetic
diversity may be a problem. Other
Astragalus species with small
populations have demonstrated lowered
genetic diversity (Travis et al. 1996, pp.
735–745). The limited range of A.
microcymbus makes the species more
susceptible to being significantly
impacted by stochastic (random)
disturbances such as wildfire. Because
stochastic threats such as wildfire are
currently low, and because two A.
microcymbus units are isolated and
small, we find the overall effect from
small populations to be low to the point
where it is not a threat.
Summary of Factor E
Periodic drought is a threat to
Astragalus microcymbus. We know that
the species decreases during drought
conditions, but we do not know how
this influences long-term survivorship
of the species, especially in light of
climate change. We know the species
has a limited distribution and two out
of nine A. microcymbus units are small
and isolated, but we do not understand
how this is affecting the genetic
diversity of the species nor do we
consider small population size to be a
threat. With such a limited range, the
species is at risk from stochastic events
but there is no way of predicting these
events. Although there are many
unknowns, we find the threat from
periodic drought to be moderate at this
time. Based on this, the overall threat
from Factor E is low to moderate. We
find that Astragalus microcymbus is
threatened by other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence
now and these threats are expected to
continue or increase in the foreseeable
future.
General Threats Summary
Table 6 below provides an overview
of the threats to Astragalus
microcymbus. Of these threats, we
consider recreation, roads, and trails,
the overall inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and habitat
fragmentation and degradation to be the
most significant threats (Table 6).
Recreational impacts are likely to
increase given the close proximity of A.
microcymbus to the town of Gunnison
and the increasing popularity of
mountain biking, motorcycling, and allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws
users and contains over 40 percent of
the A. microcymbus units. The overall
threat from a lack of existing regulatory
mechanisms is high given that 25
percent of the habitat has no protections
and that Federal protections allowed a
recreation area to be developed on the
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78537
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
species’ habitat. Recreation, as well as
most of the other threats to A.
microcymbus, leads to habitat
fragmentation and degradation.
TABLE 6—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING Astragalus Microcymbus
Listing
factor
Threat or
impact
Scope of threat or
impact
Intensity
Exposure
(%)
Likelihood of
exposure
Species’
response
Foreseeable
future
A ...............
Residential
& Urban
Development.
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
25 ...............
Moderate ..............
Development within several
decades.
Moderate.
A ...............
Recreation,
Roads, &
Trails.
High ......................
High ......................
15 (20-m
buffer) to
46 (100-m
buffer).
High ......................
Significant
increase
(+20% annually) in
users.
High.
A ...............
Utility Corridors.
Low .......................
Low .......................
4 .................
Moderate ..............
Nonnative
Invasive
Plants.
Low .......................
Low+ .....................
0.1+ ............
High ......................
A ...............
Wildfire .......
Low .......................
None+ ...................
None but
nearby.
Low+ .....................
A ...............
Contour
Plowing &
Nonnative
Seedings.
Low .......................
Low .......................
1.2 ..............
Low .......................
No immediate
plans, limited in
scope.
Increasing
with rapid
increase
possible.
Difficult to
estimate,
will relate
to cheatgrass invasion.
Future
seedings
unlikely.
None, impact only.
A ...............
Loss of habitat, loss of
sites, pollinator impacts.
Loss of sites
& habitat,
habitat
degradation, nonnatives,
pollinator
impacts.
Loss of sites
& habitat,
habitat
degradation.
Competition,
wildfire,
pollinator
impacts.
Nonnatives,
species’
response
to wildfire
unknown.
A ...............
Livestock,
Deer, &
Elk Use of
Habitat.
Moderate ..............
Low to Moderate ..
95+ .............
Moderate ..............
Moderate.
A ...............
Mining; Oil &
Gas Leasing.
Low .......................
Low .......................
none ...........
Low .......................
Loss if mining occurred.
A ...............
Climate
Change.
Moderate? ............
Moderate? ............
100 .............
Moderate ..............
A ...............
Habitat
Fragmentation
& Degradation.
None ...........
High ......................
Low .......................
100 .............
High ......................
Unknown
but would
likely
cause a
decline.
Habitat degradation,
genetic
isolation.
Permitted
AUMs
would increase impacts,
deer & elk
impacts
could increase.
Little activity,
unlikely in
the foreseeable
future.
Climate
models
predict 40year
changes.
A byproduct
of other
threats.
...............................
...............................
.....................
...............................
.....................
None.
C ...............
Small Mammal
Herbivory.
Moderate ..............
Moderate+ ............
∼80, likely
varies by
year.
High ......................
Affecting
seed set.
C ...............
Deer & Elk
Herbivory.
Low .......................
Low .......................
winter ..........
Low .......................
C ...............
Livestock
Herbivory.
Low .......................
Low .......................
occasional ..
Low .......................
Minimal,
could affect seed
set.
Could affect
seed set.
C ...............
Insect
Herbivory.
Low .......................
Low .......................
3 .................
Moderate ..............
not likely to
change.
Likely to
continue &
fluctuate
with herbivore population.
Winter use
makes
herbivory
less likely.
Steep slopes
makes
herbivory
less likely.
No
measureable impact.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Presumable
loss, habitat degradation,
pollinator
impacts.
Habitat Degradation,
trampling,
pollinator
impacts.
Could affect
seed set.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Overall threat
None, but increasing
quickly.
Low+.
None, impact only.
None+.
Moderate?
High.
Low to Moderate.
None+.
None.
None.
78538
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING ASTRAGALUS MICROCYMBUS—Continued
Listing
factor
Threat or
impact
Scope of threat or
impact
Intensity
Exposure
(%)
Likelihood of
exposure
Species’
response
Foreseeable
future
C ...............
D ...............
Disease ......
Local Land
Use Laws,
& Ordinances.
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
trace ...........
25 ...............
Low .......................
Moderate+ ............
Rare ............
Development within several
decades.
None.
Moderate.
D ...............
State Laws
& Regulations.
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
25+ .............
Moderate+ ............
Development within several
decades.
Moderate.
D ...............
Federal
Laws &
Regulations.
Periodic
Drought.
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
75 ...............
Moderate+ ............
Moderate ..............
100 .............
High ......................
Small Populations.
Low .......................
Low .......................
7 .................
Low .......................
Continued
course will
trend
downward.
Climate
change
models
predict increasing
drought.
Increase if
wildfires &
cheatgrass increase.
Moderate.
Moderate ..............
Death? ........
Loss of habitat, loss of
sites, pollinator impacts.
Loss of habitat, loss of
sites, pollinator impacts.
Influenced
by management
actions.
Decline .......
E ...............
E ...............
Loss of genetic diversity.
Overall threat
Moderate.
None, impact only
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence.
+ indicates a possible increase in the future.
? indicates significant uncertainty.
Moderate threats to Astragalus
microcymbus include: Residential and
urban development; livestock, deer, and
elk use; climate change; and increasing
periodic drought. Of these, the threats
from climate change are the most likely
to increase in the future. In addition, we
are particularly concerned about
nonnative invasive plants, especially
cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is expanding in
the Gunnison Basin. Furthermore, the
dry south-facing slopes where A.
microcymbus is found are the warmest
and, therefore, the most vulnerable to
cheatgrass invasion in the Gunnison
Basin.
Although wildfire is ranked as a low
threat, this factor may increase in the
future. Wildfire is likely to increase
because of its link to nonnative invasive
plants and habitat degradation. Small
mammal herbivory, because of the
significant effect to seed set, is
considered a low to moderate threat. All
other threats to Astragalus microcymbus
are currently regarded as impacts and
not threats to the species’ continued
existence.
While we have considered all the
threats here separately, many are
interrelated. For example, many of these
threats contribute to habitat
degradation. Cheatgrass seldom spreads
without some sort of disturbance.
Wildfire frequency does not increase
without more people to start the fires,
more lightning, or increases in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
nonnative invasive plants (especially
cheatgrass) and may be exacerbated by
climate change. We find the overall
threat to Astragalus microcymbus from
all of these threats to be moderate;
although we carefully considered a high
threat ranking when we considered the
threats acting together.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether
Astragalus microcymbus is endangered
or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We
carefully examined the best scientific
and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the species. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with A.
microcymbus experts and other Federal
and State agencies.
Astragalus microcymbus numbers are
declining. The most recent population
viability analysis predicts that all four
life-history monitoring plots will be lost
by the year 2030, although more recent
data extends this date out into the future
(DBG 2008, p. 9). Most counts in the last
5 years have been far less than they
were in the 1980s and 1990s, generally
fewer than 150 individuals with only 1
count over 400 individuals (USFWS
2010a, pp. 1–4).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We do not fully understand the
reasons for the decline in Astragalus
microcymbus numbers. Some of the
variability in population counts can be
explained by precipitation and
temperature patterns (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
However, these patterns do not explain
all the variation. For example, we did
not see A. microcymbus numbers
increase substantially in 2005 when
there was much more precipitation than
average (DBG 2010a, pp. 11–12). Nor do
these patterns explain why site counts
continue to be much less than they were
in the 1980s and 1990s. Sites do not
appear to move significantly. Although
the footprint of many sites has shrunk,
the plants are still located in
approximately the same areas as they
were in the 1980s, suggesting that A.
microcymbus locations are fairly static.
This is not surprising given that A.
microcymbus habitat seems to be
somewhat limited on the landscape.
This status review identified threats
to the Astragalus microcymbus
rangewide attributable to Factors A, C,
D, and E. The primary threats to the
species include recreation, roads, and
trails; and habitat fragmentation and
degradation. Recreational use continues
to increase. Habitat degradation, caused
by all of the threats interacting together,
poses a significant risk to the species.
Moderate threats include residential and
urban development; livestock, deer, and
elk use; climate change; inadequate
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
regulatory mechanisms; and periodic
drought. The threat from nonnative
invasive plants is increasing quickly.
Small mammal herbivory is considered
a low to moderate threat, and wildfire
is considered a low threat. All of these
threats are impacting A. microcymbus,
and could be contributing to the species’
decline. The species’ close proximity to
the town of Gunnison and the fact that
25 percent of the species rangewide
distribution is on private lands subject
to development makes future
development a very real threat.
Cheatgrass will likely invade the hot dry
habitats of A. microcymbus before any
other habitats in the Gunnison Valley.
Livestock, deer, and elk use are causing
habitat degradation. Because we know
A. microcymbus responds unfavorably
to warmer spring temperatures and less
spring precipitation—conditions that
climate change models predict—we
expect negative impacts similar to the
declines we’ve seen with these climatic
conditions in the long-term life history
study. Small mammal herbivory affects
seed production, and drought negatively
affects population numbers. We
acknowledge there are uncertainties
regarding: (1) The reasons for the
decline of A. microcymbus, (2) the rate
of increase in future recreation and the
management direction for the Hartman
Rocks Recreation Area; (3) the rate and
extent of cheatgrass’ spread; (4) when
and to what extent development will
occur; (5) the return interval of future
wildfires; and (6) the effects of
increasing temperatures and changing
precipitation patterns. Many of these
uncertainties are temporal in nature.
On the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that listing of the Astragalus
microcymbus as endangered or
threatened is warranted. We will make
a determination on the status of the
species as endangered or threatened
when we do a proposed listing
determination. However, as explained
in more detail below, an immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing
this action is precluded by higher
priority listing actions, and progress is
being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the
species at risk of extinction now such
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species as per
section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted.
We determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species is not warranted for
this species at this time because the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
threats acting on the species are not
immediately impacting all the species
across its range to the point where the
species will be immediately lost.
However, if at any time we determine
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing Astragalus
microcymbus is warranted, we will
initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to
establish a rational system for utilizing
available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
species listed as threatened to
endangered status. These guidelines,
titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and
magnitude of threats, and the level of
taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning
priority in descending order to
monotypic genera (genus with one
species), full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population
segments of vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we assigned Astragalus
microcymbus a Listing Priority Number
(LPN) of 8, based on threats that are of
moderate magnitude and are imminent.
These threats include the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat; predation; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. We consider the threats that
A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in
magnitude because the major threats
(recreation, roads, and trails;
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation
and degradation), while serious and
occurring rangewide, do not collectively
rise to the level of high magnitude. For
example, the last known populations are
not about to be completely lost to
development. These threats are not
likely to eliminate the species in the
immediate future. The threats the
species faces are, however, significant.
Recreational impacts are likely to
increase given the close proximity of A.
microcymbus to the town of Gunnison
and the increasing popularity of
mountain biking, motorcycling, and allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws
users and was designated atop 40
percent of the A. microcymbus ‘‘units’’.
The overall threat from the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms is
high given that 25 percent of the habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78539
has no protections and that Federal
regulations allowed a recreation area to
be developed atop the species.
Recreation, as well as most of the other
threats to A. microcymbus, leads to
habitat fragmentation and degradation.
These threats are ongoing and, in some
cases (such as invasive nonnative
species), are considered irreversible
because large-scale invasions cannot be
recovered to a native functioning
ecosystem given current management
efforts. Our rationale for assigning A.
microcymbus an LPN of 8 is outlined
below.
Under the Service’s guidelines, the
magnitude of threat is the first criterion
we look at when establishing a listing
priority. The guidance indicates that
species with the highest magnitude of
threat are those species facing the
greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the
highest listing priority. We consider the
threats that A. microcymbus faces to be
moderate in magnitude because the
major threats (recreation, roads, and
trails; inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation
and degradation), while serious and
occurring rangewide, do not collectively
rise to the level of high magnitude. For
example, the last known populations are
not about to be completely lost to
development.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second
criterion we consider in assigning a
listing priority is the immediacy of
threats. This criterion is intended to
ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority
over those species facing potential
threats or species that are intrinsically
vulnerable but are not known to be
presently facing such threats. We
consider the threats imminent because
we have factual information that the
threats are identifiable and that the
species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range. These actual,
identifiable threats are covered in great
detail in Factors A, C, D, and E of this
finding. Almost all of the threats are
ongoing and, therefore, are imminent,
although the likelihood varies (Table 4).
In addition to their current existence,
we expect these threats to continue and
likely intensify in the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our LPN
guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing
highly distinctive or isolated gene pools
as reflected by taxonomy. Astragalus
microcymbus is a valid taxon at the
species level and, therefore, receives a
higher priority than subspecies, but a
lower priority than species in a
monotypic genus. Therefore, we
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78540
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
assigned Astragalus microcymbus an
LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the
threats to Astragalus microcymbus, and
the species’ status on an annual basis,
and should the magnitude or the
imminence of the threats change, we
will re-visit our assessment of LPN.
Because we have assigned Astragalus
microcymbus an LPN of 8, work on a
proposed listing determination for A.
microcymbus is precluded by work on
higher priority listing actions with
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or
court-approved deadlines and final
listing determinations for those species
that were proposed for listing with
funds from FY 2010. This work includes
all the actions listed in the tables below
under expeditious progress (see Tables
9 and 10).
Species Information—Astragalus
schmolliae
Taxonomy and Species Description
Astragalus schmolliae was first
collected in Montezuma County,
southwestern Colorado, in 1890. It was
formally described as a species in 1945,
when C.L. Porter named it after Dr.
Hazel Marguerite Schmoll (Porter 1945,
pp. 100–102; Barneby 1964, pp. 277–
278; Isely 1998, p. 417). Astragalus
schmolliae is a member of the family
Fabaceae (legume family). The perennial
plants are upright, 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24
in.) tall with one to several stems
branching from an underground root
crown. Its leaves are typical of many of
the legumes, with 11 to 20 small leaflets
on a stem. Leaves and stems are ashcolored due to a covering of short hairs.
Flowers are creamy white and borne on
upright stalks that extend above the
leafy stems. The fruit is a pod, 3 to 4 cm
(1 to 1.5 in.) long, covered with flat, stiff
hairs, pendulous and curving
downward (Barneby 1964, pp. 277–278).
The deep taproot grows to 40 cm (16 in.)
or more (Friedlander 1980, pp. 59–62).
Biology, Distribution, and Abundance
Astragalus schmolliae plants emerge
in early spring and usually begin
flowering in late April or early May.
Flowering continues into early or midJune (Friedlander 1980, p. 63, Peterson
1981, p. 14). Fruit set begins in late May
and occurs through June, and by late
June most fruits have opened and
released their seeds, while still attached
to the plant. The typical plant lifespan
of A. schmolliae is unknown, but
individuals are thought to live up to 20
years (Colyer 2002 in Anderson 2004, p.
11). During very dry years, as observed
in 2002, the plants can remain dormant
with no above-ground growth (Colyer
2003 in Anderson 2004, p. 11). Most of
the plants produce above-ground shoots
and flower profusely during growing
seasons following wet winters.
Astragalus schmolliae requires
pollination by insects to set fruit.
Flowers require a strong insect for
pollination, such as a bumblebee,
because the insect must force itself
between the petals of the butterflyshaped flowers. Pollinators observed on
A. schmolliae include several species of
bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and beeflies
(Bombylius spp.) (Friedlander 1980, p.
63).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae
is mature pinyon-juniper woodland of
mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National
Park (MEVE) area at elevations between
1,981 to 2,286 meters (6,500 to 7,500
feet) (Anderson 2004, p. ii). The plants
are found in both sunny and shaded
locations (Peterson 1981, p. 12),
primarily on deep, reddish loess soils,
and are generally less common near cliff
edges and in ravines where the soil is
shallower. No A. schmolliae plants are
found in the mountain shrublands at the
upper elevations on MEVE.
The CNHP prepared a population
status survey of Astragalus schmolliae
in 2004 for MEVE. The report is based
on field surveys in 2001 and 2003 of the
distribution, density, soil
characteristics, seed viability and
germinability, and recruitment in
burned and unburned areas of MEVE.
This study provides the primary source
of information for our evaluation of the
status and threats to A. schmolliae, and
is cited throughout this finding as
Anderson (2004).
Astragalus schmolliae habitat
collectively occupies approximately
1,619 ha (4,000 ac) in MEVE and on the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park (Tribal
Park). About 809 ha (2,000 ac) are in
MEVE on Chapin Mesa including
Fewkes and Spruce Canyons, on the
West Chapin Spur, and on Park Mesa
(CNHP 2010, pp. 12–19; Anderson 2004,
p. 25, 30; MEVE 2010, p.1). Occupied
habitat on Chapin Mesa in the Tribal
Park south of MEVE probably covers
another 809 ha (2,000 ac), where
surveys have not been done (Anderson
2004, p. 6; Friedlander 1980, p. 53;
CNHP 2010, pp. 20–21). Abundant
plants were observed on the tribal land
in 1987 (Colyer 2002, in Anderson 2004,
p. 4; CNHP 2010, p. 21). The total
number and average density of plants on
the Tribal Park are not known, because
no inventories have been completed
(Clow 2010, pers. comm.).
TABLE 7—Astragalus schmolliae OCCURRENCES
[CNHP 2010, pp. 1–21; Anderson 2004, p. 6, 30]
Occurrence
Plants
2001
Ha (Ac)
Plants
2003
Density
2001
Density
2003
CNHP
Rank*
785 (1,939)
454,733
277,462
.06 per sq meter ........
.037 per sq meter ......
A
3.3 (8)
21 (52)
3,605
24,448
2,199
14,913
.110 ...........................
.117 ...........................
.067 ...........................
.071 ...........................
B
B
MEVE totals .............
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Chapin Mesa, Fewkes &
Spruce Canyons
(MEVE).
Park Mesa (MEVE) .........
West Chapin Spur
(MEVE).
809 (2,000)
482,786
294,499
....................................
....................................
809 (2,000) est.
NA
NA
NA .............................
....................................
1,619 (4,000)
........................
........................
....................................
....................................
Ute Mtn. Ute Tribal Park
Total range .......
H
* Occurrence rankings are categorized from A through D, with ‘‘A’’ ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals
and higher quality habitat, and ‘‘D’’ ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A historical rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The distribution of Astragalus
schmolliae is typical of narrow
endemics, which are often common
within their narrow range on a specific
habitat type (Rabinowitz 1981 in
Anderson 2004, p. 3). However, A.
schmolliae is unusual because similar
habitat is widespread on nearby mesas
where the species has not been found.
Thus, the causes of its rarity are
unknown. Its distribution may be
limited by habitat variables that are not
yet understood (Anderson 2004, p. 8).
Astragalus schmolliae is considered
critically imperiled globally (G1) by the
CNHP, a rank used for species with a
restricted range, a global distribution
consisting of less than five occurrences,
a limited population size, or significant
threats (CNHP 2006, p. 1).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424) set forth procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this 12-month finding, we
evaluated the best scientific and
commercial information available,
including information acquired during
the status review. Our evaluation of this
information is presented below.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a factor to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the factor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it
is. The threat is significant if it drives,
or contributes to, the risk of extinction
of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined in
the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following potential factors that
may affect the habitat or range of
Astragalus schmolliae are discussed in
this section, including: (1) Wildfire; (2)
invasive nonnative plants; (3) post-fire
mitigation; (4) wildfire and fuels
management; (5) development of
infrastructure; (6) drought and climate
change.
Wildfire
Six large wildfires burned within
MEVE between 1989 and 2003, and
extensive portions of those burned areas
have been invaded by nonnative plant
species (weeds) (Floyd et al. 2006, p.
247). Small, lightning-caused fires are
frequent in MEVE. The annual average
number of fire starts between 1926 and
1969 was 5 per year, which increased to
18 per year between 1970 and 1997.
Most of the fires started in the pinyonjuniper woodlands and burned less than
1 ha (2.5 ac). The southern half of MEVE
was covered with dense, old-growth
pinyon-juniper woodlands that had not
burned for several centuries. However,
the 20th century has seen several
spectacular wildfires that burned
extensive portions of these pinyonjuniper woodlands (Floyd et al. 1999, p.
149). Best estimates for ‘‘natural’’ fire
turnover times in MEVE are about 100
years for shrubland vegetation and
about 400 years for pinyon-juniper
vegetation. Although the disturbance
regime for this system apparently
remains within the historical range of
variability, the recovery processes
following fire have been dramatically
altered from historical processes (Floyd
et al. 2006, p. 248). Recurrent fires favor
clonal, resprouting shrub species such
as Quercus gambelii (gambel oak),
Amelanchier utahensis (Utah
serviceberry), Symphoricarpos
oreophilus (mountain snowberry),
Fendlera rupicola (cliff fendlerbush),
and Rhus trilobata (three-leaf sumac),
and gradually eliminate the firesensitive pinyon and juniper (Floyd et
al. 2000, p. 1667, 1677). A. schmolliae
does not grow in the shrub-dominated
areas of MEVE now, and we cannot
predict the long- term success of the
species following removal of the
pinyon-juniper overstory.
Landscape modeling of the effects of
projected cheatgrass increase on fire
frequency in MEVE indicates the
potential for frequent reburning.
Projections show a fire rotation of about
45 years for MEVE. Such a frequent
disturbance regime would be far outside
the historical range of variability for the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78541
pinyon-juniper, and would likely
impact or eliminate many native plant
species (Turner et al., p. 40). We have
no data to indicate whether Astragalus
schmolliae will successfully adapt to a
post-fire habitat of open clearings
between shrubs, and competition from
cheatgrass, thistles, and native grasses
versus a pinyon-juniper dominated
community.
From July 29 to August 4, 2002, the
Long Mesa Fire burned 1,053 ha (2,601
ac) on Chapin and Park Mesas, which
included about 306 ha (756 ac) of
Astragalus schmolliae habitat
(Anderson 2004, p. 28). Between 1996
and 2008, 308 ha (762 ac) of habitat
were burned by wildfires, and 6 ha (15
ac), by prescribed burns (MEVE 2010,
pers. comm.). On Tribal Park habitat,
several small fires appear to have
burned a total of about 23 ha (57 ac)
(Glenne 2010, map). Altogether these
recent fires have impacted about 21
percent of the total habitat for the
species.
The average density per square meter
of Astragalus schmolliae plants on
monitoring plots in MEVE decreased 39
percent from 2001 to 2003 (Anderson
2004, p. 30, 37). Density declined in
both burned and unburned transect
segments between 2001 and 2003. The
decline in density was slightly lower in
burned transect segments than in
unburned, but the difference in density
in 2003 between burned and unburned
transect segments was not statistically
significant, suggesting that burning did
not significantly impact plant mortality,
nor did it result in any benefit to the
species. The 39 percent decline in
density in MEVE was attributed to the
2002 drought and prolonged dormancy,
because the plants do not send up new
growth during very dry years (Anderson
2004, p. 37).
No seedlings were observed in 2001
on burned or unburned habitat, but they
were observed in 2003 throughout the
range of Astragalus schmolliae in
MEVE, except at the population on
northern Park Mesa that was severely
burned in 1996 (Anderson 2004, p. 39).
There were no clear differences in
seedling success between burned and
unburned areas during early summer
surveys, but survivorship of seedlings
through their first summer could not be
determined (Anderson 2004, p. 48).
Viability of seeds collected in 2003 was
between 94 and 100 percent (Anderson
2004, p. 49). The patterns of seed
germination are suggestive of a species
that maintains a persistent seed bank
(Anderson 2004, p. 47). The longevity of
seeds of A. schmolliae is not known, but
many legumes, including members of
Astragalus, have seeds as long-lived as
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78542
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
97 years (Anderson 2004, p. 48).
Recruitment appears to be highly
episodic and is probably greatest in
years that are moist in March through
May (Anderson 2004, p. iv). Plants in
areas burned in 2002 displayed higher
reproductive effort and vigor, and
produced approximately 241 times more
seeds per plant than did plants in
unburned areas. It is likely that this
resulted in part from depletion of
pollinator resources in unburned areas.
Plants in areas burned in 1996 on Park
Mesa had very high vigor in 2003
(possibly due to high soil nitrate levels
after fire) but did not set fruit although
flowers were produced and insect
visitation was observed (Anderson 2004,
p. iv).
Seed bank studies for other Astragalus
species indicate that the group generally
possesses hard impermeable seed coats
with a strong physical germination
barrier. As a result, the seeds are
generally long-lived in the soil and only
a small percentage of seeds germinate
each year (Morris et al. 2002, p. 30).
However, we do not know if the seed
germination strategy for other
Astragalus species is comparable to that
employed by A. schmolliae.
The growth habit of Astragalus
schmolliae suggests that it is tolerant of
fire, with its deep taproot and shallowly
buried root crown, to which the plant
dies back during winter months. Plants
can resprout following a low-intensity
fire if the root crown is not damaged
(Floyd-Hanna et al. 1997, 1998).
Reproductive effort and fecundity were
clearly higher in areas burned in 2002,
and vigor also appeared to be greater.
However, net reproductive success in
post-fire environments has not been
monitored, so it is unclear whether fire
effects have a negative or beneficial
initial impact on A. schmolliae. While
fire may confer some short-term benefits
to plants in burned areas (possibly at the
expense of reproductive success in
unburned areas if depletion of
pollinator resources is responsible for
poor fecundity), it may have long-term
detrimental impacts (Anderson 2004, p.
64).
We conclude that the direct effects of
fire on Astragalus schmolliae are both
positive and negative. Plants burn to the
ground and then resprout the following
spring if the fire is not too intense, but
then have competition from weeds and
grasses. We do not know whether net
reproduction after fire is positive. Given
the high frequency and volume of fires
in the area it is highly likely that new
fires will burn more of the habitat for A.
schmolliae. All of the burned and
remaining unburned habitat on MEVE
and the Tribal Park is at risk of burning
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
within the foreseeable future. Although
we remain concerned about the
potential impacts of recurring fires, the
best available information indicates that
the direct effects of wildfires do not
pose a threat to A. schmolliae. The
indirect effect of facilitating invasion of
the habitat by cheatgrass does pose a
significant threat to the species.
Invasive Nonnative Plants
As discussed above, the main threat to
the species is the indirect effect of
invasion by nonnative plant species
(weeds). This invasion is facilitated by
the increased frequency of burns as well
as the clearing of areas within occupied
Astragalus schmolliae habitat (CNHP
2006, p. 4). In MEVE, large wildfires
that occurred earlier in the twentieth
century (1934, 1959, 1972) were not
associated with weed invasion (Floyd et
al. 1999, p. 148), but the pinyon-juniper
forests that have burned extensively in
the past two decades are being replaced
by significant invasions of weedy
species, especially Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass), Carduus nutans (musk
thistle), and Cirsium arvense (Canada
thistle) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 1).
Since 1996, MEVE has seen more
large fires and more cumulative area
burned than occurred during the
previous 200 years (Romme et al. 2006,
p. 3). This recent increase in fire activity
is a result of severe drought conditions
preceded by wet climatic conditions
and increasing fuel load due to fire
suppression in the pinyon-juniper
woodlands, all coinciding with the
natural end of a long fire cycle (Floyd
et al. 2006, p. 247). A recent
development in the post-fire habitat
response is the remarkably rapid spread
of cheatgrass. This weedy winter annual
germinates in the fall, grows slowly
during the winter, and then grows
rapidly in the early spring. By early
summer it has set seed and died,
creating a continuous fuel bed of quickdrying, flashy fine fuel that can readily
carry fire, even without wind.
Cheatgrass has been in MEVE for many
years. However, it was never
widespread until 2000, when unusually
warm dry summers and winters,
coupled with heavy fall rains, have
allowed cheatgrass to rapidly expand its
range, especially in places where fire or
other disturbances have created bare
ground (Romme et al. 2006, p. 3).
Mature pinyon-juniper woodlands are
highly vulnerable to post-fire weed
invasion (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254).
Cheatgrass is now a dominant species in
much of the area burned in MEVE
(Romme et al. 2006, pp. 2–3) and it has
inundated the burned and disturbed
portions of Astragalus schmolliae
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitat on Chapin Mesa (Hanna et al.
2008, p. 18). The highest infestation
occurred in an area that had burned
both in the 1996 and the 2002 fires on
Park Mesa. This had been an old-growth
pinyon-juniper woodland before the
1996 fire and was seeded with native
grasses. After re-burning in 2002, this
area has been inundated by cheatgrass
(Hanna et al. 2008, p. 9). Given the
seasonal overlap of A. schmolliae
seedling growth with the peak growth of
cheatgrass, it is likely that the presence
of cheatgrass in populations of A.
schmolliae compromises its viability
(Anderson 2004, pp. 60–61).
In 1980, cheatgrass was found in 8
percent of survey samples in picnic
grounds and 0 percent of undisturbed
samples (Friedlander 1980, pp. 75–76).
Carduus nutans was not found in either
disturbed or undisturbed ground in
1980, but it was particularly invasive in
burned areas of MEVE by 1999 and was
aggressively invading areas occupied by
Astragalus schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et
al. 1999, Romme et al. 2003).
We consider the invasion of
nonnative weedy plants, particularly
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high
magnitude to Astragalus schmolliae
because: (1) Cheatgrass has invaded all
of the burned and disturbed habitat of
A. schmolliae in MEVE, covering at least
40 percent of its entire range; (2) it
competes with seedlings and
resprouting adult plants for water and
nutrients; (3) no landscape scale
successful control methods are
available; and (4) the proven ability of
cheatgrass to increase fire frequency,
thereby facilitating further rapid spread,
threatens both burned and previously
unburned occupied habitat. We
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is
likely to cause fire frequency to
increase, with the result that only small
patches of undisturbed habitat will
remain for A. schmolliae within MEVE.
The extent of cheatgrass invasion on the
Tribal Park is unknown, because no
surveys have been completed.
Post-Fire Mitigation
Various post-fire mitigation actions
(aerial seeding of native grasses,
mechanical removal, herbicides, and
bio-control) have been effective in
reducing the density of weeds after fire,
but none of these techniques has
prevented the weeds from becoming
major components of the post-fire plant
community. Post-fire mitigation
activities were conducted in MEVE
under the Burned Area Emergency
Rehabilitation program in 1996 to 1997,
to prevent weed invasion and severe
erosion, and to encourage native plant
species. Aerial seeding of native grasses
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
was applied intensively in the oldgrowth pinyon-juniper community. The
density of Carduus nutans was
significantly reduced by seeding in
burned areas. There has been no
evidence that the diversity of native
forbs has declined by introducing native
perennial grasses (Floyd et al. 1999, p.
155), but Astragalus schmolliae was not
specifically monitored. Therefore, we
are unsure if these efforts to prevent
weed invasion negatively affect A.
schmolliae.
Seeding of native grasses has not
prevented the spread of cheatgrass into
burned areas; instead, cheatgrass
invasion has increased (Floyd et al.
2006, p. 254). If cheatgrass continues to
spread into recently burned areas in
MEVE, it is likely to alter the previous
regime of infrequent fires occurring
during extremely dry periods to a new
regime of frequent fires. Because the
native flora is adapted to the historical
fire regime, a change of this kind could
produce rapid and irreversible
degradation of native vegetation in the
park (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 257). We
believe this could be the case in
Astragalus schmolliae habitat.
Releases of two biological control
weevils on Carduus nutans have been
highly effective in reducing the density,
vigor, and net fecundity of the thistle
plants in Astragalus schmolliae habitat
on MEVE. Aerial seeding with native
grass species has provided effective
competition for some of the weeds and
improved the proportion of native to
invasive plants (Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
Post-fire weed control by aerial
seeding of native grasses, mechanical
removal, herbicides, and bio-control has
reduced competition by invasive weeds
other than cheatgrass, and there is little
documentation of negative effects on
Astragalus schmolliae. We consider the
impacts of these activities to be low, not
rising to the level of a threat to the
species.
Wildfire and Fuels Management
Wildfire management at MEVE
includes the creation of fire breaks, fire
lines, and staging areas, all of which
remove the mature pinyon-juniper
woodland habitat for Astragalus
schmolliae. A cattle fence 4.2 km (2.6
mi) long separates the northern half of
the species’ habitat on MEVE from the
southern half on the Tribal Park. MEVE
created a fire break about 30 m (100 ft)
wide along this fence by cutting all
vegetation to ground level. The break
covers about 14 ha (34 ac), or 0.9
percent of the species total habitat, at
the center of distribution for A.
schmolliae. On the Tribal Park side of
the fence, the pinyon-juniper woodland
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
is cut in a mosaic pattern, leaving trees
and clumps of trees standing with
cleared areas around them. This fire
break covers about 189 ha (467 ac), or
12 percent of the species’ total range.
Response of A. schmolliae to the two
different treatments has not been
compared. Fire breaks also are created
by prescribed burns. Mechanical
removal and prescribed burning
together have altered about 19 percent
of the species total range, including the
fenceline fire breaks described above
(MEVE 2010, pers. comm.).
The ecological conditions for
Astragalus schmolliae within the
cleared areas are different from its
typical pinyon-juniper woodland
habitat. Cleared areas are exposed to
more sun and wind that dry the soil and
the A. schmolliae seedlings. In addition
to invasion by cheatgrass, removal of
woody vegetation appears to result in
competitive release of native grasses. In
sites where no seeding has been done,
removal of woody vegetation favors Poa
fendleriana (muttongrass), the most
common grass species on Mesa Verde
(Anderson 2004, p. 73). This response is
seen in mechanical fuels reduction areas
on Chapin Mesa, where cover of P.
fendleriana can approach 75 percent
(Anderson 2004, p. 60). Density,
reproductive effort and vigor of A.
schmolliae appears low in these areas,
although there are few quantitative data
with which to compare density. Plants
were growing among large, crowded
bunches of P. fendleriana and appeared
small and unhealthy (Anderson 2004, p.
73). This effect is probably due to
competition with P. fendleriana for
water and nutrients. On unburned
Chapin Mesa south of MEVE, density of
A. schmolliae was second only to P.
fendleriana, as a dominant understory
plant (Colyer 2002, in Anderson 2004,
p. 7). This may indicate that A.
schmolliae can recover from the initial
impact of native grass competition
following removal of the overstory
woodland.
Fuels management activities have had
some direct and indirect impacts to
Astragalus schmolliae plants and
habitat. Fuels management activities
occur in the summer and fall when
impacts to mature A. schmolliae plants
are diminished or negligible because the
seeds have matured and plants are
dying back for the season. Direct
impacts to the plants, such as trampling
during the cutting and hauling out of
wood and slash and scorching during
prescribed burns, are short-term because
the plants will be able to resprout the
following spring. Impacts to juvenile
plants are not documented. Mechanical
fuels reduction activities result in a low
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78543
to moderate level of surface disturbance,
which we believe results in little direct
impact to A. schmolliae. However, the
effects of fuels management activities
tend to facilitate nonnative species
invasion. In addition to cheatgrass,
Carduus nutans appears to thrive on the
disturbance created by fuels
management, and to outcompete A.
schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1999).
Numerous C. nutans plants were found
in all areas visited where mechanical
fuels reduction activities took place
(Anderson 2004, p. 73). The canopy of
A. schmolliae can act as a seed trap for
C. nutans, which greatly increases the
likelihood of negative impacts to A.
schmolliae from competition (Anderson
2004, pp. 63, 70).
Clearing for fuel reduction impacts A.
schmolliae in the following ways: (1)
Above-ground stems are directly
removed; (2) plants that resprout the
following spring have less water
available because the soil dries due to
exposure to sun and wind; and (3)
invasive weeds, the native grass P.
fendleriana, and seeded native grasses
provide increased competition.
However, we have no data that indicates
the degree to which these impacts are
occurring or will occur in the future.
Because clearing and prescribed burns
affect 19 percent of the range of A.
schmolliae, we believe that clearing or
burning for fire management may have
a detrimental effect on the species. As
with wildfire, the indirect effect of
facilitating invasion of the habitat by
cheatgrass poses a threat to the species
because it increases the likelihood of
more frequent fires.
Development of Infrastructure
As of 1980, about 17.7 ha (44 ac) of
Astragalus schmolliae habitat was
graded or paved for roads within MEVE,
which was 1.7 percent of the habitat
known in the park at that time
(Friedlander 1980, p. 78). As of 2010,
about 36 ha (90 ac) or 4.5 percent of the
known range of A. schmolliae within
MEVE is classified as hardened surfaces,
i.e., roads, buildings, parking lots, water
tanks, trails, etc. (MEVE 2010, p. 1). A
recent impact was the installation of
thousands of meters of underground
fiber optic cables throughout the
developed areas of the park (Anderson
2004, p. 70; Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
Information on the number of plants
destroyed or new recruits that appeared
following the installation is not
available (San Miguel 2010a, pers.
comm.).
It is likely that a small percentage of
the Astragalus schmolliae population
has been eliminated during the
development of visitor facilities in
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78544
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
MEVE. Regular maintenance and
construction projects at MEVE will
continue to result in a small amount of
plant mortality. Trampling of plants by
people using trails, roads, and picnic
areas in the developed portion of MEVE
also eliminates a small number of plants
(Nelligan 2010, p. 2). Likewise on the
Tribal Park, most foot traffic is limited
to routes used by escorted tour groups
and, therefore, likely to have a very
small impact on the species.
Trampling of plants by visitors and
staff is an ongoing impact that does not
rise to the level of a threat because it
affects plants in a very limited portion
of the species range in MEVE and in the
Tribal Park. Astragalus schmolliae may
recover from this kind of disturbance if
the below-ground parts are not
damaged, or if undamaged plants
remain nearby to provide a seed source
and the disturbance is not constantly
repeated or followed up with additional
disturbances. One attempt to transplant
mature plants that were growing in a
planned construction area was
unsuccessful because the taproots were
severed (Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
Construction of new roads, a visitor
center, and campground are ongoing in
MEVE. Most of the new construction is
outside of Astragalus schmolliae
habitat. Most of the disturbance in
occupied habitat is related to a water
pipeline, and because it is directionally
drilled from one pad of about 4 by 24
m (14 by 80 ft) alongside the park road,
the impact on the plants is negligible
(San Miguel 2010b, pers. comm.).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae
on tribal land is within the Tribal Park,
which is managed for protection of its
cultural and natural resources. It is an
undeveloped area without surfaced
roads or permanent facilities. We are not
aware of any development activities on
the Tribal Park that would impact A.
schmolliae (Mayo 2010, pers. comm.).
Overall, the impact of existing
development appears low, impacting
about 2.3 percent of the species’ entire
range. MEVE will likely continue to
locate major facilities outside of
Astragalus schmolliae habitat, and
minimize infrastructure within the
habitat in the future. Most of the habitat
within MEVE is protected from
development, being within a National
Park. Likewise, the Tribal Park is likely
to remain undeveloped (Mayo 2010,
pers. comm.). Therefore, development
does not appear to constitute a threat to
A. schmolliae, now nor is it likely to in
the foreseeable future.
Drought and Climate Change
Drought may affect Astragalus
schmolliae. In 2002, severe drought
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
caused most A. schmolliae individuals
to remain dormant (Anderson 2004, p.
4). The total annual precipitation
measured at MEVE in 2002 was 28 cm
(11 in.), well below the average of 44 cm
(17.5 in.) for 1948 to 2003. However,
there were 5 years between 1948 and
1989 in which MEVE received less than
28 cm (11 in.). Tree ring analysis
indicates that droughts were as common
during the Ancestral Puebloan
occupation of MEVE, from
approximately A.D. 600 to A.D. 1300, as
they are today. It is likely that drought
is common enough that A. schmolliae
can recover from its effects (Anderson
2004, p. 35), provided that severity and
duration of drought does not exceed
historical levels, or that threats such as
weed invasion do not increase
significantly as a result. Periodic
drought causes A. schmolliae plants and
seedlings to dry out during a given year,
and contributes to increased fire
frequency and weed invasion. We
believe that drought has a low-level
direct impact on the species. It also
facilitates cheatgrass invasion and
increased fire frequency and therefore is
a threat to the species.
Projections for changes in climate
within Astragalus schmolliae habitat are
similar to those discussed above for
Astragalus microcymbus. Overall, future
projections for the Southwestern United
States include increased temperatures,
more intense and longer-lasting heat
waves, and an increased probability of
drought, that are worsened by higher
temperatures, heavier downpours,
increased flooding, and increased
erosion (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129–134).
Projections for western Colorado
indicate that temperature could increase
an average of 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) by 2050
(UCAR 2009, pp. 1–14).
The increasing frequency of largescale fires is largely due to periodic
drought conditions preceded by years of
wet climatic conditions that allowed
heavy fuel loads to accumulate (Floyd et
al. 2006, p. 247). The specific
combination of a wet season followed
by drought, which is likely to be
exacerbated by climate change, is
unpredictable at this time. We expect
that A. schmolliae will be affected
negatively by climate change effects on
precipitation, but the available
information is too speculative to
conclude that climate change now
threatens the species.
Summary of Factor A
The highest threat to Astragalus
schmolliae habitat is the invasion of
nonnative cheatgrass following
wildfires, prescribed fires, and fire break
clearings. Recent wildfires have burned
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
21 percent of the pinyon-juniper
woodland habitat for the species.
Another 19 percent has been burned
and/or cleared to discourage further
spread of wildfires within MEVE. Dense
stands of cheatgrass have invaded all of
these areas, which cover 53 percent of
the habitat on MEVE, 40 percent of the
entire range of the species. Cheatgrass is
highly flammable and greatly increases
fire frequency on both burned and
nearby unburned but disturbed habitat.
Although mature A. schmolliae plants
recover strongly after fire, cheatgrass
competes with seedlings for water and
nutrients, and we are unsure of their
long-term reproductive success in open
areas exposed to drying sun and wind.
Frequent fires are likely to prevent
recovery of the pinyon-juniper
woodland. There are no landscape-scale
methods known to be effective in
controlling cheatgrass. Therefore, we
consider the dominance of cheatgrass in
occupied A. schmolliae habitat to be a
significant threat to the long-term
survival of the species. Wildfires,
prescribed fires, and clearings for fire
breaks are considered a moderate threat
to the species because they modify the
habitat and facilitate the invasion of
cheatgrass.
Drought facilitates increased fire
frequency and, therefore, is found to be
a threat to the species. Climate change
may exacerbate the threat of cheatgrass
invasion and more frequent wildfires,
but we cannot foresee whether its effects
are likely to threaten the continued
existence of Astragalus schmolliae.
The impact of infrastructure
development and visitor use is low.
About 36 ha (90 ac) of Astragalus
schmolliae habitat on MEVE have been
used for roads, buildings, parking lots,
etc., which is 2.3 percent of the species’
entire range. No permanent
development has occurred on the Tribal
Park. Existing and foreseeable future
development is considered a minor
impact that does not threaten the
continued existence of the species.
Post-fire weed control by aerial
seeding of native grasses, mechanical
removal, herbicides, and bio-control has
reduced competition by invasive weeds
other than cheatgrass, and there is little
documentation of negative effects on
Astragalus schmolliae. We consider the
impacts of these activities to be low, not
rising to the level of a threat to the
species.
We find that Astragalus schmolliae is
threatened by the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range, and these threats are expected to
continue or increase in the foreseeable
future.
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats
involving the overutilization or
collection of Astragalus schmolliae for
any commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes. Therefore, we
do not consider overutilization to be a
threat to the species now, nor is it
expected to become so in the foreseeable
future.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Factor C. Disease or Predation
No diseases are known to affect
Astragalus schmolliae. Therefore, we do
not consider disease to be a threat to the
species now, nor is it expected to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Herbivory
Seed predation by snout beetles or
weevils caused loss of seeds in about
12.5 percent of Astragalus schmolliae
plants in plots sampled in 1980
(Friedlander 1980, p. 64). Beetle
predation has not been observed again
since 1980, and is not considered a
threat to the species. Anderson (2001, p.
11) reported severe defoliation of A.
schmolliae by larvae of the clouded
sulfur butterfly (Colias philodice).
Aphids also appeared to have an impact
on reproductive output for this species
(Anderson 2001, p. 11). These events
were unusual, and insect predation is
considered a low-level impact that does
not rise to the level of a threat.
Herbivores such as mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) and cottontail
rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii) browse
on Astragalus schmolliae foliage,
flowers, seed pods, and seedlings.
Seedling mortality due to herbivory by
rabbits or deer may be 1 to 10 percent
(Anderson 2004, p. 40). Feral horses and
stray cattle graze within the species’
range, including the burned areas, but
there is no evidence that they consume
many A. schmolliae. Mature plants
usually resprout the following spring
after browsing by animals (Nelligan
2010, p. 1). Because the most abundant
grass (Poa fendleriana) associated with
A. schmolliae on the Tribal Park is
highly palatable to cattle, grazing does
not appear to be an issue in the southern
portion of its range. Grazing by livestock
is not permitted in MEVE. We consider
herbivory an ongoing low-level impact
to the species that does not rise to the
level of a threat.
Summary of Factor C
No diseases are known to affect
Astragalus schmolliae. With very little
herbivory observed or documented,
predation does not appear to pose a
threat to A. schmolliae. Herbicide use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
occurs in a small portion of the species’
habitat and is conducted so as to
minimize impacts to the species.
Accordingly, we find no evidence that
predation or disease are a threat to A.
schmolliae now, nor are they expected
to become so in the foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
No local, State, or Federal laws or
regulations specifically protect
Astragalus schmolliae. The National
Park Service Organic Act (1916, p. 1)
states that wildlife are to be conserved
and left unimpaired for future
generations to enjoy. The MEVE mission
is to preserve and protect more than
4,000 archeological sites and also to
protect wildlife, birds, and other natural
resources from willful destruction,
disturbance, and removal (National Park
Service 2010, p. 1). The plants are
protected from visitor impacts in
undeveloped areas of MEVE by
regulations that restrict visitor access to
designated trails, roads, and
campgrounds to protect cultural
resources. Visitors found hiking off
developed areas or designated trails
when not accompanied by a uniformed
National Park Service employee are
subject to penalties provided for in title
36 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(maximum fine of $500 and 6 months
imprisonment). The MEVE does not
have a management plan specific to A.
schmolliae, nor do their draft fire
management plans or draft weed
management plans specifically mention
management for this species (San
Miguel 2010a, pers. comm.). The draft
fire management plan does not have any
specific mention of managing for this
species because ‘‘it would be expected to
respond to fuels treatments and fire
much the same as most other native
perennial forbs’’ (Nelligan 2010, p. 3).
We believe that this approach is
inadequate because cheatgrass invasion
will lead to more frequent and recurrent
fires. These draft plans include rare
plant surveys and avoidance (Nelligan
2010, p. 4.), but the plans are not
finalized. The MEVE gives A.
schmolliae special consideration when
planning park projects in an effort to
minimize impacts to the species
(Nelligan 2010, p. 3). In 2010, MEVE
will begin developing a specific
management/conservation plan for A.
schmolliae (Nelligan 2010, p. 3).
The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae
on the Tribal Park is maintained as part
of a 50,586-ha (125,000-ac) undeveloped
area to protect cultural and
environmental resources. Visitors are
allowed only on guided tours. The
management goal for A. schmolliae
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78545
occupied habitat is for no grounddisturbing activities. Grazing is allowed
(Clow 2010, pers. comm.), but we do not
believe it substantially impacts the
species. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is
drafting a management plan for species
at risk that will include monitoring of A.
schmolliae plants and habitat. The final
draft plan may be completed in 2010 or
2011 (Clow 2010, pers. comm.). The
management plan will assist us in better
understanding the extent to which the
Tribe plans to conserve the species and
its habitat.
Despite the positive management for
Astragalus schmolliae that occurs
within MEVE and the Tribal Park, no
formal plans are in place for mitigation
of threats from cheatgrass and other fire
effects.
Summary of Factor D
We expect that Astragalus schmolliae
habitat on the Tribal Park is generally
protected from human disturbance by
tribal regulations that do not allow
public access or unauthorized activities.
Human impacts in undeveloped areas of
MEVE are minimized by regulations that
restrict visitor access to designated
trails, roads, and campgrounds to
protect cultural resources. While
currently needed management actions
are ongoing and management plans have
been drafted, no plans, policies, or
regulations have been signed and
implemented for the specific purpose of
monitoring and protecting A. schmolliae
from cheatgrass invasion and recurrent
fires. We anticipate that MEVE and the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe will formalize
their management plans within the near
future.
The existing suite of local, State, and
Federal laws that we evaluated do not
address the primary threat to Astragalus
schmolliae of cheatgrass invasion
following fire. Additionally, the existing
plans rely on the resilience of the plants
and their ability to resprout after
impacts, which is insufficient to provide
for their recovery post-fire. Therefore,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms for the species are
inadequate and do not address the
threats to the continued existence of the
species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Restricted Range
The global range of Astragalus
schmolliae is restricted to pinyonjuniper woodlands on about 1,619 ha
(4,000 ac) on 3 adjacent mesas. It does
not grow in grasslands below the mesas
or in adjacent shrublands at higher
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78546
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
elevation on the mesas, nor has it been
found in pinyon-juniper woodlands on
nearby mesas. Such a restricted range
makes the species vulnerable to habitat
modification caused by wildfire,
cheatgrass invasion, increased drought,
and climate change, but is not
considered a threat in itself.
Herbicides
Less than 10 percent of Astragalus
schmolliae habitat on MEVE has been
sprayed with herbicide to control
identified high-density stands of
Cirsium canadense. These herbicide
applications have been performed
carefully to minimize overspray that
might land on native species (Nelligan
2010, p. 2). We are not aware of any use
of herbicides on the tribal land habitat.
Because we have no information
indicating that herbicide use has
affected A. schmolliae, we do not
consider herbicide use to be a threat to
the species now or in the foreseeable
future.
Summary of Factor E
The small range of Astragalus
schmolliae makes it vulnerable to
existing and future threats, but does not
constitute a threat in itself. Herbicide is
used within the habitat, but is not
known to affect the species. We are not
aware of any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species’ continued
existence that present a current or
potential threat to A. schmolliae.
Therefore, we do not consider other
natural or manmade factors affecting the
continued existence of the species to be
a threat now or within the foreseeable
future.
General Threats Summary
Table 8 below provides an overview
of the threats to Astragalus schmolliae.
Of these threats, we consider
degradation of habitat by fire followed
by cheatgrass invasion and subsequent
increase in fire frequency to be the most
significant threats (Table 8). Cheatgrass
is likely to increase given its rapid
spread and persistence in habitat
disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels
management and development of
infrastructure, and the inability of land
managers to control it on a landscape
scale. Threats to A. schmolliae and its
habitat from nonnative plant invasion
following wildfires and fire and fuels
management currently affect about 53
percent (431 ha (1,066 ac)) of the
species’ range on MEVE and 26 percent
(212 ha (524 ac)) on the Tribal Park for
a total of 40 percent of the species entire
known range (Table 8). Fires, fire break
clearings, and drought are considered
moderate threats to A. schmolliae.
Inadequate regulations are a low-level
threat to the species. Other impacts not
considered threats include post-fire
native grass seeding, thistle invasion,
infrastructure development, trampling,
herbivory, weed treatments, and
pollinator availability.
TABLE 8—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING Astragalus schmolliae
Listing
factor
Threat or
impact
Scope of threat or
impact
Intensity
Exposure (%)
Likelihood of
exposure
Species’
response
Foreseeable
future
A ...............
Nonnative
Invasive
Cheatgrass.
Moderate ..............
High ......................
40 ...................
High ......................
Increased fire
frequency.
High.
A ...............
Wildfires .........
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
21 ...................
High ......................
A ...............
Prescribed
burns completed + proposed.
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
0.37 + 0.34 .....
High ......................
Continue .........
Moderate.
A ...............
Fire break
clearing
completed +
proposed.
Low .......................
Low .......................
18 + 0.25 ........
High ......................
Continue .........
Moderate.
A ...............
Nonnative
Invasive thistles.
Periodic
Drought.
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
5 .....................
High ......................
Strong regrowth, unknown net
reproduction,
Increased
cheatgrass &
fire frequency.
Strong regrowth, unknown net
reproduction,
Increased
cheatgrass &
fire frequency.
Outcompeted
by grasses,
decline of
growth, increased
cheatgrass.
Competition ....
Increasing with
rapid increase possible.
More frequent
Decline ...........
None.
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
100 .................
Moderate ..............
Unpredictable
but likely to
increase.
Moderate.
A ...............
Climate
Change.
Moderate? ............
Moderate? ............
100 .................
Moderate ..............
Moderate?
A ...............
Infrastructure
Low .......................
Development.
Low .......................
2.3 ..................
Moderate ..............
Climate models predict
40-year
changes.
Small increase
A ...............
Trampling .......
Low .......................
1 .....................
Moderate ..............
Small increase
None.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Low .......................
20:58 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Plants fail to
sprout, or
seedlings
dry up. Increased
cheatgrass &
fire frequency.
Increased fire
frequency.
Loss of habitat,
loss of
plants.
Loss of plants
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Overall threat
Moderate.
None.
78547
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING ASTRAGALUS SCHMOLLIAE—Continued
Listing
factor
Threat or
impact
Scope of threat or
impact
Intensity
Exposure (%)
Likelihood of
exposure
Species’
response
Foreseeable
future
A ...............
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
21 ...................
High ......................
Competition ....
Continue .........
None.
B ...............
Native Grass
Seeding
Post-fire.
None ...............
...............................
...............................
0 .....................
...............................
........................
None.
C ...............
Herbivory ........
Low .......................
Low .......................
? .....................
Low .......................
Plants resprout, seedlings destroyed.
C ...............
Chemical &
Mechanical
Weed Treatment.
National Park
Laws & Regulations.
Tribal Laws &
Regulations.
Low .......................
Low .......................
7 .....................
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
50 ...................
Moderate ..............
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
50 ...................
Moderate ..............
E ...............
Limited Range
High ......................
Low .......................
100 .................
High ......................
Some mortality, strong
regrowth by
survivors.
No management plan
for species.
No management or
monitoring.
No range expansion.
Not likely to
change.
Likely to continue & fluctuate with
herbivore
population.
Continue .........
E ...............
Pollinator
Availability.
Low .......................
Low .......................
22 ...................
Low .......................
D ...............
D ...............
Decreased
seed production.
Overall threat
None.
None.
Stronger protection.
Low.
Increase management actions.
Increased effect with
drought &
climate
change.
Increase with
fire.
Low.
None.
None.
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence.
? indicates significant uncertainty.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether
Astragalus schmolliae is endangered or
threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We
carefully examined the best available
scientific and commercial information
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the species. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with A.
schmolliae experts and other Tribal,
State, and Federal agencies.
Threats to Astragalus schmolliae and
its habitat from nonnative cheatgrass
invasion following wildfires and
management of fire and fuels currently
affect about 40 percent of the species
entire known range. Drought is a threat
that facilitates cheatgrass invasion and
increased fire frequency. Frequent
wildfires, and at more frequent intervals
than historically, have burned the
pinyon-juniper forest habitat of A.
schmolliae in the past two decades.
Burned areas and fire breaks are being
invaded by weedy species, especially
cheatgrass. We consider the invasion of
nonnative weedy plants, particularly
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high
magnitude to A. schmolliae because: (1)
Cheatgrass has invaded all of the burned
and disturbed habitat of A. schmolliae;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) it competes with seedlings and
resprouting adult plants for water and
nutrients; (3) no landscape-scale
successful control methods are
available; and (4) the proven ability of
cheatgrass to alter fire frequency,
thereby facilitating further rapid spread,
threatens both burned and previously
unburned occupied habitat. We
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is
likely to cause fire frequency to
increase, with the result that only small
patches of undisturbed habitat will
remain for A. schmolliae within the
foreseeable future.
Because no regulations exist that
address the primary threat to the species
of cheatgrass invasion following
wildfires, fire and fuels and
management, and drought, we find that
the existing regulatory mechanisms for
the species are inadequate, and
represent a threat of low magnitude.
On the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that listing of the Astragalus
schmolliae as endangered or threatened
is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the
species as endangered or threatened
during the proposed listing process. As
explained in more detail below, an
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing this action is precluded
by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
qualified species from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
We have reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the
species at risk of extinction now, such
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species, as per
section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted.
We determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species is not warranted at
this time, because the threats acting on
the species are not immediately
impacting all of the species across its
range to the point where the species will
be immediately lost. However, if at any
time we determine that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing Astragalus schmolliae is
warranted, we will initiate this action at
that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to
establish a rational system for utilizing
available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
species listed as threatened to
endangered status. These guidelines,
titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
78548
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
magnitude of threats, and the level of
taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning
priority in descending order to
monotypic genera (genus with one
species), full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population
segments of vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we have assigned
Astragalus schmolliae a Listing Priority
Number (LPN) of 8, based on our
finding that the species faces threats
that are of moderate magnitude and are
imminent. These threats include the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. These threats
are ongoing and, in some cases (such as
nonnative species), are considered
irreversible because large-scale
invasions cannot be recovered to a
native functioning ecosystem. Our
rationale for assigning A. schmolliae an
LPN of 8 is outlined below.
Under the Service’s guidelines, the
magnitude of threat is the first criterion
we look at when establishing a listing
priority. The guidance indicates that
species with the highest magnitude of
threat are those species facing the
greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the
highest listing priority. We consider the
threats that Astragalus schmolliae faces
to be moderate in magnitude because
the major threats (weed invasion
facilitated by fire, management of fire
and fuels management, and drought,
plus inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms), while serious and
occurring rangewide, do not collectively
rise to the level of high magnitude. For
example, the last known populations are
not about to be completely lost due to
the effects of wildfires.
The magnitude of threat Factor A is
considered moderate because about 40
percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat
has been modified by fires and firerelated activities, followed by
unprecedented invasion by cheatgrass,
facilitated by drought. Factor A is
shown to have occurred in the past, and
it is clearly a threat today and into the
future. These impacts affect the
competitive ability and reproductive
success of A. schmolliae individuals,
and increase the likelihood of more
frequent fire intervals in the future.
The magnitude of threat Factor D is
considered low. While no plans,
policies, or regulations have been signed
and implemented for the specific
purpose of monitoring and protecting
Astragalus schmolliae from cheatgrass
invasion and recurrent fires, we
anticipate that MEVE and the Ute
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
Mountain Ute Tribe will formalize and
implement their management plans
within the near future.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second
criterion we consider in assigning a
listing priority is the immediacy of
threats. This criterion is intended to
ensure that the species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority
over those for which threats are only
potential or that are intrinsically
vulnerable but are not known to be
presently facing such threats. We
consider all of the threats to be
imminent because we have factual
information that the threats are
identifiable and that the species is
currently facing them in many portions
of its range. These actual, identifiable
threats are covered in greater detail in
Factors A and D of this finding. All of
the threats are ongoing and, therefore,
imminent, although the likelihood
varies (Table 8). In addition to their
current existence, we expect these
threats, except for inadequate
regulations, to continue and likely
intensify in the foreseeable future.
The third criterion in our Listing
Priority Number guidance is intended to
devote resources to those species
representing highly distinctive or
isolated gene pools as reflected by
taxonomy. Astragalus schmolliae is a
valid taxon at the species level and,
therefore, receives a higher priority than
subspecies, but a lower priority than
species in a monotypic genus.
Therefore, we assigned A. schmolliae an
LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the
threats to Astragalus schmolliae and the
species’ status on an annual basis, and
should the magnitude or the imminence
of the threats change, we will revisit our
assessment of the LPN.
While we conclude that listing
Astragalus schmolliae is warranted, an
immediate proposal to list this species
is precluded by other higher priority
listings, which we address in the
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
section below. Because we have
assigned A. schmolliae an LPN of 8,
work on a proposed listing
determination for A. schmolliae is
precluded by work on higher priority
listing actions with absolute statutory,
court-ordered, or court-approved
deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that
were proposed for listing with funds
from fiscal year (FY) 2010. This work
includes all the actions listed in the
tables below under expeditious progress
(see Tables 9 and 10).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing
priority of a species in relation to the
resources that are available and the cost
and relative priority of competing
demands for those resources. Thus, in
any given fiscal year (FY), multiple
factors dictate whether it will be
possible to undertake work on a listing
proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is
precluded by higher-priority listing
actions.
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support
work involving the following listing
actions: Proposed and final listing rules;
90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) or to change the status
of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’
petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as
required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat). The work involved in
preparing various listing documents can
be extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into
final rules. The number of listing
actions that we can undertake in a given
year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that
is, more complex actions generally are
more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule
with critical habitat, $345,000; and for
a final listing rule with critical habitat,
the median cost is $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is
appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In
addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal
to the amount expressly appropriated
for that purpose in that fiscal year. This
cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery funds for
removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs, from being used
for Listing Program actions (see House
Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget
has included a critical habitat subcap to
ensure that some funds are available for
other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The
critical habitat designation subcap will
ensure that some funding is available to
address other listing activities’’ (House
Report No. 107—103, 107th Congress,
1st Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002
and each year until FY 2006, the Service
has had to use virtually the entire
critical habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical
habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been
available for other listing activities. In
some FYs since 2006, we have been able
to use some of the critical habitat
subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority
candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations, we did use some
of this money to fund the critical habitat
portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed
listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be
combined into one rule, thereby being
more efficient in our work. In FY 2011
we anticipate that we will be able to use
some of the critical habitat subcap funds
to fund proposed listing determinations.
We make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
on a nationwide basis. Through the
listing cap, the critical habitat subcap,
and the amount of funds needed to
address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of
money available for other listing
activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those
needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species,
set the limits on our determinations of
preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of
resources as the only basis for deferring
the initiation of a rulemaking that is
warranted. The Conference Report
accompanying Public Law 97–304,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states that the
amendments were ‘‘not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for
any reason other than that the existence
of pending or imminent proposals to list
species subject to a greater degree of
threat would make allocation of
resources to such a petition [that is, for
a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’
Although that statement appeared to
refer specifically to the ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable’’ limitation
on the 90-day deadline for making a
‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that
finding is made at the point when the
Service is deciding whether or not to
commence a status review that will
determine the degree of threats facing
the species, and therefore the analysis
underlying the statement is more
relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when
the Service has already determined the
degree of threats facing the species and
is deciding whether or not to commence
a rulemaking.
In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the
amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program
(that is, the portion of the Listing
Program funding not related to critical
habitat designations for species that are
already listed). Therefore, a proposed
listing is precluded if pending proposals
with higher priority will require
expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and
expeditious progress is the amount of
work that can be achieved with
$10,471,000. Since court orders
requiring critical habitat work will not
require use of all of the funds within the
critical habitat subcap, we used
$1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap
funds in order to work on as many of
our required petition findings and
listing determinations as possible. This
brings the total amount of funds we had
for listing actions in FY 2010 to
$11,585,417.
The $11,585,417 was used to fund
work in the following categories:
Compliance with court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing
determinations be completed by a
specific date; section 4 (of the Act)
listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our
candidate species. For FY 2011, on
September 29, 2010, Congress passed a
continuing resolution which provides
funding at the FY 2010 enacted level.
Until Congress appropriates funds for
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78549
FY 2011, we will fund listing work
based on the FY 2010 amount. In 2009,
the responsibility for listing foreign
species under the Act was transferred
from the Division of Scientific
Authority, International Affairs
Program, to the Endangered Species
Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010,
we use a portion of our funding to work
on the actions described above as they
apply to listing actions for foreign
species. This has the potential to further
reduce funding available for domestic
listing actions. Although there are
currently no foreign species issues
included in our high-priority listing
actions at this time, many actions have
statutory or court-approved settlement
deadlines, thus increasing their priority.
The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the
Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part
of our administrative record).
Based on our September 21, 1983,
guidance for assigning an LPN for each
candidate species (48 FR 43098), we
have a significant number of species
with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance,
we assign each candidate an LPN of 1
to 12, depending on the magnitude of
threats (high or moderate to low),
immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of
the species (in order of priority:
Monotypic genus (a species that is the
sole member of a genus); species; or part
of a species (subspecies, distinct
population segment, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the
listing priority number, the higher the
listing priority (that is, a species with an
LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority).
Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked
the candidate species with an LPN of 2
by using the following extinction-risk
type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank,
Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species
currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations.
Those species with the highest IUCN
rank (critically endangered), the highest
Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent
threats), and currently with fewer than
50 individuals, or fewer than 4
populations, originally comprised a
group of approximately 40 candidate
species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to
receive funding to work on a proposed
listing determination. As we work on
proposed and final listing rules for those
40 candidates, we apply the ranking
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78550
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
criteria to the next group of candidates
with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the
next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered are lower priority, since as
listed species, they are already afforded
the protection of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to
work on a proposed rule to reclassify a
species to endangered if we can
combine this with work that is subject
to a court-determined deadline.
We assigned both Astragalus
microcymbus and A. schmolliae an LPN
of 8. For A. microcymbus, this is based
on our finding that the species faces
immediate and moderate magnitude
threats from the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat; predation; the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
other natural or man-made factors
affecting its continued existence. In the
case of A. schmolliae, this is based on
our finding that the species faces
immediate and moderate magnitude
threats from the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. These
threats are ongoing and, in some cases
(e.g., nonnative species), considered
irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines,
a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent moderatemagnitude threats is assigned an LPN of
7, 8, or 9 depending on its taxonomic
status. Because both A. microcymbus
and A. schmolliae are species, we
assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore,
work on a proposed listing
determination for A. microcymbus and
A. schmolliae is precluded by work on
higher priority candidate species (i.e.,
species with LPN of 7); listing actions
with absolute statutory, court ordered,
or court-approved deadlines; and final
listing determinations for those species
that were proposed for listing with
funds from previous FYs. This work
includes all the actions listed in the
tables below under expeditious
progress.
With our workload so much bigger
than the amount of funds we have to
accomplish it, it is important that we be
as efficient as possible in our listing
process. Therefore, as we work on
proposed rules for the highest priority
species in the next several years, we are
preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include
species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2.
In addition, we take into consideration
the availability of staff resources when
we determine which high-priority
species will receive funding to
minimize the amount of time and
resources required to complete each
listing action.
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. As with our
‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of
whether progress in adding qualified
species to the Lists has been expeditious
is a function of the resources available
for listing and the competing demands
for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the
resource available for delisting, which is
funded by a separate line item in the
budget of the Endangered Species
Program. During FY 2010, we have
completed two proposed delisting rules
and two final delisting rules.) Given the
limited resources available for listing,
we find that we made expeditious
progress in FY 2010 in the Listing
Program and are making expeditious
progress in FY 2011. This progress
included preparing and publishing the
following determinations:
FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS
Publication date
Title
Actions
10/08/2009 ....................
Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot
Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species
Throughout Its Range.
90-day Finding on a Petition To List the
American Dipper in the Black Hills of South
Dakota as Threatened or Endangered.
Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus
arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River System.
Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte
Goshawk Under the Endangered Species
Act: Proposed rule.
Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as
Threatened Throughout Its Range with
Special Rule.
Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse
(Centrocercus minimus).
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or
Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine
Species of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat.
Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
475 Species in the Southwestern United
States as Threatened or Endangered With
Critical Habitat.
Final Listing Threatened .................................
74 FR 52013–52064
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
74 FR 55177–55180
Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for
Listing Decision.
74 FR 55524–55525
Proposed Listing Threatened ..........................
74 FR 56757–56770
Proposed Listing Threatened ..........................
74 FR 56770–56791
Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for
Listing Decision.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
74 FR 61100–61102
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
74 FR 63337–63343
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
74 FR 66260–66271
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial and Substantial.
74 FR 66865–66905
10/27/2009 ....................
10/28/2009 ....................
11/03/2009 ....................
11/03/2009 ....................
11/23/2009 ....................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12/03/2009 ....................
12/03/2009 ....................
12/15/2009 ....................
12/16/2009 ....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
FR Pages
15DEP2
74 FR 63343–63366
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
78551
FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
12/17/2009 ....................
12-month Finding on a Petition To Change
the Final Listing of the Distinct Population
Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include
New Mexico.
Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their
Range.
Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered
Throughout Their Range.
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s
Petrel.
Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and
Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened
Throughout Their Ranges.
Initiation of Status Review for Agave
eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum.
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the
American Pika as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the
Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald
Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment.
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the
Southwestern Washington/Columbia River
Distinct Population Segment of Coastal
Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
as Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry
Cave salamander as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Southern Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria
jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Striped Newt as Threatened.
12-month Findings for Petitions to List the
Greater
Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus
urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis
occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s
Hairstreak Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.
12-month Finding on a Petition To List the
Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River,
Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a
Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a Mayfly
(Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify
the Delta Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range.
Determination of Endangered Status for 48
Species on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat.
Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United
States.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered
or Threatened with Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct
Population Segment of the Fisher in Its
United States Northern Rocky Mountain
Range as Endangered or Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento
splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus).
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
74 FR 66937–66950
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 605–649
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 286–310
Proposed rule, withdrawal ..............................
75 FR 310–316
Final Listing Threatened .................................
75 FR 235–250
Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for
Listing Decision.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 3190–3191
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 8601–8621
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List ..............
75 FR 8621–8644
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 13068–13071
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
75 FR 13717–13720
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 13720–13726
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 13910–14014
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 16050–16065
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 17062–17070
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 17352–17363
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
75 FR 17363–17367
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 17667–17680
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 18959–19165
Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision.
75 FR 19591–19592
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 19592–19607
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 19925–19935
Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision.
75 FR 20547–20548
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
1/20/2010 ......................
2/09/2010 ......................
2/25/2010 ......................
2/25/2010 ......................
3/18/2010 ......................
3/23/2010 ......................
3/23/2010 ......................
3/23/2010 ......................
3/31/2010 ......................
4/5/2010 ........................
4/6/2010 ........................
4/6/2010 ........................
4/7/2010 ........................
4/13/2010 ......................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4/15/2010 ......................
4/15/2010 ......................
4/16/2010 ......................
4/20/2010 ......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
FR Pages
15DEP2
75 FR 6437–6471
78552
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
4/26/2010 ......................
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia
susanae) as Threatened or Endangered.
90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes
Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis.
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the
White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van
Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Endangered
or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List
Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced
Bees as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Least Chub as Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird as Endangered.
Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered Throughout Its
Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range.
Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly
and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges.
Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter,
Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and
Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout
Their Ranges.
Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened ....
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 21568–21571
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 22012–22025
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 22063–22070
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 23654–23663
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 30313–30318
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 30338–30363
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 32728–32734
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 34077–34088
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 35398–35424
4/27/2010 ......................
4/27/2010 ......................
5/4/2010 ........................
6/1/2010 ........................
6/1/2010 ........................
6/9/2010 ........................
6/16/2010 ......................
6/22/2010 ......................
6/23/2010 ......................
6/23/2010 ......................
6/24/2010 ......................
6/24/2010 ......................
6/29/2010 ......................
7/20/2010 ......................
7/20/2010 ......................
7/20/2010 ......................
7/27/2010 ......................
7/27/2010 ......................
8/3/2010 ........................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8/4/2010 ........................
8/10/2010 ......................
8/17/2010 ......................
8/17/2010 ......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus
albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered
or Threatened with Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Amargosa Toad as Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant
Palouse
Earthworm
(Driloleirus
americanus) as Threatened or Endangered.
Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted
Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its
Range; Final Rule.
Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch
(Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered
Throughout Its Range.
Determination of Threatened Status for Five
Penguin Species.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered
Subspecies With Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Arctostaphylos franciscana as Endangered
with Critical Habitat.
Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin
America and the Caribbean as Endangered
Throughout Their Range.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian
Head Mountainsnail as Endangered or
Threatened with Critical Habitat.
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
FR Pages
75 FR 35746–35751
Proposed Listing Endangered Proposed Listing Threatened.
75 FR 35721–35746
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 35990–36012
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 36035–36057
Reinstatement of Proposed Listing Threatened.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 37353–37358
75 FR 42033–42040
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 42040–42054
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 42059–42066
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 43844–43853
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 43853–43864
Final Listing Threatened .................................
75 FR 45497–45527
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 46894–46898
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 48294–48298
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 50813–50842
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
75 FR 50739–50742
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
78553
FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
8/24/2010 ......................
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or
Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
White-Sided Jackrabbit as Threatened or
Endangered.
Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender
Salamander as Endangered.
Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper
Missouri River Distinct Population Segment
of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or
Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or Threatened Throughout Its Range.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Agave
eggersiana (no common name) as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for the
African Penguin.
Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse
as a Threatened or Endangered Species.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened.
Endangered Status for the Altamaha
Spinymussel and Designation of Critical
Habitat.
12-month Finding on a Petition to list the
Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or
Threatened.
Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay
Springs Salamander as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for the
Georgia
Pigtoe
Mussel,
Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.
Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as
Endangered or Threatened.
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 51969–51974
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 53615–53629
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 54561–54579
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 54707–54753
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 54822–54845
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 56028–56050
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 57720–57734
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 59645–59656
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 59803–59863
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 61664–61690
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.
75 FR 62070–62095
Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ........
75 FR 66481–66552
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
Final Listing Endangered ................................
75 FR 67341–67343
75 FR 67511–67550
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
75 FR 67551–67583
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 67925–67944
9/1/2010 ........................
9/8/2010 ........................
9/8/2010 ........................
9/9/2010 ........................
9/15/2010 ......................
9/22/2010 ......................
9/28/2010 ......................
9/28/2010 ......................
9/30/2010 ......................
10/6/2010 ......................
10/7/2010 ......................
10/28/2010 ....................
11/2/2010 ......................
11/2/2010 ......................
11/2/2010 ......................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
11/4/2010 ......................
Our expeditious progress also
includes work on listing actions that we
funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but
have not yet been completed to date.
These actions are listed below. Actions
in the top section of the table are being
conducted under a deadline set by a
court. Actions in the middle section of
the table are being conducted to meet
statutory timelines, that is, timelines
required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with
an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above,
selection of these species is partially
based on available staff resources, and
when appropriate, include species with
FR Pages
a lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority.
Including these species together in the
same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and
funding, as compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them
in the future.
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
6 Birds from Eurasia .................................................................................
Flat-tailed horned lizard ............................................................................
Mountain plover 4 ......................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Sfmt 4702
75 FR 60515–60561
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78554
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
6 Birds from Peru ......................................................................................
Pacific walrus ............................................................................................
Wolverine ..................................................................................................
Solanum conocarpum ...............................................................................
Desert tortoise—Sonoran population ........................................................
Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 ...................................................................
Hermes copper butterfly 3 .........................................................................
Utah prairie dog (uplisting) .......................................................................
Proposed listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
Casey’s june beetle ..................................................................................
7 Bird species from Brazil .........................................................................
Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ................
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador .............................................
Queen Charlotte goshawk ........................................................................
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek
darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace) 4.
Ozark hellbender 4 .....................................................................................
Altamaha spinymussel 3 ............................................................................
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.
Salmon crested cockatoo .........................................................................
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ........
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ...........................
Mt Charleston blue 5 ..................................................................................
CA golden trout 4 .......................................................................................
Black-footed albatross ..............................................................................
Mount Charleston blue butterfly ................................................................
Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ........................................................................
Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ................................................
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ...............................................................
Northern leopard frog ................................................................................
Tehachapi slender salamander ................................................................
Coqui Llanero ............................................................................................
Dusky tree vole .........................................................................................
3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3,
Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.
5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium
ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species
petition.
2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206
species petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus
proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from
206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ..........................................
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ........................................
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ..................................
Gopher tortoise—eastern population ........................................................
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ................................
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 .............
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 ..................
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
galbina) (from 475 species petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species
petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ...............
14 parrots (foreign species) ......................................................................
Berry Cave salamander 1 ..........................................................................
Striped Newt 1 ...........................................................................................
Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ..............................................
Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 .........................................................................
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ..............................................................
Western gull-billed tern .............................................................................
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ............................
HI yellow-faced bees ................................................................................
Giant Palouse earthworm .........................................................................
Whitebark pine ..........................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
listing
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Proposed listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding/Proposed listing.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
12-month
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
petition
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
finding.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 .............................................
Ashy storm-petrel 5 ....................................................................................
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ........
Eagle Lake trout 1 ......................................................................................
Smooth-billed ani 1 ....................................................................................
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 .....................
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ............................................................
Red knot roselaari subspecies .................................................................
Peary caribou ............................................................................................
Plains bison ...............................................................................................
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ...................................................
Spring pygmy sunfish ...............................................................................
Bay skipper ...............................................................................................
Unsilvered fritillary .....................................................................................
Texas kangaroo rat ...................................................................................
Spot-tailed earless lizard ..........................................................................
Eastern small-footed bat ...........................................................................
Northern long-eared bat ............................................................................
Prairie chub ...............................................................................................
10 species of Great Basin butterfly ..........................................................
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ...................................................................
Golden-winged warbler 4 ...........................................................................
Sand-verbena moth ..................................................................................
404 Southeast species .............................................................................
Franklin’s bumble bee 4 .............................................................................
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ............................
American eel 4 ...........................................................................................
Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ...............................................................
Arapahoe snowfly 4 ...................................................................................
Leona’s little blue 4 ....................................................................................
Aztec gilia 5 ................................................................................................
White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ............................................................................
San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ................................................................
Bicknell’s thrush 5 ......................................................................................
Sonoran talussnail 5 ..................................................................................
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ....
I’iwi 5 ..........................................................................................................
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
High-Priority Listing Actions
19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN =
2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN
= 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).
Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard) 4 (LPN = 2) .............
2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
trivialis (LPN = 2)).
New Mexico springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ................
2 mussels 2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4)) ...............
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN =
5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 4 .............................................................
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 .........................................................................
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
9)) 4.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ......................................................................
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ..........................................................
Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 .............................................................................
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN
= 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ....................................................................
Kittlitz’s murrelet (LPN = 2) 5 ....................................................................
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) 3 .............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
78555
78556
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants &
3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with
LPN = 8).
Oregon spotted frog (LPN = 2) 5 ...............................................................
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
1 Funds
for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing
priorities, these actions are still being developed.
3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
4 Funded with FY 2010 funds.
5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.
2 Although
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
We have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
actions described above collectively
constitute expeditious progress.
Astragalus microcymbus and
Astragalus schmolliae will be added to
the list of candidate species upon
publication of this 12-month finding.
We will continue to monitor the status
of these species as new information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Dec 14, 2010
Jkt 223001
becomes available. This review will
determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make
prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing
action for Astragalus microcymbus and
Astragalus schmolliae will be as
accurate as possible. Therefore, we will
continue to accept additional
information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
from the Western Colorado Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: December 6, 2010.
Paul R. Schmidt,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–31225 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\15DEP2.SGM
15DEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78514-78556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31225]
[[Page 78513]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as
Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 78514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2010-0080; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service/USFWS),
announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list Astragalus
microcymbus (skiff milkvetch) and Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll's
milkvetch) as endangered or threatened, and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After a review of all the available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae is
warranted. However, currently listing of A. microcymbus and A.
schmolliae is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of
this 12-month petition finding, we will add A. microcymbus and A.
schmolliae to our list of candidate species. We will make any
determinations on critical habitat during development of the proposed
listing rule. In any interim period, the status of the candidate taxon
will be addressed through our annual Candidate Notice of Review.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 15,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2010-0080. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
764 Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Pfister, Field Supervisor, Western
Colorado Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone, 970-
243-2778; or by facsimile, 970-245-6933. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (a)
Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, titled Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), and the
Department of the Interior's manual on Departmental Responsibilities
for Indian Trust Resources, at 512 DM 2, we acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with the
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. In fulfilling our trust
responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Tribes,
we met with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe regarding the process we would
take to conduct a 12-month status review of Astragalus schmolliae. As
an outcome of our government-to-government consultation, we recognize
the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to manage the habitat
for A. schmolliae on its tribal lands, and acknowledge that right in
this 12-month finding.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
(then A. schmollae) began as a result of section 12 of the Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on plants considered to
be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This
report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to
Congress on January 9, 1975. In that document, both species were
designated as endangered (House Document 94-51, pp. 57-58). On July 1,
1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR
27823, p. 27847) of its acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a
petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of
the Act, and giving notice of its intention to review the status of the
plant taxa therein.
As a result of that review, the Service published a proposed rule
on June 16, 1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523, pp. 24543-
24544) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act
for approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including Astragalus
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was
assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Service in response to House Document No. 94- 51
and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. General comments
received in response to the 1976 proposal are summarized in an April
26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978,
amendments to the Act required that all proposals more than 2 years old
be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals already more
than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the Service published a notice
in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the
June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final which removed both
A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae from proposed status but retained both
species as candidate plant
[[Page 78515]]
taxa that ``may qualify for listing under the Act.''
On December 15, 1980, the Service published a current list of those
plant taxa native to the United States being considered for listing
under the Act where Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae
were identified as a category 2 taxon ``currently under review'' (45 FR
82479, pp. 82490-82491). On November 28, 1983, A. schmolliae was moved
to the ``taxa no longer under review'' list, and given a 3C rank
indicating the species was proven to be more abundant or widespread
than previously believed or not subjected to an identifiable threat (48
FR 53640, pp. 53641, 53662). The two species also were included as a
category 2 species (A. schmolliae was not included as a 3C species
despite the conclusions of the 1983 review) on September 27, 1985 (50
FR 39525, p. 39533-39534), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184, p. 6190), and
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144, pp. 51151-51152). The category 2
species designation was defined as having enough information to
indicate that listing the species as an endangered or threatened
species was possibly appropriate.
On October 22, 1993, we received a petition dated October 19, 1993,
from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Lee Dyer requesting that
Astragalus microcymbus be listed as endangered under the Act, and that
critical habitat be designated (Carlton et al. 1993, pp. 1-11). The
petition included biological information regarding the species and
several scientific articles in support of the petition. After careful
consideration, we did not issue a 90-day finding on the petition
because the species was already included as a category 2 species
(Spinks 1994, pp. 1-8).
On February 28, 1996, we proposed removing all category 2 species,
including Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae, from our
candidate species notice of review (61 FR 7596). This policy change was
finalized on December 5, 1996, stating that the list was not needed
because of other lists already maintained by other entities such as
Federal and State agencies (61 FR 64481).
On July 30, 2007, we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service:
(1) Consider all full species in our Mountain Prairie Region ranked as
G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, except those that are
currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and
(2) list each species as either endangered or threatened (Forest
Guardians 2007, pp. 1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses,
references, and documentation provided by NatureServe in its online
database at https://www.natureserve.org/into the petition. We
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to the Forest
Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In that letter we
stated that, based on preliminary review, we found no evidence to
support an emergency listing for any of the species covered by the
petition, and that we planned work on the petition in Fiscal Year (FY)
2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its
mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on their two
multiple species petitions--one for the Mountain-Prairie Region, and
one for the Southwest Region (WildEarth Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008,
case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently published two 90-day findings on
January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122),
identifying species for which we were then making negative 90-day
findings, and species for which we were still working on a
determination. On March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians
filed a stipulated settlement in the District of Columbia Court,
agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a
finding as to whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presents
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for 38 Mountain-Prairie Region species by August 9, 2009
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a partial 90-day finding for the
38 Mountain-Prairie Region species, and found that the petition
presented substantial information to indicate that listing of
Astragalus microcymbus may be warranted based on threats from off-road
vehicle use and drought; and that listing Astragalus schmolliae may be
warranted based on threats from fire, nonnative species invasions, road
construction, grazing, and drought; and went on to request further
information from the public pertaining to both species (74 FR 41649,
pp. 41655-41656).
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007,
petition to list Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as
threatened or endangered. Given that we are doing 12-month findings for
38 species from this petition, and 67 species from the Southwest Region
multiple species petition (74 FR 419, January 6, 2009; 74 FR 66866,
December 16, 2009), and given the amount of resources that it takes to
complete a 12-month finding, we are unable to complete 12-month
findings for all these species at this time.
Species Information--Astragalus Microcymbus
Species Description and Taxonomy
Astragalus microcymbus is a perennial forb (a plant that can live
to more than 3 years of age and without grass-like, shrub-like, or
tree-like vegetation) that dies back to the ground every year. The
plant has slender stems that are sparsely branched with dark green
pinnate leaves, with 9-15 leaflets arranged in an evenly spaced fashion
along either side of a central axis. It is in the pea (Fabaceae)
family. The spindly red to purple branches grow from 30-60 centimeters
(cm) (12-24 inches (in.)) long to 30 cm (12 in.) high, and may trail
along the ground, arch upwards, or stand upright, often being supported
by neighboring shrubs. Flowers are small (0.5 cm (0.2 in.)), pea-like,
are found at the end of branches in clusters of 7-14 flowers, and have
white petals that are tinged with purple. Fruits are boat-shaped (hence
the common name ``skiff'' and the Latin name microcymbus meaning
``small boat''), grow to less than 1 cm (0.4 in.), are triangular in
cross-section, and hang abruptly downward from the branches. These
characteristics, particularly the plant's diffuse branching, small
white-purple pea-like flowers, and boat-like fruit pods distinguish
this species from other Astragalus species in the area (description
adapted from Peterson et al. 1981, pp. 5-7; Heil and Porter 1990, pp.
5-6; Isley 1998, p. 349).
Astragalus microcymbus was discovered in 1945 by Rupert Barneby
roughly 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) west of Gunnison, Colorado
(Barneby 1949, pp. 499-500). The species was not located again until
1955 by the Colorado botanical expert William Weber, who originally
considered it to be nonnative because of its dissimilarity to the other
numerous Astragalus species in the region (Barneby 1964, p. 193). Both
of these early collections were from alongside Highway 50 near
Gunnison, Colorado, at a location that has likely been destroyed. The
plant was not located in its more intact and native habitat along South
Beaver Creek until Joseph Barrell rediscovered the species in 1966
(Barrell 1969, p. 284; Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2010a,
p. 14).
The Astragalus genus is large, with over 1,500 species that are
found on all continents except Antarctica and Australia, and with
almost 600 species
[[Page 78516]]
in the United States, primarily in the West (Isley 1998, p. 149). The
genus is divided into many sections. A. microcymbus is not similar in
appearance to other Astragalus species in the region. Its presumed
closest relative (from the Strigulosi section of Astragalus) is found
in New Mexico, with other relatives extending southward, and being
found mostly in Mexico (Barneby 1964, p. 193; Isley 1998, pp. 349-350).
The taxonomic status of A. microcymbus has not been disputed, although
the monophyly (all members descended from a single common ancestor) of
the Strigulosi section, and the placement of A. microcymbus within the
section has been debated (Spellenberg 1974, pp. 394-395; Heil and
Porter 1990, pp. 12-13). For the purposes of this finding, we consider
A. microcymbus to represent a valid species and, therefore, a listable
entity.
Biology and Life History
Astragalus microcymbus individuals live on average 2.2-3 years
(with a range of 1-14 years). Most frequently, plants are alive for
only 1 year (DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.). The plant flowers
from mid to late May into July (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18; Japuntich
2010a, pers. comm.). There are more flowering plants in early June than
at any other time, and flowering then drops off or stops, with a second
bloom occurring in July (Japuntich 2010a, pers. comm.). The earlier
flowering plants are reportedly larger and more vine-like, and later
flowering plants are much smaller sized and less vine-like (Japuntich
2010a, pers. comm.).
Little is known of how Astragalus microcymbus reproduces. For
example, we do not know if the plant requires pollinators, or what
pollinators are important for reproduction. A single plant that was
caged in 1980 did not produce fruit (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18).
Although this was suggested as evidence that the plant may require
pollinators, we believe that this speculation is premature, because the
study was completed for only one individual. Studies of other
Astragalus species have found some species to be totally reliant on
pollinators, and others to be somewhat self-compatible (able to produce
seed without pollen from a different plant) but still relying on
pollinators to some degree (Karron 1989, p. 337; Kaye 1999, p. 1254).
Astragalus species with limited ranges are somewhat more self-
compatible than wider ranging relatives (Karron 1989, p. 337).
Several pollinators have been observed visiting Astragalus
microcymbus, suggesting that pollinators may be important for
reproduction, but little is known about what pollinators these are
(with the exception of the two listed below) and which are most
important. Two insects that regularly visit the flowers of A.
microcymbus were collected in 1989 (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19).
One visitor was a small, black carpenter bee, Ceratina nanula that was
collected from 3 sites (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19), and is known
from at least 11 western States (Discover Life 2009, p. 1). The other
visitor was a small, yellow and brown satyr butterfly, Coenonympha
ochracea ssp. ochracea, a species of the Rocky Mountains (Heil and
Porter 1990, p. 19). We expect there are more pollinators than these
two species, based on the limited number of observations and
collections to date (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 6, 18-19; Sherwood 1994,
p. 12), and because other Astragalus species are visited by many
different pollinator species (Karron 1989, p. 322; Kaye 1999, pp. 1251-
1252; Sugden 1985, p. 303).
Fruits of Astragalus microcymbus have been observed as early as
late-May, are always present by mid-June, with peak fruiting occurring
in mid-July, and all fruits falling off the plants by late-August (Heil
and Porter 1990, p. 18). Fruit production varies greatly. For example,
during a life-history study (discussed in further detail in
Distribution and Abundance below), no fruits were counted in 2002, and
33,819 fruits were counted in 2008 (Denver Botanic Gardens [DBG] 2010a,
p. 5). In the same 14-year life history study (1995-2009), fruit
production was high in only 3 years: 1995, 1997, and 2008 (DBG 2010a,
p. 5). This type of synchronous seeding is sometimes referred to as
mast seeding or mast years. Mast seedings may be a strategy to release
enough seeds to feed seed predators, that are kept at lower numbers in
years with little or no seed production, and still allow other seeds to
germinate. Alternatively, it may be a product of increased pollination
success (Crone and Lesica 2004, p. 1945). We are unsure of the
conditions that lead to good seed and fruit set; overall annual
precipitation does not explain the variability (DBG 2010a, p. 12).
Seed dispersal mechanisms have not been researched, but wind and
rain are considered candidates (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 19). Seed
dormancy, seed survival, and seed longevity in the soil are unknown. We
do not know if specific cues (e.g., temperature, precipitation, or seed
coat alterations) are needed to break seed dormancy. Seed bank studies
for other Astragalus species indicate that the group generally
possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a strong physical
germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are generally long-lived in
the soil, and only a small percentage of seeds germinate each year
(summarized in Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). Conversely, the DBG looked
at soil cores taken from A. microcymbus monitoring sites and found only
one seed. The authors concluded that A. microcymbus does not have an
active seed bank (DBG 2010a, p. 6). More research is needed to better
understand the seed bank's role in the life history of the species.
Astragalus microcymbus individuals may exhibit prolonged dormancy
(remaining underground throughout a growing season). This trait may
help a species better cope with drought or resource-limiting conditions
(Lesica and Steele 1994, pp. 209-210). Between 6 and 90 percent of A.
microcymbus individuals are dormant in a given year (DBG 2008, pp. 6,
13, 18). Dormancy varies significantly from year to year and between
plots (DBG 2010a, p. 15). Of the individuals that exhibited prolonged
dormancy, 54 percent remained dormant for 1 year, 10 percent were
dormant for 2 years, with a decreasing percentage of individuals
remaining dormant for each successively longer time period to 11 years
(DBG 2008, p. 6). These numbers for prolonged dormancy are not
definitive because researchers are unable to say with certainty if a
plant returning to a spot where an individual was previously found is a
new individual or an individual returning from prolonged dormancy
(DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.).
Distribution and Abundance
We use several terms to discuss various sizes or groupings of
Astragalus microcymbus individuals: Element Occurrence, site, polygon,
point, and units. We consider the term Element Occurrence synonymous
with population and it is further defined below. Within a population,
various smaller ``sites'' have been hand drawn on maps between 1955 and
1994, and counted or tracked by site. To distinguish these older sites
from more recent Global Positioning System (GPS) mapping efforts, we
have used the term ``polygon'' (circles around clusters of individuals)
or ``point'' (points representing one or a few plants within the
immediate area) to describe data that was collected after 2003 with a
GPS unit. Finally, we have taken the polygons and points and created
``units'' on which to conduct our spatial analyses for this 12-month
finding. The
[[Page 78517]]
reasons for creating these units are described in further detail below.
The CNHP, the agency that tracks rare plant species in the State of
Colorado, operates within the national NatureServe network and follows
NatureServe protocols. NatureServe guidelines on designating Element
Occurrences state they are to be designated to best represent
individual populations, and are typically separated from each other by
barriers to movement or dispersal (NatureServe 2002, p. 11). The CNHP
assigns overall species ranks for rare plants within the State of
Colorado. Astragalus microcymbus has a Global rank of G1 indicating the
species is critically imperiled across its range, and a State rank of
S1 indicating the species is critically imperiled within the State of
Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1, 5). Since the species is known only from
the State of Colorado, the State (S) and Global (G) ranks are the same.
Astragalus microcymbus has a very limited range. It is found in an
area roughly 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from east to west and 10 km (6 mi) from
north to south with a small, disjunct (widely separated) population
found 17 km (10.5 mi) to the southwest on Cebolla Creek (Figure 1). The
species is known primarily from Gunnison County with one site located
in Saguache County. The majority of sites and individuals are along
South Beaver Creek just southwest of Gunnison, Colorado. The species
occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison
Resource Area and adjacent private lands. Within known areas, A.
microcymbus has a spotty distribution, most likely linked to the
habitat being spotty on the landscape (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16).
Using the highest counts across years and across all sites, we estimate
the total maximum historic population to be around 20,500 individuals
in 5 populations (Table 1; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). However, more recent
counts indicate there are substantially fewer individuals than this
today (DBG 2010a, p. 7; BLM 2010, p. 3). We estimate A. microcymbus
occupied roughly 34 hectares (ha) (83 acres (ac)) in 2008 (BLM 2010,
pp. 8-10). In previous hand-drawn estimates, A. microcymbus occupied
roughly 131 ha (324 ac) (CNHP 2010a).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 78518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 78519]]
Table 1--Summary of Astragalus Microcymbus Populations (Element Occurrences) (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of sites Estimated number
Population name Population No. (pre[dash]2004) of individuals Ownership Population rank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE........................ 9 unknown 25 private................... Historic
Henry.................................. 10 1 513 BLM....................... B
Gold Basin Creek....................... 1 4 5,618 BLM....................... A
South Beaver Creek..................... 2 39 14,317 BLM/private............... A
Cebolla Creek.......................... none 1 unknown private................... C or D
Total.............................. ................. 45 20,473
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A historic
rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.
The CNHP defines an Element Occurrence of Astragalus microcymbus as
any naturally occurring population that is separated by a sufficient
distance or barrier from a neighboring population. More specifically,
for A. microcymbus, a population is separated by 1.6 km (1 mi) or more
across unsuitable habitat, or 3.2 km (2 mi) across apparently suitable
habitat (CNHP 2010b, p. 1). Given this definition, the CNHP has four
populations of A. microcymbus in its database (CNHP 2010b, p. 2). Of
these four populations, one (likely the type locality) has not been
relocated since 1985 and is considered historic. This site was
partially searched (because of private land access) in 1994 and not
relocated, although there have not been subsequent visits. It is
considered historic because it has not been seen in 20 years. The site
along Cebolla Creek has not yet been incorporated into the CNHP's
database, but when incorporated will comprise a separate population
based on the separation distances described above.
While individuals of the species have been lost, we are unaware of
the loss of any Astragalus microcymbus populations, although we are
unsure of the status of Beaver Creek Southeast population. Two A.
microcymbus populations comprise multiple sites (Gold Basin Creek and
South Beaver Creek), and a few of these sites may have been extirpated
(locally extinct). Site revisits using more accurate GPS mapping
equipment from 2004-2008 generally re-located historical sites but
decreased the overall footprint of most sites into smaller polygons and
points. We roughly estimate the new mapping of polygons and points
generally represents a reduction of about 75 percent in aerial extent
from the original sites. We are unsure if the reduction of the site
footprints is because of an actual contraction in the size of the
sites, if the sites moved over time, or if it is an artifact of mapping
efforts using improved technology. We expect it may be a combination of
all three. At three sites in the South Beaver Creek area, no plants
were re-located despite several survey efforts; these sites may have
been extirpated (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10; DePrenger-
Levin 2010b, pers. comm.). In an extreme example, one site along South
Beaver Creek (023-033-31975), was reduced from a larger 4-ha (10-ac)
site to two small polygons that are 97 percent smaller than previously
mapped (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10).
The lumping of multiple sites into populations makes sense
biologically because it generally represents areas where genetic
exchange is possible (e.g., populations). However, past mapping
efforts, site assessments, and count data have often been collected for
smaller sites within a population (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). The
information gathered for these smaller sites is essential for tracking
the status of the species but is somewhat problematic for an over-
arching analysis for several reasons. First, the confusion between
numbering protocols makes it difficult to ensure that particular
counts, habitat specifics, or threats discussed by different sources
are from the same sites. Second, mapping methodologies have resulted in
varying delineations, especially with the advent of GPS technology.
For our analyses in this 12-month finding, we evaluated the sites,
polygons, and points within Astragalus microcymbus populations, and
created what we call units from which to conduct our analysis. We did
this for several reasons: (1) To simplify the problems associated with
tracking sites (i.e., different sources used different descriptors,
making it difficult to ensure that they were talking about the same
site); (2) to more broadly characterize and analyze the threats to the
species' habitat (we believe that sites, polygons, and points are too
fine scale); (3) because the polygons mapped in 2008 were on average
much smaller than the original hand-drawn sites, we wanted to include
more of the potential or previously occupied habitat rather than
restricting our analysis to the 2008 mapped polygons; and (4) to
provide for a more detailed analysis than would occur if we were to
look at populations. To designate the units, we drew a perimeter around
all GPS-derived polygons and points that were within 200 m (656 ft) of
one another, and then buffered each perimeter by an additional 100 m
(328 ft) (Figure 1; Table 2). This 100-m (328-ft) buffer was included
so that previously occupied habitat, as drawn on maps, fell within the
boundaries of these units. As a result of this exercise, all of the
sites within the Gold Basin Creek population were lumped. As shown in
Figure 1 above, this methodology divided the South Beaver Creek
population into six separate units. The Beaver Creek Southeast
population, located entirely on private land, is not included in our
units because we are unsure of its exact location and current
existence.
Table 2--Astragalus microcymbus Units for Our Spatial Analysis in This 12-Month Finding (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4; 2010b, pp. 1-3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. number of
Unit name Population No. individuals Acres Hectares Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE.................... 9..................... 25.................... Unknown.............. Unknown.............. private
Henry.............................. 10.................... 513................... 10.8................. 4.4.................. BLM
Gold Basin Creek................... 1..................... 5,618................. 315.1................ 127.5................ BLM
[[Page 78520]]
South Beaver Creek 1............... 2..................... 6,136................. 918.5................ 371.7................ 70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 2............... 2..................... 3,667................. 684.5................ 277.0................ 68% BLM, 32% private
South Beaver Creek 3............... 2..................... 2,464................. 163.6................ 66.2................. 96% BLM, 4% private
South Beaver Creek 4............... 2..................... 778................... 24.1................. 9.75................. 70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 5............... 2..................... 1,232................. 38.3................. 15.5................. BLM
South Beaver Creek 6............... 2..................... unknown............... 11.5................. 4.6.................. BLM
Cebolla Creek...................... none.................. unknown............... 24.6................. 9.9.................. 6% BLM, 94% private
TOTAL.......................... ...................... 20,433*............... 2,190.8.............. 886.6................ 75% BLM, 25% private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Number is different from Table 1 above because the counts from two historical sites were excluded from the units.
Comprehensive surveys for Astragalus microcymbus were conducted in
1989 (BLM 1989a, pp. 1-31) and 1994 (Sherwood 1994, pp. 1-24). In 2008,
the BLM conducted a comprehensive mapping effort without counts or
population assessments (BLM 2010, p. 3). Several other efforts have
counted individuals within certain sites (Japuntich 2010b, pers. comm.;
DePrenger-Levin 2010b, pers. comm.; 2010c, pers. comm.; 2010d, pers.
comm.; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Count data from various sites are
difficult to compare because there is no way of knowing if two
observers, during different years, travelled across similar areas, and
if the effort between the two counts were similar. In general, counts
in 1994 were higher than 1989 (Sherwood 1994, p. 13; USFWS 2010a, pp.
1-4). Several other observers have subsequently returned to these sites
and found that A. microcymbus numbers in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008
were much lower than those of 1994 and the 1980s, with many sites
shrinking from thousands to hundreds of individuals (DBG 2010a, p. 7;
BLM 2010, p. 3; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Site counts and estimates from
the 1980s and 1990s often reported the number of A. microcymbus
individuals as more than 500, and sometimes as more than 2,000
individuals. Most counts in the last 5 years have been far less,
generally under 150 individuals with only 1 count over 400 individuals
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
In 1989, the BLM developed a protocol to provide long-term trend
data for selected populations of Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1989b, pp.
1-4). They applied the protocol in select locations in 1990, 1994, and
2008. The number of individuals between 1990 and 2008 was not
statistically different, and both years had similar low annual
precipitation (20 cm (8 in.)) compared to the average of 25 cm (10 in.)
(USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8; DBG 2010a, p. 12; Western Regional Climate
Center [WRCC] 2010a, pp. 1-8). However, there were significantly more
plants in 1994 (three to four times) than either 1990 or 2008.
Precipitation was higher in 1994, roughly 10 cm (4 in.) more than in
1990 or 2008 (USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8). We conclude that there are more
above-ground plants in years with more precipitation.
The DBG has been monitoring Astragalus microcymbus annually since
1995 (Carpenter 1995, pp. 1-7; DBG 2003, pp. 1-23; 2007, pp. 1-16;
2008, pp. 1-20; 2010a, pp. 1-17). The DBG found a decline in the number
of A. microcymbus individuals from 1995-2009 (Figure 2), especially
from 1995-2002 (DBG 2010a, p. 5). When comparing the first year of
monitoring to the last, this decline is not statistically significant
because of a partial rebound in the last few years (DBG 2010a, pp. 5,
10-11). This decline is apparent, although not significant, when
considering only above-ground individuals (p = 0.11) as well as when
combining above-ground individuals with dormant individuals (p = 0.19)
(Figure 2). Dormant individuals are unknown for the first and last
years of the study (1995 and 2008) because of problems associated with
finding dormant individuals in the first year, and because dormant
individuals cannot be distinguished from dead individuals in the last
year.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 78521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
In conjunction with the life-history monitoring, the DBG conducted
a population viability analysis using data from 1995-2006. They found
that all monitored populations of Astragalus microcymbus were in rapid
decline, and predicted that all populations will comprise 20
individuals or less--their definition of extinct--by 2030 (DBG 2010a,
p. 10). This analysis has not been updated incorporating more recent
monitoring data. However, a preliminary review for a subsequent
population viability analysis has found still declining trends but with
a more gradual decline that would likely delay the predicted extinction
date (DePrenger-Levin 2010e, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the
population viability analysis including the 2007 and 2008 data has not
been completed. The 2009 data cannot be used because of the problems
associated with identifying dead or dormant individuals.
Astragalus microcymbus numbers are positively correlated with
precipitation. In a statistical comparison, annual rainfall from August
of the previous growing season to July of the current growing season
positively influenced the number of A. microcymbus individuals, average
maximum temperature in May and July negatively influenced the number of
individuals, and rainfall in May and July positively influenced the
number of individuals significantly (DBG 2010a, p. 6). In addition,
rainfall in springtime months during the growing season was
statistically correlated with more above-ground growth (DBG 2010a, p.
6).
Survey efforts, trend monitoring, life-history monitoring, and the
corresponding population viability analysis all suggest that Astragalus
microcymbus numbers are declining. In both of the more rigorous
monitoring efforts, the decline seems to be correlated with
precipitation. The drought in the early 2000s caused a huge decline in
numbers, with a rebound in the later 2000s (DBG 2010a, p. 5). However,
the very low survey numbers from this decade as compared to the 1980s
and 1990s seem less correlated with precipitation (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-
4; WRCC 2010a, pp. 1-8). The reasons for these declines are not fully
understood.
Habitat
Astragalus microcymbus is found in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem
at elevations of 2,377-2,597 meters (m) (7,800-8,520 feet (ft)). The
plant is most commonly found on rocky or cobbly, moderate to steep (9-
38 degrees) slopes of hills and draws (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16),
although there are some sites that are flat. Plants are generally found
on southeast to southwest aspects, but are occasionally found on
northern exposures (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The average annual
precipitation is around 25 cm (10 in.) a year, and is fairly
consistently spread across the year, except for July and August when
roughly twice the precipitation falls compared to the other months
(WRCC 2010b, pp. 3, 8). Snow falls in the winter and remains on the
ground from November/December through March/April (WRCC 2010a, pp. 3,
8). Winters are cold with an average daily high in January of -3 [deg]C
(26.5 [deg]F) and an average daily low of -20 [deg]C (-4.0 [deg]F).
Summers are warmer. July is the hottest month with an average daily
high of 27 [deg]C (81 [deg]F) and an average daily low of 6 [deg]C (44
[deg]F) (WRCC 2010b, pp. 3-8).
Astragalus microcymbus is found in open park-like landscapes
dominated by several sagebrush species, cacti, sparse grasses, and
other scattered shrubs. Shrubs are primarily represented by Artemisia
tridentata ssp. vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush), Artemisia tridentata
ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming sagebrush), Artemisia frigida (fringed
sagebrush or prairie sagewort), and Artemisia nova (black sagebrush);
cacti include Yucca harrimaniae (Spanish bayonet), and Opuntia
polyacantha (plains pricklypear); grasses most commonly include
Achnatherum hymenoides (formerly Oryzopsis hymenoides--Indian
ricegrass), Elymus elymoides (formerly Sitanion hystrix--squirreltail),
Hesperostipa comata (formerly Stipa comata--needle and thread grass),
and Poa sp. (fescue); and the most common forbs include Cryptantha
cinerea (James' Cryptantha)
[[Page 78522]]
and Penstemon teucrioides (germander beardtongue). Other shrubs and
small trees found within A. microcymbus' habitat include Ribes cereum
(wax currant), Symphoricarpos oreophilus (mountain snowberry), and
Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper).
Soils are well drained and vary from sandy to rocky, but are
primarily a thin cobble-clay loam (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The
primary soils within Astragalus microcymbus units are stony rock land
(46 percent), Lucky-Cheadle gravelly sandy loams with 5-45 percent
slopes (39 percent), alluvial land (8 percent), and Kezar-Cathedral
gravelly sandy loams with 5-35 percent slopes (4 percent) (Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2008; USFWS 2010b, pp. 12-13).
Geologically, A. microcymbus is associated with: (1) Felsic and
hornblendic gneiss (metamorphic from igneous) substrates; (2) granitic
(igneous) rocks of 1,700 million-year age group; and (3) biotitic
gneiss, schist, and migmatite (sedimentary) substrates with 52, 37, and
11 percent, respectively, in each geology (Knepper et al. 1999, pp. 21-
22; USFWS 2010b, pp. 10-11).
The areas where Astragalus microcymbus is found are generally
distinct from surrounding habitats. They are more sparsely vegetated,
drier than surrounding areas, more heavily occupied by cacti, and
appear to have some specific soil properties as described above. This
habitat is limited and patchily distributed on the landscape.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 12-month finding, we evaluated the best scientific
and commercial information available. Our evaluation of this
information is presented below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or
range of Astragalus microcymbus are discussed in this section,
including: (1) Residential and urban development; (2) recreation,
roads, and trails; (3) utility corridors; (4) nonnative invasive
plants; (5) wildfire; (6) contour plowing and nonnative seedings; (7)
livestock, deer and elk use of habitat; (8) mining, oil and gas
leasing; (9) climate change; and (10) habitat fragmentation and
degradation.
Residential and Urban Development
The majority of Astragalus microcymbus is located between 3.2 and
11 km (2 and 7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, Colorado, the largest town
in Gunnison County (Figure 1). Rapid population growth in the rural
Rocky Mountains, including the Gunnison area, is being driven by the
availability of natural amenities, recreational opportunities,
aesthetically desirable settings, grandiose viewscapes, and perceived
remoteness (Riebsame 1996, pp. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, p. 408;
Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 192-197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6;
Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899-1901). Gunnison County grew from 5,477
people in 1960 to 15,048 people in 2007, constituting a 300 percent
increase in population in less than 50 years (CensusScope 2010, pp. 1-
3; Colorado State Demography Office 2008, p. 1). The population of
Gunnison County is predicted to more than double by 2050 to
approximately 31,100 residents (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009,
p. 53).
Human population growth results in increased fragmentation of
habitat (see Factor E below) (Theobald et al. 1996, pp. 410-412),
increased recreation and more roads (see Recreation, Roads, and Trails
below) (Mitchell et al. 2002, pp. 5-6; Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1899),
more utility corridors (see Utility Corridors below), more nonnative
invasive plants (see Nonnative Invasive Plants below) (Hansen et al.
2005, p. 1896), and changes to ecological processes (Hansen et al.
2005, p. 1901). A recent but common pattern of population growth in the
Gunnison area is ``exurban'' or ``ranchette'' development. These
ranchettes consist of larger lots (generally more than 14 ha (35 ac))
each with an isolated large house. This type of development, because of
its location outside of urban footprints, may have more impacts to
ecosystems and biodiversity than urban or urban fringe development
(Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1903). Much of this development occurs on
steeper slopes, like those where Astragalus microcymbus is found, where
views are better.
To the best of our knowledge, residential and urban development
(aside from roads) has impacted only one Astragalus microcymbus unit:
the Beaver Creek Southeast Unit. The original type locality along
Highway 50 may have been lost to highway activities, and the nearby
private lands where the plant was located in the late 1970s and early
1980s may have been lost to a gravel pit (Sherwood 1994, pp. 18-19). No
more than 30 plants were reported from this unit in any given year from
1955-1994 (USFWS 2010a, p. 1). Only two A. microcymbus sites are near
buildings: There is a cabin near one of the larger A. microcymbus sites
within the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit (BLM 1989a, p. 31), and there is a
house within the Cebolla Creek Unit. We do not know if construction of
either of these structures impacted A. microcymbus.
Twenty-five percent of the Astragalus microcymbus units are on
private land, mostly along South Beaver Creek (Table 2). Five parcels
of private land (with an additional parcel nearby) are currently within
A. microcymbus units along South Beaver Creek ranging in size from 17
to 263 ha (43 to 650 ac), only one of which has any housing or
agricultural developments. All of these parcels are used primarily for
livestock ranching operations that have a much lower impact than urban
or residential development.
These private land parcels bisect the South Beaver Creek 1 and
South Beaver Creek 2 Units, and clip portions of the South Beaver Creek
3 and South Beaver Creek 4 Units (USFWS 2010b, pp. 2-3). Roughly half
of the known Astragalus microcymbus individuals are within the South
Beaver Creek 1, 2, and 4 Units (Table 2), making them especially
important to the conservation of the species. These three units all
have at least 30 percent of their area on private
[[Page 78523]]
lands (Table 2), more than the average across the units of 25 percent.
Given their proximity to town, the rapid growth predicted for Gunnison
County (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009, p. 53), the lack of
undeveloped parcels in desirable locations (Gunnison County 2005, p.
1), and their appealing views, these parcels are in a likely location
for development and could be subdivided in the future. In addition, the
Cebolla Creek Unit is located almost entirely on private land and is
already partially developed.
Residential or urban development of these parcels would likely lead
to the destruction of Astragalus microcymbus individuals, as well as
fragment and alter the plants' habitat. In 2005, it was estimated that
only 30 percent of the private lands in Gunnison County remained
undeveloped (Gunnison County 2005, p. 1). Because only 30 percent of
the private lands in Gunnison County remain undeveloped, and because
the population of Gunnison County is expected to double by 2050, we
conclude that the currently undeveloped private lands where A.
microcymbus occurs are likely to be developed by 2050. The potential
loss of up to 25 percent of the area (habitat) and even more of the
individuals of A. microcymbus is a significant threat for a species
with such limited numbers and a limited range (Table 2). This
development also would fragment the habitat, potentially isolating
small populations from one another leading to the further loss of
individuals.
Currently, the impact of development on the species is relatively
minor, consisting of the few examples provided above. Although 25
percent of Astragalus microcymbus individuals are on private lands with
no protective mechanisms in place for the species, little development
is currently occurring on these private lands. However, we believe that
the threat of development to the species may increase in the
foreseeable future based on future human population growth. Future
development on these lands is likely, because of the rate of growth in
the Gunnison area. Given that Gunnison County has seen a 300 percent
increase in population in less than 50 years, that only 30 percent of
the private lands remain undeveloped, and A. microcymbus' close
proximity to the town of Gunnison, we expect that some of these private
land parcels will be developed in the next several decades. Based on
the population projections presented above, the foreseeable future for
development is 40 years, as the population of Gunnison County is
predicted to more than double by 2050. Based on the above information,
we consider residential and urban development to be a threat to the
species in the foreseeable future.
Recreation, Roads, and Trails
It is difficult to separate the effects of roads and trails from
the effects of recreation where Astragalus microcymbus resides. Most
forms of recreation within A. microcymbus' range include the use of
roads and trails either as a form of recreation (e.g., vehicle use,
mountain biking, or hiking) or as a way to access recreation areas
(e.g., target shooting and rock climbing areas). For these reasons, we
have chosen to address recreation, roads, and trails together in this
section.
Roads cause habitat fragmentation because they create abrupt
transitions in vegetation; add edge to adjacent patches; are sources of
pollutants; and act as filters (allowing some species to cross but not
others) and barriers (prohibiting movement) (Spellerberg 1998, pp. 317-
333). Road networks contribute to exotic plant invasions via introduced
road fill, vehicle transport of plant parts, and road maintenance
activities (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 32;
Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 426). Many of these invasive species are
not limited to roadsides, but also encroach into surrounding habitats
(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and
Belnap 2003, p. 427).
Aside from the indirect effects discussed above, a road typically
removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi),
while a single track trail removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha
(0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) (BLM 2005a, p. 13). Roads also act as
corridors that facilitate human interaction with species and increase
the opportunities and the likelihood of travel across undisturbed (non-
road) areas. The recreational use of roads is on the rise. From 1991 to
2006, off-highway vehicle registrations increased 937 percent (from
11,744 to 109,994 within the state), with an average annual increase of
16 percent (Summit County Off Road Riders 2009, p. 1). Recreational
activities within the Gunnison Basin are widespread, occur during all
seasons of the year (especially summer and hunting season), and have
expanded as more people move to the area or come to recreate (BLM
2009a, pp. 7-8). Motorized and mechanized use has been increasing
within the Gunnison Basin and is expected to increase in the future
based on increased population (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 5, 9, 85, 124-
125, 136, 158, 177, 204, 244, 254, 269, 278).
Because Astragalus microcymbus generally occurs on slopes, it is
somewhat protected from the further development of large roads. And
many of the existing roads, although not all, run immediately along the
bottom or top of sites instead of through the middle of sites. However,
these slopes appear to be the preferred location for dirt bike and
mountain bike trails, especially those that were user-created instead
of formally designed. Many of the trails within the range of A.
microcymbus are user-created and run across or up through the slopes
where the plant is found (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). These user-created
trails, when redesigned, often require a series of switchbacks, which
could increase the opportunity for impacts to the plant. Travel
management (the allocation and utilization of motorized and
nonmotorized use), and route designation and design, both within the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area and outside that area, are described in
further detail below.
Except for the one disjunct population, all of the Astragalus
microcymbus units are within 11 km (7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, the
closest of which is 3.2 km (2 mi) away. This close proximity to an
urban area makes the species more susceptible to recreational impacts
than if it were located more remotely. The Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area is a popular urban interface recreation area and contains roughly
40 percent of the A. microcymbus units (BLM 2005a, p. 3; USFWS 2010b,
pp. 4-5). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area is located between 3 and 10
km (2 and 6 mi) from the town of Gunnison on BLM lands (BLM 2005a, p.
3). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area covers 3,380 ha (8,350 ac), but
trails expand out onto adjacent lands. These lands also have A.
microcymbus plants and habitat that are being impacted by these trails
(BLM 2005a, p. 3).
We have no detailed information on how much use occurs, how this
use is increasing, or when the use is occurring in the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area. In 2005, it was estimated that the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area received 15,000-20,000 user days each year (BLM 2005a,
p. 3). Recreation activities within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area
include mountain biking, motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, 4-
wheeling, rock climbing, camping, trail running, horseback riding,
cross country skiing, snowmobiling, dog sledding, hill parties, target
shooting, hunting, paintball, and more (BLM 2005a, p. 3). We have seen
most of these activities
[[Page 78524]]
occurring adjacent to or within Astragalus microcymbus sites (USFWS
2010, pers. comm.).
The BLM's Hartman Rocks Recreation Management Plan closed two
trails and rerouted one trail to protect Astragalus microcymbus (BLM
2005a, p. 18; Japuntich 2010c, pers. comm.). These closures were for
trails that were directly impacting A. microcymbus individuals. The
Aberdeen Loop trail goes very close to several A. microcymbus sites
within the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver
Creek 6 Units. To protect Gunnison sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat, a
reroute of this trail is planned in the next few years that will put
the trail further from these A. microcymbus sites (Japuntich 2010d,
pers. comm.). Many trails are open year-round in the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, but with less use in the winter and early spring when
trails are snow covered or muddy. Closures during A. microcymbus'
growing season (likely late April through August) would benefit the
species by reducing impacts to seedlings and plants, and by lessening
disruptions to pollinators. The Aberdeen Loop trail that runs through
the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver Creek
6 occupied A. microcymbus habitat is subject to seasonal closures for
the Gunnison sage grouse from June 15 until August 31. This closure
provides partial protection for A. microcymbus in the growing season.
The South Beaver Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) (also a Colorado Natural Area) was designated in 1993 by the BLM
with the intent of protecting and enhancing existing populations of
Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1993, pp. 2.18, 2.29; Colorado Natural
Areas Program [CNAP] 1997, pp. 1-7). The South Beaver Creek ACEC is
1,847 ha (4,565 ac), and includes 60 percent of the A. microcymbus
units rangewide (BLM 1993, p. 2.18; USFWS 2010b, pp. 8-9). Seventy
percent of the South Beaver Creek ACEC is within the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area, although the South Beaver Creek ACEC was developed at
least 8 years prior to the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p.
44). Because of its designation as a recreation area, the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area draws users to the area, which is in conflict with the
ACEC's intent to protect and enhance A. microcymbus.
When the South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated, motorized vehicle
traffic was limited to designated routes, whereas it had previously
been open on all lands (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). Outside the South Beaver
Creek ACEC, all lands within the range of Astragalus microcymbus
remained open to motorized vehicle traffic. In 2001, mechanized travel,
including mountain bikes, on all lands within the Gunnison Resource
Area including the South Beaver Creek ACEC and the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Area was limited to designated routes (U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) and BLM 2001a, p. 3; 2001b, pp. 1-2; BLM 2005a, p. 14). This
closure resulted in new protections for A. microcymbus from mountain
bikes and vehicular use on BLM lands outside the South Beaver Creek
ACEC, and from mountain bikes within the ACEC.
Enforcement of travel designations and trail closures is difficult
given the large area of the BLM's Gunnison Resource Area and limited
law enforcement personnel (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259). Illegal trails
are always an issue in well-used recreation areas (BLM 2010, p. 4).
Furthermore, the open park-like habitat of Astragalus microcymbus makes
it difficult to disguise trails that have been closed. Numerous
undesignated trails running through A. microcymbus habitat are visible
on satellite images (see below). Law enforcement with the Gunnison
Resource Area is provided by the BLM's Montrose Area Office, which is
located over 105 km (65 mi) away. Law enforcement within this area is
intermittent, and tickets are rarely, if ever, issued for trespass use
(USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259).
As an example, the Quarry Drop trail that runs through the South
Beaver Creek 1 Unit was closed in 2005 with the Hartman Rocks
Recreation Plan, because it ran directly through two Astragalus
microcymbus sites (BLM 2010, p. 4). Although this trail is posted as
closed, it was still in use during the summer of 2009, when rocks were
placed to close the trail entrance (BLM 2010, p. 4). The Gunnison
Trails group (a local non-profit trail-building group) and the BLM have
increased their efforts on finding illegal trails and closing them
before they become more established. Continued pressure from the
recreation community for new trail construction is likely, as well as
trespass use (BLM 2010, p. 4). In an effort to control illegal use, the
BLM has put up educational signs where roads enter the South Beaver
Creek ACEC explaining what A. microcymbus is and why the species and
its habitat are important to preserve (BLM 2010, p. 6). Trails that
have been closed are planned to be rehabilitated where they meet open
trails during the summer of 2011 in an attempt to ensure they will no
longer be used (Japuntich 2010d, pers. comm.).
The BLM and the USFS finalized a joint Environmental Impact
Statement for a Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Plan
that includes areas on BLM lands outside the Hartman Rocks Recreation
Area (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 1-288). This plan builds upon the Gunnison
Travel Interim Restrictions of 2001 by closing additional routes,
mostly for resource-related reasons (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 1).
Astragalus microcymbus is not considered in detail in this plan, nor
does the plan designate roads be closed specifically to protect A.
microcymbus (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 47, 78-79). None of the closures
proposed in the plan will benefit A. microcymbus nor do they address
routes within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area.
We have found roads, trails, and gravel parking areas atop
Astragalus microcymbus individuals and polygons (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). These roads, trails, and parking areas have no vegetation. A.
microcymbus individuals can be found along the margins of these roads,
trails, and parking areas, sometimes with tire tracks atop (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.). Cheatgrass is spreading from the old road bed upslope and
into the one site where invasion is occurring (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Trails sometimes are deeply incised and eroded (USFWS 2010,
pers. comm.).
We conducted a spatial analysis overlaying the distribution of
Astragalus microcymbus units with designated routes within and near the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area. We found 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of roads (3.5
km (2.3 mi)) and trails (5.3 km (3.2 mi)) overlap with A. microcymbus
units (Table 3) (BLM 2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 14-15). Through this
mapping effort, we found four of the polygons within the Gold Basin
Creek Unit are being directly impacted by these roads and trails (USFWS
2010b, p. 16). We also are aware of at least three other polygons that
are being directly impacted by roads and trails (USFWS 2010, pers.
comm.). Estimating that a road typically removes all vegetation from
about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) while a single track trail
removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi)
(BLM 2005a, p. 13), designated roads directly impact 1.6 ha (3.9 ac)
and designated trails directly impact 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) of habitat within
A. microcymbus units.
[[Page 78525]]
Table 3--Roads, Trails, and Paths Within Astragalus microcymbus Units
[Designated routes are those included in the BLM's geospatial layers, undesignated