[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78514-78556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2010-0080. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Western 
Colorado Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
764 Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946. Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Pfister, Field Supervisor, Western 
Colorado Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone, 970-
243-2778; or by facsimile, 970-245-6933. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (a) 
Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal 
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by 
other pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or 
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.
    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, titled Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), and the 
Department of the Interior's manual on Departmental Responsibilities 
for Indian Trust Resources, at 512 DM 2, we acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with the 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. In fulfilling our trust 
responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Tribes, 
we met with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe regarding the process we would 
take to conduct a 12-month status review of Astragalus schmolliae. As 
an outcome of our government-to-government consultation, we recognize 
the sovereign right of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to manage the habitat 
for A. schmolliae on its tribal lands, and acknowledge that right in 
this 12-month finding.

Previous Federal Actions

    Federal action for Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae 
(then A. schmollae) began as a result of section 12 of the Act of 1973, 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of 
the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on plants considered to 
be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This 
report, designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to 
Congress on January 9, 1975. In that document, both species were 
designated as endangered (House Document 94-51, pp. 57-58). On July 1, 
1975, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
27823, p. 27847) of its acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a 
petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of 
the Act, and giving notice of its intention to review the status of the 
plant taxa therein.
    As a result of that review, the Service published a proposed rule 
on June 16, 1976, in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523, pp. 24543-
24544) to determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act 
for approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including Astragalus 
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was 
assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian 
Institution, and the Service in response to House Document No. 94- 51 
and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. General comments 
received in response to the 1976 proposal are summarized in an April 
26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978, 
amendments to the Act required that all proposals more than 2 years old 
be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals already more 
than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the Service published a notice 
in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the 
June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final which removed both 
A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae from proposed status but retained both 
species as candidate plant

[[Page 78515]]

taxa that ``may qualify for listing under the Act.''
    On December 15, 1980, the Service published a current list of those 
plant taxa native to the United States being considered for listing 
under the Act where Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae 
were identified as a category 2 taxon ``currently under review'' (45 FR 
82479, pp. 82490-82491). On November 28, 1983, A. schmolliae was moved 
to the ``taxa no longer under review'' list, and given a 3C rank 
indicating the species was proven to be more abundant or widespread 
than previously believed or not subjected to an identifiable threat (48 
FR 53640, pp. 53641, 53662). The two species also were included as a 
category 2 species (A. schmolliae was not included as a 3C species 
despite the conclusions of the 1983 review) on September 27, 1985 (50 
FR 39525, p. 39533-39534), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184, p. 6190), and 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144, pp. 51151-51152). The category 2 
species designation was defined as having enough information to 
indicate that listing the species as an endangered or threatened 
species was possibly appropriate.
    On October 22, 1993, we received a petition dated October 19, 1993, 
from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Lee Dyer requesting that 
Astragalus microcymbus be listed as endangered under the Act, and that 
critical habitat be designated (Carlton et al. 1993, pp. 1-11). The 
petition included biological information regarding the species and 
several scientific articles in support of the petition. After careful 
consideration, we did not issue a 90-day finding on the petition 
because the species was already included as a category 2 species 
(Spinks 1994, pp. 1-8).
    On February 28, 1996, we proposed removing all category 2 species, 
including Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae, from our 
candidate species notice of review (61 FR 7596). This policy change was 
finalized on December 5, 1996, stating that the list was not needed 
because of other lists already maintained by other entities such as 
Federal and State agencies (61 FR 64481).
    On July 30, 2007, we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from 
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: 
(1) Consider all full species in our Mountain Prairie Region ranked as 
G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, except those that are 
currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and 
(2) list each species as either endangered or threatened (Forest 
Guardians 2007, pp. 1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses, 
references, and documentation provided by NatureServe in its online 
database at http://www.natureserve.org/into the petition. We 
acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to the Forest 
Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p. 1). In that letter we 
stated that, based on preliminary review, we found no evidence to 
support an emergency listing for any of the species covered by the 
petition, and that we planned work on the petition in Fiscal Year (FY) 
2008.
    On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its 
mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on their two 
multiple species petitions--one for the Mountain-Prairie Region, and 
one for the Southwest Region (WildEarth Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, 
case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently published two 90-day findings on 
January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419), and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), 
identifying species for which we were then making negative 90-day 
findings, and species for which we were still working on a 
determination. On March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians 
filed a stipulated settlement in the District of Columbia Court, 
agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a 
finding as to whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presents 
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted for 38 Mountain-Prairie Region species by August 9, 2009 
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
    On August 18, 2009, we published a partial 90-day finding for the 
38 Mountain-Prairie Region species, and found that the petition 
presented substantial information to indicate that listing of 
Astragalus microcymbus may be warranted based on threats from off-road 
vehicle use and drought; and that listing Astragalus schmolliae may be 
warranted based on threats from fire, nonnative species invasions, road 
construction, grazing, and drought; and went on to request further 
information from the public pertaining to both species (74 FR 41649, 
pp. 41655-41656).
    This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007, 
petition to list Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as 
threatened or endangered. Given that we are doing 12-month findings for 
38 species from this petition, and 67 species from the Southwest Region 
multiple species petition (74 FR 419, January 6, 2009; 74 FR 66866, 
December 16, 2009), and given the amount of resources that it takes to 
complete a 12-month finding, we are unable to complete 12-month 
findings for all these species at this time.

Species Information--Astragalus Microcymbus

Species Description and Taxonomy
    Astragalus microcymbus is a perennial forb (a plant that can live 
to more than 3 years of age and without grass-like, shrub-like, or 
tree-like vegetation) that dies back to the ground every year. The 
plant has slender stems that are sparsely branched with dark green 
pinnate leaves, with 9-15 leaflets arranged in an evenly spaced fashion 
along either side of a central axis. It is in the pea (Fabaceae) 
family. The spindly red to purple branches grow from 30-60 centimeters 
(cm) (12-24 inches (in.)) long to 30 cm (12 in.) high, and may trail 
along the ground, arch upwards, or stand upright, often being supported 
by neighboring shrubs. Flowers are small (0.5 cm (0.2 in.)), pea-like, 
are found at the end of branches in clusters of 7-14 flowers, and have 
white petals that are tinged with purple. Fruits are boat-shaped (hence 
the common name ``skiff'' and the Latin name microcymbus meaning 
``small boat''), grow to less than 1 cm (0.4 in.), are triangular in 
cross-section, and hang abruptly downward from the branches. These 
characteristics, particularly the plant's diffuse branching, small 
white-purple pea-like flowers, and boat-like fruit pods distinguish 
this species from other Astragalus species in the area (description 
adapted from Peterson et al. 1981, pp. 5-7; Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 
5-6; Isley 1998, p. 349).
    Astragalus microcymbus was discovered in 1945 by Rupert Barneby 
roughly 6 kilometers (km) (4 miles (mi)) west of Gunnison, Colorado 
(Barneby 1949, pp. 499-500). The species was not located again until 
1955 by the Colorado botanical expert William Weber, who originally 
considered it to be nonnative because of its dissimilarity to the other 
numerous Astragalus species in the region (Barneby 1964, p. 193). Both 
of these early collections were from alongside Highway 50 near 
Gunnison, Colorado, at a location that has likely been destroyed. The 
plant was not located in its more intact and native habitat along South 
Beaver Creek until Joseph Barrell rediscovered the species in 1966 
(Barrell 1969, p. 284; Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2010a, 
p. 14).
    The Astragalus genus is large, with over 1,500 species that are 
found on all continents except Antarctica and Australia, and with 
almost 600 species

[[Page 78516]]

in the United States, primarily in the West (Isley 1998, p. 149). The 
genus is divided into many sections. A. microcymbus is not similar in 
appearance to other Astragalus species in the region. Its presumed 
closest relative (from the Strigulosi section of Astragalus) is found 
in New Mexico, with other relatives extending southward, and being 
found mostly in Mexico (Barneby 1964, p. 193; Isley 1998, pp. 349-350). 
The taxonomic status of A. microcymbus has not been disputed, although 
the monophyly (all members descended from a single common ancestor) of 
the Strigulosi section, and the placement of A. microcymbus within the 
section has been debated (Spellenberg 1974, pp. 394-395; Heil and 
Porter 1990, pp. 12-13). For the purposes of this finding, we consider 
A. microcymbus to represent a valid species and, therefore, a listable 
entity.
Biology and Life History
    Astragalus microcymbus individuals live on average 2.2-3 years 
(with a range of 1-14 years). Most frequently, plants are alive for 
only 1 year (DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.). The plant flowers 
from mid to late May into July (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18; Japuntich 
2010a, pers. comm.). There are more flowering plants in early June than 
at any other time, and flowering then drops off or stops, with a second 
bloom occurring in July (Japuntich 2010a, pers. comm.). The earlier 
flowering plants are reportedly larger and more vine-like, and later 
flowering plants are much smaller sized and less vine-like (Japuntich 
2010a, pers. comm.).
    Little is known of how Astragalus microcymbus reproduces. For 
example, we do not know if the plant requires pollinators, or what 
pollinators are important for reproduction. A single plant that was 
caged in 1980 did not produce fruit (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 18). 
Although this was suggested as evidence that the plant may require 
pollinators, we believe that this speculation is premature, because the 
study was completed for only one individual. Studies of other 
Astragalus species have found some species to be totally reliant on 
pollinators, and others to be somewhat self-compatible (able to produce 
seed without pollen from a different plant) but still relying on 
pollinators to some degree (Karron 1989, p. 337; Kaye 1999, p. 1254). 
Astragalus species with limited ranges are somewhat more self-
compatible than wider ranging relatives (Karron 1989, p. 337).
    Several pollinators have been observed visiting Astragalus 
microcymbus, suggesting that pollinators may be important for 
reproduction, but little is known about what pollinators these are 
(with the exception of the two listed below) and which are most 
important. Two insects that regularly visit the flowers of A. 
microcymbus were collected in 1989 (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19). 
One visitor was a small, black carpenter bee, Ceratina nanula that was 
collected from 3 sites (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 18-19), and is known 
from at least 11 western States (Discover Life 2009, p. 1). The other 
visitor was a small, yellow and brown satyr butterfly, Coenonympha 
ochracea ssp. ochracea, a species of the Rocky Mountains (Heil and 
Porter 1990, p. 19). We expect there are more pollinators than these 
two species, based on the limited number of observations and 
collections to date (Heil and Porter 1990, pp. 6, 18-19; Sherwood 1994, 
p. 12), and because other Astragalus species are visited by many 
different pollinator species (Karron 1989, p. 322; Kaye 1999, pp. 1251-
1252; Sugden 1985, p. 303).
    Fruits of Astragalus microcymbus have been observed as early as 
late-May, are always present by mid-June, with peak fruiting occurring 
in mid-July, and all fruits falling off the plants by late-August (Heil 
and Porter 1990, p. 18). Fruit production varies greatly. For example, 
during a life-history study (discussed in further detail in 
Distribution and Abundance below), no fruits were counted in 2002, and 
33,819 fruits were counted in 2008 (Denver Botanic Gardens [DBG] 2010a, 
p. 5). In the same 14-year life history study (1995-2009), fruit 
production was high in only 3 years: 1995, 1997, and 2008 (DBG 2010a, 
p. 5). This type of synchronous seeding is sometimes referred to as 
mast seeding or mast years. Mast seedings may be a strategy to release 
enough seeds to feed seed predators, that are kept at lower numbers in 
years with little or no seed production, and still allow other seeds to 
germinate. Alternatively, it may be a product of increased pollination 
success (Crone and Lesica 2004, p. 1945). We are unsure of the 
conditions that lead to good seed and fruit set; overall annual 
precipitation does not explain the variability (DBG 2010a, p. 12).
    Seed dispersal mechanisms have not been researched, but wind and 
rain are considered candidates (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 19). Seed 
dormancy, seed survival, and seed longevity in the soil are unknown. We 
do not know if specific cues (e.g., temperature, precipitation, or seed 
coat alterations) are needed to break seed dormancy. Seed bank studies 
for other Astragalus species indicate that the group generally 
possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a strong physical 
germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are generally long-lived in 
the soil, and only a small percentage of seeds germinate each year 
(summarized in Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). Conversely, the DBG looked 
at soil cores taken from A. microcymbus monitoring sites and found only 
one seed. The authors concluded that A. microcymbus does not have an 
active seed bank (DBG 2010a, p. 6). More research is needed to better 
understand the seed bank's role in the life history of the species.
    Astragalus microcymbus individuals may exhibit prolonged dormancy 
(remaining underground throughout a growing season). This trait may 
help a species better cope with drought or resource-limiting conditions 
(Lesica and Steele 1994, pp. 209-210). Between 6 and 90 percent of A. 
microcymbus individuals are dormant in a given year (DBG 2008, pp. 6, 
13, 18). Dormancy varies significantly from year to year and between 
plots (DBG 2010a, p. 15). Of the individuals that exhibited prolonged 
dormancy, 54 percent remained dormant for 1 year, 10 percent were 
dormant for 2 years, with a decreasing percentage of individuals 
remaining dormant for each successively longer time period to 11 years 
(DBG 2008, p. 6). These numbers for prolonged dormancy are not 
definitive because researchers are unable to say with certainty if a 
plant returning to a spot where an individual was previously found is a 
new individual or an individual returning from prolonged dormancy 
(DePrenger-Levin 2010a, pers. comm.).
Distribution and Abundance
    We use several terms to discuss various sizes or groupings of 
Astragalus microcymbus individuals: Element Occurrence, site, polygon, 
point, and units. We consider the term Element Occurrence synonymous 
with population and it is further defined below. Within a population, 
various smaller ``sites'' have been hand drawn on maps between 1955 and 
1994, and counted or tracked by site. To distinguish these older sites 
from more recent Global Positioning System (GPS) mapping efforts, we 
have used the term ``polygon'' (circles around clusters of individuals) 
or ``point'' (points representing one or a few plants within the 
immediate area) to describe data that was collected after 2003 with a 
GPS unit. Finally, we have taken the polygons and points and created 
``units'' on which to conduct our spatial analyses for this 12-month 
finding. The

[[Page 78517]]

reasons for creating these units are described in further detail below.
    The CNHP, the agency that tracks rare plant species in the State of 
Colorado, operates within the national NatureServe network and follows 
NatureServe protocols. NatureServe guidelines on designating Element 
Occurrences state they are to be designated to best represent 
individual populations, and are typically separated from each other by 
barriers to movement or dispersal (NatureServe 2002, p. 11). The CNHP 
assigns overall species ranks for rare plants within the State of 
Colorado. Astragalus microcymbus has a Global rank of G1 indicating the 
species is critically imperiled across its range, and a State rank of 
S1 indicating the species is critically imperiled within the State of 
Colorado (CNHP 2010b, pp. 1, 5). Since the species is known only from 
the State of Colorado, the State (S) and Global (G) ranks are the same.
    Astragalus microcymbus has a very limited range. It is found in an 
area roughly 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from east to west and 10 km (6 mi) from 
north to south with a small, disjunct (widely separated) population 
found 17 km (10.5 mi) to the southwest on Cebolla Creek (Figure 1). The 
species is known primarily from Gunnison County with one site located 
in Saguache County. The majority of sites and individuals are along 
South Beaver Creek just southwest of Gunnison, Colorado. The species 
occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison 
Resource Area and adjacent private lands. Within known areas, A. 
microcymbus has a spotty distribution, most likely linked to the 
habitat being spotty on the landscape (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16). 
Using the highest counts across years and across all sites, we estimate 
the total maximum historic population to be around 20,500 individuals 
in 5 populations (Table 1; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). However, more recent 
counts indicate there are substantially fewer individuals than this 
today (DBG 2010a, p. 7; BLM 2010, p. 3). We estimate A. microcymbus 
occupied roughly 34 hectares (ha) (83 acres (ac)) in 2008 (BLM 2010, 
pp. 8-10). In previous hand-drawn estimates, A. microcymbus occupied 
roughly 131 ha (324 ac) (CNHP 2010a).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 78518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.010

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 78519]]



                           Table 1--Summary of Astragalus Microcymbus Populations (Element Occurrences) (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of sites    Estimated number
            Population name                Population No.    (pre[dash]2004)     of individuals            Ownership                Population rank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE........................                  9            unknown                 25  private...................  Historic
Henry..................................                 10                  1                513  BLM.......................  B
Gold Basin Creek.......................                  1                  4              5,618  BLM.......................  A
South Beaver Creek.....................                  2                 39             14,317  BLM/private...............  A
Cebolla Creek..........................               none                  1            unknown  private...................  C or D
    Total..............................  .................                 45             20,473
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
  quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A historic
  rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.

    The CNHP defines an Element Occurrence of Astragalus microcymbus as 
any naturally occurring population that is separated by a sufficient 
distance or barrier from a neighboring population. More specifically, 
for A. microcymbus, a population is separated by 1.6 km (1 mi) or more 
across unsuitable habitat, or 3.2 km (2 mi) across apparently suitable 
habitat (CNHP 2010b, p. 1). Given this definition, the CNHP has four 
populations of A. microcymbus in its database (CNHP 2010b, p. 2). Of 
these four populations, one (likely the type locality) has not been 
relocated since 1985 and is considered historic. This site was 
partially searched (because of private land access) in 1994 and not 
relocated, although there have not been subsequent visits. It is 
considered historic because it has not been seen in 20 years. The site 
along Cebolla Creek has not yet been incorporated into the CNHP's 
database, but when incorporated will comprise a separate population 
based on the separation distances described above.
    While individuals of the species have been lost, we are unaware of 
the loss of any Astragalus microcymbus populations, although we are 
unsure of the status of Beaver Creek Southeast population. Two A. 
microcymbus populations comprise multiple sites (Gold Basin Creek and 
South Beaver Creek), and a few of these sites may have been extirpated 
(locally extinct). Site revisits using more accurate GPS mapping 
equipment from 2004-2008 generally re-located historical sites but 
decreased the overall footprint of most sites into smaller polygons and 
points. We roughly estimate the new mapping of polygons and points 
generally represents a reduction of about 75 percent in aerial extent 
from the original sites. We are unsure if the reduction of the site 
footprints is because of an actual contraction in the size of the 
sites, if the sites moved over time, or if it is an artifact of mapping 
efforts using improved technology. We expect it may be a combination of 
all three. At three sites in the South Beaver Creek area, no plants 
were re-located despite several survey efforts; these sites may have 
been extirpated (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10; DePrenger-
Levin 2010b, pers. comm.). In an extreme example, one site along South 
Beaver Creek (023-033-31975), was reduced from a larger 4-ha (10-ac) 
site to two small polygons that are 97 percent smaller than previously 
mapped (USFWS 2010a; pp. 1-4; BLM 2010, pp. 7-10).
    The lumping of multiple sites into populations makes sense 
biologically because it generally represents areas where genetic 
exchange is possible (e.g., populations). However, past mapping 
efforts, site assessments, and count data have often been collected for 
smaller sites within a population (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). The 
information gathered for these smaller sites is essential for tracking 
the status of the species but is somewhat problematic for an over-
arching analysis for several reasons. First, the confusion between 
numbering protocols makes it difficult to ensure that particular 
counts, habitat specifics, or threats discussed by different sources 
are from the same sites. Second, mapping methodologies have resulted in 
varying delineations, especially with the advent of GPS technology.
    For our analyses in this 12-month finding, we evaluated the sites, 
polygons, and points within Astragalus microcymbus populations, and 
created what we call units from which to conduct our analysis. We did 
this for several reasons: (1) To simplify the problems associated with 
tracking sites (i.e., different sources used different descriptors, 
making it difficult to ensure that they were talking about the same 
site); (2) to more broadly characterize and analyze the threats to the 
species' habitat (we believe that sites, polygons, and points are too 
fine scale); (3) because the polygons mapped in 2008 were on average 
much smaller than the original hand-drawn sites, we wanted to include 
more of the potential or previously occupied habitat rather than 
restricting our analysis to the 2008 mapped polygons; and (4) to 
provide for a more detailed analysis than would occur if we were to 
look at populations. To designate the units, we drew a perimeter around 
all GPS-derived polygons and points that were within 200 m (656 ft) of 
one another, and then buffered each perimeter by an additional 100 m 
(328 ft) (Figure 1; Table 2). This 100-m (328-ft) buffer was included 
so that previously occupied habitat, as drawn on maps, fell within the 
boundaries of these units. As a result of this exercise, all of the 
sites within the Gold Basin Creek population were lumped. As shown in 
Figure 1 above, this methodology divided the South Beaver Creek 
population into six separate units. The Beaver Creek Southeast 
population, located entirely on private land, is not included in our 
units because we are unsure of its exact location and current 
existence.

             Table 2--Astragalus microcymbus Units for Our Spatial Analysis in This 12-Month Finding (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4; 2010b, pp. 1-3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Est. number of
             Unit name                   Population No.            individuals               Acres                 Hectares              Ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Creek SE....................  9.....................  25....................  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  private
Henry..............................  10....................  513...................  10.8.................  4.4..................  BLM
Gold Basin Creek...................  1.....................  5,618.................  315.1................  127.5................  BLM

[[Page 78520]]

 
South Beaver Creek 1...............  2.....................  6,136.................  918.5................  371.7................  70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 2...............  2.....................  3,667.................  684.5................  277.0................  68% BLM, 32% private
South Beaver Creek 3...............  2.....................  2,464.................  163.6................  66.2.................  96% BLM, 4% private
South Beaver Creek 4...............  2.....................  778...................  24.1.................  9.75.................  70% BLM, 30% private
South Beaver Creek 5...............  2.....................  1,232.................  38.3.................  15.5.................  BLM
South Beaver Creek 6...............  2.....................  unknown...............  11.5.................  4.6..................  BLM
Cebolla Creek......................  none..................  unknown...............  24.6.................  9.9..................  6% BLM, 94% private
    TOTAL..........................  ......................  20,433*...............  2,190.8..............  886.6................  75% BLM, 25% private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Number is different from Table 1 above because the counts from two historical sites were excluded from the units.

    Comprehensive surveys for Astragalus microcymbus were conducted in 
1989 (BLM 1989a, pp. 1-31) and 1994 (Sherwood 1994, pp. 1-24). In 2008, 
the BLM conducted a comprehensive mapping effort without counts or 
population assessments (BLM 2010, p. 3). Several other efforts have 
counted individuals within certain sites (Japuntich 2010b, pers. comm.; 
DePrenger-Levin 2010b, pers. comm.; 2010c, pers. comm.; 2010d, pers. 
comm.; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Count data from various sites are 
difficult to compare because there is no way of knowing if two 
observers, during different years, travelled across similar areas, and 
if the effort between the two counts were similar. In general, counts 
in 1994 were higher than 1989 (Sherwood 1994, p. 13; USFWS 2010a, pp. 
1-4). Several other observers have subsequently returned to these sites 
and found that A. microcymbus numbers in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 
were much lower than those of 1994 and the 1980s, with many sites 
shrinking from thousands to hundreds of individuals (DBG 2010a, p. 7; 
BLM 2010, p. 3; USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). Site counts and estimates from 
the 1980s and 1990s often reported the number of A. microcymbus 
individuals as more than 500, and sometimes as more than 2,000 
individuals. Most counts in the last 5 years have been far less, 
generally under 150 individuals with only 1 count over 400 individuals 
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
    In 1989, the BLM developed a protocol to provide long-term trend 
data for selected populations of Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1989b, pp. 
1-4). They applied the protocol in select locations in 1990, 1994, and 
2008. The number of individuals between 1990 and 2008 was not 
statistically different, and both years had similar low annual 
precipitation (20 cm (8 in.)) compared to the average of 25 cm (10 in.) 
(USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8; DBG 2010a, p. 12; Western Regional Climate 
Center [WRCC] 2010a, pp. 1-8). However, there were significantly more 
plants in 1994 (three to four times) than either 1990 or 2008. 
Precipitation was higher in 1994, roughly 10 cm (4 in.) more than in 
1990 or 2008 (USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-8). We conclude that there are more 
above-ground plants in years with more precipitation.
    The DBG has been monitoring Astragalus microcymbus annually since 
1995 (Carpenter 1995, pp. 1-7; DBG 2003, pp. 1-23; 2007, pp. 1-16; 
2008, pp. 1-20; 2010a, pp. 1-17). The DBG found a decline in the number 
of A. microcymbus individuals from 1995-2009 (Figure 2), especially 
from 1995-2002 (DBG 2010a, p. 5). When comparing the first year of 
monitoring to the last, this decline is not statistically significant 
because of a partial rebound in the last few years (DBG 2010a, pp. 5, 
10-11). This decline is apparent, although not significant, when 
considering only above-ground individuals (p = 0.11) as well as when 
combining above-ground individuals with dormant individuals (p = 0.19) 
(Figure 2). Dormant individuals are unknown for the first and last 
years of the study (1995 and 2008) because of problems associated with 
finding dormant individuals in the first year, and because dormant 
individuals cannot be distinguished from dead individuals in the last 
year.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 78521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE10.011

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    In conjunction with the life-history monitoring, the DBG conducted 
a population viability analysis using data from 1995-2006. They found 
that all monitored populations of Astragalus microcymbus were in rapid 
decline, and predicted that all populations will comprise 20 
individuals or less--their definition of extinct--by 2030 (DBG 2010a, 
p. 10). This analysis has not been updated incorporating more recent 
monitoring data. However, a preliminary review for a subsequent 
population viability analysis has found still declining trends but with 
a more gradual decline that would likely delay the predicted extinction 
date (DePrenger-Levin 2010e, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the 
population viability analysis including the 2007 and 2008 data has not 
been completed. The 2009 data cannot be used because of the problems 
associated with identifying dead or dormant individuals.
    Astragalus microcymbus numbers are positively correlated with 
precipitation. In a statistical comparison, annual rainfall from August 
of the previous growing season to July of the current growing season 
positively influenced the number of A. microcymbus individuals, average 
maximum temperature in May and July negatively influenced the number of 
individuals, and rainfall in May and July positively influenced the 
number of individuals significantly (DBG 2010a, p. 6). In addition, 
rainfall in springtime months during the growing season was 
statistically correlated with more above-ground growth (DBG 2010a, p. 
6).
    Survey efforts, trend monitoring, life-history monitoring, and the 
corresponding population viability analysis all suggest that Astragalus 
microcymbus numbers are declining. In both of the more rigorous 
monitoring efforts, the decline seems to be correlated with 
precipitation. The drought in the early 2000s caused a huge decline in 
numbers, with a rebound in the later 2000s (DBG 2010a, p. 5). However, 
the very low survey numbers from this decade as compared to the 1980s 
and 1990s seem less correlated with precipitation (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-
4; WRCC 2010a, pp. 1-8). The reasons for these declines are not fully 
understood.
Habitat
    Astragalus microcymbus is found in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem 
at elevations of 2,377-2,597 meters (m) (7,800-8,520 feet (ft)). The 
plant is most commonly found on rocky or cobbly, moderate to steep (9-
38 degrees) slopes of hills and draws (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 16), 
although there are some sites that are flat. Plants are generally found 
on southeast to southwest aspects, but are occasionally found on 
northern exposures (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The average annual 
precipitation is around 25 cm (10 in.) a year, and is fairly 
consistently spread across the year, except for July and August when 
roughly twice the precipitation falls compared to the other months 
(WRCC 2010b, pp. 3, 8). Snow falls in the winter and remains on the 
ground from November/December through March/April (WRCC 2010a, pp. 3, 
8). Winters are cold with an average daily high in January of -3 [deg]C 
(26.5 [deg]F) and an average daily low of -20 [deg]C (-4.0 [deg]F). 
Summers are warmer. July is the hottest month with an average daily 
high of 27 [deg]C (81 [deg]F) and an average daily low of 6 [deg]C (44 
[deg]F) (WRCC 2010b, pp. 3-8).
    Astragalus microcymbus is found in open park-like landscapes 
dominated by several sagebrush species, cacti, sparse grasses, and 
other scattered shrubs. Shrubs are primarily represented by Artemisia 
tridentata ssp. vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush), Artemisia tridentata 
ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming sagebrush), Artemisia frigida (fringed 
sagebrush or prairie sagewort), and Artemisia nova (black sagebrush); 
cacti include Yucca harrimaniae (Spanish bayonet), and Opuntia 
polyacantha (plains pricklypear); grasses most commonly include 
Achnatherum hymenoides (formerly Oryzopsis hymenoides--Indian 
ricegrass), Elymus elymoides (formerly Sitanion hystrix--squirreltail), 
Hesperostipa comata (formerly Stipa comata--needle and thread grass), 
and Poa sp. (fescue); and the most common forbs include Cryptantha 
cinerea (James' Cryptantha)

[[Page 78522]]

and Penstemon teucrioides (germander beardtongue). Other shrubs and 
small trees found within A. microcymbus' habitat include Ribes cereum 
(wax currant), Symphoricarpos oreophilus (mountain snowberry), and 
Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper).
    Soils are well drained and vary from sandy to rocky, but are 
primarily a thin cobble-clay loam (Heil and Porter 1990, p. 13). The 
primary soils within Astragalus microcymbus units are stony rock land 
(46 percent), Lucky-Cheadle gravelly sandy loams with 5-45 percent 
slopes (39 percent), alluvial land (8 percent), and Kezar-Cathedral 
gravelly sandy loams with 5-35 percent slopes (4 percent) (Natural 
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2008; USFWS 2010b, pp. 12-13). 
Geologically, A. microcymbus is associated with: (1) Felsic and 
hornblendic gneiss (metamorphic from igneous) substrates; (2) granitic 
(igneous) rocks of 1,700 million-year age group; and (3) biotitic 
gneiss, schist, and migmatite (sedimentary) substrates with 52, 37, and 
11 percent, respectively, in each geology (Knepper et al. 1999, pp. 21-
22; USFWS 2010b, pp. 10-11).
    The areas where Astragalus microcymbus is found are generally 
distinct from surrounding habitats. They are more sparsely vegetated, 
drier than surrounding areas, more heavily occupied by cacti, and 
appear to have some specific soil properties as described above. This 
habitat is limited and patchily distributed on the landscape.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this 12-month finding, we evaluated the best scientific 
and commercial information available. Our evaluation of this 
information is presented below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant 
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined in the Act.

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

    The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or 
range of Astragalus microcymbus are discussed in this section, 
including: (1) Residential and urban development; (2) recreation, 
roads, and trails; (3) utility corridors; (4) nonnative invasive 
plants; (5) wildfire; (6) contour plowing and nonnative seedings; (7) 
livestock, deer and elk use of habitat; (8) mining, oil and gas 
leasing; (9) climate change; and (10) habitat fragmentation and 
degradation.
Residential and Urban Development
    The majority of Astragalus microcymbus is located between 3.2 and 
11 km (2 and 7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, Colorado, the largest town 
in Gunnison County (Figure 1). Rapid population growth in the rural 
Rocky Mountains, including the Gunnison area, is being driven by the 
availability of natural amenities, recreational opportunities, 
aesthetically desirable settings, grandiose viewscapes, and perceived 
remoteness (Riebsame 1996, pp. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, p. 408; 
Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 192-197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; 
Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899-1901). Gunnison County grew from 5,477 
people in 1960 to 15,048 people in 2007, constituting a 300 percent 
increase in population in less than 50 years (CensusScope 2010, pp. 1-
3; Colorado State Demography Office 2008, p. 1). The population of 
Gunnison County is predicted to more than double by 2050 to 
approximately 31,100 residents (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009, 
p. 53).
    Human population growth results in increased fragmentation of 
habitat (see Factor E below) (Theobald et al. 1996, pp. 410-412), 
increased recreation and more roads (see Recreation, Roads, and Trails 
below) (Mitchell et al. 2002, pp. 5-6; Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1899), 
more utility corridors (see Utility Corridors below), more nonnative 
invasive plants (see Nonnative Invasive Plants below) (Hansen et al. 
2005, p. 1896), and changes to ecological processes (Hansen et al. 
2005, p. 1901). A recent but common pattern of population growth in the 
Gunnison area is ``exurban'' or ``ranchette'' development. These 
ranchettes consist of larger lots (generally more than 14 ha (35 ac)) 
each with an isolated large house. This type of development, because of 
its location outside of urban footprints, may have more impacts to 
ecosystems and biodiversity than urban or urban fringe development 
(Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1903). Much of this development occurs on 
steeper slopes, like those where Astragalus microcymbus is found, where 
views are better.
    To the best of our knowledge, residential and urban development 
(aside from roads) has impacted only one Astragalus microcymbus unit: 
the Beaver Creek Southeast Unit. The original type locality along 
Highway 50 may have been lost to highway activities, and the nearby 
private lands where the plant was located in the late 1970s and early 
1980s may have been lost to a gravel pit (Sherwood 1994, pp. 18-19). No 
more than 30 plants were reported from this unit in any given year from 
1955-1994 (USFWS 2010a, p. 1). Only two A. microcymbus sites are near 
buildings: There is a cabin near one of the larger A. microcymbus sites 
within the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit (BLM 1989a, p. 31), and there is a 
house within the Cebolla Creek Unit. We do not know if construction of 
either of these structures impacted A. microcymbus.
    Twenty-five percent of the Astragalus microcymbus units are on 
private land, mostly along South Beaver Creek (Table 2). Five parcels 
of private land (with an additional parcel nearby) are currently within 
A. microcymbus units along South Beaver Creek ranging in size from 17 
to 263 ha (43 to 650 ac), only one of which has any housing or 
agricultural developments. All of these parcels are used primarily for 
livestock ranching operations that have a much lower impact than urban 
or residential development.
    These private land parcels bisect the South Beaver Creek 1 and 
South Beaver Creek 2 Units, and clip portions of the South Beaver Creek 
3 and South Beaver Creek 4 Units (USFWS 2010b, pp. 2-3). Roughly half 
of the known Astragalus microcymbus individuals are within the South 
Beaver Creek 1, 2, and 4 Units (Table 2), making them especially 
important to the conservation of the species. These three units all 
have at least 30 percent of their area on private

[[Page 78523]]

lands (Table 2), more than the average across the units of 25 percent. 
Given their proximity to town, the rapid growth predicted for Gunnison 
County (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2009, p. 53), the lack of 
undeveloped parcels in desirable locations (Gunnison County 2005, p. 
1), and their appealing views, these parcels are in a likely location 
for development and could be subdivided in the future. In addition, the 
Cebolla Creek Unit is located almost entirely on private land and is 
already partially developed.
    Residential or urban development of these parcels would likely lead 
to the destruction of Astragalus microcymbus individuals, as well as 
fragment and alter the plants' habitat. In 2005, it was estimated that 
only 30 percent of the private lands in Gunnison County remained 
undeveloped (Gunnison County 2005, p. 1). Because only 30 percent of 
the private lands in Gunnison County remain undeveloped, and because 
the population of Gunnison County is expected to double by 2050, we 
conclude that the currently undeveloped private lands where A. 
microcymbus occurs are likely to be developed by 2050. The potential 
loss of up to 25 percent of the area (habitat) and even more of the 
individuals of A. microcymbus is a significant threat for a species 
with such limited numbers and a limited range (Table 2). This 
development also would fragment the habitat, potentially isolating 
small populations from one another leading to the further loss of 
individuals.
    Currently, the impact of development on the species is relatively 
minor, consisting of the few examples provided above. Although 25 
percent of Astragalus microcymbus individuals are on private lands with 
no protective mechanisms in place for the species, little development 
is currently occurring on these private lands. However, we believe that 
the threat of development to the species may increase in the 
foreseeable future based on future human population growth. Future 
development on these lands is likely, because of the rate of growth in 
the Gunnison area. Given that Gunnison County has seen a 300 percent 
increase in population in less than 50 years, that only 30 percent of 
the private lands remain undeveloped, and A. microcymbus' close 
proximity to the town of Gunnison, we expect that some of these private 
land parcels will be developed in the next several decades. Based on 
the population projections presented above, the foreseeable future for 
development is 40 years, as the population of Gunnison County is 
predicted to more than double by 2050. Based on the above information, 
we consider residential and urban development to be a threat to the 
species in the foreseeable future.
Recreation, Roads, and Trails
    It is difficult to separate the effects of roads and trails from 
the effects of recreation where Astragalus microcymbus resides. Most 
forms of recreation within A. microcymbus' range include the use of 
roads and trails either as a form of recreation (e.g., vehicle use, 
mountain biking, or hiking) or as a way to access recreation areas 
(e.g., target shooting and rock climbing areas). For these reasons, we 
have chosen to address recreation, roads, and trails together in this 
section.
    Roads cause habitat fragmentation because they create abrupt 
transitions in vegetation; add edge to adjacent patches; are sources of 
pollutants; and act as filters (allowing some species to cross but not 
others) and barriers (prohibiting movement) (Spellerberg 1998, pp. 317-
333). Road networks contribute to exotic plant invasions via introduced 
road fill, vehicle transport of plant parts, and road maintenance 
activities (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 32; 
Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 426). Many of these invasive species are 
not limited to roadsides, but also encroach into surrounding habitats 
(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and 
Belnap 2003, p. 427).
    Aside from the indirect effects discussed above, a road typically 
removes all vegetation from about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi), 
while a single track trail removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha 
(0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) (BLM 2005a, p. 13). Roads also act as 
corridors that facilitate human interaction with species and increase 
the opportunities and the likelihood of travel across undisturbed (non-
road) areas. The recreational use of roads is on the rise. From 1991 to 
2006, off-highway vehicle registrations increased 937 percent (from 
11,744 to 109,994 within the state), with an average annual increase of 
16 percent (Summit County Off Road Riders 2009, p. 1). Recreational 
activities within the Gunnison Basin are widespread, occur during all 
seasons of the year (especially summer and hunting season), and have 
expanded as more people move to the area or come to recreate (BLM 
2009a, pp. 7-8). Motorized and mechanized use has been increasing 
within the Gunnison Basin and is expected to increase in the future 
based on increased population (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 5, 9, 85, 124-
125, 136, 158, 177, 204, 244, 254, 269, 278).
    Because Astragalus microcymbus generally occurs on slopes, it is 
somewhat protected from the further development of large roads. And 
many of the existing roads, although not all, run immediately along the 
bottom or top of sites instead of through the middle of sites. However, 
these slopes appear to be the preferred location for dirt bike and 
mountain bike trails, especially those that were user-created instead 
of formally designed. Many of the trails within the range of A. 
microcymbus are user-created and run across or up through the slopes 
where the plant is found (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). These user-created 
trails, when redesigned, often require a series of switchbacks, which 
could increase the opportunity for impacts to the plant. Travel 
management (the allocation and utilization of motorized and 
nonmotorized use), and route designation and design, both within the 
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area and outside that area, are described in 
further detail below.
    Except for the one disjunct population, all of the Astragalus 
microcymbus units are within 11 km (7 mi) of the town of Gunnison, the 
closest of which is 3.2 km (2 mi) away. This close proximity to an 
urban area makes the species more susceptible to recreational impacts 
than if it were located more remotely. The Hartman Rocks Recreation 
Area is a popular urban interface recreation area and contains roughly 
40 percent of the A. microcymbus units (BLM 2005a, p. 3; USFWS 2010b, 
pp. 4-5). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area is located between 3 and 10 
km (2 and 6 mi) from the town of Gunnison on BLM lands (BLM 2005a, p. 
3). The Hartman Rocks Recreation Area covers 3,380 ha (8,350 ac), but 
trails expand out onto adjacent lands. These lands also have A. 
microcymbus plants and habitat that are being impacted by these trails 
(BLM 2005a, p. 3).
    We have no detailed information on how much use occurs, how this 
use is increasing, or when the use is occurring in the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area. In 2005, it was estimated that the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area received 15,000-20,000 user days each year (BLM 2005a, 
p. 3). Recreation activities within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area 
include mountain biking, motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, 4-
wheeling, rock climbing, camping, trail running, horseback riding, 
cross country skiing, snowmobiling, dog sledding, hill parties, target 
shooting, hunting, paintball, and more (BLM 2005a, p. 3). We have seen 
most of these activities

[[Page 78524]]

occurring adjacent to or within Astragalus microcymbus sites (USFWS 
2010, pers. comm.).
    The BLM's Hartman Rocks Recreation Management Plan closed two 
trails and rerouted one trail to protect Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 
2005a, p. 18; Japuntich 2010c, pers. comm.). These closures were for 
trails that were directly impacting A. microcymbus individuals. The 
Aberdeen Loop trail goes very close to several A. microcymbus sites 
within the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver 
Creek 6 Units. To protect Gunnison sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat, a 
reroute of this trail is planned in the next few years that will put 
the trail further from these A. microcymbus sites (Japuntich 2010d, 
pers. comm.). Many trails are open year-round in the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area, but with less use in the winter and early spring when 
trails are snow covered or muddy. Closures during A. microcymbus' 
growing season (likely late April through August) would benefit the 
species by reducing impacts to seedlings and plants, and by lessening 
disruptions to pollinators. The Aberdeen Loop trail that runs through 
the South Beaver Creek 1, South Beaver Creek 5, and South Beaver Creek 
6 occupied A. microcymbus habitat is subject to seasonal closures for 
the Gunnison sage grouse from June 15 until August 31. This closure 
provides partial protection for A. microcymbus in the growing season.
    The South Beaver Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACEC) (also a Colorado Natural Area) was designated in 1993 by the BLM 
with the intent of protecting and enhancing existing populations of 
Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1993, pp. 2.18, 2.29; Colorado Natural 
Areas Program [CNAP] 1997, pp. 1-7). The South Beaver Creek ACEC is 
1,847 ha (4,565 ac), and includes 60 percent of the A. microcymbus 
units rangewide (BLM 1993, p. 2.18; USFWS 2010b, pp. 8-9). Seventy 
percent of the South Beaver Creek ACEC is within the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area, although the South Beaver Creek ACEC was developed at 
least 8 years prior to the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p. 
44). Because of its designation as a recreation area, the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area draws users to the area, which is in conflict with the 
ACEC's intent to protect and enhance A. microcymbus.
    When the South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated, motorized vehicle 
traffic was limited to designated routes, whereas it had previously 
been open on all lands (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). Outside the South Beaver 
Creek ACEC, all lands within the range of Astragalus microcymbus 
remained open to motorized vehicle traffic. In 2001, mechanized travel, 
including mountain bikes, on all lands within the Gunnison Resource 
Area including the South Beaver Creek ACEC and the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area was limited to designated routes (U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) and BLM 2001a, p. 3; 2001b, pp. 1-2; BLM 2005a, p. 14). This 
closure resulted in new protections for A. microcymbus from mountain 
bikes and vehicular use on BLM lands outside the South Beaver Creek 
ACEC, and from mountain bikes within the ACEC.
    Enforcement of travel designations and trail closures is difficult 
given the large area of the BLM's Gunnison Resource Area and limited 
law enforcement personnel (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259). Illegal trails 
are always an issue in well-used recreation areas (BLM 2010, p. 4). 
Furthermore, the open park-like habitat of Astragalus microcymbus makes 
it difficult to disguise trails that have been closed. Numerous 
undesignated trails running through A. microcymbus habitat are visible 
on satellite images (see below). Law enforcement with the Gunnison 
Resource Area is provided by the BLM's Montrose Area Office, which is 
located over 105 km (65 mi) away. Law enforcement within this area is 
intermittent, and tickets are rarely, if ever, issued for trespass use 
(USFS and BLM 2010, p. 259).
    As an example, the Quarry Drop trail that runs through the South 
Beaver Creek 1 Unit was closed in 2005 with the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Plan, because it ran directly through two Astragalus 
microcymbus sites (BLM 2010, p. 4). Although this trail is posted as 
closed, it was still in use during the summer of 2009, when rocks were 
placed to close the trail entrance (BLM 2010, p. 4). The Gunnison 
Trails group (a local non-profit trail-building group) and the BLM have 
increased their efforts on finding illegal trails and closing them 
before they become more established. Continued pressure from the 
recreation community for new trail construction is likely, as well as 
trespass use (BLM 2010, p. 4). In an effort to control illegal use, the 
BLM has put up educational signs where roads enter the South Beaver 
Creek ACEC explaining what A. microcymbus is and why the species and 
its habitat are important to preserve (BLM 2010, p. 6). Trails that 
have been closed are planned to be rehabilitated where they meet open 
trails during the summer of 2011 in an attempt to ensure they will no 
longer be used (Japuntich 2010d, pers. comm.).
    The BLM and the USFS finalized a joint Environmental Impact 
Statement for a Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Plan 
that includes areas on BLM lands outside the Hartman Rocks Recreation 
Area (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 1-288). This plan builds upon the Gunnison 
Travel Interim Restrictions of 2001 by closing additional routes, 
mostly for resource-related reasons (USFS and BLM 2010, p. 1). 
Astragalus microcymbus is not considered in detail in this plan, nor 
does the plan designate roads be closed specifically to protect A. 
microcymbus (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 47, 78-79). None of the closures 
proposed in the plan will benefit A. microcymbus nor do they address 
routes within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area.
    We have found roads, trails, and gravel parking areas atop 
Astragalus microcymbus individuals and polygons (USFWS 2010, pers. 
comm.). These roads, trails, and parking areas have no vegetation. A. 
microcymbus individuals can be found along the margins of these roads, 
trails, and parking areas, sometimes with tire tracks atop (USFWS 2010, 
pers. comm.). Cheatgrass is spreading from the old road bed upslope and 
into the one site where invasion is occurring (USFWS 2010, pers. 
comm.). Trails sometimes are deeply incised and eroded (USFWS 2010, 
pers. comm.).
    We conducted a spatial analysis overlaying the distribution of 
Astragalus microcymbus units with designated routes within and near the 
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area. We found 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of roads (3.5 
km (2.3 mi)) and trails (5.3 km (3.2 mi)) overlap with A. microcymbus 
units (Table 3) (BLM 2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 14-15). Through this 
mapping effort, we found four of the polygons within the Gold Basin 
Creek Unit are being directly impacted by these roads and trails (USFWS 
2010b, p. 16). We also are aware of at least three other polygons that 
are being directly impacted by roads and trails (USFWS 2010, pers. 
comm.). Estimating that a road typically removes all vegetation from 
about 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) while a single track trail 
removes all vegetation from about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) per 1.6 km (1 mi) 
(BLM 2005a, p. 13), designated roads directly impact 1.6 ha (3.9 ac) 
and designated trails directly impact 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) of habitat within 
A. microcymbus units.

[[Page 78525]]



                                          Table 3--Roads, Trails, and Paths Within Astragalus microcymbus Units
              [Designated routes are those included in the BLM's geospatial layers, undesignated are those located using satellite imagery]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Designated                             Undesignated
                        Unit name                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Total km (mi)
                                                           Roads km (mi)  Trails km (mi)   Roads km (mi)  Trails km (mi)   Paths km (mi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry...................................................      0.1 (0.06)  ..............      0.1 (0.06)      0.1 (0.06)  ..............       0.3 (0.2)
Gold Basin Creek........................................       2.2 (1.4)       1.4 (0.9)      0.1 (0.06)       0.4 (0.2)       1.3 (0.8)       5.4 (3.4)
South Beaver Creek 1....................................       1.2 (0.7)       3.5 (2.2)       6.3 (3.9)       3.4 (2.1)       1.6 (1.0)      16.0 (9.9)
South Beaver Creek 2....................................  ..............  ..............       2.4 (1.5)       0.3 (0.2)       3.6 (2.2)       6.3 (3.9)
South Beaver Creek 3....................................  ..............  ..............       0.7 (0.4)  ..............  ..............       0.7 (0.4)
South Beaver Creek 4....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
South Beaver Creek 5....................................  ..............       0.2 (0.1)  ..............  ..............  ..............       0.2 (0.1)
South Beaver Creek 6....................................  ..............       0.2 (0.1)  ..............  ..............  ..............       0.2 (0.1)
Cebolla Creek...........................................  ..............  ..............       0.6 (0.4)  ..............  ..............       0.6 (0.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (km)..........................................       3.5 (2.2)       5.3 (3.3)      10.2 (6.4)       4.2 (2.6)       6.5 (4.0)     29.7 (18.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While travel is officially limited to designated routes only on BLM 
lands, there are numerous roads, trails, and paths that are not 
designated, with some receiving regular use. Some of these roads have 
been closed, but their footprint remains. Some of these roads are on 
private lands along South Beaver Creek, but many are trails or old 
roads on BLM lands that are undesignated, that either show evidence of 
use or could be receiving use. We used the NRCS' 2005 National 
Agriculture Imagery Program satellite imagery to look for roads, 
trails, and paths in occupied Astragalus microcymbus units additional 
to those BLM roads and trails included in the analysis above. We 
designated roads, trails, and paths based on the width of the 
disturbance. Roads were the widest, trails were narrower, and paths 
were the narrowest. We found almost 21 km (13 mi) of additional roads, 
trails, and paths, including: 10.2 km (6.3 mi) of roads, 4.2 km (2.6 
mi) of trails, 6.5 km (4.0 mi) of paths (Table 3) (USFWS 2010b, pp. 21-
22). Using the BLM's estimates of direct impacts (BLM 2005a, p. 13), 
undesignated roads directly impact 4.4 ha (10.9 ac), undesignated 
trails directly impact 0.3 ha (0.8 ac), and undesignated paths directly 
impact less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of A. microcymbus habitat. Because we 
were using satellite imagery, we cannot say for certain what the level 
of use is on the trails, or even say if they are still in use. Some of 
the paths may have been livestock trails. Livestock trails may receive 
more or less use than other trails, but the effects are likely similar.
    All units except the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit have roads and 
trails. Designated and undesignated roads denude about 5.7 ha (14.1 
ac), designated and undesignated trails denude about 0.6 ha (1.6 ac), 
and undesignated paths denude less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) within Astragalus 
microcymbus units, or less than 0.8 percent (Table 4). To estimate the 
indirect effects of roads and trails, we used a 20-m (66-ft) buffer on 
either side of roads and trails. This distance represents the area 
where invasive nonnative species are most likely to invade, pollinators 
may be impacted or disturbed by passing vehicles, off-trail use is most 
likely, and impacts from dust may occur. This distance results in a 
conservative estimate of impacts, as it is probably more accurate for 
trails than roads (summarized in DBG 2010b, p. 1). Using this buffer 
distance, we estimate that roughly 14.5 percent of A. microcymbus' 
total habitat may currently be impacted by roads and trails (Table 4) 
(USFWS 2010b, pp. 23-25). We expect our 15-percent estimate is low. For 
example, plumes of dust are known to travel hundreds of meters, 
especially in arid climates (Gilles et al. 2005, p. 2346). Also, we 
expect that the two known pollinators of A. microcymbus travel at least 
100 m (328 ft) from their nests, and impacts within this area could 
impact the nests of these pollinators (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp. 589-
596). In the case of the A. microcymbus site with cheatgrass, we 
estimate that the cheatgrass invasion was facilitated by the road and 
has since moved roughly 20 m (66 ft) upslope into the site (USFWS 2010, 
pers. comm.). A 100-m (328-ft) buffer (that would better account for 
indirect dust and invasive nonnative species effects) on either side of 
these roads and trails would cover roughly 46 percent of the A. 
microcymbus units.

                 Table 4--Direct and Indirect (20 Meter (66 Foot)) Effects to Astragalus microcymbus Units From Roads, Trails, and Paths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Direct                    20-m (66-ft) buffer
                        Unit name                          Road km (mi)   Trail and path ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              km (mi)      Area ha (ac)      % of unit     Area ha (ac)      % of unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry...................................................       0.2 (0.1)      0.1 (0.06)       0.1 (0.2)             1.9       1.8 (4.6)            42.0
Gold Basin Creek........................................       2.3 (1.4)       3.1 (1.9)       1.2 (3.0)             1.0     22.7 (56.0)            17.8
South Beaver Creek 1....................................       7.5 (4.7)       8.5 (5.3)       3.8 (9.4)             1.0    69.7 (172.1)            18.7
South Beaver Creek 2....................................       2.4 (1.5)       3.9 (2.4)       1.3 (3.2)             0.5     26.9 (66.3)             9.7
South Beaver Creek 3....................................       0.7 (0.4)  ..............       0.3 (0.7)             0.4       3.2 (7.9)             4.8
South Beaver Creek 4....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
South Beaver Creek 5....................................  ..............       0.2 (0.1)     0.01 (0.02)            0.05       0.9 (2.2)             5.8
South Beaver Creek 6....................................  ..............       0.2 (0.1)     0.01 (0.02)             0.2       0.9 (2.2)            19.4
Cebolla Creek...........................................       0.6 (0.4)  ..............       0.3 (0.7)             2.8       2.7 (6.8)            27.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (km)..........................................      13.7 (8.5)      16.0 (9.9)      6.9 (17.1)             0.8   128.7 (318.1)            14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78526]]

    Given the numerous roads and trails within Astragalus microcymbus' 
habitat (impacting between 15 and 46 percent of the units), the 
dispersed and bisecting nature of these roads and trails, the numerous 
trespass trails, the likely increase in nonnative invasive plants from 
road and trail use, and the fact that a recreation area was designated 
on 40 percent of the species habitat, we find the magnitude of the 
threat from recreation, roads, and trails to be high. The threat is 
ongoing with a high likelihood that it will continue to increase over 
time. Given that off-road vehicle use in Colorado is increasing 16 
percent annually, that the population of Gunnison County is estimated 
to double by 2050, and that other recreational impacts also are 
increasing at a rapid pace, we expect a significant increase in the 
threat from recreation, roads, and trails in the next 40 years. The 
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area's Management Plan is applicable for 10-15 
years from 1995, although there is no definitive expiration date (BLM 
2005a, p. 7). We are unsure if and when an update is planned. The most 
recent Travel Management Plan (USFS and BLM 2010, entire) for the 
Gunnison Basin will have a similar lifespan. During this time period 
travel management is not likely to change while we anticipate use will 
increase. Based on the above information, we consider recreation, 
roads, and trails to be a significant threat to the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
Utility Corridors
    Utility corridors have similar effects to habitats as roads because 
both are linear disturbances (see Recreation, Roads, and Trails above 
for a review of effects). The impact from a utility corridor is greater 
than its actual footprint, because utility corridors fragment habitat 
and facilitate the invasion of nonnative invasive plants. We are aware 
of one large electrical transmission line in Astragalus microcymbus 
habitat. The Curecanti to Poncha 230-kilovolt electrical transmission 
line bisects the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit and was built in 1962 
(Japuntich 2010e, pers. comm.). A 500-foot right-of-way (ROW) (largely 
not disturbed) is on both sides of the power line (Japuntich 2010e, 
pers. comm.), which overlays with about 38 ha (94 ac) or 10 percent of 
the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit and 4 percent of the total area of all A. 
microcymbus units. Only a small proportion of the 500-foot ROW is 
disturbed. We estimate 1.2 km (0.75 mi) of transmission line with at 
least six large structures (power poles) within the unit. Given the 
close proximity of A. microcymbus individuals to the transmission line, 
we assume some individuals were impacted during construction. At least 
one access road to a power pole also provides vehicular access to an A. 
microcymbus site where plants are being impacted by vehicles driving on 
them. This transmission line is used recreationally by snowmobile 
riders in the winter (BLM 2005a, p. 53). We do not know if there are 
any impacts to A. microcymbus from these snowmobiling activities. 
Direct impacts seem unlikely from the snowmobiling because the plants 
are dormant and under snow when the use is occurring. Compaction to the 
habitat is a possibility.
    Future ROW developments are allowed in the South Beaver Creek ACEC 
provided that the surface disturbance does not impair or degrade 
Astragalus microcymbus sites (BLM 1993, p. 2.30). The one known utility 
corridor impacts only one A. microcymbus unit, representing 4 percent 
of the total rangewide area within units. Given the population growth 
in the area, we believe there is a moderate likelihood of additional 
utility corridors in the future. We are unaware of any plan to develop 
other utility corridors through A. microcymbus habitat. Although an 
existing utility corridor in A. microcymbus habitat may impact a small 
percentage of the overall range of the species, we have no information 
to indicate that utility corridors occur at a level that threatens the 
species now or in the foreseeable future.
Nonnative Invasive Plants
    Nonnative invasive plants (weeds) invade and alter all types of 
plant communities, sometimes resulting in nonnative plant monocultures 
that support little wildlife or native plants. Many experts believe 
that, following habitat destruction, nonnative invasive plants are the 
next greatest threat to biodiversity (Randall 1996, pp. 370-383). 
Nonnative invasive plants alter different ecosystem attributes 
including geomorphology, fire regime, hydrology, microclimate, nutrient 
cycling, and productivity (Dukes and Mooney 2004, pp. 411-437). 
Nonnative invasive plants can detrimentally affect native plants 
through competitive exclusion, altered pollinator behaviors, niche 
displacement, hybridization, and changes in insect predation. Invasive 
grasses can replace native plants such as Astragalus microcymbus by 
outcompeting them for resources, such as soil nutrients or moisture 
(Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 6). Examples are widespread among taxa and 
locations or ecosystems (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87; Olson 
1999, pp. 6-18; Mooney and Cleland 2001, pp. 5446-5451).
    The only nonnative invasive plant species that has been documented 
impacting Astragalus microcymbus is cheatgrass or downy brome (Bromus 
tectorum). Cheatgrass has become dominant in many sagebrush areas 
during the last century, primarily from livestock use, agriculture, and 
wildfire impacts (Pickford 1932, p. 165; Piemeisel 1951, p. 71; Peters 
and Bunting 1994, p. 34; Vail 1994, pp. 3-4; Brooks and Pyke 2001, pp. 
4-6; Menakis et al. 2003, p. 284). Cheatgrass displaces native plants 
by prolific seed production, early germination, and superior 
competitive abilities for the extraction of water and nutrients 
(Pellant 1996, pp. 3-4; Pyke 2007, pp. 1-2). Cheatgrass is capable of 
modifying ecosystems by altering the soil temperatures and soil water 
distribution (Pellant 1996, p. 4). In addition, the invasion of 
cheatgrass increases fire frequency within the sagebrush ecosystem (see 
Wildfire below) (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p. 
39).
    In the mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen in very small patches 
in the Gunnison Basin but can now be found in some abundance throughout 
the Basin (BLM 2009a, pp. 7-8). Cheatgrass is increasing in the South 
Beaver Creek drainage and has been identified as a major threat to 
Astragalus microcymbus. This threat assessment was made because of how 
cheatgrass is rapidly expanding elsewhere in the Gunnison Basin (BLM 
2010, p. 5). Cheatgrass is moving upslope into A. microcymbus areas 
(BLM 2010, p. 5). In 2009, nine polygons within the South Beaver Creek 
1 Unit were discovered with cheatgrass totaling 0.2 ha (0.6 ac) (USFWS 
2010b, pp. 16-17). These polygons did not exist 4 years prior to their 
discovery (Japuntich 2010f, pers. comm.). In 2010, another small site 
of cheatgrass was mapped immediately adjacent to the South Beaver Creek 
5 Unit, and a 9-ha (22-ac) site with cheatgrass was located 250 m (820 
ft) away from the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit (Japuntich 2010f, pers. 
comm.).
    Herbicide use to control cheatgrass in the South Beaver Creek is 
limited by the close proximity of South Beaver Creek, because chemical 
spraying within the South Beaver Creek ACEC is not allowed, and 
vegetative treatments in the South Beaver Creek ACEC must not adversely 
affect Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 1993, p. 2.29; BLM 2010, p. 6). In 
the spring of 2010, the BLM conducted a mechanical removal

[[Page 78527]]

effort for cheatgrass to protect A. microcymbus at the South Beaver 
Creek 1 Unit at the nine polygons mentioned above (BLM 2010, pers. 
comm.). A manual hand-pulling effort in 2010 that treated several acres 
of cheatgrass was partially successful (Japuntich 2010g, pers. comm.). 
Cheatgrass spread also may be affected by climate change (see Climate 
Change below).
    Other nonnative invasive species known from the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area include: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scentless 
chamomile (Matriacaria perforata), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), 
and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) (BLM 2005a, p. 47). These 
species have not been reported from or near Astragalus microcymbus 
areas and are said to have been controlled (BLM 2005a, p. 47). We 
expect other nonnative invasive species are likely in the area. Other 
nonnative invasive species known from the Gunnison Resource Area that 
are reported to take over large areas include: spotted knapweed 
(Centaurea maculosa), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), and field 
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (BLM 2009a, p. 7). The following weeds 
also are known from the Gunnison Basin, where they are currently 
limited in extent; however, they are known to cover large expanses in 
other parts of western North America: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea 
diffusa), and whitetop (Cardaria draba). Other invasive plant species 
present within the Gunnison Basin that are problematic yet less likely 
to overtake large areas include: musk thistle (Carduus nutans), bull 
thistle (Cirsium vulgare), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), kochia 
(Kochia sp.), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and absinth wormwood 
(Artemisia biennis) (BLM 2009a, p. 7; Gunnison Watershed Weed 
Commission (GWWC) 2009, pp. 4-6).
    We believe the invasion of nonnative invasive plants, particularly 
cheatgrass, is likely to be a threat to A. microcymbus in the near 
future because: (1) Cheatgrass appears to be quickly expanding into the 
habitat (it was unknown just 2 years ago and there are several 
cheatgrass sites nearby now); (2) the dry, sparsely-vegetated, south-
facing slopes where A. microcymbus is found are the warmest sites with 
little competition from other native vegetation (Japuntich 2010h, pers. 
comm.) and, therefore, are inherently vulnerable to cheatgrass 
invasion; (3) cheatgrass likely competes with seedlings and resprouting 
adult plants for water and nutrients; (4) no landscape-scale successful 
control methods are available for cheatgrass; and (5) the proven 
ability of cheatgrass to increase fire frequency, thereby facilitating 
further rapid spread. We conclude that cheatgrass invasion is currently 
not a threat but we expect that the existing invasion will increase 
quickly in the near future, and will likely cause fire frequency to 
increase.
Wildfire
    To date, we are aware of only one recent wildfire near Astragalus 
microcymbus habitat (BLM2009a, p. 6). The wildfire burned in 2007 and 
was 8.1 ha (20 ac) (BLM 2009a, p. 6) in size. The fire burned at a 
distance of 2-2.5 km (1.25-1.5 mi) away from two A. microcymbus units-
Henry and Gold Basin Creek. This wildfire was just outside the 
northwest edge of the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, adjacent to 
private land. Three wildfires have burned within the sagebrush of the 
Gunnison Basin in the last 15 years, the biggest was 200 ha (500 ac) 
(Japuntich 2010h, pers. comm.). To date there has not been a 
demonstrated change in the fire cycle where A. microcymbus is found, 
and fire frequency is low.
    A common result of the invasion of cheatgrass is an increase in 
fire frequency within the sagebrush ecosystem (Whisenant 1990, pp. 4-
10; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87; Hilty et al. 2004, pp. 89-
96; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p. 39). 
Cheatgrass changes historical fire patterns by providing an abundant 
and easily ignitable fuel source that facilitates fire spread. While 
sagebrush is killed by fire and is slow to reestablish, cheatgrass 
recovers within 1-2 years of a fire event (Young and Evans 1978, p. 
285). This annual recovery ultimately leads to a reoccurring fire cycle 
that prevents sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et al. 2009, p. 
1324). The highly invasive nature of cheatgrass poses increased risk of 
fire and permanent loss of sagebrush habitat, as areas disturbed by 
fire are highly susceptible to further invasion and ultimately habitat 
conversion to an altered community state. For example, Link et al. 
(2006, p. 116) show that risk of fire increases from approximately 46-
100 percent when ground cover of cheatgrass increases from 12-45 
percent or more. While cheatgrass cover is still very low within 
Astragalus microcymbus habitat, within the Intermountain West, invasion 
has occurred rapidly, especially after wildfire.
    Organisms adapt to disturbances such as historical wildfire regimes 
(fire frequency, intensity, and seasonality) with which they have 
evolved (Landres et al. 1999, p. 1180), and different species respond 
differently to wildfire (Hessl and Spackman 1995, pp. 1-90). We do not 
know what Astragalus microcymbus' response to wildfire is at this time 
because none of the species' habitat has burned. Other Astragalus 
species have demonstrated varying responses to wildfire (see A. 
schmolliae below; and A. anserinus in 74 FR 46526-46529, September 10, 
2009). If fire frequency increases in the area, we expect it would have 
deleterious effects to the habitat, given that big sagebrush recovers 
slowly, which would presumably affect the ecosystem, and cheatgrass 
tends to thrive after a wildfire.
    We have no information to indicate that wildfires currently occur 
at levels that impact the species. No fires have burned Astragalus 
microcymbus habitat. However, wildfires have occurred in the area. 
Furthermore, we realize there is a strong relationship between 
cheatgrass invasions and fire frequency. If cheatgrass invasion 
continues to expand as discussed above, the threat of wildfire is 
likely to increase in the future. Given the small population size of A. 
microcymbus and the potential damage a wildfire could cause, we 
consider future wildfires to be a threat to the species.
Contour Plowing and Nonnative Seedings
    Areas within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Areas (but largely 
outside of the Astragalus microcymbus units) have been subject to 
contour plowing and the subsequent seeding of nonnative species, as 
well as the development of silt and water impoundment structures (BLM 
2005a, p. 57), which can destroy A. microcymbus habitat. Contour 
plowing is the past practice of plowing across a slope following 
elevation lines and is commonly done to prevent soil erosion. We are 
unsure why contour plowing and seeding efforts were undertaken near A. 
microcymbus habitat but expect that erosion control and improving 
livestock forage may have been the primary reasons for these efforts. 
We have no site-specific data regarding these activities, nor do we 
know when they occurred. We expect the contour plowing was done to 
improve range conditions by eliminating sagebrush and increasing 
grazing and drought-tolerant grasses for forage by livestock. The 
contour lines from these efforts can be seen through satellite imagery 
and occur largely on BLM-managed lands. Within the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area, we estimate that roughly 18 percent (617 ha (1,524 
ac)) have been contour plowed. Only 1.2 percent (11 ha (27 ac)) of the 
A. microcymbus units have been

[[Page 78528]]

contour plowed and seeded, all within the Gold Basin Creek (USFWS 
2010b, pp. 18-19). These contoured areas surround the Gold Basin Creek 
Unit, but there is very little overlap. We are unsure the impact that 
these contour efforts may have had on A. microcymbus in the past. We 
speculate there may have been an impact to the species from these 
seeding efforts in the past given that there is very little overlap 
between the Gold Basin Creek Unit and the contoured areas, despite the 
contoured areas surrounding the unit on the east, north and west sides 
(USFWS 2010b, p. 19).
    These contoured areas were seeded with crested wheatgrass 
(Agropyron cristatum). Most areas where Astragalus microcymbus is found 
do not overlap with sites where crested wheatgrass is found in 
abundance (USFWS 2010b, pp. 18-19). Crested wheatgrass is commonly 
found outside the contoured areas at the Gold Basin Creek and Henry 
Units (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.), and we assume it has spread into these 
adjacent native habitats from the contoured areas. Crested wheatgrass 
is often used for rangeland seedings because seed is widely available, 
it establishes easily, provides suitable forage for livestock, provides 
some erosion control, and controls competition from other nonnative 
invasive plants (Walker and Shaw 2005, p. 56). Crested wheatgrass is 
extremely competitive and can out-compete other vegetation in several 
ways (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 82-83). Grasses, such as crested 
wheatgrass, are wind pollinated and, therefore, do not provide 
resources such as nectar or edible pollen for pollinators.
    The contour plowings and seedings of crested wheatgrass affect only 
a small proportion (1.2 percent) of the Astragalus microcymbus units. 
The likelihood of future seedings is low because vegetative treatments 
that would adversely affect A. microcymbus are no longer allowed (BLM 
1993, p. 2.29). Because crested wheatgrass continues to invade native 
habitats from these seedings, and because the plowed areas may not 
provide good floral resources for pollinators, we find these continuing 
effects of past contour plowing and nonnative seeding to impact the 
species but not to the point where it poses a threat to the continued 
existence of the species. We expect crested wheatgrass and pollinator 
impacts to continue into the foreseeable future since it does not 
appear that the crested wheatgrass is disappearing.
Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat
    Livestock Use--Potential threats related to livestock, deer, and 
elk use include the eating of individual plants (included in Factor C 
below), physical effects from the trampling, and the indirect effects 
of habitat degradation. We are unaware of any research or monitoring 
that has evaluated the effects of livestock, deer, or elk use on 
Astragalus microcymbus. However, the deleterious effects of livestock 
on western arid ecosystems are well documented (Milchunas et al. 1992, 
pp. 520-531; Jones 2000, pp. 155-164). Some of the adverse effects from 
livestock include changes in the timing and availability of pollinator 
food plants (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp. 298-299); changes to insect 
communities (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp. 298-299; Debano 2006, pp. 
2547-2564); damage to ground-nesting pollinators and their nests 
(Sugden 1985, p. 309); changes in water infiltration due to soil 
compaction (Jones 2000, Table 1); disturbance to soil microbiotic 
crusts (Belnap et al. 1999, p. 167; Jones 2000, Table 1); subsequent 
nonnative invasive plant invasions (Parker et al. 2006, pp. 1459-1461); 
and soil erosion from hoof action (Jones 2000, Table 1).
    Without any species-specific research or monitoring of livestock 
use, our understanding of impacts to Astragalus microcymbus is limited 
and observational in nature. Little livestock grazing has been recorded 
within A. microcymbus areas; most plants are located on steep slopes 
with little vegetation that do not draw cows to them (BLM 2010, p. 4). 
We expect that the plant was always found primarily on slopes, but do 
not know if the current distribution has been influenced by increased 
livestock use in flatter areas. In 2008, after visiting all A. 
microcymbus sites, only one appeared to have been directly grazed by 
livestock (BLM 2010, p. 5). Several observers have attributed increased 
erosion within A. microcymbus sites to cattle use, but this impact also 
could be from deer or elk use (CNHP 2010a, pp. 12, 27, 32). Grazing 
utilization levels were reportedly low in 1994 but physical damage to 
A. microcymbus individuals from trampling at two sites was noted 
(Sherwood 1994, pp. 11, 17, 20). In another review, the authors 
speculated the periodicity and intensity of grazing may influence the 
success of A. microcymbus by the removal of individuals and ground 
cover, thereby influencing seedling success (Peterson et al. 1981, p. 
16). Numerous livestock trails, feces, and tracks were found within 
most A. microcymbus sites visited in 2010 (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). 
Within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, overall plant cover has been 
reduced by historic excessive livestock grazing, drought, grazing 
during the extreme drought years of 1990 through 1992, 2000, and 2001, 
and the physical impacts from roads and trails (BLM 2005a, p. 56).
    Although grazing damage is minimal, all Astragalus microcymbus 
areas receive at least some livestock use. Aside from the Cebolla Creek 
Unit, all units on BLM lands are either in the Gold Basin or Iola 
grazing allotments and are actively grazed by cattle. Those units with 
private lands also are grazed on their private portions. In total, 56.1 
percent of the A. microcymbus units fall within the Gold Basin 
allotment and 43.9 percent fall within the Iola allotment, with no 
ungrazed areas (BLM 2010; USFWS 2010b, pp. 6-7). Within the South 
Beaver Creek ACEC, no additional forage allocations, beyond those 
already authorized for the allotments will be made and domestic sheep 
grazing will not be authorized (BLM 2005a, pp. 2-29 to 2-30).
    Fences and water developments have been constructed within the 
range of Astragalus microcymbus to help manage livestock grazing 
activities, increase the number of livestock that the landscape can 
support, keep animals in specific areas, and distribute grazing more 
evenly on the landscape (BLM 2005a, p. 12). All of the pastures are 
fenced, so the four A. microcymbus units with multiple pastures or 
allotments also have fences (Gold Basin Creek, South Beaver Creek 1, 
South Beaver Creek 2, and South Beaver Creek 3).
    Water developments occur across the range of Astragalus microcymbus 
(Japuntich 2010i, pers. comm.). One water development is within 300 m 
(985 ft) of the Henry Unit: one is within and three are just outside 
the Gold Basin Creek Unit; and an additional three developments are 
just outside the unit: one within the South Beaver Creek 1 Unit; and 
one within 400 m (1,312 ft) of the South Beaver Creek 6 Unit (Japuntich 
2010i, pers. comm.). Within the Henry Unit, several livestock trails 
run through the A. microcymbus site. We assume these trails are from 
livestock travelling to and from the water development 300 m (985 ft) 
away and expect that similar effects are occurring from the other water 
developments listed above. Water developments concentrate livestock use 
in areas near these developments, and fence lines often funnel 
livestock, and even deer and elk, into certain areas that will receive 
a disproportionate amount of use. We do not have further information 
regarding whether the close proximity of water developments or fence 
lines is causing increased impacts

[[Page 78529]]

to A. microcymbus habitat, but we expect this is the case because there 
are several fences running through sites and because livestock grazing 
is found atop all sites.
    In addition, salt blocks draw livestock (and deer and elk) to the 
areas where they are placed. We know of one instance where a salt block 
has been placed within an Astragalus microcymbus site. This area was 
extensively trampled, there were fewer A. microcymbus individuals in 
trampled areas than surrounding polygons, and those plants that 
remained were located almost exclusively under shrubs (USFWS 2010, 
pers. comm.). Trails to and from the salt block were impacting adjacent 
A. microcymbus polygons (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). We do not know of 
any protective mechanisms to prevent salt block placement within A. 
microcymbus sites and expect this may be occurring elsewhere.
    The Gold Basin allotment is authorized for use between May 16 and 
September 30 each year, but is used from May 25-July 31, the time when 
Astragalus microcymbus is growing and reproducing, in most years (BLM 
2010, p. 5). Pastures used by cow/calf pairs are generally used for 5-
15 days a year and those used by yearlings are generally used for 15-30 
days each year. Pastures are rested occasionally some years, although 
when and how often this occurs is unknown. The Gold Basin allotment is 
permitted for 4,253 animal unit months (AUMs) a year but has averaged 
1,405 AUMs over the last 6 years. Approximately 30 percent of the AUMs 
are within the pastures where A. microcymbus units are located (BLM 
2010, p. 5). In 2007, this allotment was found to have heavy use in 
some riparian areas and poor herbaceous cover in the lowest elevation 
uplands, where A. microcymbus would be found. These results were 
attributed to historic vegetation manipulation and livestock grazing 
practices (BLM 2009b, pp. 1-2). Given that damage is occurring at lower 
than permitted stocking rates and shorter than permitted periods of 
time, the potential for further damage exists.
    The Iola allotment is authorized for use between May 15 and 
November 14 each year, but is used from late May/early June (sometimes 
late June/early July) generally 15-20 days in most years (BLM 2009b, 
pp. 1-2; BLM 2010, p. 5). These times again coincide with the time when 
Astragalus microcymbus is growing and reproducing. The permittee is 
authorized up to 1,258 AUMs in the pasture, but has used an average of 
250 AUMs for the last 6 years (BLM 2010, p. 5). A new allotment 
management plan and grazing system was developed for this allotment in 
2002. During this analysis, grass cover was below potential, and 
riparian vegetation was being consistently grazed to less than 10 cm (4 
in.) (BLM 2009b, pp. 1-2). Again, given that damage is occurring at 
lower than permitted stocking rates and shorter than permitted periods 
of time, the potential for further damage exists.
    Deer and Elk Use--Livestock impacts to the habitat are similar to 
those impacts to the habitat caused by excessive deer and elk use 
(Japuntich et al. in press, pp. 1-15). For example, Hobbs et al. (1996, 
pp. 200-217) documented a decline in available perennial grasses as elk 
densities increased. All Astragalus microcymbus areas are within areas 
that receive deer and elk use. Grazing and browsing by deer and elk 
occurs primarily during the winter months when there is less snow in 
the valley than the surrounding hills. Deer numbers have seen a strong 
increase in the Gunnison Basin since 1999 (Gunnison-Crested Butte 2010, 
p. 2). A. microcymbus is found within the Powderhorn Creek Game 
Management Unit (deer). In 2005, this unit had between 600 and 1,600 
more deer than its objective of 4,500-5,500 individuals (Colorado 
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2006, p. 3). Since 1980, deer numbers 
within this unit have been as high as 8,000 individuals in 1993 and as 
low as 4,500 individuals in 1984; and averaging near 7,000 individuals 
from 2000 to 2005 (CDOW 2006, p. 3). From 1980 to 2000, elk numbers in 
the Lake Fork Managment Unit (where A. microcymbus is found) rose from 
5,600 individuals to 9,256 individuals; both numbers are substantially 
greater than the 3,000-3,500 population objective (CDOW 2001, pp. 3, 
appendix A). Currently in the Gunnison Basin, deer and elk populations 
have 8,000 more individuals than the desired population objectives 
(Japuntich et al. in press, p. 4).
    Excessive but localized deer and elk grazing has been documented in 
the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2005b, pp. 17-18). For example, drought and big 
game were having large impacts on the survivability and size of high-
protein shrubs including mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus utahensis), 
bitterbrush (Pushia tridentata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier 
alnifolia) in the Gunnison Basin (Japuntich et al. in press, pp. 7-9). 
These shrub species are not the most common within A. microcymbus 
habitat but are generally found nearby. These authors raised concerns 
that observed reductions in shrub size and vigor will reduce drifting 
snow accumulation resulting in decreased moisture availability to 
grasses and forbs during the spring melt, affecting the overall 
composition of the plant community.
    Impacts to Astragalus microcymbus habitat from deer and elk are 
occurring. For example, extensive moderate to severe hedging of shrubs, 
attributed to fairly heavy concentrations of wintering big game 
animals, has been documented at one A. microcymbus site in the South 
Beaver Creek 5 Unit (Sherwood 1994, p. 16). Deer and elk feces can be 
found at most A. microcymbus sites (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). Deer and 
elk use occurs primarily in the winter when A. microcymbus is dormant, 
which minimizes some of the direct effects to the plants. However, deer 
and elk are more likely to spend time on steeper slopes than livestock 
and so may cause more direct trampling impacts to A. microcymbus 
habitat including soils, seed banks, and plant communities.
    Summary of Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use--Describing livestock, 
deer, and elk use is complicated because the management of these 
animals is complicated. Although we lack good monitoring data, we find 
livestock, deer, and elk use of Astragalus microcymbus habitat to be a 
threat to the species. We have made this determination based upon 
observations that suggest moderate use levels from livestock and heavy 
deer and elk use in the winter. Use from livestock, deer, and elk is 
virtually ubiquitous across the range of the species, and habitat 
degradation is occurring, although we recognize that these indirect 
effects to A. microcymbus habitat are difficult to quantify. Authorized 
AUMs are significantly greater than those currently utilized. If 
livestock use were to increase, this threat would increase in the 
foreseeable future. The current number of deer and elk is above 
population objectives, and past fluctuations suggest that more animals 
are a possibility, which would also increase this threat in the 
foreseeable future. In addition, the accompanying habitat degradation 
with livestock, deer, and elk use makes this an increasing threat 
especially in light of the cheatgrass invasion.
Mining; Oil and Gas Leasing
    The South Beaver Creek ACEC has one active lode claim and one 
active placer claim for mining. Lode claims are those which generally 
follow some deposited vein while placer mining is everything else and 
can include sand and gravel deposits. One of these active claims is 
within the Gold Basin Creek Unit, and the other is nearby. Neither of 
these claims have Notices of Intent or Plans of Operation that are 
required for most disturbances (BLM 2010, pp. 5-6).

[[Page 78530]]

On active claims, Notices of Intent are required for disturbances less 
than 2 ha (5 ac) at least 15 days prior to commencement of operation. A 
Plan of Operation, required for disturbances greater than 2 ha (5 ac), 
requires NEPA compliance and can take between 30 and 90 days to 
process. The transfer of these mineral claims to private entities is 
prohibited within the South Beaver Creek ACEC (BLM 1993, p. 2-29). A 
large gravel pit is at the northwest corner of the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area on BLM lands and is within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Henry 
and Gold Basin Creek Units. Because of this distance, we expect there 
are probably no effects to A. microcymbus from this gravel operation. A 
gravel pit was said to be on private lands at the Beaver Creek 
Southeast Unit, but we have no further information and, based on our 
maps, do not make a similar conclusion (Sherwood 1994, p. 15).
    No lands for oil and gas development have been leased by the BLM 
within the Gunnison Basin area (USFS and BLM 2010, pp. 272-273). All 
habitats where Astragalus microcymbus is currently found are mapped as 
having no potential for oil and gas development (Gunnison Sage-Grouse 
Resource Steering Committee 2005, p. 130). Despite this lack of 
potential, the entire Federal oil, gas, and geothermal estates in the 
South Beaver Creek ACEC are open to leasing but with a controlled 
surface use stipulation (BLM 1993, pp. 2.29, K.5). This stipulation 
requires that inventories be conducted prior to the approval of 
operations and relocations of operations. These inventories will be 
used to prepare mitigative measures to reduce the impacts of surface 
disturbance to the species (BLM 1993, p. K.5).
    Given that there are only two existing active mining claims (but 
without current activity) within Astragalus microcymbus units and that 
there is no potential for oil and gas development in the area, we do 
not consider mining or oil and gas leases to threaten the species at 
this time nor do we expect these factors to pose a threat to the 
species in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
``Warming of the climate system in recent decades is unequivocal, as is 
now evident from observations of increases in global average air and 
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising 
global sea level'' (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Average Northern Hemisphere 
temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very 
likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 
2007, p. 30). Over the past 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and 
frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and 
hot nights have become more frequent. Heat waves have become more 
frequent over most land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation 
events has increased over most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 30). For the 
southwestern region of the United States, including western Colorado, 
warming is occurring more rapidly than elsewhere in the country (Karl 
et al. 2009, p. 129). Annual average temperature in west-central 
Colorado increased 3.6 [deg]C (2 [deg]F) over the past 30 years, but 
high variability in annual precipitation precludes the detection of 
long-term trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 5). At one weather station in 
Gunnison, Colorado, temperature has increased roughly 1.8 [deg]C (1 
[deg]F) since 1900 (WRCC 2010c, pp. 1-9).
    Future projections for the southwestern United States, including 
the Gunnison Basin, show increased probability of drought (Karl et al. 
2009, pp. 129-134). Additionally, the number of days over 32 [deg]C (90 
[deg]F) could double by the end of the century (Karl et al. 2009, p. 
34). Annual temperature is predicted to increase approximately 2.2 
[deg]C (4 [deg]F) in the southwest by 2050, with summers warming more 
than winters (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Projections also show declines 
in snowpack across the West with the most dramatic declines at lower 
elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). 
Overall, future projections for the Southwest predict increased 
temperatures, more intense and longer-lasting heat waves, an increased 
probability of drought that are worsened by higher temperatures, 
heavier downpours, increased flooding, and increased erosion (Karl et 
al. 2009, pp. 129-134).
    Colorado's complex, mountainous topography results in a high degree 
of spatial variability across the State. As a result, localized climate 
projections are problematic for mountainous areas because current 
global climate models are unable to capture this variability at local 
or regional scales (Ray et al. 2008, pp. 7, 20). To obtain climate 
projections specific to the range of Astragalus microcymbus, we used a 
statistically downscaled model from the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research for a region covering western Colorado. The resulting 
projections indicate that temperature could increase an average of 2.5 
[deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) by 2050 with the following seasonal increases: 
summer (July through September) 2.8 [deg]C (5.0 [deg]F), fall (October 
through December) 2.2 [deg]C (4.0 [deg]F), winter (January through 
March) 2.3 [deg]C (4.1 [deg]F), and spring (April through June) 2.5 
[deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) (University Corporation of Atmospheric Research 
(UCAR) 2009, pp. 1-14). This increase in temperature could be 
problematic for A. microcymbus because the species is negatively 
affected by warm temperatures during May and July (DBG 2010a, p. 6).
    Annual mean precipitation projections for Colorado are unclear; 
however, multi-model averages show a shift toward increased winter 
precipitation and decreased spring and summer precipitation by the end 
of the century (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl et al. 2009, p. 30). 
Similarly, the National Center for Atmospheric Research results show 
the highest probability of a 7.5 percent increase in average winter 
(January through March) precipitation, an 11.4 percent decrease in 
average spring (April through June) precipitation, a 2.1 percent 
decrease in average summer (July through September) precipitation, and 
a 1.3 percent increase in average fall precipitation with an overall 
very slight decrease in 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1-14). Seasonal trends 
from the past 100 years at a local weather station do not yet match 
this scenario, and overall precipitation has declined by roughly 2 cm 
(0.75 in.) or 10 percent (WRCC 2010a, pp. 1-8). This actual data is in 
contrast to regional maps that show precipitation has increased roughly 
5 percent from 1958 to 2008 within the general area where Astragalus 
microcymbus resides (Karl et al. 2009, p. 30). A. microcymbus responds 
negatively to declines in overall precipitation and periods of drought, 
as well as declines in spring precipitation (May and July) (DBG 2010a, 
p. 6). Given the observed decline in precipitation at a local weather 
station, predictions of increased drought, and a predicted significant 
decline in spring precipitation, we expect A. microcymbus will be 
affected negatively by climate change effects to precipitation.
    Climate change is likely to alter fire frequency, community 
assemblages, and the ability of nonnative species to proliferate. 
Increasing temperature as well as changes in the timing and amount of 
precipitation will alter the competitive advantage among plant species 
(Miller et al. in press, p. 44), and may shift individual species and 
ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. 2001, p. 174). Dominant plant 
species such as big sagebrush have a disproportionate control over 
resources

[[Page 78531]]

in ecosystems (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 1). For sagebrush communities, 
spring and summer precipitation comprises the majority of the moisture 
available to species; thus, the interaction between reduced 
precipitation in the spring-summer growing season and increased summer 
temperatures will likely decrease growth of big sagebrush and could 
result in a significant long-term reduction in the distribution and 
composition of sagebrush communities (Miller et al. in press, pp. 41-
45). In the Gunnison Basin, increased summer temperature was strongly 
correlated with reduced growth of big sagebrush (Poore et al. 2009, p. 
558). Although we do not fully understand how changes in plant 
communities will affect Astragalus microcymbus, we expect that a 
decrease in the dominant plant species will not be a benefit because it 
could drastically alter the way the ecosystem functions where A. 
microcymbus resides. In addition, changes in the plant community could 
likely influence wildfire frequency and erosion rates.
    Temperature increases may increase the competitive advantage of 
cheatgrass in higher elevation areas where it is currently limited 
(Miller et al. in press, p. 47), like the Gunnison Basin. Decreased 
summer precipitation, as predicted in the model, reduces the 
competitive advantage of summer perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush 
cover, and subsequently increases the likelihood of cheatgrass invasion 
(Prevey et al. 2009, pp. 1-13). This impact could increase the 
susceptibility of areas within Astragalus microcymbus' range to 
cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204). In addition, cheatgrass and 
other C3 grasses (C3 refers to one of three alternative photosynthetic 
pathways) are likely to thrive as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases 
(Mayeux et al. 1994, p. 98). An increase in cheatgrass would likely 
increase wildfire frequency. See Nonnative Invasive Plants above for a 
discussion of cheatgrass and effects to A. microcymbus.
    Climate change predictions are based on models with assumptions, 
and are not absolute. In addition, we do not fully understand how 
climate change will affect the species or the habitat in which it 
resides. These factors make it difficult to predict the effects of 
climate change to Astragalus microcymbus. However, endemic species with 
limited ranges that are adapted to localized conditions, like A. 
microcymbus, are expected to be more severely impacted by climate 
change (Midgley et al. 2002, p. 448) than those considered habitat 
generalists. Furthermore, we expect the predicted increases in spring 
temperature, increased drought, and decreased spring precipitation will 
affect A. microcymbus negatively. Climate change has the potential to 
change the plant community, allow cheatgrass to increase, and 
potentially increase the risk of wildfire, which would likely have a 
negative effect to A. microcymbus. It is difficult to assess the threat 
of climate change to A. microcymbus given the uncertainties associated 
with future projections. However, based on the best available 
information on climate change projections into the next 40 years, we 
find climate change to be a threat to A. microcymbus based on how 
predicted changes could negatively influence the species. We recognize 
there are many uncertainties, and projections further into the future 
become even more uncertain, making it even more difficult to predict 
how climate change might affect the species.
Habitat Fragmentation and Degradation
    Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on biological 
populations. Often fragments are not of sufficient size to support the 
natural diversity prevalent in an area and so exhibit a decline in 
biodiversity (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 50-54). Habitat fragments 
are often functionally smaller than they appear because edge effects 
(such as increased nonnative species or wind speeds) impact the 
available habitat within the fragment (Lienert and Fischer 2003, p. 
597). Habitat fragmentation has been shown to disrupt plant-pollinator 
interactions and predator-prey interactions (Steffan-Dewenter and 
Tscharntke 1999, pp. 432-440), alter seed germination percentages 
(Menges 1991, pp. 158-164), and result in low fruit set (Cunningham 
2000, pp. 1149-1152). Extensive habitat fragmentation can result in 
dramatic fluxes in available solar radiation, water, and nutrients 
(Saunders et al. 1991, pp. 18-32).
    Fragmentation within Astragalus microcymbus habitat is largely from 
linear features such as roads and utility corridors (see Recreation, 
Roads, and Trails and Utility Corridors above) that are pervasive at 
every A. microcymbus unit except the South Beaver Creek 4 Unit. In 
addition, past contour plowings and subsequent seeding efforts have 
created blocks of altered and degraded habitat around A. microcymbus 
units that may affect the overall plant community, nonnative invasive 
plants, and pollinator habitat and resources. This type of 
fragmentation does not carry the same negative consequences as that of 
more highly fragmented habitats impacted by agricultural or urban 
development because of its more limited extent.
    However, the aforementioned type of fragmentation leads to habitat 
degradation. Habitat degradation, the gradual deterioration of habitat 
quality, can lead to a species decline, decrease, or loss of 
reproductive ability. Habitat degradation may be difficult to detect 
because it takes place over a long time period, and species with long 
life-cycles may continue to be present in an area even if they are 
unable to breed (Fisher and Lindenmayer 2007, pp. 268-269).
    In the case of Astragalus microcymbus, habitat degradation is 
coming from multiple sources: Development; recreation, roads, and 
trails; utility corridors; nonnative invasive plants; contour plowing 
and nonnative seedings; and accentuated by periodic drought. In 
addition, wildfire and climate change will likely contribute to further 
habitat degradation. Detailed monitoring is needed to detect population 
changes and signal the need to implement conservation measures that 
could counteract habitat degradation, but this monitoring has not been 
done for A. microcymbus.
    Habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation is occurring as a 
result of multiple sources including virtually all the threats and 
factors previously described in this document. As a result, we find 
habitat degradation to be a threat to Astragalus microcymbus. Habitat 
fragmentation is currently a lesser threat, but because it is so 
tightly linked with habitat degradation, we have treated them jointly.
Summary of Factor A
    The biggest habitat-related threats to Astragalus microcymbus are 
recreation (including roads and trails); the potential for increases in 
nonnative invasive plants (especially cheatgrass); potential 
residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; and 
potential effects from climate change. In addition, the habitat 
degradation and fragmentation occurring from these stressors threatens 
A. microcymbus.
    Recreational impacts are not likely to lessen given the close 
proximity of Astragalus microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the 
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain 
vehicles. The fact that the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area was 
designated on 40 percent of the A. microcymbus units will only serve to 
draw more users, and there is little enforcement to control trespass 
use.

[[Page 78532]]

Accordingly, we find the threat from recreation, roads, and trails to 
be high.
    Although the impacts from nonnative invasive plants, and 
particularly cheatgrass, are low right now, we expect this factor to 
increase to the level of a serious threat in the near future. 
Cheatgrass is increasing in the South Beaver Creek drainage and has 
been identified as a major threat to Astragalus microcymbus (BLM 2010, 
p. 5). In the mid to late 1980s, cheatgrass was seen in very small 
patches in the Gunnison Basin but can now be found in some abundance 
throughout the Basin (BLM 2009a, pp. 7-8). A. microcymbus is found on 
warm, sparsely vegetated, and dry, south-facing slopes, which in the 
Gunnison Basin, are probably more vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion. We 
know that cheatgrass is already invading A. microcymbus sites. 
Cheatgrass has transformed millions of acres into monocultures in the 
Great Basin and has dramatically shortened the wildfire return 
interval. We believe the potential exists for a similar conversion in 
A. microcymbus habitat. Although we find the current invasion of 
cheatgrass into A. microcymbus habitat to be small and possess little 
threat, because of the high potential for further invasion, we find the 
overall threat is increasing.
    It is difficult to assess the impact of climate change to 
Astragalus microcymbus, but we believe climate change may be a future 
threat given the predictions of increased springtime temperatures, 
decreased springtime precipitation, and increased drought.
    Because a quarter of the Astragalus microcymbus units occur on 
private land, and given the rapid pace of development in the Gunnison 
Basin, we believe residential and urban development represent a 
moderate threat to A. microcymbus. Given that livestock, deer, and elk 
use occurs across the range of A. microcymbus, that A. microcymbus 
individuals are being lost from this use, and that this use is causing 
habitat degradation that could facilitate the spread of cheatgrass, we 
find this threat to be moderate.
    We find the potential impact of future wildfire to be a threat to 
the species and recognize that wildfire risk may increase with further 
cheatgrass invasion. We do not find utility corridors to be a threat 
because they currently impact only 4 percent of the A. microcymbus 
units and we do not know of any further utility corridor plans. We do 
not find the continuing effects from past contour plowings and 
nonnative seedings to be a threat because the existing plowings only 
impact 1.2 percent of the A. microcymbus units and we do not expect 
these treatments to occur in the future. Because of the low potential 
for oil and gas development and because there are only two other active 
mining claims within the species' range, we do not find that these 
factors are threats to the species.
    Based on threats from recreation; the potential for increases in 
nonnative invasive plants; potential residential and urban development; 
livestock, deer, and elk use; and potential effects from climate 
change, we find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range now and these threats are expected to continue or 
increase in the foreseeable future.

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

    We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or 
collection of Astragalus microcymbus for any commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes at this time. A. microcymbus is not 
particularly showy or of horticultural significance; therefore, we do 
not expect any overutilization in the foreseeable future. We find that 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes is not a threat to A. microcymbus now or expected 
to become so in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Astragalus microcymbus is subject to extensive herbivory, primarily 
from small mammals (Lyon 1990, pp. 2, 5; Dyer 1993, p. 2; Sherwood 
1994, pp. 10-11; Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.; DBG 2010a, pp. 6-7). On 
average, 26 percent of the plants have evidence of herbivory (ranging 
from 13 to 74 percent at a given plot) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Browsing on 
the plants is very evident and in some areas, it is hard to find an A. 
microcymbus individual that has not had at least some portion eaten 
(Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.). Some species of Astragalus are 
notoriously toxic to livestock, and presumably deer and elk. Often 
these toxic species are avoided by grazers and browsers. However, the 
high level of small mammal herbivory to A. microcymbus plants suggests 
the species is not overly toxic. We do not know if this toxicity would 
vary between livestock and rabbits.
Small Mammal Herbivory
    Most herbivory of Astragalus microcymbus individuals is attributed 
to small mammals. Cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audobonii), small 
chipmunks (Tamias sp.), and ground squirrels (Citellus lateralis and 
others) graze on A. microcymbus (Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.). Mice 
and voles also have been implicated as herbivores (Sherwood 1994, p. 
11). Rabbits are generally considered the primary herbivores of A. 
microcymbus, and numerous observers have suggested they are in 
abundance within A. microcymbus habitat (Lyon 1990, p. 2; Dyer 1993, p. 
2; Japuntich 2010j, pers. comm.).
    The information we have regarding rabbit herbivory is mostly 
anecdotal in nature; however, taken in sum, we believe this information 
leads to a conclusion that rabbit herbivory impacts Astragalus 
microcymbus in years with high rabbit populations. During one survey 
effort, observers found six rabbits in one of the draws they visited 
(Lyon 1990, p. 5), and another observer visited 10 A. microcymbus sites 
in a day and said that rabbit damage was heavy at nine of those sites 
(Dyer 1993, p. 2).
    Several observers have suggested that rabbit herbivory can result 
in the death of Astragalus microcymbus. One observer suggested that 2 
years of heavy rabbit use was more than A. microcymbus could tolerate 
because of all the dead plants they encountered in a heavy rabbit year 
(Lyon 1990, p. 5). Those plants that were not dead had only a few green 
leaves, again attributed to rabbit herbivory (Lyon 1990, p. 2). After 2 
years of consecutive transect counts at a site another observer stated 
that many plants had died and attributed that death to overuse by 
rabbits (Sherwood 1994, p. 10). Observations of small mammal herbivory 
being a significant impact to the species occurs across the years 
(USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
    Rabbit and small mammal populations fluctuate widely 
(Korpim[auml]ki and Krebs 1996, pp. 754-764; Hanski et al. 2001, pp. 
1501-1520). We have little information on how small mammal populations 
have changed within the range of Astragalus microcymbus over time, but 
the variability in observations from year to year and between sites 
suggest there are significant fluctuations and spatial variations. For 
example in 1990, local authorities and those surveying for A. 
microcymbus stated the rabbit population was very large compared with 
other years; this year, herbivory of A. microcymbus was repeatedly 
observed (Lyon 1990, p. 2). Observations suggest that small mammal 
herbivory is impacting A. microcymbus, especially during years when 
small mammal populations are high.
    Fencing to exclude small mammals was installed at monitoring plots 
in

[[Page 78533]]

2006 and 2007 (DBG 2010a, p. 6). After 2 years, the plants protected by 
fences were statistically longer at 31.4 cm (12.4 in.) than those 
outside the fence, which were 19.5 cm (7.7 in.) (DBG 2010a, p. 6). This 
difference could be related to a decrease in herbivory or increased 
moisture (from additional snow accumulations within the fence from wind 
loading) within the exclosures, or a combination of the two. In 
addition, mammal herbivory was less within the fenced areas, more 
individuals flowered within fenced areas, and more total fruit was 
produced per plant within fenced areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). A weak 
statistical correlation was found between nonreproductive plants and 
evidence of mammalian browsing across all plots (DBG 2010a, p. 6). 
Although we do not understand how small mammal populations have changed 
over time, these impacts to fruit set are significant. Furthermore, 
these impacts are consistent with other observations of small mammal 
herbivory (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
    Rabbit herbivory has been documented at several Astragalus 
microcymbus units, including Gold Basin Creek, South Beaver Creek 1, 
South Beaver Creek 2, and South Beaver Creek 3 (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4). 
Conversely, at several of the more isolated A. microcymbus units, Henry 
and South Beaver Creek 4, observers specifically mention the lack of 
rabbit herbivory relative to other areas (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
    We are unsure of the long-term impact to Astragalus microcymbus 
over time from small mammal herbivory. Small mammal herbivory is 
significantly impacting seed set of A. microcymbus. Fewer seeds mean 
fewer opportunities for seedling and adult recruitment. In addition, 
small mammal herbivory occurs at most sites across the range of the 
species, and recent observations indicate that damage to plants is 
heavy. We have no information to either support or refute that rabbit 
herbivory levels are higher than historic levels; however, in light of 
other factors affecting the species and the limited range and small 
population level, impacts to A. microcymbus from herbivory can be large 
in years of high rabbit populations. Given this, we find small mammal 
herbivory to be a threat to the species.
Deer and Elk Herbivory
    Like livestock use, overgrazing by deer and elk may cause local 
degradation of habitats (see ``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of 
Habitat'' above for a more thorough discussion). Here we address the 
actual eating of Astragalus microcymbus individuals as opposed to 
habitat degradation. We have little information on the impacts of deer 
and elk herbivory to A. microcymbus. Much of the deer and elk use of A. 
microcymbus habitat occurs during winter after the plants are no longer 
growing, thereby not affecting the plants, unless they are pulled up by 
the roots, which we assume would happen infrequently. One observer 
stated that the previous year's dried stalks of larger A. microcymbus 
plants showed almost universal use, and attributed this to wintering 
big game (Sherwood 1994, p. 17).
    Although deer and elk use is high within Astragalus microcymbus 
habitat (see Deer and Elk Use above), most of the use occurs in the 
winter when A. microcymbus is dormant. We expect the effects of winter 
use to be minimal since, once dried, the previous year's growth is not 
important to an individual plant's success. We expect that some 
herbivory does occur since deer and elk will sometimes visit during the 
growing season. Because most use occurs in the winter when herbivory 
would not impact A. microcymbus, we do not consider deer and elk 
herbivory to be a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Livestock Herbivory
    Livestock use may cause local degradation of habitats (see 
``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat'' above for a more thorough 
discussion). Here we address the actual eating of Astragalus 
microcymbus individuals as opposed to habitat degradation. Observations 
on direct grazing impacts to Astragalus microcymbus vary. Heil and 
Porter (1990, p. 21) state that grazing animals are known to 
occasionally use this species as a forage plant. One observer reported 
the plant shows some resistance to grazing (CNHP 2010a, pp. 5-6). 
Livestock presence is reportedly rare on the steeper slopes where A. 
microcymbus resides (BLM 2010, p. 4). We believe we have seen herbivory 
of individuals in areas near salt licks, although we cannot be sure 
this was not small mammal herbivory (USFWS 2010, pers. comm.). 
Therefore, we do not consider the livestock herbivory to be a threat to 
the species now or in the foreseeable future.
Insect Herbivory
    Grasshoppers (Orthopterans in the Acrididae and Tettigoniidae 
families) have been implicated as herbivores of Astragalus microcymbus 
(Dyer 1993, p. 2). Aphids have been documented on the plants at one A. 
microcymbus site (CNHP 2010a, p. 22). A small number of A. microcymbus 
individuals have been documented with insect webs within Gold Basin 
Creek Unit (Sherwood 1994, p. 7). Insect herbivory was measured as part 
of the life-history monitoring study. This study found no significant 
effects from insect herbivory on flowering individuals (DBG 2010a, p. 
6). Therefore, we find that insect herbivory does not constitute a 
threat to A. microcymbus now or in the foreseeable future.
Disease
    A fungus has been documented on less than 10 percent of the 
Astragalus microcymbus individuals at one monitoring transect (Sherwood 
1994, p. 11). No other instances of disease are known. Therefore, we 
find that disease does not constitute a threat to A. microcymbus now or 
in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor C
    Various herbivores have been documented at Astragalus microcymbus 
sites. Small mammal herbivory, especially from rabbits, has been 
documented at fairly high levels, and appears to be the only type of 
herbivory that is impacting the species at a low to moderate level. 
Exclusion research has found that small mammal herbivory was less, more 
individuals flowered, and there were more total fruits within fenced 
areas (DBG 2010a, p. 7). We expect small mammal herbivory to continue 
into the foreseeable future and fluctuate with small mammal 
populations. We do not believe that deer and elk herbivory, livestock 
herbivory, and insect herbivory constitute threats because they are 
only occasionally or minorly affecting A. microcymbus and are not 
expected to increase into the foreseeable future. Finally, we do not 
consider disease to be a threat because it is so rare. However, we do 
find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by predation now and 
these threats are expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable 
future.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether threats to Astragalus 
microcymbus are adequately addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms. 
Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for 
A. microcymbus include: (1) Local land use laws, processes, and 
ordinances; (2) State laws and regulations; and (3) Federal laws and 
regulations. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude listing 
if such mechanisms are judged to adequately

[[Page 78534]]

address the threat to the species such that listing is not warranted.
    An example of a regulatory mechanism is the terms and conditions 
attached to a grazing permit that describe how a permittee will manage 
livestock on a BLM allotment. They are nondiscretionary and 
enforceable, and would be considered a regulatory mechanism under this 
analysis. Other examples include city or county ordinances, State 
governmental actions enforced under State statute regulations, or 
Federal action under statute or regulation. Actions adopted by local 
groups, States, or Federal entities that are discretionary or are not 
enforceable, including conservation strategies and guidance, are 
typically not regulatory mechanisms. In this section we review actions 
undertaken by local, State, and Federal entities designed to reduce or 
remove threats to Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat.
Local Land Use Laws and Ordinances
    We are aware of no local land use laws or ordinances that offer 
protection to Astragalus microcymbus. Neither the city of Gunnison nor 
the counties of Gunnison or Saguache have guidelines, zoning, or other 
mechanisms to protect the species.
State Laws and Regulations
    No State regulations in Colorado protect Astragalus microcymbus. 
The State of Colorado has no laws protecting any rare plant species. 
Plants also are not included in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan and 
do not qualify for funding under State Wildlife Grants.
    The State of Colorado's Natural Areas Program works to protect 
special resources in the State, although there are no regulatory 
enforcement mechanisms associated with the program. In 1997, the 
Colorado Natural Areas Program designated the South Beaver Creek 
Natural Area (CNAP 1997, pp. 1-7). The South Beaver Creek Natural Area 
was designated for all areas within the South Beaver Creek ACEC (CNAP 
1997, p. 7). The Colorado Natural Areas Program provides a means by 
which Colorado's natural features and ecological phenomena can be 
identified, evaluated, and protected through a statewide system of 
natural areas (CNAP 1997, p. 1). The purpose of the South Beaver Creek 
Natural Area is to protect Astragalus microcymbus (CNAP 1997, p. 2).
    Through this designation, the Colorado Natural Areas Program staff 
is entitled to visit the area at anytime and convey the results of 
these visits to the BLM, cooperate with the BLM on updating the 
Resource Management Activity Plan for the property, and provide a 
periodic report on the condition of the property (CNAP 1997, p. 3). In 
essence, this designation allows the Colorado Natural Areas Program to 
assist the BLM with its management. The Colorado Natural Areas Program 
has not been actively monitoring Astragalus microcymbus at the South 
Beaver Creek Natural Area. Therefore, this designation has, to-date, 
afforded little protection to the species. Given that the Colorado 
Natural Areas Program is increasing its conservation efforts, we expect 
the Natural Areas Program to become more active in the conservation of 
A. microcymbus in the future but have no way of predicting what this 
will mean to the species.
    The State of Colorado requires private landowners to control 
noxious (nonnative invasive) weeds. Plants considered noxious by the 
State of Colorado that are within or near Astragalus microcymbus' 
habitat include: Cheatgrass (List C), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense--
List B), scentless chamomile (Matriacaria perforata--List B), yellow 
toadflax (Linaria vulgaris--List B), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon 
repens--List B) (Colorado Department of Agriculture [CDA] 2010, pp. 2-
3). List B species are noxious weeds for which management plans are or 
will be developed and implemented to stop their spread (CDA 2010, p. 
2). List C species are noxious weeds for which management plans are or 
will be developed and implemented to provide additional education, 
research, and biological control resources but for which the continued 
spread will not be halted (CDA 2010, p. 2). We have no information on 
how the noxious weed law is being implemented within the range of A. 
microcymbus. We do know that the Gunnison Watershed Weed Commission has 
been actively working to control and eradicate noxious weeds in 
Gunnison County but we have few specifics from this work (GWWC 2010, 
pp. 1-8). Therefore, we cannot assess the benefits to A. microcymbus.
    Deer and elk populations are managed by the CDOW. We have no 
information to suggest that deer and elk use is being regulated to 
ensure Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat is not impacted by this 
use.
Federal Laws and Regulations
    The BLM has promulgated regulations, policies, and guidelines to 
protect sensitive species on Federal lands, control wildfire and 
rehabilitate burned areas, and implement rangeland assessments, 
standards, and guidelines to assess rangeland health.
    Astragalus microcymbus is included on the Colorado BLM's sensitive 
species list (BLM 2009c, p. 3). The management guidance afforded 
sensitive species under BLM Manual 6840--Special Status Species 
Management (BLM 2008) states that ``Bureau sensitive species will be 
managed consistent with species and habitat management objectives in 
land use and implementation plans to promote their conservation and to 
minimize the likelihood and need for listing under the ESA'' (BLM 2008, 
p. .05V). The BLM Manual 6840 further requires that Resource Management 
Plans (RMPs) should address sensitive species, and that implementation 
``should consider all site-specific methods and procedures needed to 
bring species and their habitats to the condition under which 
management under the Bureau sensitive species policies would no longer 
be necessary'' (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). A. microcymbus has received some 
protections because of its sensitive status, including the 
establishment of the South Beaver Creek ACEC and limited money for 
survey and monitoring efforts. However, part of this ACEC is overlapped 
by the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, which is resulting in some 
habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 mandates Federal 
land managers to develop and revise land use plans. The RMPs are the 
basis for all actions and authorizations involving BLM-administered 
lands and resources. They establish allowable resource uses, resource 
condition goals and objectives to be attained, program constraints and 
general management practices needed to attain the goals and objectives, 
general implementation sequences, and intervals and standards for 
monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine its effectiveness and 
the need for amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)).
    The RMPs provide a framework and programmatic guidance for activity 
plans, which are site-specific plans written to implement the RMP. 
Examples of activity plans include Allotment Management Plans that 
address livestock grazing, or other activity plans for oil and gas 
field development, travel management, and wildlife habitat management. 
Activity plan decisions normally require additional planning and 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. The Gunnison 
Resource Area's RMP represents an enforceable regulatory mechanism. A. 
microcymbus is not specifically protected in areas outside the South 
Beaver Creek ACEC within the RMP but is protected by the

[[Page 78535]]

Special Status Species Management guidance and general RMP guidance for 
the management of special status plants (BLM 1992, pp. 1-13; 1993, p. 
2.4). Public scoping for the next RMP for the Gunnison Resource Area is 
estimated to begin in 2010 (Japuntich 2010d, pers. comm.). We expect 
that existing protections for the species will remain in place for the 
next RMP, but cannot predict if additional protections for Astragalus 
microcymbus will be developed.
    As discussed above in Recreation, Roads, and Trails, Astragalus 
microcymbus was included in the Gunnison Resource District's RMP when 
the South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated. This area encompasses 60 
percent of the A. microcymbus units (BLM 1993, pp. 2.29-2.30). The 
South Beaver Creek ACEC was designated specifically to protect and 
enhance existing A. microcymbus populations and habitat. Actions 
outlined for the South Beaver Creek ACEC, and their implementation, are 
included in Table 5 below.

     Table 5--Actions Identified, With Notes on Implementation, for
    Astragalus microcymbus in the South Beaver Creek ACEC in the 1993
                      Gunnison Resource Area's RMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                           Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring to determine population       Being done regularly at 4 plots
 trends.                                  by DBG & intermittently at 4
                                          plots by BLM
Actions to improve habitat conditions..  Few--2 trail closures, 1
                                          reroute, cheatgrass control
                                          efforts
Minimization of surface disturbing       Some control of vehicles
 conditions to protect species & its
 habitat.
Development of management plan for       Not implemented
 Astragalus microcymbus.
No chemical spraying...................  Likely implemented
No vegetative treatments...............  Implemented
No additional forage allocations.......  Unknown, especially as related
                                          to deer & elk
Controlled surface use stipulation.....  Implemented
No conflicting erosion control measures  Implemented, unsure about water
                                          bars
No domestic sheep grazing..............  Implemented
Limit motorized vehicular traffic to     Implemented although
 designated routes.                       enforcement is problematic
Public lands with A. microcymbus will    Implemented
 not be disposed.
Acquisition of non-Federal lands if      Not implemented
 available.
ROW permitted without direct impacts to  Implemented
 A. microcymbus.
Wildfire suppression...................  No wildfires to-date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The South Beaver Creek ACEC has resulted in some protections for 
Astragalus microcymbus, specifically: Monitoring, two surveys, two 
trail closures, one trail reroute, and some restrictions to herbicide 
use and livestock grazing. These protections are an improvement over 
more generally managed BLM lands. However, 70 percent of the South 
Beaver Creek ACEC is within the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area, even 
though the South Beaver Creek ACEC was developed at least 8 years prior 
to the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area (BLM 2005a, p. 44). Numerous 
trails are also designated through A. microcymbus units (see 
Recreation, Roads, and Trails above). The designation of this 
Recreation Area overlaying A. microcymbus demonstrates that these ACEC 
protections are not adequate to protect the species.
    All Astragalus microcymbus units on public land are within active 
livestock grazing allotments. The BLM regulatory authority for grazing 
management is provided at 43 CFR Part 4100 (Regulations on Grazing 
Administration Exclusive of Alaska). Livestock grazing permits and 
leases contain terms and conditions, determined by BLM to be 
appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives and 
to ensure that habitats are, or are making, significant progress toward 
being restored or maintained for BLM special status species (43 CFR 
4180.1(d)). The State or regional standards for grazing administration 
must address habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, 
or special status species, and habitat quality for native plant and 
animal populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). The 
guidelines must address restoring, maintaining, or enhancing habitats 
of BLM special status species to promote their conservation, as well as 
maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions to 
sustain native populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and 
(10). The BLM is required to take appropriate action not later than the 
start of the next grazing year upon determining that existing grazing 
practices or levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing 
to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines (43 CFR 
4180.2(c)).
    Livestock use specific to Astragalus microcymbus is discussed in 
further detail in Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat above. Within 
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, no additional forage allocations will be 
made and domestic sheep grazing will not be authorized (BLM 2005a, pp. 
2-29 to 2-30).
    Despite management actions undertaken by BLM, grazing is impacting 
Astragalus microcymbus and its habitat. The BLM has no research or 
monitoring that specifically addresses the impacts to A. microcymbus or 
its habitat and the effects from ubiquitous livestock use. In addition, 
there is no research or monitoring that addresses how deer and elk 
utilization is being jointly considered (with livestock use) within the 
range of A. microcymbus. Therefore, we find the management of 
livestock, deer, and elk to be similar to our assessment of 
``Livestock, Deer, and Elk Use of Habitat'' above and a threat to the 
species.
    As discussed in ``Recreation, Roads, and Trails'' in Factor A 
above, based on the combination of the documented impacts resulting 
from recreational activities atop Astragalus microcymbus and its 
habitat and the designation of the Hartman Rock Recreation Area over 
the South Beaver Creek ACEC, we believe that existing Federal 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for protecting A. microcymbus. 
Management prescriptions or AUMs for livestock use are three to five 
times higher than current use levels. Because livestock impacts are 
occurring to A. microcymbus at current stocking rates, we expect if 
livestock were managed at these higher AUM levels, much more intense 
impacts would occur to the plant. In addition, the South Beaver

[[Page 78536]]

Creek ACEC designation, while providing limited protection for A. 
microcymbus, was not adequate to preclude the designation of a 
recreation area in the same location (70 percent of the ACEC). We 
cannot say what will happen with A. microcymbus in the upcoming RMP 
revision, but if we consider conservation efforts since the last RMP 
revision, we expect A. microcymbus and its habitat will continue to 
decline in the foreseeable future. We find that Federal laws and 
regulations are currently inadequate to protect the species from being 
threatened or endangered.
Summary of Factor D
    Twenty-five percent of Astragalus microcymbus habitat occurs on 
private lands with no regulatory protections. No State laws protect the 
species. On Federal lands, the species is managed as a sensitive 
species but this designation has not adequately protected the species. 
Over 40 percent of the A. microcymbus habitat and 70 percent of the 
South Beaver Creek ACEC lies within the federally managed Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area, which serves to focus human use in this area, a 
designation that runs counter to the protection of the species. For 
these reasons, we find the existing regulatory mechanisms to be 
inadequate because of increasing recreation and development potential 
on private land. We find that Astragalus microcymbus is threatened by 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms now and these threats 
are expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Periodic Drought
    Drought is a common occurrence within the range of Astragalus 
microcymbus (Braun 1998, p. 148; WRCC 2010a, p. 8). Infrequent, severe 
drought may cause local extinctions of annual forbs and grasses that 
have invaded stands of perennial species, and recolonization of these 
areas by native species may be slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 263). 
Drought reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 7-18), potentially resulting in increased soil erosion 
and subsequent reduced soil depths, decreased water infiltration, and 
reduced water storage capacity. Drought also can exacerbate other 
natural events such as defoliation of sagebrush by insects and the 
invasion of nonnative invasive plants. A. microcymbus responds 
negatively to declines in overall precipitation and periods of drought, 
as well as declines in spring precipitation (May and July) (DBG 2010a, 
p. 6). For example, during the drought of 2001 and 2002, A. microcymbus 
populations declined precipitously (DBG 2010a, p. 6). Because periodic 
drought will likely continue and could increase (see Climate Change in 
Factor A above) and because of the decline in population numbers 
associated with drought, we find drought to be a threat to the species 
(recognizing the uncertainty with climate change models).
Small Populations
    Small populations and species with limited distributions, like 
those of Astragalus microcymbus, are vulnerable to relatively minor 
environmental disturbances such as recreational impacts, nonnative 
plant invasions, and wildfire (Given 1994, pp. 66-67), and are subject 
to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random loss of 
genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237). 
Populations with lowered genetic diversity are more prone to local 
extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28). Smaller populations 
generally have lower genetic diversity, and lower genetic diversity may 
in turn lead to even smaller populations by decreasing the species' 
ability to adapt, thereby increasing the probability of population 
extinction (Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360).
    For plant populations that do not reproduce vegetatively, like 
Astragalus microcymbus, pollen exchange and seed dispersal are the only 
mechanisms for gene flow. Pollen dispersal is limited by the distance 
the pollinator can travel. Both pollen and seed dispersal can vary 
widely by species (Ellstrand 2003, p. 1164). We do not understand 
either pollen or seed dispersal capabilities for A. microcymbus. As our 
understanding of gene flow has improved, the distances scientists 
believe genes can travel also has increased (Ellstrand 2003, p. 1164). 
We believe that genetic exchange could be possible, although unlikely, 
between the Henry, Gold Basin Creek, and South Beaver Creek Units, and 
expect that genetic exchange does occur occasionally between the South 
Beaver Creek Units.
    Most Astragalus microcymbus units comprise multiple sites with many 
individuals and genetic exchange should not be limited within units. 
However, two A. microcymbus units--Henry and Cebolla Creek--are located 
over 2.5 km (1.5 mi) away from any other units and have few 
individuals. For these two units in particular, small population size 
and a loss of genetic diversity may be a problem. Other Astragalus 
species with small populations have demonstrated lowered genetic 
diversity (Travis et al. 1996, pp. 735-745). The limited range of A. 
microcymbus makes the species more susceptible to being significantly 
impacted by stochastic (random) disturbances such as wildfire. Because 
stochastic threats such as wildfire are currently low, and because two 
A. microcymbus units are isolated and small, we find the overall effect 
from small populations to be low to the point where it is not a threat.
Summary of Factor E
    Periodic drought is a threat to Astragalus microcymbus. We know 
that the species decreases during drought conditions, but we do not 
know how this influences long-term survivorship of the species, 
especially in light of climate change. We know the species has a 
limited distribution and two out of nine A. microcymbus units are small 
and isolated, but we do not understand how this is affecting the 
genetic diversity of the species nor do we consider small population 
size to be a threat. With such a limited range, the species is at risk 
from stochastic events but there is no way of predicting these events. 
Although there are many unknowns, we find the threat from periodic 
drought to be moderate at this time. Based on this, the overall threat 
from Factor E is low to moderate. We find that Astragalus microcymbus 
is threatened by other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence now and these threats are expected to continue or 
increase in the foreseeable future.

General Threats Summary

    Table 6 below provides an overview of the threats to Astragalus 
microcymbus. Of these threats, we consider recreation, roads, and 
trails, the overall inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and 
habitat fragmentation and degradation to be the most significant 
threats (Table 6). Recreational impacts are likely to increase given 
the close proximity of A. microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the 
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain 
vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users 
and contains over 40 percent of the A. microcymbus units. The overall 
threat from a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms is high given that 
25 percent of the habitat has no protections and that Federal 
protections allowed a recreation area to be developed on the

[[Page 78537]]

species' habitat. Recreation, as well as most of the other threats to 
A. microcymbus, leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation.

                                                              Table 6--Threat Summary for Factors Affecting Astragalus Microcymbus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Listing                          Scope of threat or                                                    Likelihood of           Species'         Foreseeable
    factor      Threat or  impact          impact                 Intensity           Exposure (%)           exposure              response            future              Overall threat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............  Residential &      Moderate..............  Moderate..............  25...............  Moderate..............  Loss of habitat,   Development        Moderate.
                 Urban                                                                                                         loss of sites,     within several
                 Development.                                                                                                  pollinator         decades.
                                                                                                                               impacts.
A.............  Recreation,        High..................  High..................  15 (20-m buffer)   High..................  Loss of sites &    Significant        High.
                 Roads, & Trails.                                                   to 46 (100-m                               habitat, habitat   increase (+20%
                                                                                    buffer).                                   degradation,       annually) in
                                                                                                                               nonnatives,        users.
                                                                                                                               pollinator
                                                                                                                               impacts.
A.............  Utility Corridors  Low...................  Low...................  4................  Moderate..............  Loss of sites &    No immediate       None, impact only.
                                                                                                                               habitat, habitat   plans, limited
                                                                                                                               degradation.       in scope.
A.............  Nonnative          Low...................  Low+..................  0.1+.............  High..................  Competition,       Increasing with    None, but increasing
                 Invasive Plants.                                                                                              wildfire,          rapid increase     quickly.
                                                                                                                               pollinator         possible.
                                                                                                                               impacts.
A.............  Wildfire.........  Low...................  None+.................  None but nearby..  Low+..................  Nonnatives,        Difficult to       Low+.
                                                                                                                               species'           estimate, will
                                                                                                                               response to        relate to
                                                                                                                               wildfire unknown.  cheatgrass
                                                                                                                                                  invasion.
A.............  Contour Plowing &  Low...................  Low...................  1.2..............  Low...................  Presumable loss,   Future seedings    None, impact only.
                 Nonnative                                                                                                     habitat            unlikely.
                 Seedings.                                                                                                     degradation,
                                                                                                                               pollinator
                                                                                                                               impacts.
A.............  Livestock, Deer,   Moderate..............  Low to Moderate.......  95+..............  Moderate..............  Habitat            Permitted AUMs     Moderate.
                 & Elk Use of                                                                                                  Degradation,       would increase
                 Habitat.                                                                                                      trampling,         impacts, deer &
                                                                                                                               pollinator         elk impacts
                                                                                                                               impacts.           could increase.
A.............  Mining; Oil & Gas  Low...................  Low...................  none.............  Low...................  Loss if mining     Little activity,   None+.
                 Leasing.                                                                                                      occurred.          unlikely in the
                                                                                                                                                  foreseeable
                                                                                                                                                  future.
A.............  Climate Change...  Moderate?.............  Moderate?.............  100..............  Moderate..............  Unknown but would  Climate models     Moderate?
                                                                                                                               likely cause a     predict 40-year
                                                                                                                               decline.           changes.
A.............  Habitat            High..................  Low...................  100..............  High..................  Habitat            A byproduct of     High.
                 Fragmentation &                                                                                               degradation,       other threats.
                 Degradation.                                                                                                  genetic
                                                                                                                               isolation.
B.............  None.............  ......................  ......................  .................  ......................  .................  not likely to      None.
                                                                                                                                                  change.
C.............  Small Mammal       Moderate..............  Moderate+.............  ~80, likely        High..................  Affecting seed     Likely to          Low to Moderate.
                 Herbivory.                                                         varies by year.                            set.               continue &
                                                                                                                                                  fluctuate with
                                                                                                                                                  herbivore
                                                                                                                                                  population.
C.............  Deer & Elk         Low...................  Low...................  winter...........  Low...................  Minimal, could     Winter use makes   None+.
                 Herbivory.                                                                                                    affect seed set.   herbivory less
                                                                                                                                                  likely.
C.............  Livestock          Low...................  Low...................  occasional.......  Low...................  Could affect seed  Steep slopes       None.
                 Herbivory.                                                                                                    set.               makes herbivory
                                                                                                                                                  less likely.
C.............  Insect Herbivory.  Low...................  Low...................  3................  Moderate..............  Could affect seed  No measureable     None.
                                                                                                                               set.               impact.

[[Page 78538]]

 
C.............  Disease..........  Low...................  Low...................  trace............  Low...................  Death?...........  Rare.............  None.
D.............  Local Land Use     Moderate..............  Moderate..............  25...............  Moderate+.............  Loss of habitat,   Development        Moderate.
                 Laws, &                                                                                                       loss of sites,     within several
                 Ordinances.                                                                                                   pollinator         decades.
                                                                                                                               impacts.
D.............  State Laws &       Moderate..............  Moderate..............  25+..............  Moderate+.............  Loss of habitat,   Development        Moderate.
                 Regulations.                                                                                                  loss of sites,     within several
                                                                                                                               pollinator         decades.
                                                                                                                               impacts.
D.............  Federal Laws &     Moderate..............  Moderate..............  75...............  Moderate+.............  Influenced by      Continued course   Moderate.
                 Regulations.                                                                                                  management         will trend
                                                                                                                               actions.           downward.
E.............  Periodic Drought.  Moderate..............  Moderate..............  100..............  High..................  Decline..........  Climate change     Moderate.
                                                                                                                                                  models predict
                                                                                                                                                  increasing
                                                                                                                                                  drought.
E.............  Small Populations  Low...................  Low...................  7................  Low...................  Loss of genetic    Increase if        None, impact only
                                                                                                                               diversity.         wildfires &
                                                                                                                                                  cheatgrass
                                                                                                                                                  increase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
  educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
+ indicates a possible increase in the future.
? indicates significant uncertainty.

    Moderate threats to Astragalus microcymbus include: Residential and 
urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; and 
increasing periodic drought. Of these, the threats from climate change 
are the most likely to increase in the future. In addition, we are 
particularly concerned about nonnative invasive plants, especially 
cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is expanding in the Gunnison Basin. Furthermore, 
the dry south-facing slopes where A. microcymbus is found are the 
warmest and, therefore, the most vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion in 
the Gunnison Basin.
    Although wildfire is ranked as a low threat, this factor may 
increase in the future. Wildfire is likely to increase because of its 
link to nonnative invasive plants and habitat degradation. Small mammal 
herbivory, because of the significant effect to seed set, is considered 
a low to moderate threat. All other threats to Astragalus microcymbus 
are currently regarded as impacts and not threats to the species' 
continued existence.
    While we have considered all the threats here separately, many are 
interrelated. For example, many of these threats contribute to habitat 
degradation. Cheatgrass seldom spreads without some sort of 
disturbance. Wildfire frequency does not increase without more people 
to start the fires, more lightning, or increases in nonnative invasive 
plants (especially cheatgrass) and may be exacerbated by climate 
change. We find the overall threat to Astragalus microcymbus from all 
of these threats to be moderate; although we carefully considered a 
high threat ranking when we considered the threats acting together.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether Astragalus microcymbus is endangered or threatened throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully examined the 
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the 
past, present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, other available published 
and unpublished information, and we consulted with A. microcymbus 
experts and other Federal and State agencies.
    Astragalus microcymbus numbers are declining. The most recent 
population viability analysis predicts that all four life-history 
monitoring plots will be lost by the year 2030, although more recent 
data extends this date out into the future (DBG 2008, p. 9). Most 
counts in the last 5 years have been far less than they were in the 
1980s and 1990s, generally fewer than 150 individuals with only 1 count 
over 400 individuals (USFWS 2010a, pp. 1-4).
    We do not fully understand the reasons for the decline in 
Astragalus microcymbus numbers. Some of the variability in population 
counts can be explained by precipitation and temperature patterns (DBG 
2010a, p. 6). However, these patterns do not explain all the variation. 
For example, we did not see A. microcymbus numbers increase 
substantially in 2005 when there was much more precipitation than 
average (DBG 2010a, pp. 11-12). Nor do these patterns explain why site 
counts continue to be much less than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. 
Sites do not appear to move significantly. Although the footprint of 
many sites has shrunk, the plants are still located in approximately 
the same areas as they were in the 1980s, suggesting that A. 
microcymbus locations are fairly static. This is not surprising given 
that A. microcymbus habitat seems to be somewhat limited on the 
landscape.
    This status review identified threats to the Astragalus microcymbus 
rangewide attributable to Factors A, C, D, and E. The primary threats 
to the species include recreation, roads, and trails; and habitat 
fragmentation and degradation. Recreational use continues to increase. 
Habitat degradation, caused by all of the threats interacting together, 
poses a significant risk to the species. Moderate threats include 
residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; 
climate change; inadequate

[[Page 78539]]

regulatory mechanisms; and periodic drought. The threat from nonnative 
invasive plants is increasing quickly. Small mammal herbivory is 
considered a low to moderate threat, and wildfire is considered a low 
threat. All of these threats are impacting A. microcymbus, and could be 
contributing to the species' decline. The species' close proximity to 
the town of Gunnison and the fact that 25 percent of the species 
rangewide distribution is on private lands subject to development makes 
future development a very real threat. Cheatgrass will likely invade 
the hot dry habitats of A. microcymbus before any other habitats in the 
Gunnison Valley. Livestock, deer, and elk use are causing habitat 
degradation. Because we know A. microcymbus responds unfavorably to 
warmer spring temperatures and less spring precipitation--conditions 
that climate change models predict--we expect negative impacts similar 
to the declines we've seen with these climatic conditions in the long-
term life history study. Small mammal herbivory affects seed 
production, and drought negatively affects population numbers. We 
acknowledge there are uncertainties regarding: (1) The reasons for the 
decline of A. microcymbus, (2) the rate of increase in future 
recreation and the management direction for the Hartman Rocks 
Recreation Area; (3) the rate and extent of cheatgrass' spread; (4) 
when and to what extent development will occur; (5) the return interval 
of future wildfires; and (6) the effects of increasing temperatures and 
changing precipitation patterns. Many of these uncertainties are 
temporal in nature.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that listing of the Astragalus microcymbus as 
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on 
the status of the species as endangered or threatened when we do a 
proposed listing determination. However, as explained in more detail 
below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action 
is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    We have reviewed the available information to determine if the 
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of 
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We 
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species is not warranted for this species at this time because the 
threats acting on the species are not immediately impacting all the 
species across its range to the point where the species will be 
immediately lost. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an 
emergency regulation temporarily listing Astragalus microcymbus is 
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the 
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending 
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and 
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of 
vertebrates).
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we assigned Astragalus microcymbus a Listing 
Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based on threats that are of moderate 
magnitude and are imminent. These threats include the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; 
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other 
natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. We 
consider the threats that A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in 
magnitude because the major threats (recreation, roads, and trails; 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation 
and degradation), while serious and occurring rangewide, do not 
collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For example, the last 
known populations are not about to be completely lost to development. 
These threats are not likely to eliminate the species in the immediate 
future. The threats the species faces are, however, significant. 
Recreational impacts are likely to increase given the close proximity 
of A. microcymbus to the town of Gunnison and the increasing popularity 
of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain vehicles. 
Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users and was 
designated atop 40 percent of the A. microcymbus ``units''. The overall 
threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is high 
given that 25 percent of the habitat has no protections and that 
Federal regulations allowed a recreation area to be developed atop the 
species. Recreation, as well as most of the other threats to A. 
microcymbus, leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation. These 
threats are ongoing and, in some cases (such as invasive nonnative 
species), are considered irreversible because large-scale invasions 
cannot be recovered to a native functioning ecosystem given current 
management efforts. Our rationale for assigning A. microcymbus an LPN 
of 8 is outlined below.
    Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We 
consider the threats that A. microcymbus faces to be moderate in 
magnitude because the major threats (recreation, roads, and trails; 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and habitat fragmentation 
and degradation), while serious and occurring rangewide, do not 
collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For example, the last 
known populations are not about to be completely lost to development.
    Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those species facing 
potential threats or species that are intrinsically vulnerable but are 
not known to be presently facing such threats. We consider the threats 
imminent because we have factual information that the threats are 
identifiable and that the species is currently facing them in many 
portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are covered 
in great detail in Factors A, C, D, and E of this finding. Almost all 
of the threats are ongoing and, therefore, are imminent, although the 
likelihood varies (Table 4). In addition to their current existence, we 
expect these threats to continue and likely intensify in the 
foreseeable future.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Astragalus microcymbus is a valid 
taxon at the species level and, therefore, receives a higher priority 
than subspecies, but a lower priority than species in a monotypic 
genus. Therefore, we

[[Page 78540]]

assigned Astragalus microcymbus an LPN of 8.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to Astragalus microcymbus, 
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or 
the imminence of the threats change, we will re-visit our assessment of 
LPN.
    Because we have assigned Astragalus microcymbus an LPN of 8, work 
on a proposed listing determination for A. microcymbus is precluded by 
work on higher priority listing actions with absolute statutory, court-
ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing determinations 
for those species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 
2010. This work includes all the actions listed in the tables below 
under expeditious progress (see Tables 9 and 10).

Species Information--Astragalus schmolliae

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Astragalus schmolliae was first collected in Montezuma County, 
southwestern Colorado, in 1890. It was formally described as a species 
in 1945, when C.L. Porter named it after Dr. Hazel Marguerite Schmoll 
(Porter 1945, pp. 100-102; Barneby 1964, pp. 277-278; Isely 1998, p. 
417). Astragalus schmolliae is a member of the family Fabaceae (legume 
family). The perennial plants are upright, 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 in.) 
tall with one to several stems branching from an underground root 
crown. Its leaves are typical of many of the legumes, with 11 to 20 
small leaflets on a stem. Leaves and stems are ash-colored due to a 
covering of short hairs. Flowers are creamy white and borne on upright 
stalks that extend above the leafy stems. The fruit is a pod, 3 to 4 cm 
(1 to 1.5 in.) long, covered with flat, stiff hairs, pendulous and 
curving downward (Barneby 1964, pp. 277-278). The deep taproot grows to 
40 cm (16 in.) or more (Friedlander 1980, pp. 59-62).

Biology, Distribution, and Abundance

    Astragalus schmolliae plants emerge in early spring and usually 
begin flowering in late April or early May. Flowering continues into 
early or mid-June (Friedlander 1980, p. 63, Peterson 1981, p. 14). 
Fruit set begins in late May and occurs through June, and by late June 
most fruits have opened and released their seeds, while still attached 
to the plant. The typical plant lifespan of A. schmolliae is unknown, 
but individuals are thought to live up to 20 years (Colyer 2002 in 
Anderson 2004, p. 11). During very dry years, as observed in 2002, the 
plants can remain dormant with no above-ground growth (Colyer 2003 in 
Anderson 2004, p. 11). Most of the plants produce above-ground shoots 
and flower profusely during growing seasons following wet winters.
    Astragalus schmolliae requires pollination by insects to set fruit. 
Flowers require a strong insect for pollination, such as a bumblebee, 
because the insect must force itself between the petals of the 
butterfly-shaped flowers. Pollinators observed on A. schmolliae include 
several species of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and beeflies (Bombylius 
spp.) (Friedlander 1980, p. 63).
    The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae is mature pinyon-juniper 
woodland of mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National Park (MEVE) area at 
elevations between 1,981 to 2,286 meters (6,500 to 7,500 feet) 
(Anderson 2004, p. ii). The plants are found in both sunny and shaded 
locations (Peterson 1981, p. 12), primarily on deep, reddish loess 
soils, and are generally less common near cliff edges and in ravines 
where the soil is shallower. No A. schmolliae plants are found in the 
mountain shrublands at the upper elevations on MEVE.
    The CNHP prepared a population status survey of Astragalus 
schmolliae in 2004 for MEVE. The report is based on field surveys in 
2001 and 2003 of the distribution, density, soil characteristics, seed 
viability and germinability, and recruitment in burned and unburned 
areas of MEVE. This study provides the primary source of information 
for our evaluation of the status and threats to A. schmolliae, and is 
cited throughout this finding as Anderson (2004).
    Astragalus schmolliae habitat collectively occupies approximately 
1,619 ha (4,000 ac) in MEVE and on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park 
(Tribal Park). About 809 ha (2,000 ac) are in MEVE on Chapin Mesa 
including Fewkes and Spruce Canyons, on the West Chapin Spur, and on 
Park Mesa (CNHP 2010, pp. 12-19; Anderson 2004, p. 25, 30; MEVE 2010, 
p.1). Occupied habitat on Chapin Mesa in the Tribal Park south of MEVE 
probably covers another 809 ha (2,000 ac), where surveys have not been 
done (Anderson 2004, p. 6; Friedlander 1980, p. 53; CNHP 2010, pp. 20-
21). Abundant plants were observed on the tribal land in 1987 (Colyer 
2002, in Anderson 2004, p. 4; CNHP 2010, p. 21). The total number and 
average density of plants on the Tribal Park are not known, because no 
inventories have been completed (Clow 2010, pers. comm.).

                                                       Table 7--Astragalus schmolliae Occurrences
                                                     [CNHP 2010, pp. 1-21; Anderson 2004, p. 6, 30]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 CNHP
          Occurrence                  Ha (Ac)         Plants  2001    Plants  2003          Density  2001                Density  2003           Rank*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapin Mesa, Fewkes & Spruce            785 (1,939)         454,733         277,462  .06 per sq meter...........  .037 per sq meter.........  A
 Canyons (MEVE).
Park Mesa (MEVE).............               3.3 (8)           3,605           2,199  .110.......................  .067......................  B
West Chapin Spur (MEVE)......               21 (52)          24,448          14,913  .117.......................  .071......................  B
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEVE totals..............           809 (2,000)         482,786         294,499  ...........................  ..........................  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ute Mtn. Ute Tribal Park.....      809 (2,000) est.              NA              NA  NA.........................  ..........................  H
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total range..........         1,619 (4,000)  ..............  ..............  ...........................  ..........................  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Occurrence rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked occurrences generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
  quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked occurrences generally representing lower numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. A
  historical rank (H) indicates an occurrence that has not been visited for more than 20 years.


[[Page 78541]]

    The distribution of Astragalus schmolliae is typical of narrow 
endemics, which are often common within their narrow range on a 
specific habitat type (Rabinowitz 1981 in Anderson 2004, p. 3). 
However, A. schmolliae is unusual because similar habitat is widespread 
on nearby mesas where the species has not been found. Thus, the causes 
of its rarity are unknown. Its distribution may be limited by habitat 
variables that are not yet understood (Anderson 2004, p. 8).
    Astragalus schmolliae is considered critically imperiled globally 
(G1) by the CNHP, a rank used for species with a restricted range, a 
global distribution consisting of less than five occurrences, a limited 
population size, or significant threats (CNHP 2006, p. 1).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this 12-month finding, we evaluated the best scientific 
and commercial information available, including information acquired 
during the status review. Our evaluation of this information is 
presented below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant 
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined in the Act.

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

    The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or 
range of Astragalus schmolliae are discussed in this section, 
including: (1) Wildfire; (2) invasive nonnative plants; (3) post-fire 
mitigation; (4) wildfire and fuels management; (5) development of 
infrastructure; (6) drought and climate change.
Wildfire
    Six large wildfires burned within MEVE between 1989 and 2003, and 
extensive portions of those burned areas have been invaded by nonnative 
plant species (weeds) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 247). Small, lightning-
caused fires are frequent in MEVE. The annual average number of fire 
starts between 1926 and 1969 was 5 per year, which increased to 18 per 
year between 1970 and 1997. Most of the fires started in the pinyon-
juniper woodlands and burned less than 1 ha (2.5 ac). The southern half 
of MEVE was covered with dense, old-growth pinyon-juniper woodlands 
that had not burned for several centuries. However, the 20th century 
has seen several spectacular wildfires that burned extensive portions 
of these pinyon-juniper woodlands (Floyd et al. 1999, p. 149). Best 
estimates for ``natural'' fire turnover times in MEVE are about 100 
years for shrubland vegetation and about 400 years for pinyon-juniper 
vegetation. Although the disturbance regime for this system apparently 
remains within the historical range of variability, the recovery 
processes following fire have been dramatically altered from historical 
processes (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 248). Recurrent fires favor clonal, 
resprouting shrub species such as Quercus gambelii (gambel oak), 
Amelanchier utahensis (Utah serviceberry), Symphoricarpos oreophilus 
(mountain snowberry), Fendlera rupicola (cliff fendlerbush), and Rhus 
trilobata (three-leaf sumac), and gradually eliminate the fire-
sensitive pinyon and juniper (Floyd et al. 2000, p. 1667, 1677). A. 
schmolliae does not grow in the shrub-dominated areas of MEVE now, and 
we cannot predict the long- term success of the species following 
removal of the pinyon-juniper overstory.
    Landscape modeling of the effects of projected cheatgrass increase 
on fire frequency in MEVE indicates the potential for frequent 
reburning. Projections show a fire rotation of about 45 years for MEVE. 
Such a frequent disturbance regime would be far outside the historical 
range of variability for the pinyon-juniper, and would likely impact or 
eliminate many native plant species (Turner et al., p. 40). We have no 
data to indicate whether Astragalus schmolliae will successfully adapt 
to a post-fire habitat of open clearings between shrubs, and 
competition from cheatgrass, thistles, and native grasses versus a 
pinyon-juniper dominated community.
    From July 29 to August 4, 2002, the Long Mesa Fire burned 1,053 ha 
(2,601 ac) on Chapin and Park Mesas, which included about 306 ha (756 
ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat (Anderson 2004, p. 28). Between 
1996 and 2008, 308 ha (762 ac) of habitat were burned by wildfires, and 
6 ha (15 ac), by prescribed burns (MEVE 2010, pers. comm.). On Tribal 
Park habitat, several small fires appear to have burned a total of 
about 23 ha (57 ac) (Glenne 2010, map). Altogether these recent fires 
have impacted about 21 percent of the total habitat for the species.
    The average density per square meter of Astragalus schmolliae 
plants on monitoring plots in MEVE decreased 39 percent from 2001 to 
2003 (Anderson 2004, p. 30, 37). Density declined in both burned and 
unburned transect segments between 2001 and 2003. The decline in 
density was slightly lower in burned transect segments than in 
unburned, but the difference in density in 2003 between burned and 
unburned transect segments was not statistically significant, 
suggesting that burning did not significantly impact plant mortality, 
nor did it result in any benefit to the species. The 39 percent decline 
in density in MEVE was attributed to the 2002 drought and prolonged 
dormancy, because the plants do not send up new growth during very dry 
years (Anderson 2004, p. 37).
    No seedlings were observed in 2001 on burned or unburned habitat, 
but they were observed in 2003 throughout the range of Astragalus 
schmolliae in MEVE, except at the population on northern Park Mesa that 
was severely burned in 1996 (Anderson 2004, p. 39). There were no clear 
differences in seedling success between burned and unburned areas 
during early summer surveys, but survivorship of seedlings through 
their first summer could not be determined (Anderson 2004, p. 48). 
Viability of seeds collected in 2003 was between 94 and 100 percent 
(Anderson 2004, p. 49). The patterns of seed germination are suggestive 
of a species that maintains a persistent seed bank (Anderson 2004, p. 
47). The longevity of seeds of A. schmolliae is not known, but many 
legumes, including members of Astragalus, have seeds as long-lived as

[[Page 78542]]

97 years (Anderson 2004, p. 48). Recruitment appears to be highly 
episodic and is probably greatest in years that are moist in March 
through May (Anderson 2004, p. iv). Plants in areas burned in 2002 
displayed higher reproductive effort and vigor, and produced 
approximately 241 times more seeds per plant than did plants in 
unburned areas. It is likely that this resulted in part from depletion 
of pollinator resources in unburned areas. Plants in areas burned in 
1996 on Park Mesa had very high vigor in 2003 (possibly due to high 
soil nitrate levels after fire) but did not set fruit although flowers 
were produced and insect visitation was observed (Anderson 2004, p. 
iv).
    Seed bank studies for other Astragalus species indicate that the 
group generally possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a strong 
physical germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are generally 
long-lived in the soil and only a small percentage of seeds germinate 
each year (Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). However, we do not know if the 
seed germination strategy for other Astragalus species is comparable to 
that employed by A. schmolliae.
    The growth habit of Astragalus schmolliae suggests that it is 
tolerant of fire, with its deep taproot and shallowly buried root 
crown, to which the plant dies back during winter months. Plants can 
resprout following a low-intensity fire if the root crown is not 
damaged (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1997, 1998). Reproductive effort and 
fecundity were clearly higher in areas burned in 2002, and vigor also 
appeared to be greater. However, net reproductive success in post-fire 
environments has not been monitored, so it is unclear whether fire 
effects have a negative or beneficial initial impact on A. schmolliae. 
While fire may confer some short-term benefits to plants in burned 
areas (possibly at the expense of reproductive success in unburned 
areas if depletion of pollinator resources is responsible for poor 
fecundity), it may have long-term detrimental impacts (Anderson 2004, 
p. 64).
    We conclude that the direct effects of fire on Astragalus 
schmolliae are both positive and negative. Plants burn to the ground 
and then resprout the following spring if the fire is not too intense, 
but then have competition from weeds and grasses. We do not know 
whether net reproduction after fire is positive. Given the high 
frequency and volume of fires in the area it is highly likely that new 
fires will burn more of the habitat for A. schmolliae. All of the 
burned and remaining unburned habitat on MEVE and the Tribal Park is at 
risk of burning within the foreseeable future. Although we remain 
concerned about the potential impacts of recurring fires, the best 
available information indicates that the direct effects of wildfires do 
not pose a threat to A. schmolliae. The indirect effect of facilitating 
invasion of the habitat by cheatgrass does pose a significant threat to 
the species.
Invasive Nonnative Plants
    As discussed above, the main threat to the species is the indirect 
effect of invasion by nonnative plant species (weeds). This invasion is 
facilitated by the increased frequency of burns as well as the clearing 
of areas within occupied Astragalus schmolliae habitat (CNHP 2006, p. 
4). In MEVE, large wildfires that occurred earlier in the twentieth 
century (1934, 1959, 1972) were not associated with weed invasion 
(Floyd et al. 1999, p. 148), but the pinyon-juniper forests that have 
burned extensively in the past two decades are being replaced by 
significant invasions of weedy species, especially Bromus tectorum 
(cheatgrass), Carduus nutans (musk thistle), and Cirsium arvense 
(Canada thistle) (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 1).
    Since 1996, MEVE has seen more large fires and more cumulative area 
burned than occurred during the previous 200 years (Romme et al. 2006, 
p. 3). This recent increase in fire activity is a result of severe 
drought conditions preceded by wet climatic conditions and increasing 
fuel load due to fire suppression in the pinyon-juniper woodlands, all 
coinciding with the natural end of a long fire cycle (Floyd et al. 
2006, p. 247). A recent development in the post-fire habitat response 
is the remarkably rapid spread of cheatgrass. This weedy winter annual 
germinates in the fall, grows slowly during the winter, and then grows 
rapidly in the early spring. By early summer it has set seed and died, 
creating a continuous fuel bed of quick-drying, flashy fine fuel that 
can readily carry fire, even without wind. Cheatgrass has been in MEVE 
for many years. However, it was never widespread until 2000, when 
unusually warm dry summers and winters, coupled with heavy fall rains, 
have allowed cheatgrass to rapidly expand its range, especially in 
places where fire or other disturbances have created bare ground (Romme 
et al. 2006, p. 3). Mature pinyon-juniper woodlands are highly 
vulnerable to post-fire weed invasion (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254). 
Cheatgrass is now a dominant species in much of the area burned in MEVE 
(Romme et al. 2006, pp. 2-3) and it has inundated the burned and 
disturbed portions of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on Chapin Mesa 
(Hanna et al. 2008, p. 18). The highest infestation occurred in an area 
that had burned both in the 1996 and the 2002 fires on Park Mesa. This 
had been an old-growth pinyon-juniper woodland before the 1996 fire and 
was seeded with native grasses. After re-burning in 2002, this area has 
been inundated by cheatgrass (Hanna et al. 2008, p. 9). Given the 
seasonal overlap of A. schmolliae seedling growth with the peak growth 
of cheatgrass, it is likely that the presence of cheatgrass in 
populations of A. schmolliae compromises its viability (Anderson 2004, 
pp. 60-61).
    In 1980, cheatgrass was found in 8 percent of survey samples in 
picnic grounds and 0 percent of undisturbed samples (Friedlander 1980, 
pp. 75-76). Carduus nutans was not found in either disturbed or 
undisturbed ground in 1980, but it was particularly invasive in burned 
areas of MEVE by 1999 and was aggressively invading areas occupied by 
Astragalus schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1999, Romme et al. 2003).
    We consider the invasion of nonnative weedy plants, particularly 
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high magnitude to Astragalus schmolliae 
because: (1) Cheatgrass has invaded all of the burned and disturbed 
habitat of A. schmolliae in MEVE, covering at least 40 percent of its 
entire range; (2) it competes with seedlings and resprouting adult 
plants for water and nutrients; (3) no landscape scale successful 
control methods are available; and (4) the proven ability of cheatgrass 
to increase fire frequency, thereby facilitating further rapid spread, 
threatens both burned and previously unburned occupied habitat. We 
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is likely to cause fire frequency to 
increase, with the result that only small patches of undisturbed 
habitat will remain for A. schmolliae within MEVE. The extent of 
cheatgrass invasion on the Tribal Park is unknown, because no surveys 
have been completed.
Post-Fire Mitigation
    Various post-fire mitigation actions (aerial seeding of native 
grasses, mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control) have been 
effective in reducing the density of weeds after fire, but none of 
these techniques has prevented the weeds from becoming major components 
of the post-fire plant community. Post-fire mitigation activities were 
conducted in MEVE under the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation 
program in 1996 to 1997, to prevent weed invasion and severe erosion, 
and to encourage native plant species. Aerial seeding of native grasses

[[Page 78543]]

was applied intensively in the old-growth pinyon-juniper community. The 
density of Carduus nutans was significantly reduced by seeding in 
burned areas. There has been no evidence that the diversity of native 
forbs has declined by introducing native perennial grasses (Floyd et 
al. 1999, p. 155), but Astragalus schmolliae was not specifically 
monitored. Therefore, we are unsure if these efforts to prevent weed 
invasion negatively affect A. schmolliae.
    Seeding of native grasses has not prevented the spread of 
cheatgrass into burned areas; instead, cheatgrass invasion has 
increased (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 254). If cheatgrass continues to 
spread into recently burned areas in MEVE, it is likely to alter the 
previous regime of infrequent fires occurring during extremely dry 
periods to a new regime of frequent fires. Because the native flora is 
adapted to the historical fire regime, a change of this kind could 
produce rapid and irreversible degradation of native vegetation in the 
park (Floyd et al. 2006, p. 257). We believe this could be the case in 
Astragalus schmolliae habitat.
    Releases of two biological control weevils on Carduus nutans have 
been highly effective in reducing the density, vigor, and net fecundity 
of the thistle plants in Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE. Aerial 
seeding with native grass species has provided effective competition 
for some of the weeds and improved the proportion of native to invasive 
plants (Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
    Post-fire weed control by aerial seeding of native grasses, 
mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control has reduced competition 
by invasive weeds other than cheatgrass, and there is little 
documentation of negative effects on Astragalus schmolliae. We consider 
the impacts of these activities to be low, not rising to the level of a 
threat to the species.
Wildfire and Fuels Management
    Wildfire management at MEVE includes the creation of fire breaks, 
fire lines, and staging areas, all of which remove the mature pinyon-
juniper woodland habitat for Astragalus schmolliae. A cattle fence 4.2 
km (2.6 mi) long separates the northern half of the species' habitat on 
MEVE from the southern half on the Tribal Park. MEVE created a fire 
break about 30 m (100 ft) wide along this fence by cutting all 
vegetation to ground level. The break covers about 14 ha (34 ac), or 
0.9 percent of the species total habitat, at the center of distribution 
for A. schmolliae. On the Tribal Park side of the fence, the pinyon-
juniper woodland is cut in a mosaic pattern, leaving trees and clumps 
of trees standing with cleared areas around them. This fire break 
covers about 189 ha (467 ac), or 12 percent of the species' total 
range. Response of A. schmolliae to the two different treatments has 
not been compared. Fire breaks also are created by prescribed burns. 
Mechanical removal and prescribed burning together have altered about 
19 percent of the species total range, including the fenceline fire 
breaks described above (MEVE 2010, pers. comm.).
    The ecological conditions for Astragalus schmolliae within the 
cleared areas are different from its typical pinyon-juniper woodland 
habitat. Cleared areas are exposed to more sun and wind that dry the 
soil and the A. schmolliae seedlings. In addition to invasion by 
cheatgrass, removal of woody vegetation appears to result in 
competitive release of native grasses. In sites where no seeding has 
been done, removal of woody vegetation favors Poa fendleriana 
(muttongrass), the most common grass species on Mesa Verde (Anderson 
2004, p. 73). This response is seen in mechanical fuels reduction areas 
on Chapin Mesa, where cover of P. fendleriana can approach 75 percent 
(Anderson 2004, p. 60). Density, reproductive effort and vigor of A. 
schmolliae appears low in these areas, although there are few 
quantitative data with which to compare density. Plants were growing 
among large, crowded bunches of P. fendleriana and appeared small and 
unhealthy (Anderson 2004, p. 73). This effect is probably due to 
competition with P. fendleriana for water and nutrients. On unburned 
Chapin Mesa south of MEVE, density of A. schmolliae was second only to 
P. fendleriana, as a dominant understory plant (Colyer 2002, in 
Anderson 2004, p. 7). This may indicate that A. schmolliae can recover 
from the initial impact of native grass competition following removal 
of the overstory woodland.
    Fuels management activities have had some direct and indirect 
impacts to Astragalus schmolliae plants and habitat. Fuels management 
activities occur in the summer and fall when impacts to mature A. 
schmolliae plants are diminished or negligible because the seeds have 
matured and plants are dying back for the season. Direct impacts to the 
plants, such as trampling during the cutting and hauling out of wood 
and slash and scorching during prescribed burns, are short-term because 
the plants will be able to resprout the following spring. Impacts to 
juvenile plants are not documented. Mechanical fuels reduction 
activities result in a low to moderate level of surface disturbance, 
which we believe results in little direct impact to A. schmolliae. 
However, the effects of fuels management activities tend to facilitate 
nonnative species invasion. In addition to cheatgrass, Carduus nutans 
appears to thrive on the disturbance created by fuels management, and 
to outcompete A. schmolliae (Floyd-Hanna et al. 1999). Numerous C. 
nutans plants were found in all areas visited where mechanical fuels 
reduction activities took place (Anderson 2004, p. 73). The canopy of 
A. schmolliae can act as a seed trap for C. nutans, which greatly 
increases the likelihood of negative impacts to A. schmolliae from 
competition (Anderson 2004, pp. 63, 70).
    Clearing for fuel reduction impacts A. schmolliae in the following 
ways: (1) Above-ground stems are directly removed; (2) plants that 
resprout the following spring have less water available because the 
soil dries due to exposure to sun and wind; and (3) invasive weeds, the 
native grass P. fendleriana, and seeded native grasses provide 
increased competition. However, we have no data that indicates the 
degree to which these impacts are occurring or will occur in the 
future. Because clearing and prescribed burns affect 19 percent of the 
range of A. schmolliae, we believe that clearing or burning for fire 
management may have a detrimental effect on the species. As with 
wildfire, the indirect effect of facilitating invasion of the habitat 
by cheatgrass poses a threat to the species because it increases the 
likelihood of more frequent fires.
Development of Infrastructure
    As of 1980, about 17.7 ha (44 ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat 
was graded or paved for roads within MEVE, which was 1.7 percent of the 
habitat known in the park at that time (Friedlander 1980, p. 78). As of 
2010, about 36 ha (90 ac) or 4.5 percent of the known range of A. 
schmolliae within MEVE is classified as hardened surfaces, i.e., roads, 
buildings, parking lots, water tanks, trails, etc. (MEVE 2010, p. 1). A 
recent impact was the installation of thousands of meters of 
underground fiber optic cables throughout the developed areas of the 
park (Anderson 2004, p. 70; Nelligan 2010, p. 2). Information on the 
number of plants destroyed or new recruits that appeared following the 
installation is not available (San Miguel 2010a, pers. comm.).
    It is likely that a small percentage of the Astragalus schmolliae 
population has been eliminated during the development of visitor 
facilities in

[[Page 78544]]

MEVE. Regular maintenance and construction projects at MEVE will 
continue to result in a small amount of plant mortality. Trampling of 
plants by people using trails, roads, and picnic areas in the developed 
portion of MEVE also eliminates a small number of plants (Nelligan 
2010, p. 2). Likewise on the Tribal Park, most foot traffic is limited 
to routes used by escorted tour groups and, therefore, likely to have a 
very small impact on the species.
    Trampling of plants by visitors and staff is an ongoing impact that 
does not rise to the level of a threat because it affects plants in a 
very limited portion of the species range in MEVE and in the Tribal 
Park. Astragalus schmolliae may recover from this kind of disturbance 
if the below-ground parts are not damaged, or if undamaged plants 
remain nearby to provide a seed source and the disturbance is not 
constantly repeated or followed up with additional disturbances. One 
attempt to transplant mature plants that were growing in a planned 
construction area was unsuccessful because the taproots were severed 
(Nelligan 2010, p. 2).
    Construction of new roads, a visitor center, and campground are 
ongoing in MEVE. Most of the new construction is outside of Astragalus 
schmolliae habitat. Most of the disturbance in occupied habitat is 
related to a water pipeline, and because it is directionally drilled 
from one pad of about 4 by 24 m (14 by 80 ft) alongside the park road, 
the impact on the plants is negligible (San Miguel 2010b, pers. comm.).
    The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae on tribal land is within the 
Tribal Park, which is managed for protection of its cultural and 
natural resources. It is an undeveloped area without surfaced roads or 
permanent facilities. We are not aware of any development activities on 
the Tribal Park that would impact A. schmolliae (Mayo 2010, pers. 
comm.).
    Overall, the impact of existing development appears low, impacting 
about 2.3 percent of the species' entire range. MEVE will likely 
continue to locate major facilities outside of Astragalus schmolliae 
habitat, and minimize infrastructure within the habitat in the future. 
Most of the habitat within MEVE is protected from development, being 
within a National Park. Likewise, the Tribal Park is likely to remain 
undeveloped (Mayo 2010, pers. comm.). Therefore, development does not 
appear to constitute a threat to A. schmolliae, now nor is it likely to 
in the foreseeable future.
Drought and Climate Change
    Drought may affect Astragalus schmolliae. In 2002, severe drought 
caused most A. schmolliae individuals to remain dormant (Anderson 2004, 
p. 4). The total annual precipitation measured at MEVE in 2002 was 28 
cm (11 in.), well below the average of 44 cm (17.5 in.) for 1948 to 
2003. However, there were 5 years between 1948 and 1989 in which MEVE 
received less than 28 cm (11 in.). Tree ring analysis indicates that 
droughts were as common during the Ancestral Puebloan occupation of 
MEVE, from approximately A.D. 600 to A.D. 1300, as they are today. It 
is likely that drought is common enough that A. schmolliae can recover 
from its effects (Anderson 2004, p. 35), provided that severity and 
duration of drought does not exceed historical levels, or that threats 
such as weed invasion do not increase significantly as a result. 
Periodic drought causes A. schmolliae plants and seedlings to dry out 
during a given year, and contributes to increased fire frequency and 
weed invasion. We believe that drought has a low-level direct impact on 
the species. It also facilitates cheatgrass invasion and increased fire 
frequency and therefore is a threat to the species.
    Projections for changes in climate within Astragalus schmolliae 
habitat are similar to those discussed above for Astragalus 
microcymbus. Overall, future projections for the Southwestern United 
States include increased temperatures, more intense and longer-lasting 
heat waves, and an increased probability of drought, that are worsened 
by higher temperatures, heavier downpours, increased flooding, and 
increased erosion (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129-134). Projections for 
western Colorado indicate that temperature could increase an average of 
2.5 [deg]C (4.5 [deg]F) by 2050 (UCAR 2009, pp. 1-14).
    The increasing frequency of large-scale fires is largely due to 
periodic drought conditions preceded by years of wet climatic 
conditions that allowed heavy fuel loads to accumulate (Floyd et al. 
2006, p. 247). The specific combination of a wet season followed by 
drought, which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change, is 
unpredictable at this time. We expect that A. schmolliae will be 
affected negatively by climate change effects on precipitation, but the 
available information is too speculative to conclude that climate 
change now threatens the species.
Summary of Factor A
    The highest threat to Astragalus schmolliae habitat is the invasion 
of nonnative cheatgrass following wildfires, prescribed fires, and fire 
break clearings. Recent wildfires have burned 21 percent of the pinyon-
juniper woodland habitat for the species. Another 19 percent has been 
burned and/or cleared to discourage further spread of wildfires within 
MEVE. Dense stands of cheatgrass have invaded all of these areas, which 
cover 53 percent of the habitat on MEVE, 40 percent of the entire range 
of the species. Cheatgrass is highly flammable and greatly increases 
fire frequency on both burned and nearby unburned but disturbed 
habitat. Although mature A. schmolliae plants recover strongly after 
fire, cheatgrass competes with seedlings for water and nutrients, and 
we are unsure of their long-term reproductive success in open areas 
exposed to drying sun and wind. Frequent fires are likely to prevent 
recovery of the pinyon-juniper woodland. There are no landscape-scale 
methods known to be effective in controlling cheatgrass. Therefore, we 
consider the dominance of cheatgrass in occupied A. schmolliae habitat 
to be a significant threat to the long-term survival of the species. 
Wildfires, prescribed fires, and clearings for fire breaks are 
considered a moderate threat to the species because they modify the 
habitat and facilitate the invasion of cheatgrass.
    Drought facilitates increased fire frequency and, therefore, is 
found to be a threat to the species. Climate change may exacerbate the 
threat of cheatgrass invasion and more frequent wildfires, but we 
cannot foresee whether its effects are likely to threaten the continued 
existence of Astragalus schmolliae.
    The impact of infrastructure development and visitor use is low. 
About 36 ha (90 ac) of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE have been 
used for roads, buildings, parking lots, etc., which is 2.3 percent of 
the species' entire range. No permanent development has occurred on the 
Tribal Park. Existing and foreseeable future development is considered 
a minor impact that does not threaten the continued existence of the 
species.
    Post-fire weed control by aerial seeding of native grasses, 
mechanical removal, herbicides, and bio-control has reduced competition 
by invasive weeds other than cheatgrass, and there is little 
documentation of negative effects on Astragalus schmolliae. We consider 
the impacts of these activities to be low, not rising to the level of a 
threat to the species.
    We find that Astragalus schmolliae is threatened by the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' 
habitat or range, and these threats are expected to continue or 
increase in the foreseeable future.

[[Page 78545]]

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

    We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or 
collection of Astragalus schmolliae for any commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes. Therefore, we do not consider 
overutilization to be a threat to the species now, nor is it expected 
to become so in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    No diseases are known to affect Astragalus schmolliae. Therefore, 
we do not consider disease to be a threat to the species now, nor is it 
expected to become so in the foreseeable future.
Herbivory
    Seed predation by snout beetles or weevils caused loss of seeds in 
about 12.5 percent of Astragalus schmolliae plants in plots sampled in 
1980 (Friedlander 1980, p. 64). Beetle predation has not been observed 
again since 1980, and is not considered a threat to the species. 
Anderson (2001, p. 11) reported severe defoliation of A. schmolliae by 
larvae of the clouded sulfur butterfly (Colias philodice). Aphids also 
appeared to have an impact on reproductive output for this species 
(Anderson 2001, p. 11). These events were unusual, and insect predation 
is considered a low-level impact that does not rise to the level of a 
threat.
    Herbivores such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and cottontail 
rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii) browse on Astragalus schmolliae foliage, 
flowers, seed pods, and seedlings. Seedling mortality due to herbivory 
by rabbits or deer may be 1 to 10 percent (Anderson 2004, p. 40). Feral 
horses and stray cattle graze within the species' range, including the 
burned areas, but there is no evidence that they consume many A. 
schmolliae. Mature plants usually resprout the following spring after 
browsing by animals (Nelligan 2010, p. 1). Because the most abundant 
grass (Poa fendleriana) associated with A. schmolliae on the Tribal 
Park is highly palatable to cattle, grazing does not appear to be an 
issue in the southern portion of its range. Grazing by livestock is not 
permitted in MEVE. We consider herbivory an ongoing low-level impact to 
the species that does not rise to the level of a threat.
Summary of Factor C
    No diseases are known to affect Astragalus schmolliae. With very 
little herbivory observed or documented, predation does not appear to 
pose a threat to A. schmolliae. Herbicide use occurs in a small portion 
of the species' habitat and is conducted so as to minimize impacts to 
the species. Accordingly, we find no evidence that predation or disease 
are a threat to A. schmolliae now, nor are they expected to become so 
in the foreseeable future.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    No local, State, or Federal laws or regulations specifically 
protect Astragalus schmolliae. The National Park Service Organic Act 
(1916, p. 1) states that wildlife are to be conserved and left 
unimpaired for future generations to enjoy. The MEVE mission is to 
preserve and protect more than 4,000 archeological sites and also to 
protect wildlife, birds, and other natural resources from willful 
destruction, disturbance, and removal (National Park Service 2010, p. 
1). The plants are protected from visitor impacts in undeveloped areas 
of MEVE by regulations that restrict visitor access to designated 
trails, roads, and campgrounds to protect cultural resources. Visitors 
found hiking off developed areas or designated trails when not 
accompanied by a uniformed National Park Service employee are subject 
to penalties provided for in title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (maximum fine of $500 and 6 months imprisonment). The MEVE 
does not have a management plan specific to A. schmolliae, nor do their 
draft fire management plans or draft weed management plans specifically 
mention management for this species (San Miguel 2010a, pers. comm.). 
The draft fire management plan does not have any specific mention of 
managing for this species because ``it would be expected to respond to 
fuels treatments and fire much the same as most other native perennial 
forbs'' (Nelligan 2010, p. 3). We believe that this approach is 
inadequate because cheatgrass invasion will lead to more frequent and 
recurrent fires. These draft plans include rare plant surveys and 
avoidance (Nelligan 2010, p. 4.), but the plans are not finalized. The 
MEVE gives A. schmolliae special consideration when planning park 
projects in an effort to minimize impacts to the species (Nelligan 
2010, p. 3). In 2010, MEVE will begin developing a specific management/
conservation plan for A. schmolliae (Nelligan 2010, p. 3).
    The habitat for Astragalus schmolliae on the Tribal Park is 
maintained as part of a 50,586-ha (125,000-ac) undeveloped area to 
protect cultural and environmental resources. Visitors are allowed only 
on guided tours. The management goal for A. schmolliae occupied habitat 
is for no ground-disturbing activities. Grazing is allowed (Clow 2010, 
pers. comm.), but we do not believe it substantially impacts the 
species. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is drafting a management plan for 
species at risk that will include monitoring of A. schmolliae plants 
and habitat. The final draft plan may be completed in 2010 or 2011 
(Clow 2010, pers. comm.). The management plan will assist us in better 
understanding the extent to which the Tribe plans to conserve the 
species and its habitat.
    Despite the positive management for Astragalus schmolliae that 
occurs within MEVE and the Tribal Park, no formal plans are in place 
for mitigation of threats from cheatgrass and other fire effects.
Summary of Factor D
    We expect that Astragalus schmolliae habitat on the Tribal Park is 
generally protected from human disturbance by tribal regulations that 
do not allow public access or unauthorized activities. Human impacts in 
undeveloped areas of MEVE are minimized by regulations that restrict 
visitor access to designated trails, roads, and campgrounds to protect 
cultural resources. While currently needed management actions are 
ongoing and management plans have been drafted, no plans, policies, or 
regulations have been signed and implemented for the specific purpose 
of monitoring and protecting A. schmolliae from cheatgrass invasion and 
recurrent fires. We anticipate that MEVE and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 
will formalize their management plans within the near future.
    The existing suite of local, State, and Federal laws that we 
evaluated do not address the primary threat to Astragalus schmolliae of 
cheatgrass invasion following fire. Additionally, the existing plans 
rely on the resilience of the plants and their ability to resprout 
after impacts, which is insufficient to provide for their recovery 
post-fire. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms 
for the species are inadequate and do not address the threats to the 
continued existence of the species.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Restricted Range
    The global range of Astragalus schmolliae is restricted to pinyon-
juniper woodlands on about 1,619 ha (4,000 ac) on 3 adjacent mesas. It 
does not grow in grasslands below the mesas or in adjacent shrublands 
at higher

[[Page 78546]]

elevation on the mesas, nor has it been found in pinyon-juniper 
woodlands on nearby mesas. Such a restricted range makes the species 
vulnerable to habitat modification caused by wildfire, cheatgrass 
invasion, increased drought, and climate change, but is not considered 
a threat in itself.
Herbicides
    Less than 10 percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat on MEVE has 
been sprayed with herbicide to control identified high-density stands 
of Cirsium canadense. These herbicide applications have been performed 
carefully to minimize overspray that might land on native species 
(Nelligan 2010, p. 2). We are not aware of any use of herbicides on the 
tribal land habitat. Because we have no information indicating that 
herbicide use has affected A. schmolliae, we do not consider herbicide 
use to be a threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    The small range of Astragalus schmolliae makes it vulnerable to 
existing and future threats, but does not constitute a threat in 
itself. Herbicide is used within the habitat, but is not known to 
affect the species. We are not aware of any other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the species' continued existence that present a 
current or potential threat to A. schmolliae. Therefore, we do not 
consider other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued 
existence of the species to be a threat now or within the foreseeable 
future.

General Threats Summary

    Table 8 below provides an overview of the threats to Astragalus 
schmolliae. Of these threats, we consider degradation of habitat by 
fire followed by cheatgrass invasion and subsequent increase in fire 
frequency to be the most significant threats (Table 8). Cheatgrass is 
likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat 
disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management and development of 
infrastructure, and the inability of land managers to control it on a 
landscape scale. Threats to A. schmolliae and its habitat from 
nonnative plant invasion following wildfires and fire and fuels 
management currently affect about 53 percent (431 ha (1,066 ac)) of the 
species' range on MEVE and 26 percent (212 ha (524 ac)) on the Tribal 
Park for a total of 40 percent of the species entire known range (Table 
8). Fires, fire break clearings, and drought are considered moderate 
threats to A. schmolliae. Inadequate regulations are a low-level threat 
to the species. Other impacts not considered threats include post-fire 
native grass seeding, thistle invasion, infrastructure development, 
trampling, herbivory, weed treatments, and pollinator availability.

                                                               Table 8--Threat Summary for Factors Affecting Astragalus schmolliae
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Scope of threat or
 Listing  factor   Threat or  impact           impact                 Intensity            Exposure (%)     Likelihood of  exposure  Species'  response  Foreseeable future     Overall threat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............  Nonnative Invasive  Moderate...............  High...................  40................  High...................  Increased fire      Increasing with     High.
                   Cheatgrass.                                                                                                        frequency.          rapid increase
                                                                                                                                                          possible.
A...............  Wildfires.........  Moderate...............  Moderate...............  21................  High...................  Strong regrowth,    More frequent.....  Moderate.
                                                                                                                                      unknown net
                                                                                                                                      reproduction,
                                                                                                                                      Increased
                                                                                                                                      cheatgrass & fire
                                                                                                                                      frequency.
A...............  Prescribed burns    Low....................  Moderate...............  0.37 + 0.34.......  High...................  Strong regrowth,    Continue..........  Moderate.
                   completed +                                                                                                        unknown net
                   proposed.                                                                                                          reproduction,
                                                                                                                                      Increased
                                                                                                                                      cheatgrass & fire
                                                                                                                                      frequency.
A...............  Fire break          Low....................  Low....................  18 + 0.25.........  High...................  Outcompeted by      Continue..........  Moderate.
                   clearing                                                                                                           grasses, decline
                   completed +                                                                                                        of growth,
                   proposed.                                                                                                          increased
                                                                                                                                      cheatgrass.
A...............  Nonnative Invasive  Low....................  Moderate...............  5.................  High...................  Competition.......  Decline...........  None.
                   thistles.
A...............  Periodic Drought..  Moderate...............  Moderate...............  100...............  Moderate...............  Plants fail to      Unpredictable but   Moderate.
                                                                                                                                      sprout, or          likely to
                                                                                                                                      seedlings dry up.   increase.
                                                                                                                                      Increased
                                                                                                                                      cheatgrass & fire
                                                                                                                                      frequency.
A...............  Climate Change....  Moderate?..............  Moderate?..............  100...............  Moderate...............  Increased fire      Climate models      Moderate?
                                                                                                                                      frequency.          predict 40-year
                                                                                                                                                          changes.
A...............  Infrastructure      Low....................  Low....................  2.3...............  Moderate...............  Loss of habitat,    Small increase....  None.
                   Development.                                                                                                       loss of plants.
A...............  Trampling.........  Low....................  Low....................  1.................  Moderate...............  Loss of plants....  Small increase....  None.

[[Page 78547]]

 
A...............  Native Grass        Moderate...............  Low....................  21................  High...................  Competition.......  Continue..........  None.
                   Seeding Post-fire.
B...............  None..............  .......................  .......................  0.................  .......................  ..................  Not likely to       None.
                                                                                                                                                          change.
C...............  Herbivory.........  Low....................  Low....................  ?.................  Low....................  Plants resprout,    Likely to continue  None.
                                                                                                                                      seedlings           & fluctuate with
                                                                                                                                      destroyed.          herbivore
                                                                                                                                                          population.
C...............  Chemical &          Low....................  Low....................  7.................  Moderate...............  Some mortality,     Continue..........  None.
                   Mechanical Weed                                                                                                    strong regrowth
                   Treatment.                                                                                                         by survivors.
D...............  National Park Laws  Moderate...............  Low....................  50................  Moderate...............  No management plan  Stronger            Low.
                   & Regulations.                                                                                                     for species.        protection.
D...............  Tribal Laws &       Moderate...............  Low....................  50................  Moderate...............  No management or    Increase            Low.
                   Regulations.                                                                                                       monitoring.         management
                                                                                                                                                          actions.
E...............  Limited Range.....  High...................  Low....................  100...............  High...................  No range expansion  Increased effect    None.
                                                                                                                                                          with drought &
                                                                                                                                                          climate change.
E...............  Pollinator          Low....................  Low....................  22................  Low....................  Decreased seed      Increase with fire  None.
                   Availability.                                                                                                      production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
  educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
? indicates significant uncertainty.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether Astragalus schmolliae is endangered or threatened throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully examined the 
best available scientific and commercial information regarding the 
past, present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, other available published 
and unpublished information, and we consulted with A. schmolliae 
experts and other Tribal, State, and Federal agencies.
    Threats to Astragalus schmolliae and its habitat from nonnative 
cheatgrass invasion following wildfires and management of fire and 
fuels currently affect about 40 percent of the species entire known 
range. Drought is a threat that facilitates cheatgrass invasion and 
increased fire frequency. Frequent wildfires, and at more frequent 
intervals than historically, have burned the pinyon-juniper forest 
habitat of A. schmolliae in the past two decades. Burned areas and fire 
breaks are being invaded by weedy species, especially cheatgrass. We 
consider the invasion of nonnative weedy plants, particularly 
cheatgrass, to be a threat of high magnitude to A. schmolliae because: 
(1) Cheatgrass has invaded all of the burned and disturbed habitat of 
A. schmolliae; (2) it competes with seedlings and resprouting adult 
plants for water and nutrients; (3) no landscape-scale successful 
control methods are available; and (4) the proven ability of cheatgrass 
to alter fire frequency, thereby facilitating further rapid spread, 
threatens both burned and previously unburned occupied habitat. We 
conclude that cheatgrass invasion is likely to cause fire frequency to 
increase, with the result that only small patches of undisturbed 
habitat will remain for A. schmolliae within the foreseeable future.
    Because no regulations exist that address the primary threat to the 
species of cheatgrass invasion following wildfires, fire and fuels and 
management, and drought, we find that the existing regulatory 
mechanisms for the species are inadequate, and represent a threat of 
low magnitude.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that listing of the Astragalus schmolliae as 
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on 
the status of the species as endangered or threatened during the 
proposed listing process. As explained in more detail below, an 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is 
precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    We have reviewed the available information to determine if the 
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of 
extinction now, such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species, as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted. 
We determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing 
the species is not warranted at this time, because the threats acting 
on the species are not immediately impacting all of the species across 
its range to the point where the species will be immediately lost. 
However, if at any time we determine that issuing an emergency 
regulation temporarily listing Astragalus schmolliae is warranted, we 
will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines'' address the immediacy and

[[Page 78548]]

magnitude of threats, and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by 
assigning priority in descending order to monotypic genera (genus with 
one species), full species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct 
population segments of vertebrates).
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we have assigned Astragalus schmolliae a 
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 8, based on our finding that the 
species faces threats that are of moderate magnitude and are imminent. 
These threats include the present or threatened destruction, 
modification or curtailment of its habitat and the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms. These threats are ongoing and, in some 
cases (such as nonnative species), are considered irreversible because 
large-scale invasions cannot be recovered to a native functioning 
ecosystem. Our rationale for assigning A. schmolliae an LPN of 8 is 
outlined below.
    Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We 
consider the threats that Astragalus schmolliae faces to be moderate in 
magnitude because the major threats (weed invasion facilitated by fire, 
management of fire and fuels management, and drought, plus inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms), while serious and occurring 
rangewide, do not collectively rise to the level of high magnitude. For 
example, the last known populations are not about to be completely lost 
due to the effects of wildfires.
    The magnitude of threat Factor A is considered moderate because 
about 40 percent of Astragalus schmolliae habitat has been modified by 
fires and fire-related activities, followed by unprecedented invasion 
by cheatgrass, facilitated by drought. Factor A is shown to have 
occurred in the past, and it is clearly a threat today and into the 
future. These impacts affect the competitive ability and reproductive 
success of A. schmolliae individuals, and increase the likelihood of 
more frequent fire intervals in the future.
    The magnitude of threat Factor D is considered low. While no plans, 
policies, or regulations have been signed and implemented for the 
specific purpose of monitoring and protecting Astragalus schmolliae 
from cheatgrass invasion and recurrent fires, we anticipate that MEVE 
and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe will formalize and implement their 
management plans within the near future.
    Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species facing actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not 
known to be presently facing such threats. We consider all of the 
threats to be imminent because we have factual information that the 
threats are identifiable and that the species is currently facing them 
in many portions of its range. These actual, identifiable threats are 
covered in greater detail in Factors A and D of this finding. All of 
the threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent, although the 
likelihood varies (Table 8). In addition to their current existence, we 
expect these threats, except for inadequate regulations, to continue 
and likely intensify in the foreseeable future.
    The third criterion in our Listing Priority Number guidance is 
intended to devote resources to those species representing highly 
distinctive or isolated gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. Astragalus 
schmolliae is a valid taxon at the species level and, therefore, 
receives a higher priority than subspecies, but a lower priority than 
species in a monotypic genus. Therefore, we assigned A. schmolliae an 
LPN of 8.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to Astragalus schmolliae 
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or 
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of 
the LPN.
    While we conclude that listing Astragalus schmolliae is warranted, 
an immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher 
priority listings, which we address in the Preclusion and Expeditious 
Progress section below. Because we have assigned A. schmolliae an LPN 
of 8, work on a proposed listing determination for A. schmolliae is 
precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute 
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing 
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with 
funds from fiscal year (FY) 2010. This work includes all the actions 
listed in the tables below under expeditious progress (see Tables 9 and 
10).

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative 
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given 
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible 
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether 
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The 
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive 
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the 
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses 
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; 
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer 
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant 
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can 
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those 
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more 
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding 
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with 
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical 
habitat, the median cost is $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a

[[Page 78549]]

statutory cap on funds which may be expended for the Listing Program, 
equal to the amount expressly appropriated for that purpose in that 
fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent funds appropriated for 
other functions under the Act (for example, recovery funds for removing 
species from the Lists), or for other Service programs, from being used 
for Listing Program actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 
1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107--103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to 
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of 
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund 
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so 
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. In FY 2011 we anticipate that we will be able to 
use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of 
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated 
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis 
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The 
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the 
current statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, 
states that the amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary 
to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than 
that the existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species 
subject to a greater degree of threat would make allocation of 
resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] 
unwise.'' Although that statement appeared to refer specifically to the 
``to the maximum extent practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline 
for making a ``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made 
at the point when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a 
status review that will determine the degree of threats facing the 
species, and therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more 
relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is 
made when the Service has already determined the degree of threats 
facing the species and is deciding whether or not to commence a 
rulemaking.
    In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the 
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations 
for species that are already listed). Therefore, a proposed listing is 
precluded if pending proposals with higher priority will require 
expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and expeditious progress is the 
amount of work that can be achieved with $10,471,000. Since court 
orders requiring critical habitat work will not require use of all of 
the funds within the critical habitat subcap, we used $1,114,417 of our 
critical habitat subcap funds in order to work on as many of our 
required petition findings and listing determinations as possible. This 
brings the total amount of funds we had for listing actions in FY 2010 
to $11,585,417.
    The $11,585,417 was used to fund work in the following categories: 
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed 
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with 
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. For FY 
2011, on September 29, 2010, Congress passed a continuing resolution 
which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. Until Congress 
appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will fund listing work based on the 
FY 2010 amount. In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species 
under the Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific 
Authority, International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species 
Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we use a portion of our 
funding to work on the actions described above as they apply to listing 
actions for foreign species. This has the potential to further reduce 
funding available for domestic listing actions. Although there are 
currently no foreign species issues included in our high-priority 
listing actions at this time, many actions have statutory or court-
approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their priority. The 
budget allocations for each specific listing action are identified in 
the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table (part of our administrative 
record).
    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for 
each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number of 
species with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, we assign each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a 
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant 
portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the 
higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would 
have the highest listing priority).
    Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have 
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the 
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest 
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the 
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and 
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, 
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority 
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we 
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we 
apply the ranking

[[Page 78550]]

criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to 
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species. Finally, 
proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered 
are lower priority, since as listed species, they are already afforded 
the protection of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for 
efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to 
reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work 
that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
    We assigned both Astragalus microcymbus and A. schmolliae an LPN of 
8. For A. microcymbus, this is based on our finding that the species 
faces immediate and moderate magnitude threats from the present or 
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat; 
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other 
natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. In the 
case of A. schmolliae, this is based on our finding that the species 
faces immediate and moderate magnitude threats from the present or 
threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat and 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. These threats are 
ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered 
irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a ``species'' facing imminent 
moderate-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 7, 8, or 9 depending 
on its taxonomic status. Because both A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae 
are species, we assigned an LPN of 8 to each. Therefore, work on a 
proposed listing determination for A. microcymbus and A. schmolliae is 
precluded by work on higher priority candidate species (i.e., species 
with LPN of 7); listing actions with absolute statutory, court ordered, 
or court-approved deadlines; and final listing determinations for those 
species that were proposed for listing with funds from previous FYs. 
This work includes all the actions listed in the tables below under 
expeditious progress.
    With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have 
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible 
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding, 
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the 
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for 
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not 
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in 
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of 
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 
2010, we have completed two proposed delisting rules and two final 
delisting rules.) Given the limited resources available for listing, we 
find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 
Program and are making expeditious progress in FY 2011. This progress 
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

                                  FY 2010 and FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                  Title                   Actions                     FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009.....................  Listing Lepidium         Final Listing            74 FR 52013-52064
                                  papilliferum             Threatened.
                                  (Slickspot
                                  Peppergrass) as a
                                  Threatened Species
                                  Throughout Its Range.
10/27/2009.....................  90-day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         74 FR 55177-55180
                                  Petition To List the     Petition Finding, Not
                                  American Dipper in the   substantial.
                                  Black Hills of South
                                  Dakota as Threatened
                                  or Endangered.
10/28/2009.....................  Status Review of Arctic  Notice of Intent to      74 FR 55524-55525
                                  Grayling (Thymallus      Conduct Status Review
                                  arcticus) in the Upper   for Listing Decision.
                                  Missouri River System.
11/03/2009.....................  Listing the British      Proposed Listing         74 FR 56757-56770
                                  Columbia Distinct        Threatened.
                                  Population Segment of
                                  the Queen Charlotte
                                  Goshawk Under the
                                  Endangered Species
                                  Act: Proposed rule.
11/03/2009.....................  Listing the Salmon-      Proposed Listing         74 FR 56770-56791
                                  Crested Cockatoo as      Threatened.
                                  Threatened Throughout
                                  Its Range with Special
                                  Rule.
11/23/2009.....................  Status Review of         Notice of Intent to      74 FR 61100-61102
                                  Gunnison sage-grouse     Conduct Status Review
                                  (Centrocercus minimus).  for Listing Decision.
12/03/2009.....................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       74 FR 63343-63366
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Black-tailed Prairie     warranted.
                                  Dog as Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
12/03/2009.....................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         74 FR 63337-63343
                                  Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                  Sprague's Pipit as       Substantial.
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
12/15/2009.....................  90-Day Finding on        Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66260-66271
                                  Petitions To List Nine   Petition Finding,
                                  Species of Mussels       Substantial.
                                  From Texas as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered With
                                  Critical Habitat.
12/16/2009.....................  Partial 90-Day Finding   Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66865-66905
                                  on a Petition to List    Petition Finding, Not
                                  475 Species in the       substantial and
                                  Southwestern United      Substantial.
                                  States as Threatened
                                  or Endangered With
                                  Critical Habitat.

[[Page 78551]]

 
12/17/2009.....................  12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       74 FR 66937-66950
                                  Petition To Change the   petition finding,
                                  Final Listing of the     Warranted but
                                  Distinct Population      precluded.
                                  Segment of the Canada
                                  Lynx To Include New
                                  Mexico.
1/05/2010......................  Listing Foreign Bird     Proposed Listing         75 FR 605-649
                                  Species in Peru and      Endangered.
                                  Bolivia as Endangered
                                  Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010......................  Listing Six Foreign      Proposed Listing         75 FR 286-310
                                  Birds as Endangered      Endangered.
                                  Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010......................  Withdrawal of Proposed   Proposed rule,           75 FR 310-316
                                  Rule to List Cook's      withdrawal.
                                  Petrel.
1/05/2010......................  Final Rule to List the   Final Listing            75 FR 235-250
                                  Galapagos Petrel and     Threatened.
                                  Heinroth's Shearwater
                                  as Threatened
                                  Throughout Their
                                  Ranges.
1/20/2010......................  Initiation of Status     Notice of Intent to      75 FR 3190-3191
                                  Review for Agave         Conduct Status Review
                                  eggersiana and Solanum   for Listing Decision.
                                  conocarpum.
2/09/2010......................  12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 6437-6471
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  American Pika as         warranted.
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
2/25/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 8601-8621
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Sonoran Desert           warranted.
                                  Population of the Bald
                                  Eagle as a Threatened
                                  or Endangered Distinct
                                  Population Segment.
2/25/2010......................  Withdrawal of Proposed   Withdrawal of Proposed   75 FR 8621-8644
                                  Rule To List the         Rule to List.
                                  Southwestern
                                  Washington/Columbia
                                  River Distinct
                                  Population Segment of
                                  Coastal Cutthroat
                                  Trout (Oncorhynchus
                                  clarki clarki) as
                                  Threatened.
3/18/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13068-13071
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Berry Cave salamander    Substantial.
                                  as Endangered.
3/23/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13717-13720
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                                  Southern Hickorynut      substantial.
                                  Mussel (Obovaria
                                  jacksoniana) as
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
3/23/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13720-13726
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Striped Newt as          Substantial.
                                  Threatened.
3/23/2010......................  12-month Findings for    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 13910-14014
                                  Petitions to List the    petition finding,
                                  Greater Sage-Grouse      Warranted but
                                  (Centrocercus            precluded.
                                  urophasianus) as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
3/31/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 16050-16065
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                  Tucson Shovel-Nosed      Warranted but
                                  Snake (Chionactis        precluded.
                                  occipitalis klauberi)
                                  as Threatened or
                                  Endangered with
                                  Critical Habitat.
4/5/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17062-17070
                                  Petition To List         Petition Finding,
                                  Thorne's Hairstreak      Substantial.
                                  Butterfly as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
4/6/2010.......................  12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17352-17363
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Mountain Whitefish in    warranted.
                                  the Big Lost River,
                                  Idaho, as Endangered
                                  or Threatened.
4/6/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17363-17367
                                  Petition to List a       Petition Finding, Not
                                  Stonefly (Isoperla       substantial.
                                  jewetti) and a Mayfly
                                  (Fallceon eatoni) as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered with
                                  Critical Habitat.
4/7/2010.......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17667-17680
                                  Petition to Reclassify   petition finding,
                                  the Delta Smelt From     Warranted but
                                  Threatened to            precluded.
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Its Range.
4/13/2010......................  Determination of         Final Listing            75 FR 18959-19165
                                  Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                  48 Species on Kauai
                                  and Designation of
                                  Critical Habitat.
4/15/2010......................  Initiation of Status     Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 19591-19592
                                  Review of the North      Status Review for
                                  American Wolverine in    Listing Decision.
                                  the Contiguous United
                                  States.
4/15/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 19592-19607
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Wyoming Pocket Gopher    warranted.
                                  as Endangered or
                                  Threatened with
                                  Critical Habitat.
4/16/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 19925-19935
                                  Petition to List a       Petition Finding,
                                  Distinct Population      Substantial.
                                  Segment of the Fisher
                                  in Its United States
                                  Northern Rocky
                                  Mountain Range as
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened with
                                  Critical Habitat.
4/20/2010......................  Initiation of Status     Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 20547-20548
                                  Review for Sacramento    Status Review for
                                  splittail                Listing Decision.
                                  (Pogonichthys
                                  macrolepidotus).

[[Page 78552]]

 
4/26/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 21568-21571
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Harlequin Butterfly as   Substantial.
                                  Endangered.
4/27/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 22012-22025
                                  Petition to List         petition finding, Not
                                  Susan's Purse-making     warranted.
                                  Caddisfly
                                  (Ochrotrichia susanae)
                                  as Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
4/27/2010......................  90-day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 22063-22070
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Mohave Ground Squirrel   Substantial.
                                  as Endangered with
                                  Critical Habitat.
5/4/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 23654-23663
                                  Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                  Hermes Copper            Substantial.
                                  Butterfly as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
6/1/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 30313-30318
                                  Petition To List         Petition Finding,
                                  Castanea pumila var.     Substantial.
                                  ozarkensis.
6/1/2010.......................  12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 30338-30363
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  White-tailed Prairie     warranted.
                                  Dog as Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
6/9/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 32728-32734
                                  Petition To List van     Petition Finding,
                                  Rossem's Gull-billed     Substantial.
                                  Tern as Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
6/16/2010......................  90-Day Finding on Five   Notice of 90-day         75 FR 34077-34088
                                  Petitions to List        Petition Finding,
                                  Seven Species of         Substantial.
                                  Hawaiian Yellow-faced
                                  Bees as Endangered.
6/22/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 35398-35424
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                  Least Chub as            Warranted but
                                  Threatened or            precluded.
                                  Endangered.
6/23/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 35746-35751
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Honduran Emerald         Substantial.
                                  Hummingbird as
                                  Endangered.
6/23/2010......................  Listing Ipomopsis        Proposed Listing         75 FR 35721-35746
                                  polyantha (Pagosa        Endangered Proposed
                                  Skyrocket) as            Listing Threatened.
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Its Range, and Listing
                                  Penstemon debilis
                                  (Parachute
                                  Beardtongue) and
                                  Phacelia submutica
                                  (DeBeque Phacelia) as
                                  Threatened Throughout
                                  Their Range.
6/24/2010......................  Listing the Flying       Final Listing            75 FR 35990-36012
                                  Earwig Hawaiian          Endangered.
                                  Damselfly and Pacific
                                  Hawaiian Damselfly As
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Their Ranges.
6/24/2010......................  Listing the Cumberland   Proposed Listing         75 FR 36035-36057
                                  Darter, Rush Darter,     Endangered.
                                  Yellowcheek Darter,
                                  Chucky Madtom, and
                                  Laurel Dace as
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Their Ranges.
6/29/2010......................  Listing the Mountain     Reinstatement of         75 FR 37353-37358
                                  Plover as Threatened.    Proposed Listing
                                                           Threatened.
7/20/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 42033-42040
                                  Petition to List Pinus   Petition Finding,
                                  albicaulis (Whitebark    Substantial.
                                  Pine) as Endangered or
                                  Threatened with
                                  Critical Habitat.
7/20/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 42040-42054
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Amargosa Toad as         warranted.
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
7/20/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 42059-42066
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Giant Palouse            Substantial.
                                  Earthworm (Driloleirus
                                  americanus) as
                                  Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
7/27/2010......................  Determination on         Final Listing            75 FR 43844-43853
                                  Listing the Black-       Endangered.
                                  Breasted Puffleg as
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  its Range; Final Rule.
7/27/2010......................  Final Rule to List the   Final Listing            75 FR 43853-43864
                                  Medium Tree-Finch        Endangered.
                                  (Camarhynchus pauper)
                                  as Endangered
                                  Throughout Its Range.
8/3/2010.......................  Determination of         Final Listing            75 FR 45497-45527
                                  Threatened Status for    Threatened.
                                  Five Penguin Species.
8/4/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 46894-46898
                                  Petition To List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Mexican Gray Wolf as     Substantial.
                                  an Endangered
                                  Subspecies With
                                  Critical Habitat.
8/10/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 48294-48298
                                  Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                  Arctostaphylos           Substantial.
                                  franciscana as
                                  Endangered with
                                  Critical Habitat.
8/17/2010......................  Listing Three Foreign    Final Listing            75 FR 50813-50842
                                  Bird Species from        Endangered.
                                  Latin America and the
                                  Caribbean as
                                  Endangered Throughout
                                  Their Range.
8/17/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 50739-50742
                                  Petition to List Brian   Petition Finding, Not
                                  Head Mountainsnail as    substantial.
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened with
                                  Critical Habitat.

[[Page 78553]]

 
8/24/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 51969-51974
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                  Oklahoma Grass Pink      Substantial.
                                  Orchid as Endangered
                                  or Threatened.
9/1/2010.......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 53615-53629
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  White-Sided Jackrabbit   warranted.
                                  as Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
9/8/2010.......................  Proposed Rule To List    Proposed Listing         75 FR 54561-54579
                                  the Ozark Hellbender     Endangered.
                                  Salamander as
                                  Endangered.
9/8/2010.......................  Revised 12-Month         Notice of 12-month       75 FR 54707-54753
                                  Finding to List the      petition finding,
                                  Upper Missouri River     Warranted but
                                  Distinct Population      precluded.
                                  Segment of Arctic
                                  Grayling as Endangered
                                  or Threatened.
9/9/2010.......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 54822-54845
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                  Jemez Mountains          Warranted but
                                  Salamander (Plethodon    precluded.
                                  neomexicanus) as
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened with
                                  Critical Habitat.
9/15/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 56028-56050
                                  Petition to List         petition finding,
                                  Sprague's Pipit as       Warranted but
                                  Endangered or            precluded.
                                  Threatened Throughout
                                  Its Range.
9/22/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 57720-57734
                                  Petition to List Agave   petition finding,
                                  eggersiana (no common    Warranted but
                                  name) as Endangered.     precluded.
9/28/2010......................  Determination of         Final Listing            75 FR 59645-59656
                                  Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                  the African Penguin.
9/28/2010......................  Determination for the    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 59803-59863
                                  Gunnison                 petition finding,
                                  Sage[dash]grouse as a    Warranted but
                                  Threatened or            precluded.
                                  Endangered Species.
9/30/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 60515-60561
                                  Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Pygmy Rabbit as          warranted.
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
10/6/2010......................  Endangered Status for    Proposed Listing         75 FR 61664-61690
                                  the Altamaha             Endangered.
                                  Spinymussel and
                                  Designation of
                                  Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010......................  12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 62070-62095
                                  Petition to list the     petition finding, Not
                                  Sacramento Splittail     warranted.
                                  as Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
10/28/2010.....................  Endangered Status and    Proposed Listing         75 FR 66481-66552
                                  Designation of           Endangered (uplisting).
                                  Critical Habitat for
                                  Spikedace and Loach
                                  Minnow.
11/2/2010......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 67341-67343
                                  Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                                  Bay Springs Salamander   substantial.
                                  as Endangered.
11/2/2010......................  Determination of         Final Listing            75 FR 67511-67550
                                  Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                  the Georgia Pigtoe
                                  Mussel, Interrupted
                                  Rocksnail, and Rough
                                  Hornsnail and
                                  Designation of
                                  Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010......................  Listing the Rayed Bean   Proposed Listing         75 FR 67551-67583
                                  and Snuffbox as          Endangered.
                                  Endangered.
11/4/2010......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 67925-67944
                                  Petition to List         petition finding,
                                  Cirsium wrightii         Warranted but
                                  (Wright's Marsh          precluded.
                                  Thistle) as Endangered
                                  or Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the 
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These 
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as 
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on 
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a 
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats 
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together 
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and 
funding, as compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of 
them in the future.

       Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Eurasia...............  Final listing determination.
Flat-tailed horned lizard..........  Final listing determination.
Mountain plover \4\................  Final listing determination.

[[Page 78554]]

 
6 Birds from Peru..................  Proposed listing determination.
Pacific walrus.....................  12-month petition finding.
Wolverine..........................  12-month petition finding.
Solanum conocarpum.................  12-month petition finding.
Desert tortoise--Sonoran population  12-month petition finding.
Thorne's Hairstreak butterfly \3\..  12-month petition finding.
Hermes copper butterfly \3\........  12-month petition finding.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting).......  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle................  Final listing determination.
7 Bird species from Brazil.........  Final listing determination.
Southern rockhopper penguin--        Final listing determination.
 Campbell Plateau population.
5 Bird species from Colombia and     Final listing determination.
 Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk............  Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish             Final listing determination.
 (Cumberland darter, rush darter,
 yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom,
 and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\...............  Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\...........  Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis         Final listing determination.
 polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
 Penstemon debilis (Parachute
 Beardtongue), and Phacelia
 submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo............  Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist        Final listing determination.
 National Marine Fisheries Service)
 \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2),     Final listing determination.
 snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
Mt Charleston blue \5\.............  Proposed listing determination.
CA golden trout \4\................  12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross.............  12-month petition finding.
Mount Charleston blue butterfly....  12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\......  12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population   12-month petition finding.
 \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\...  12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog..............  12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander.......  12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero......................  12-month petition finding/Proposed
                                      listing.
Dusky tree vole....................  12-month petition finding.
3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly   12-month petition finding.
 (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3,
 Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species
 petition.
5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii,  12-month petition finding.
 Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium
 ostleri, Penstemon flowersii,
 Trifolium friscanum) from 206
 species petition.
2 CO plants (Astragalus              12-month petition finding.
 microcymbus, Astragalus
 schmolliae) from 206 species
 petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila,      12-month petition finding.
 Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus
 proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis)
 pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from
 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species   12-month petition finding.
 petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species  12-month petition finding.
 petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206     12-month petition finding.
 species petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern population  12-month petition finding.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475      12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly    12-month petition finding.
 from 475 species petition) \4\.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from  12-month petition finding.
 475 species petition) \3\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva,        12-month petition finding.
 Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
 galbina) (from 475 species
 petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp.,     12-month petition finding.
 Cyprinella lepida) (from 475
 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron     12-month petition finding.
 piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
 Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475
 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3    12-month petition finding.
 from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species).......  12-month petition finding.
Berry Cave salamander \1\..........  12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\...................  12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain      12-month petition finding.
 Range \1\.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\.........  12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly \3\  12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern...........  12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila    12-month petition finding.
 var. ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees...............  12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm............  12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine.....................  12-month petition finding.

[[Page 78555]]

 
OK grass pink (Calopogon             12-month petition finding.
 oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\..............  12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover &      90-day petition finding.
 wintering pop. of piping plover
 \1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\...............  90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\..............  90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks        90-day petition finding.
 species (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)...  90-day petition finding.
Red knot roselaari subspecies......  90-day petition finding.
Peary caribou......................  90-day petition finding.
Plains bison.......................  90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot         90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
Spring pygmy sunfish...............  90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper........................  90-day petition finding.
Unsilvered fritillary..............  90-day petition finding.
Texas kangaroo rat.................  90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard.........  90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat...........  90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat............  90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub.......................  90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin butterfly  90-day petition finding.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles.......  90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\..........  90-day petition finding.
Sand-verbena moth..................  90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species..............  90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\..........  90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly  90-day petition finding.
 & Idaho snowfly) \4\.
American eel \4\...................  90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population) \4\.  90-day petition finding.
Arapahoe snowfly \4\...............  90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\............  90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\....................  90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\.........  90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel \5\.  90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\..............  90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\.............  90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants               90-day petition finding.
 (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
 imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\..........................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16    Proposed listing.
 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with
 LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with
 LPN =9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\    Proposed listing.
 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
 with LPN = 8).
Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly      Proposed listing.
 Sand dune lizard) \4\ (LPN = 2).
2 Arizona springsnails \2\           Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2),
 Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)).
New Mexico springsnail \2\           Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2).
2 mussels \2\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2),  Proposed listing.
 spectaclecase (LPN = 4)).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern       Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
 ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
 pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
 sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe
 (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5),
 narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and
 tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) \4\....  Proposed listing.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\.......  Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket    Proposed listing.
 (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9))
 \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\.......  Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) \4\.  Proposed listing.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\...........  Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind    Proposed listing.
 salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
 salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
 salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
 Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring       Proposed listing.
 Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
 springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
 springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
 Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
 amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden         Proposed listing.
 gladecress (Leavenworthia texana)
 (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-
 mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN =
 2)) \3\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\......  Proposed listing.
Kittlitz's murrelet (LPN = 2) \5\..  Proposed listing.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) \3\....  Proposed listing.

[[Page 78556]]

 
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\       Proposed listing.
 (includes 8 candidate species--5
 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN =
 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4,
 2 with LPN = 8).
Oregon spotted frog (LPN = 2) \5\..  Proposed listing.
2 TN River mussels (fluted           Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
 pearlymussel (LPN = 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2)  Proposed listing.
 \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae will be added to 
the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month 
finding. We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new 
information becomes available. This review will determine if a change 
in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of 
emergency listing procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for Astragalus 
microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae will be as accurate as possible. 
Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and 
comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado 
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Western Colorado Ecological Services Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 6, 2010.
Paul R. Schmidt,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31225 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P