Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and Threatened Status for Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia), 45054-45075 [2011-18429]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45054-45075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18429]



[[Page 45053]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 144

July 27, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and 
Threatened Status for Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and 
Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 45054]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2010-0015; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
RIN 1018--AV83


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and 
Threatened Status for Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and 
Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered status for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), a plant 
species in Archuleta County, Colorado; threatened status for Penstemon 
debilis (Parachute beardtongue) in Garfield County, Colorado; and 
threatened status for Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia) in Mesa and 
Garfield Counties, Colorado, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). Designation of critical habitat for the three species 
is proposed concurrently in a separate rule in this edition of the 
Federal Register.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on August 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule are 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Ecological 
Services Field Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, 
CO 81506-3946; telephone 970-243-2778; facsimile 970-245-6933.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Pfister, Western Colorado 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field 
Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946; 
telephone 970-243-2778, extension 29; facsimile 970-245-6933. If you 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions

Ipomopsis polyantha

    We first identified Ipomopsis polyantha as a taxon under review in 
the 1983 Supplement to Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered 
or Threatened Species (48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983). In that 
document, we included the species as a Category 2 candidate, based on 
our evaluation at that time. We published our decision to discontinue 
candidate categories and to restrict candidate status to those taxa for 
which we had sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed 
rule on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64481). This resulted in the deletion 
of Ipomopsis polyantha from the list of candidate taxa for listing. We 
added the species to the list of candidates again in the 2005 Candidate 
Notice of Review (CNOR) (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005) with a listing 
priority number (LPN) of 2. A listing priority of 2 reflects threats 
that are imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic 
classification of I. polyantha as a full species. We published a 
complete description of our listing priority system in the Federal 
Register (48 FR 43098, September 21, 1983).
    On June 23, 2010, we proposed to list Ipomopsis polyantha as 
endangered (75 FR 35721). In the proposed rule, we found that critical 
habitat for the species was prudent, but not determinable at that time. 
A proposed rule to designate critical habitat for this species is being 
published concurrently with this final rule.

Penstemon debilis

    We first included Penstemon debilis as a category 2 candidate 
species in the February 21, 1990, Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as 
Endangered or Threatened Species (55 FR 6184). When we abandoned the 
use of numerical category designations in 1996, we changed the status 
of P. debilis to a candidate under the current definition. We published 
four CNOR lists between 1996 and 2004, and P. debilis remained a 
candidate species with an LPN of 5 on each (62 FR 49398, September 19, 
1997; 64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 
FR 40657, June 13, 2002). An LPN of 5 is assigned to species with non-
imminent threats of a high magnitude.
    In the 2005 CNOR (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005), we changed the LPN 
for Penstemon debilis from 5 to 2 based on an increase in the intensity 
of energy exploration along the Roan Plateau escarpment, making the 
threats to the species imminent. The CNOR lists published in 2006, 
2007, and 2008 maintained P. debilis as a candidate species with an LPN 
of 2 (71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 
73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008).
    In each assessment since its recognition as a candidate species in 
1996, we determined that publication of a proposed rule to list the 
species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions. 
In 2008, we received funding to initiate the proposal to list Penstemon 
debilis. In the 2008 notice, we announced that we had not updated our 
assessment for this species, as we were developing a proposed listing 
rule (73 FR 75227). On June 23, 2010, we proposed to list P. debilis as 
threatened (75 FR 35721). In the proposed rule, we found that critical 
habitat for the species was prudent, but not determinable at that time. 
A proposed rule to designate critical habitat for this species is being 
published concurrently with this final rule.

Phacelia submutica

    We included Phacelia submutica as a category 1 candidate species in 
the 1980 Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened 
Species (45 FR 82480, December 15, 1980). In that notice, category 1 
candidates were defined as species for which the Service had 
``sufficient information on hand to support the biological 
appropriateness of their being listed as Endangered or Threatened 
species.'' We changed the candidate status of P. submutica to category 
2 on November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640). On February 21, 1990, we again 
identified P. submutica as a category 1 candidate species (55 FR 6184). 
In the February 28, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 7596), all category 1 
candidate species became candidates under the current definition. We 
assigned P. submutica an LPN of 11. In the 2005 CNOR (70 FR 24870, May 
11, 2005) we raised the LPN to 8, to reflect the increasing level of 
threats, which were imminent and of moderate magnitude.
    On May 11, 2004, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list, as endangered, 225 species we 
previously had identified as candidates for listing, including Phacelia 
submutica (CBD 2004, p. 146). Under requirements in section 4(b)(3)(B) 
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the CNOR and the Notice of 
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions published by the Service on May 11, 
2005 (70 FR 24870), included a finding that the immediate issuance of a 
proposed listing rule and the timely promulgation of a final rule for 
each of these petitioned species, including P.

[[Page 45055]]

submutica, was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing 
actions, and that expeditious progress was being made to add qualified 
species to the lists.
    On April 28, 2005, the Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE), the 
Colorado Native Plant Society, and botanist Steve O'Kane, Jr., Ph.D., 
submitted a petition to the Service to list Phacelia submutica as 
endangered or threatened within its known historical range, and to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing (CNE et al. 
2005, p. 1). We considered the information in the petition when we 
prepared the 2006 CNOR (71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006). Section 
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted but 
precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a petition as one 
that is resubmitted on the date of such a finding. We identified P. 
submutica as a species for which we made a continued warranted but 
precluded finding on a resubmitted petition in the Federal Register on 
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), and 
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804). We retained an LPN of 8 for the 
species. In the 2008 CNOR, we announced that we had not updated our 
assessment for this species, as we were developing a proposed listing 
rule (73 FR 75227). On June 23, 2010, we proposed to list P. submutica 
as threatened (75 FR 35721). In the proposed rule, we found that 
critical habitat for the species was prudent, but not determinable at 
that time. A proposed rule to designate critical habitat for this 
species is being published concurrently with this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
listing of Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 
submutica during the comment period associated with the publication of 
the proposed rule (75 FR 35721), which opened on June 23, 2010, and 
closed on August 23, 2010. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposed rule during this comment 
period.
    During the comment period, we received 13 comment letters 
addressing the proposed rule. All substantive information provided 
during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into 
this final determination or is addressed below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the habitats in which the species occur, and conservation 
biology principles. We received responses from the three peer 
reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed listing 
of Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica. The 
peer reviewers concurred with our analysis and conclusions, and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer said that population trends cannot 
be identified from available data for Penstemon debilis and Phacelia 
submutica, but noted that annual fluctuations in plant numbers for both 
species make them vulnerable to additional stressors such as habitat 
loss. Another reviewer said that the lowest total annual plant count 
for P. submutica should be zero, because the plants do not emerge at 
all during very dry years. An agency commenter was concerned that the 
zero counts might reflect inadequate survey methods.
    Our Response: The low and high plant counts reported for Phacelia 
submutica are simply a record of the lowest and highest plant counts 
recorded during blooming season surveys at known occupied sites. Not 
all occurrences are visited every year. Zero counts are reported only 
when a site was visited, not as a default. We report the negative 
surveys to show that the plants really do not emerge during some years, 
and that the fluctuations in plant numbers make it hard to measure the 
population trend.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated the correct name for the 
sensitive species of blazing star associated with Penstemon debilis is 
Mentzelia rhizomata (Roan Cliffs blazingstar), not Mentzelia argillosa 
(Arapien blazingstar).
    Our Response: We corrected the text in this final rule accordingly. 
This is an important distinction, because Mentzelia rhizomata is a 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species that will benefit 
from protection of P. debilis habitat because it only grows on the same 
layers of shale.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the extent and imminent 
nature of energy development may not have been ameliorated to the 
extent suggested in the proposed rule. In 2010, natural gas production 
in the range of Phacelia submutica and Penstemon debilis was the 
highest in Colorado, an increase from the 2008 report that was cited in 
the proposal.
    Our Response: We have updated this final rule with the natural gas 
production reports provided by the reviewer and the Colorado Oil and 
Gas Conservation Commission (2010, pp. 1-2).
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the potential impact of 
climate change on Penstemon debilis may be greater than indicated in 
the proposal, because the species is restricted to only one layer of 
shale; thus, it may be impossible for this species to migrate to a more 
suitable climate space if the substrate it depends upon does not exist. 
The peer reviewer indicated that Camille Parmesan (2006, p. 649) has 
authored a more comprehensive and current review documenting species' 
distributional shifts in response to warming.
    Our Response: We have incorporated Parmesan's findings into our 
analysis of Factor E for Penstemon debilis. However, the current data 
are not reliable enough at the local level for us to draw conclusions 
regarding the imminence of climate change threats to P. debilis or the 
other two species.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested the potential impacts of 
fugitive dust on Penstemon debilis are overstated in the proposed rule. 
For at least the viable population on public land, the nature of the 
road is prohibitive to vehicles moving at speeds that could generate 
much dust. Phacelia submutica, which is more exposed to dust, should 
have an evaluation of dust impacts because it occupies habitat in the 
vicinity of roads that can better accommodate heavy, fast moving 
traffic. Additionally, Phacelia submutica habitats are more likely to 
be in the vicinity of well pads and pipelines than Penstemon debilis, 
and thus inclusion of an evaluation of the threat from dust on this 
species is warranted.
    Our Response: We consider dust effects an impact that does not rise 
to the level of a threat to Penstemon debilis or Phacelia submutica, 
because we do not have research results to assess its effect. However, 
we have observed heavy dust settling on at least three of the Penstemon 
debilis occurrences from

[[Page 45056]]

heavy equipment and truck traffic (Ewing 2009a, p. 3). Most Phacelia 
submutica occurrences are not close to dust-producing roads, but 
Service biologists have observed dust sources along a pipeline 
construction route near Phacelia submutica occurrences.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the proposed listing rule 
fails to include pollinator information for Phacelia submutica and the 
potential for disruption of pollinator-plant interactions due to 
climate variations.
    Our Response: The pollination mechanism for Phacelia submutica 
remains unknown at this time. Based on the size and shape of the 
flowers and lack of insects observed on the flowers, we expect that P. 
submutica is self-pollinated. We have initiated a pollination study for 
this species, but the results are not yet available. If the species did 
depend on pollinators for reproduction, then climate change could 
disrupt this relationship because the plants are receptive for a very 
short time. Pollination could fail to occur if the weather factors 
allowing the pollinating insects to emerge were not synchronized with 
plant receptivity. Because we have no data to indicate that pollinators 
are required, we do not assess the effects of climate variations on 
pollinator-plant interactions.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that critical habitat 
should be determined for these three species based on the information 
available at this time. Given the level of threats and the narrow 
distribution of all three species, it is essential to provide the 
protection of designated critical habitat as soon as possible.
    Our Response: We are proposing to designate critical habitat for 
the three species concurrently with this final rule. That proposal is 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Comments on the 
proposal will be accepted following publication.
    (8) Comment: Peer reviewers and commenters pointed out an error on 
page 35733 of the proposed listing rule, where the projected average 
temperature warming per decade was correctly cited as 0.2 [deg]C, but 
the equivalent was incorrectly shown as 32.4 [deg]F.
    Our Response: For the next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.36 
[deg]F (0.2 [deg]C) per decade is projected. By the end of the 21st 
century, average global temperatures are expected to increase 1.08 to 
7.2 [deg]F (0.6 to 4 [deg]C) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) 2007, p. 45). We corrected the text in this final rule 
accordingly.

Comments From the State of Colorado

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to list 
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica are 
addressed below. The Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) is the State 
agency within Colorado State Parks that works to cooperatively monitor 
and protect Colorado's most significant natural features, including 
rare plants.

Penstemon debilis

    (9) Comment: The CNAP is concerned that listing Penstemon debilis 
will discourage future voluntary protections by the oil and gas 
industry. The CNAP stated in its letter that Oxy USA, Inc. (Oxy), has 
implemented voluntary best management practices to avoid impacts and 
reduce threats to the species, and they have supported 3 years of 
monitoring to document the status of the species on their land. The 
CNAP stated that although monitoring results at Mount (Mt.) Callahan 
and Mt. Callahan Saddle Natural Areas show a statistically 
insignificant downward trend in number of plant stems per plot, this 
trend may be a natural variation in population size or caused by 
climatic or other environmental factors, not by any effects from the 
gas well construction. No impacts to the P. debilis individuals were 
observed that may be related to natural gas development in the Natural 
Areas, and the buffers instituted are believed to be adequate to 
protect the populations. The CNAP will continue to work with Oxy to 
track the trends of this species. Monitoring will be done with care to 
minimize negative impacts from trampling of individual plants by people 
collecting the data.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges that Oxy has implemented 
voluntary best management practices to protect two of the Penstemon 
debilis occurrences on their private land. Oxy and other energy 
companies are aware that their compliance with conservation measures 
recommended by the Service is entirely voluntary. We believe that this 
level of protection, while voluntary and non-binding, minimizes the 
threats to the species to an extent that we can list it as threatened, 
rather than endangered. We also must consider the cumulative threats to 
the species as a whole throughout its entire limited range in making 
our listing decision. Despite the positive conservation being 
implemented by Oxy, we determined that the species still meets the 
definition of a threatened species because of cumulative effects of a 
variety of threats, many not under the control of Oxy, and the threats 
present in the remainder of the species' range.

Phacelia submutica

    (10) Comment: The CNAP believes that the greatest threat to 
Phacelia submutica is oil and gas development that may be allowed 
within occupied habitat under current Federal regulations, because some 
surveys in potential habitat may not indicate the presence of this 
ephemeral and inconsistent species. Because this species may not emerge 
on an annual basis, that makes potential surveys for it very 
challenging, and surveys could result in the unintentional leasing and 
development of occupied habitat.
    Our Response: Our threats analysis incorporates and supports CNAP's 
statement regarding the primary threats to Phacelia submutica.

Federal Agency Comments

Penstemon debilis

    (11) Comment: In response to our description in the proposed rule 
of impacts that resulted from inadequate regulation, the BLM pointed 
out that the Anvil Points Mine reclamation was a Superfund project that 
was not subject to the Act, and that section 7 consultation was not 
required for the communication site access because the species was only 
a candidate for listing. Of the 88 plants at the reclamation site that 
were transplanted, covered, or fenced, BLM reported 71 survivors at the 
end of the 2009 growing season.
    Our Response: The BLM avoided and minimized impacts from the 
reclamation project voluntarily, with input from the Service that was 
comparable to a section 7 consultation. However, plants were destroyed, 
habitat was modified, and the ongoing issue of impacts due to 
communication site access remains unresolved. We believe that listing 
as a threatened species will provide more support for agency efforts to 
protect the species.

Phacelia submutica

    (12) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) feels that critical 
habitat should not be designated for Phacelia submutica at this time 
because we do not have enough information about its specific soil 
requirements, seed bank, reproductive biology, or minimum population 
size; and that new populations being discovered each year are leading 
to new concepts of the species' distribution and requirements.

[[Page 45057]]

    Our Response: Designation of critical habitat for the three species 
is proposed concurrently in a separate rule in this edition of the 
Federal Register. The criteria for critical habitat were evaluated 
using the best scientific and commercial data available. Surveys in 
2009-2010 increased the known sites and numbers of plants, but did not 
change the habitat description or extend the range boundaries. We 
believe that Phacelia submutica has a large enough range, enough 
populations, and enough individuals that the occupied habitat alone, if 
protected from threats, would be adequate for the future survival and 
recovery of the species. We recognize that critical habitat designated 
at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas 
that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the 
species. A critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species.

Public Comments

    (13) Comment: Support for listing the three plants was received 
from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), seven other non-
profit environmental organizations in Colorado, and one local resident. 
Some of these commenters also believe that the species proposed for 
listing as threatened should not be subject to a 4(d) rule, which is a 
special regulation that can provide greater flexibility by allowing 
actions prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act for species listed 
as threatened.
    Our Response: We believe that the general prohibitions for 
threatened plants at 50 CFR 17.71 are appropriate for these two plant 
species. As a result, we did not develop a 4(d) rule for Penstemon 
debilis or Phacelia submutica, the two species we are listing as 
threatened.
    (14) Comment: Several environmental groups commented that critical 
habitat is both prudent and determinable for all three species, and it 
should include all known occurrences of each species, including 
historical and recently extirpated and nonviable, as well as potential 
habitat.
    Our Response: We are proposing critical habitat for each of the 
three species concurrently with this final listing rule. Critical 
habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) The specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species, and which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. All 
known occurrences are evaluated, and must meet the criteria to be 
included in proposed critical habitat.

Penstemon debilis

    (15) Comment: Andrea Wolfe shared her unpublished results of 
genetic research on Penstemon debilis in 2009, which show that its 
genetic diversity is very limited and each occurrence is genetically 
separated from the others, which indicates inbreeding depression.
    Our Response: We appreciate receiving these results, which indicate 
the limited ability of Penstemon debilis to adapt to habitat or climate 
changes. We included them in our assessment of other natural factors 
affecting the species, under Factor E.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    No substantial changes have been made in the threats analysis or 
determinations for the three species. Field surveys in 2010 increased 
the recorded number of plants for each species, but did not expand 
their known ranges or any decrease in the level of threats.

Endangered Status for Ipomopsis polyantha; Threatened Status for 
Penstemon debilis and Phacelia submutica

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the listing of Ipomopsis polyantha as endangered, and 
Penstemon debilis and Phacelia submutica as threatened, in this section 
of the final rule. More information on these species is available in 
the June 23, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 35721).

Species Information--Ipomopsis polyantha

Taxonomy and Species Description
    Ipomopsis polyantha is a rare plant endemic to shale outcrops in 
and around the Town of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, Colorado. 
The species is in the Polemoniaceae (phlox) family and was originally 
described by Rydberg (1904, p. 634) as Gilia polyantha. Two varieties, 
G. polyantha var. brachysiphon and G. polyantha var. whitingii, were 
recognized by Kearney and Peebles (1943, p. 59). Grant (1956, p. 353) 
moved the species into the genus Ipomopsis. Currently available 
information indicates that I. polyantha is a distinct species (Porter 
and Johnson 2000, p. 76; Porter et al. 2010, pp. 195, 196, 199). It is 
treated as such in the PLANTS database (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2003), and in the 
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2001). Reports of this species 
occurring in Arizona and New Mexico by the PLANTS National Database and 
State floras actually pertain to the two species that were formerly 
treated as varieties of Ipomopsis polyantha (Anderson 2004, pp. 11, 
15).
    The CNHP ranks Ipomopsis polyantha as critically imperiled globally 
(G1) and in the State of Colorado (S1) (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1-5). The 
Nature Conservancy (TNC) and CNHP also developed a scorecard that ranks 
I. polyantha among the most threatened species in the State based on 
number of plants, quality of the plants and habitat, threats, and 
adequacy of protection (CNHP and TNC 2008, p. 102).
    Ipomopsis polyantha is an herbaceous biennial 12 to 24 inches (in) 
(30 to 60 centimeters (cm)) tall, branched from near the base above the 
basal rosette of leaves. Deeply divided leaves with linear segments are 
scattered up the stem. Stems and flower clusters are covered with 
glandular hairs. Flower clusters are along the stem in the axils of the 
leaves as well as at the top of the stem. The white flowers are 0.4 in 
(1 cm) long, with short corolla tubes 0.18 to 0.26 in (0.45 to 0.65 cm) 
long, and flaring corolla lobes flecked with purple dots (Anderson 
1988, p. 3). These dots are often so dense that they give the flower a 
pinkish or purplish hue. The stamens extend noticeably beyond the 
flower tube, and the pollen is blue (Grant 1956, p. 353), changing to 
yellow as it matures (Collins 1995, p. 34). Seeds form a mucilaginous 
(secreting sticky mucous) coat after they are wet. Seeds germinate much 
faster in Mancos Shale soil than in potting soil (Collins 1995, p. 72). 
Mature seeds germinate to form rosettes that produce flowering stalks 
during the next growing season, or they may persist as rosettes for a 
year or more until conditions are right for flowering. Plants produce 
abundant fruits and seeds, but have no known mechanism for long-
distance dispersal (Collins 1995, pp. 111-112). After seeds are mature, 
the plants dry up and die. We do not know how long the seeds remain 
viable.
    Pollination by bees is the most common means of reproduction for 
Ipomopsis polyantha, and the primary pollinators are the honey bee 
(Apis

[[Page 45058]]

mellifera), metallic green bee (Augochlorella spp.), bumble bee (Bombus 
spp.), and digger bee (Anthophora spp.) (Collins 1995, pp. 71-72).
    Ipomopsis polyantha is limited to Pagosa-Winifred soils derived 
from Mancos Shale. The soil pH is nearly neutral to slightly alkaline 
(6.6 to 8.4). The elevation range is 6,750 to 7,775 feet (ft) (2,050 to 
2,370 meters (m)) (Service 2011c, p. 1). Plants occur in discontinuous 
colonies as a pioneer species on open shale or as a climax species 
along the edge of Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa pine), mixed P. ponderosa 
and Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky mountain juniper), or Juniperus. 
osteosperma (Utah juniper) and Quercus gambellii (Gambel oak) forested 
areas. In 1988, Anderson (p. 7) reported finding the highest densities 
under P. ponderosa forests with montane grassland understory. Now the 
species is found mostly on sites that are infrequently disturbed by 
grazing, such as road right-of-ways (ROWs) that are fenced from grazing 
(as opposed to open range), lightly grazed pastures, and undeveloped 
lots (Anderson 2004, p. 20).
    The two known occurrences of Ipomopsis polyantha are within about 
13 miles (mi) (21 kilometers (km)) of each other, and collectively 
occupy about 388.4 acres (ac) (157.1 hectares (ha)) of habitat within a 
range that includes about 6.5 square mi (16.8 square km). The Pagosa 
Springs occurrence is southeast of the Town of Pagosa Springs along 
both sides of U.S. 84. Occupied habitat extends southward on the 
highway ROW for 3 mi (4.8 km) from the intersection with U.S. 160, and 
on private lands on both sides of the highway. The Dyke occurrence is 
about 10 mi (16 km) west of Pagosa Springs along U.S. Highway 160. It 
includes 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of highway ROW on both sides of U.S. 160, 
adjacent private land, and a BLM parcel. Species occurrences are 
further described in the June 23, 2010, proposed rule to list the 
species (75 FR 35721). Table 1 summarizes land ownership and results of 
the most recent plant counts reported within the two I. polyantha 
occurrences.

         Table 1--Occupied Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha by Landownership (acres (ac) (hectares (ha))
[Lyon 2006a; CNAP 2007; CNAP 2008, pp. 1-5; CNHP 2008a; CNHP 2010a, pp. 1-8; Service 2011a, p. 2; Service 2011b,
                                                      p. 1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Occurrence                  Land ownership         ac  (ha)          Flowering         Rosettes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pagosa Springs including Mill Creek  State ROW............       27.6 (11.2)             3,029             3,083
                                     County ROW...........         5.5 (2.2)               469               403
                                     Town of Pagosa                7.5 (3.0)               126                15
                                      Springs.
                                     Private..............     301.7 (122.1)           158,326           174,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotals......................  .....................     342.3 (138.5)           161,950           178,490
                                    ============================================================================
Dyke...............................  State ROW............         2.3 (0.9)                19               102
                                     BLM..................         9.9 (4.0)                88               164
                                     Private..............       33.9 (13.7)               163               275
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotals......................  .....................       46.1 (18.6)               270               541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals.....................  .....................     388.4 (157.1)           162,220           179,031
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 2.5 percent of the occupied habitat is on Federally 
managed BLM land, 9.1 percent on State and County highway ROWs, 86.4 
percent on private lands, and 1.9 percent on Pagosa Springs town park 
land and county land (Service 2011a, p. 2).
    In 2004, the total estimate of flowering plants throughout the 
entire range of the species was 2,246 to 10,526 (Anderson 2004, p. 40). 
Plant surveys from 2005 to 2007 documented dramatic increases in the 
number of flowering individuals and rosettes within the Pagosa Springs 
occurrence at two sites on private land and on the U.S. 84 ROW (CNAP 
2007, pp. 1-2). This increase was primarily attributed to the plants 
surveyed in 2005 and 2006 on a 3-ac (1.2-ha) private land site in the 
Pagosa Springs occurrence. The rapid appearance of such a dense patch 
of plants illustrates the species' ability to colonize barren Mancos 
Shale soil, and demonstrates the reproductive success of the species; 
however, the sites where they grow are vulnerable to habitat 
destruction. Currently, the total estimate of flowering plants is 
162,220 (see Table 1 above). Again, the increase from 2,426 flowering 
plants counted in 2004 was largely due to the discovery of previously 
undocumented plants during new surveys on private lands. The trend in 
the species' status since 1988 is one of fluctuating population size 
that is typical of biennial species, combined with the loss of several 
hundred plants due to development (see Factor A below).

Summary of Factors Affecting Ipomopsis polyantha

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

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

    Ipomopsis polyantha is threatened with destruction of plants and 
habitat due to commercial, residential, municipal, and agricultural 
property development, and associated new utility installations and 
access roads. We have documented recent losses of habitat and 
individuals within the Pagosa Springs and Dyke occurrences of the 
species, as described in more detail below.
Land Use Changes
    Primary land use within the range of Ipomopsis polyantha has 
historically

[[Page 45059]]

been livestock (horses or cattle) grazing, with homes on parcels of 35 
ac (14 ha) or more. Several small businesses now occur along U.S. 84 
within the Pagosa Springs occurrence. The intersection of U.S. 160 and 
U.S. 84 is zoned by the Town of Pagosa Springs for business, and 
commercially zoned land is currently available for development. 
Archuleta County also is considering sites in this area for new county 
buildings. These current and potential conversions of agricultural 
lands to residential and commercial development are incompatible with 
conservation of I. polyantha in the long term because the conversions 
cause direct mortality and permanent loss of habitat. Conversely, 
habitat modified by grazing may be recovered by changes in management.
    Residential development is increasing in Archuleta County. The 
population of Archuleta County was 5,000 in 1990, increasing to 12,430 
in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Prior to the slowing down of the 
real estate market over the past few years, projections for new 
development in Archuleta County were high. For example, all private 
land across the entire range of Ipomopsis polyantha is scheduled for 
development in the Archuleta County and Town of Pagosa Springs 
Community Plan (2000). In this plan, all areas occupied by I. polyantha 
on private land outside of the Town limits are planned for low (35 ac 
(14 ha)), medium (3 to 35 ac (1.2 to 14 ha)), or high (2 to 5 ac (0.81 
to 2 ha)) density housing. The rate of current and proposed development 
is the most significant threat to the species, because development 
planned for the next 5 to 10 years will likely impact 86 percent of the 
species' habitat. This rate of land conversion puts the species at risk 
of extinction.
Private Development of 35 Acres (14 Hectares) or Less
    Within the Pagosa Springs occurrence, a residential and 
agricultural development of about a dozen 35-ac (14-ha) parcels was 
built prior to 2005 on occupied habitat east of U.S. 84 (Archuleta 
County Assessor 2008, p. 1). In 2005, when most residences were new, 
about 782 flowering plants were counted in meadows and along the fences 
and access roads (Lyon 2005, pp. 1-2). By 2008, an increased number of 
horses were pastured in the meadows, roadsides and driveways were 
graded or widened, and few plants or rosettes could be found as a 
result (Mayo 2008b, p. 2). This information indicates that Ipomopsis 
polyantha plants are vulnerable to grazing effects and road 
improvements, and habitat can be modified to exclude plants in as few 
as 3 years. We do not know exactly what level of grazing is sufficient 
to eliminate the I. polyantha plants in a pasture. In 2006, at another 
location along U.S. 84, a private landowner mowed several hundred feet 
of occupied habitat on the highway ROW (Lyon 2006a, p. 1). No plants or 
rosettes were found at this site from 2006 to 2008, indicating that 
mowing destroys plants and halts reproduction. In 2005, dense patches 
of flowering plants were noted, from across the fence, in a privately 
owned meadow along U.S. 84. In 2007, a new home was built, and the 
meadow was mowed; no plants could be seen at the same site in 2008 
(Mayo 2008b, p. 2), again indicating that mowing destroys flowering 
plants and inhibits reproduction, because the seeds cannot mature and 
grow into rosettes. We do not know how long the seeds remain viable in 
the soil.
Private and County Development of Large Parcels
    In 2008, the Pagosa Springs Town Council approved annexation of the 
96-ac (39-ha) private development called Blue Sky Village into the Town 
(Aragon 2008a, pp. 1-2). The proposed development plan was for a mixed 
commercial and high- to low-density residential village (Hudson 2008, 
p. 1). The 96-ac (39-ha) parcel is adjacent to the highest density of 
Ipomopsis polyantha plants, and includes about 2,562 ft (781 m) of 
habitat on U.S. 84 frontage at the center of the species' distribution 
(Archuleta County Assessor 2008, p. 1). Plants have been observed on 
the property from over the fence, but not counted. Occupied habitat 
also borders the southern edge of the property.
    In 2010, the Blue Sky Village property went into foreclosure. The 
County announced that it will acquire the property. Possible uses of 
the land include county buildings, sports fields, and the sale of 
commercial lots along the highway (Hudson 2010, p. 1). Development of 
the Blue Sky Village/County property would significantly reduce the 
amount of habitat within the species' range. Location of the 
development between the highest density of plants and the rest of the 
Pagosa Springs occurrence on the east side of U.S. 84 would further 
fragment the habitat that has already been impacted by commercial, 
residential, and agricultural land uses.
    Another private development that includes 47 ac (19 ha) of occupied 
habitat and about 1 mi (1.6 km) of frontage along the west side of U.S. 
84, is being considered for annexation and development (Aragon 2008a, 
p. 2; Archuleta County Assessor 2008, p. 1; Hudson 2010, p. 1). 
Preliminary plans show home sites and open space on the 47 ac (19 ha) 
of currently occupied plant habitat.
    The above two development proposals would cover about 42 percent of 
the habitat within the Pagosa Springs occurrence, which is the larger 
of the two occurrences and is essential to the species' continued 
existence. Plants and habitat along U.S. 84 ROW are likely to be 
disturbed or destroyed by construction of new access roads, utility 
installations, and acceleration and deceleration lanes built to 
accommodate the proposed developments. The pace of development around 
Pagosa Springs fluctuates with the economy, but given the direction in 
the County plan and the projected growth rates for the County and the 
Town of Pagosa Springs, it is highly likely that further development 
will occur along U.S. 84 within 5 to 10 years.
    A third large parcel of 1,362 ac (551 ha) proposed for development, 
plus 2,819 ft (859 m) of U.S. 84 frontage, is another annexation to the 
Town of Pagosa Springs being considered within the range of Ipomopsis 
polyantha. The proposed development, called Blue Sky Ranch, would 
include single and multi-family residential housing, a hotel and 
conference center, a golf course with clubhouse, and an equestrian 
center with riding trails and a multi-use arena (Aragon 2008b, p. 2). 
The status of the proposed development is unknown at this time, because 
it depends on the real estate market. This area has not been surveyed 
for plants, and is not included in the total occupied habitat.
Utilities Installations and Maintenance
    Utilities installations and construction activities that are 
necessary for development can eliminate habitat and destroy Ipomopsis 
polyantha plants. During 2005 and 2006, a sewer line installation on 
the U.S. 84 ROW resulted in the loss of about 498 plants and 541 
rosettes and the modification of about 1,473 ft (449 m) of roadside 
habitat (Mayo 2008c, p. 8). The Colorado Department of Transportation 
(CDOT) and Archuleta County consulted with the Service, and agreed on 
avoidance measures for this project, but contractors failed to follow 
the protocol. Where avoidance of plants and habitat was specified, 
topsoil, plants, and rosettes were scraped away on the bank; where 
native plant seeding was specified, nonnative grasses were seeded; and 
where straw was prohibited, a thick layer of straw was

[[Page 45060]]

applied (Mayo 2008c, pp. 1-4; Peterson 2006, pp. 1-3). As a result, in 
2008, the remaining 8 flowering plants and 5 rosettes at this site were 
found in one spot, near plants on an adjacent property not disturbed by 
the sewer line project (Mayo 2008c, p. 8). In 2010, the combined number 
of flowering plants and rosettes at the site was 167. This incident 
demonstrates that I. polyantha cannot quickly recover from soil 
disturbance.
    Although I. polyantha can colonize unvegetated Mancos Shale soil 
near a seed source, the number of flowering plants that appear in 
subsequent years depends on seed production and the survival of 
rosettes that are not outcompeted by other species or destroyed during 
ground disturbance. Power line maintenance was completed within 
occupied habitat in the Pagosa Springs occurrence in 2007. As a result 
of careful planning, there was negligible damage to adult plants. 
However, 278 rosettes were transplanted, but did not survive to 
reproduce for unknown reasons. We conclude that the species is highly 
vulnerable to ground disturbance during development because seedlings 
and rosettes are destroyed and transplanting is not known to be 
successful.
Highway Right of Ways
    The Archuleta County and Town of Pagosa Springs revised 2004 Trails 
Plan (2004, p. 18) calls for an 8-ft (2.4-m) wide, 2.5-mi (4-km) long, 
paved bike path on the highway ROW from U.S. 160 south along U.S. 84 in 
occupied Ipomopsis polyantha habitat. This route, prioritized for 
completion as soon as funding is available, would eliminate about 38 
percent of the total occupied habitat on the highway ROWs and 4 percent 
of the total occupied habitat for the species (see Table 1 above). 
Another planned paved bike trail, parallel to U.S. 160 and through the 
Dyke occurrence of I. polyantha, is on the low priority list in the 
Trails Plan (Archuleta County and Town of Pagosa Springs 2004, p. 28). 
Development of this bike trail would eliminate the portion of the Dyke 
occurrence located on the south side of the highway where the trail 
would be located, covering about 3 percent of the total highway ROW 
habitat.
    The distribution of Ipomopsis polyantha within highway ROWs makes 
this species susceptible to threats associated with highway activities 
and maintenance. Exotic grasses planted by CDOT along roadsides 
dominate the ROW between pavement and ditch, limiting most I. polyantha 
plants to the ROW bank between ditch and fence. This limitation to the 
species' habitat along roadsides is significant because so little 
habitat exists elsewhere for the species. I. polyantha plants growing 
within the highway ROW along U.S. 84 in 2004 were killed when the 
thistles growing among them were treated with herbicide (Anderson 2004, 
p. 36). Since that time, Archuleta County has discontinued broadcast 
herbicide use and mowing on ROWs within the species' range. However, 
the planted exotic grasses continue to limit the species' habitat.
    Highway ROWs provide about 9 percent of the occupied habitat for 
Ipomopsis polyantha. All highway ROW habitat is at risk of disturbance 
by construction of new access roads or acceleration lanes, bike paths, 
and utilities installation or maintenance. Such construction results in 
direct loss of I. polyantha individuals or reduced suitability of its 
habitat by altering the soil characteristics (Anderson 2004, p. 36).
Summary of Factor A
    We determined that the present and threatened destruction, 
modification, and fragmentation of Ipomopsis polyantha habitat from 
commercial, municipal, agricultural, and residential development, 
associated new utility installations, construction of new access roads 
and bike paths, competition from introduced roadside grasses, and other 
impacts to highway ROWs are significant and imminent threats to the 
species throughout its range. At this time, the species persists 
primarily on private lands (about 86 percent) and highway ROWs (about 9 
percent). Based on the rate of current and proposed development over 
the entire range of the species, we estimate that 95 percent of the 
species' habitat could be modified or destroyed within 5 to 10 years. 
The plants would then be relegated to 10 ac (4 ha) of BLM land; 7.5 ac 
(3 ha) of Town park land; small, fragmented portions of highway ROWs; 
and a few, small, lightly used, private yards and pastures, thus 
putting the species in danger of extinction.

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

    Activities resulting in overutilization of Ipomopsis polyantha 
plants for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 
purposes are not known to exist. Therefore, we do not consider 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes to be a threat to the species now or in the 
foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    Disease is not known to affect Ipomopsis polyantha. Therefore, we 
do not consider disease to be a threat to the species now or in the 
foreseeable future.
Predation
    This species is threatened by destruction of flowering plants, 
rosettes, and seeds due to concentrated livestock disturbance and some 
herbivory. Observations of the ``fence line effect''--healthy plants 
outside the fence and impacted plants inside the fence--at several 
locations on private land used for cattle and horse grazing indicate 
that Ipomopsis polyantha does not tolerate intensive livestock grazing 
(Anderson 2004, p. 30). For example, grazing by horses at a 
residential/agricultural development within the Pagosa Springs 
occurrence in 2005 resulted in few I. polyantha plants 3 years later 
(Mayo 2008b, p. 2). Over-the-fence observations from seven locations 
(pastures) in 2009 found few or no plants in the three heavily grazed 
pastures and numerous plants in the adjacent pastures with light or no 
grazing (Glenne and Mayo 2010, pp. 1-3). We do not know whether the 
destruction of the plants was a result of herbivory or trampling. I. 
polyantha is not found in heavily grazed pastures, but occurrences have 
been observed in lightly grazed horse pastures and abandoned pastures 
(CNAP 2007, p. 6). Plants could possibly recolonize a pasture if 
livestock numbers were reduced sufficiently and the seed bank was still 
viable, or if there was a seed source nearby, such as on the ungrazed 
side of a fence. Indications are that the species may persist in areas 
with light grazing, but the level of impact and the threshold of 
species' tolerance have not been studied. Few plants persist in areas 
of continual grazing (Collins 1995, pp. 107, 111, 112). We determined 
that destruction of flowering plants, rosettes, and seeds due to heavy 
livestock use is a significant and ongoing threat to I. polyantha now 
and in the foreseeable future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Local Laws and Regulations
    Town and county zoning ordinances have the potential to affect 
Ipomopsis polyantha and its habitats. We know of no town or county 
regulations that provide for protection or conservation of I. polyantha 
or its habitat. As discussed under Factor A above, Archuleta County 
road maintenance crews voluntarily

[[Page 45061]]

refrain from mowing or broadcast spraying ROWs within the range of 
Ipomopsis polyantha; however, there is no law, regulation, or policy 
requiring them to do so. New annexation of 2,018 ac (817 ha) into the 
Town of Pagosa Springs will change zoning from 35-ac (14-ha) 
residential and agricultural parcels to commercial and small lot 
residential, with anticipated adverse impacts to the Pagosa Springs 
occurrence of I. polyantha, as described under Factor A above. 
Decisions regarding annexations into the town and changes in allowable 
subdividing of parcels in the county are currently being made to 
encourage growth that will boost the local economy. Provisions for 
avoidance or minimization of disturbance to habitat for the plants are 
not included in these decisions or plans.
State Laws and Regulations
    No State regulations protect rare plant species in Colorado. 
Ipomopsis polyantha is classified by CNHP as a G1 and S1 species, which 
means it is critically imperiled across its entire range and within the 
State of Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1-5). The CDOT has drafted best 
management practices for ROWs within I. polyantha habitat in 
collaboration with the Service (Peterson 2008, p. 1), but the agreement 
has not been finalized. In 2006, voluntary measures to minimize impacts 
to plants from a sewer line installation along U.S. 84 were recommended 
by CDOT and supervised by the county, but not implemented by the 
contractors, as described under Factor A (Mayo 2008c, pp. 1-4; Peterson 
2006, pp. 1-3).
Federal Laws and Regulations
    Ipomopsis polyantha is on the sensitive species lists for the USFS 
(2006, pp. 5, 6, 13, 15-20; USFS 2009, p. 6) and the BLM (2000, p. 3; 
2008b, p. 47). Occupied habitat has not been found on USFS land, but 
there is nearby habitat that appears to be suitable, so the species is 
included in project clearance surveys on the forest. In 2006, we 
estimated that the Dyke occurrence extended onto 20 ac (8 ha) of BLM 
land (Lyon 2007b, pp. 3, 12, 13); 88 plants and 164 rosettes were found 
there in 2007 (CNAP 2007, p. 2). In 2010, we revised the estimated 
occupied BLM habitat to 9.9 ac (4.0 ha) (Service 2011a, p. 2). This BLM 
parcel was withdrawn from a proposed land exchange so that the plant 
habitat would remain under Federal management (Brinton 2009, pers. 
comm.; Lyon 2007b, p. 3). We believe that BLM adequately protects 
Ipomopsis polyantha on its lands pursuant to the Federal statutes and 
regulations that guide Federal land management. However, so little of 
the species' habitat occurs on BLM lands that the BLM can do little to 
influence the overall status of the species.
Summary of Factor D
    We reviewed the suite of existing regulatory mechanisms that could 
potentially offer some protection to Ipomopsis polyantha, including the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)(43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 
and State and local laws and determined that these existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the primary threats to the 
species. Ninety-seven percent of the known range of the species is on 
State, Town, and private lands, affording the species little to no 
protection on these lands. Federal statutes and regulations governing 
natural resource protection apply only to 2.5 percent of the occupied 
habitat and therefore can do little to influence the overall status of 
the species. The State of Colorado offers no regulatory protection to 
plants, which means that protection falls upon local County and Town 
ordinances. The planning regulations governing growth in Archuleta 
County and the Town of Pagosa Springs do not contain any requirements 
to protect rare plants, including I. polyantha, when siting new growth 
and development. In fact, the current county planning regulations 
contribute to the risk of extinction for the species by facilitating 
development in the last remaining habitat occupied by the species. 
Therefore, we determined that existing regulatory mechanisms do not 
adequately address the primary threats to the species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

Habitat and Distribution
    The adaptation of Ipomopsis polyantha to Pagosa-Winifred soils 
derived from Mancos Shale limits it to about 6.5 square mi (16.8 square 
km) within a 13-mi (21-km) range of fragmented habitat on outcrops of 
Mancos Shale. The species has specific physiological requirements for 
germination and growth that may prevent its spread to other locations 
(Anderson 2004, pp. 23-24). In greenhouse trials, seeds will germinate 
and grow on other soils, but they grow much faster on Mancos Shale 
soils (Collins 1995, p. 114). Faster growth may give I. polyantha a 
competitive advantage on relatively barren Mancos shale that it lacks 
on other soils, where its smaller seedlings have more competition from 
other plants for nutrients and water. The species produces more seed 
when it is cross-pollinated (Anderson 2004, p. 23); therefore, existing 
and foreseeable fragmentation of habitat may cause gene flow to be 
obstructed. Pollinator-mediated pollen dispersal is typically limited 
to the foraging distances of pollinators, and no bee species is 
expected to travel more than 1 mi (1.6 km) to forage (Tepedino 2009, p. 
11). Thus, it is likely that the Dyke occurrence, of about 270 plants 
and 541 rosettes, is genetically isolated from the Pagosa Springs 
occurrence 13 miles (21 kilometers) away. Spatially isolated plant 
populations are at higher risk of extinction due to inbreeding 
depression, loss of genetic heterogeneity, and reduced dispersal rates 
(Silvertown and Charlesworth 2001, p. 185).
Transplanting
    Rosettes in the path of power pole replacements were transplanted 
to suitable habitat in the town park in 2007. The 278 transplants 
survived the winter and produced about 27 flowering plants. However, no 
surviving rosettes could be relocated in the fall of 2007, and no 
evidence of trampling or habitat destruction was found (Coe 2007, pp. 
2-3). Another attempt at transplanting rosettes, to save them from 
destruction during utility installations in 2005, was not effective in 
producing new rosettes in the third year (Brinton 2007, pers. comm.). 
There was no evidence of trampling or habitat destruction with these 
transplants. Unless effective methods are developed, most plants that 
cannot be avoided during utility installations and construction 
activities are unlikely to survive and reproduce. Whether the species 
can survive translocation under other circumstances remains uncertain, 
but at this time we consider transplantation an ineffective method of 
mitigating the impacts of development. For this reason, we conclude 
that the species is highly vulnerable to development because 
populations cannot be successfully moved out of the way.
Fluctuating Population Size
    Ipomopsis polyantha shows great differences in plant numbers from 
year to year, probably because the plants are biennial and grow from 
seed. This trait makes them more vulnerable than perennials to changes 
in environment, including timing and amount of moisture and length of 
time since disturbance. With increased time after disturbance, 
competition from both native and nonnative plants increases (CNAP 
2008a, p. 4). As a biennial species, I. polyantha also may be

[[Page 45062]]

vulnerable to prolonged drought. During drought years, seeds may not 
germinate and plants may remain as rosettes without flowering or 
producing a new crop of seeds.
Climate Change
    Habitat changes as a result of climate change could potentially 
impact Ipomopsis polyantha. Localized projections indicate the 
southwest United States may experience the greatest temperature 
increase of any area in the lower 48 States (IPCC 2007, p. 30). A 10 to 
30 percent decrease in precipitation in mid-latitude western North 
America is projected by the year 2050, based on an ensemble of 12 
climate models (Milly et al. 2005, p. 1). Climate modeling at this time 
has not been refined to the level that we can predict the amount of 
temperature and precipitation change within the limited range of I. 
polyantha. Therefore, this analysis is speculative based on the data 
available at this time. When plant populations are impacted by reduced 
reproduction during drought years, they may require several years to 
recover. Climate change may exacerbate the frequency and intensity of 
droughts in this area and result in reduced species' viability as the 
dry years become more common. As described above, I. polyantha is 
sensitive to the timing and amount of moisture due to its biennial life 
history. Thus, if climate change results in local drying, the species 
could experience a reduction in its reproductive output.
    Recent analyses of long-term data sets show accelerating rates of 
climate change over the past 2 or 3 decades, indicating that the 
extension of species' geographic range boundaries towards the poles or 
to higher elevations by progressive establishment of new local 
occurrences will become increasingly apparent in the short term (Hughes 
2000, p. 60). The limited geographic range of the Mancos Shale 
substrate that underlies the entire Ipomopsis polyantha habitat likely 
limits the ability of the species to adapt by shifting occurrences in 
response to climatic conditions.
Summary of Factor E
    We determined that the natural and human-caused factors of specific 
soil and germination requirements, fragmented habitat, effects of 
drought and climate change, and lack of proven methods for propagation 
and reintroduction present an imminent and moderate degree of threat to 
Ipomopsis polyantha across the entire range of the species. These 
factors make the species highly vulnerable to the development threats 
described under Factor A, and it is highly unlikely that the species 
could respond to these threats by extending its range.
Cumulative Impacts
    Some of the threats discussed in this finding could work in concert 
with one another to cumulatively create situations that potentially 
impact Ipomopsis polyantha beyond the scope of each individual threat. 
For example, as discussed under Factor A, destruction and modification 
of habitat by clearing the ground, mowing and weed spraying, and 
concentrated livestock grazing could reduce the number of available 
pollinators for the plants by removing other species of blooming plants 
that attract pollinators and by destroying the ground-nesting habitat 
needed by bees. A reduction in bee pollinators could cause I. polyantha 
to produce fewer seeds. Such cumulative impacts from development-
related activities are likely to impact the species, given the ubiquity 
of development within the habitat.
    We have not identified other likely scenarios where the threats 
discussed in the five factors above have potential to interact 
synergistically to produce threats to Ipomopsis polyantha beyond those 
which we have analyzed.
Summary of Factors
    The Pagosa Springs occurrence of Ipomopsis polyantha totals 
approximately 342 ac (138 ha) of Ipomopsis polyantha habitat, including 
3 mi (4.8 km) of highway ROW and the private properties on either side 
of the highway. The smaller Dyke occurrence of about 46 ac (19 ha) 
includes highway ROWs, private land, and 10 ac (4 ha) of BLM land. 
Destruction of plants, when combined with the modification and 
fragmentation of habitat within this small range, results in a 
substantial loss to the viability of the species. Both known 
occurrences face ongoing, new, and foreseeable threats, including 
commercial, residential, agricultural, and municipal development; 
associated road and utility improvements and maintenance; heavy 
livestock use; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address 
the primary threats to the species; fragmented habitat; and prolonged 
drought conditions. The magnitude of threat for I. polyantha is high 
due to the direct overlap of ongoing and planned land development on 95 
percent of the known habitat. The overall impact of current and planned 
development is likely to result in extensive disturbance and 
destruction of the remaining habitat within the foreseeable future of 5 
to 10 years, depending on economic growth in the area, thus putting the 
species in danger of extinction.

Species Information--Penstemon debilis

Description
    Penstemon debilis is a rare plant, endemic to oil shale outcrops on 
the Roan Plateau escarpment in Garfield County, Colorado. This species 
is known by the common names Parachute beardtongue and Parachute 
penstemon. P. debilis is classified by the CNHP as a G1 and S1 species, 
which means it is critically imperiled across its entire range and 
within the State of Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 6-10). Traditionally, the 
genus Penstemon was included in the Scrophulariaceae (figwort) family. 
However, Penstemon is now considered to be within the Plantaginaceae 
(plantain) family due to recent research using DNA seq